The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
A while ago I read about a group of Iraqi asylum seekers who had attacked four royal marines whilst they were returning to their barracks.
One of the iraqis pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the marines, so the another marines obviously try to defend their mate who had just been stabbed.
The marines were holding a *kit sale* that day and this was to auction off for charity their dead mates stuff (he had died in a copter crash in Iraq).
Anyways one of the Asylum seekers has put in a complaint against a marine because the marine had assaulted him - even though he was part of the group that had ambushed the marines and he had been arrested two days before for carrying a knife.
What SHOULD happened is the Iraqis should be kicked out the country straight away and the complaint against the marine dropped. What WILL happen is the Iraqi will get a few grand for all the distress that has occured to him and the marine will proberbly be up for a court Martial.
We will have to wait and see what happens.
One of the iraqis pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the marines, so the another marines obviously try to defend their mate who had just been stabbed.
The marines were holding a *kit sale* that day and this was to auction off for charity their dead mates stuff (he had died in a copter crash in Iraq).
Anyways one of the Asylum seekers has put in a complaint against a marine because the marine had assaulted him - even though he was part of the group that had ambushed the marines and he had been arrested two days before for carrying a knife.
What SHOULD happened is the Iraqis should be kicked out the country straight away and the complaint against the marine dropped. What WILL happen is the Iraqi will get a few grand for all the distress that has occured to him and the marine will proberbly be up for a court Martial.
We will have to wait and see what happens.
Page:
I mean that the UN is a completely ineffectual entity, so long as certain member states have a power of veto on any proposals made before it.
I'm not just talking about France being stubborn during the build up to the war, but also the US and Russia have abused their power in the past to prevent common sense change. I'm sure if I looked into it, the UK and whatever other veto states there are have used and abused that power as well.
The UN should be built on the foundations of democracy. Veto is not democratic.
I'm not just talking about France being stubborn during the build up to the war, but also the US and Russia have abused their power in the past to prevent common sense change. I'm sure if I looked into it, the UK and whatever other veto states there are have used and abused that power as well.
The UN should be built on the foundations of democracy. Veto is not democratic.
I wouldn't go that far. By "doing nothing" what do you mean? By refusing to use force against a country? By asking for more time to make sure any decision made is the correct one? By being cautious rather than ineffectual?
By the same token, what is the point of something which does nothing?
So you can look like you're cooperating, when you aren't in the slightest.
Yes, but if they're a part of the United Nations, they are obliged to meet the requirement of the UN's mandate. Not sidestep it.
What's the point of being part of it if you're going to do your own thing?
What's the point of being part of it if you're going to do your own thing?
Unbeliever wrote:
> The UN is supposed to be the governing body to decided whether to go
> to war or not.
I'm sorry, but I find the very concept of a ruling body which decides whether or not nations can wage war upon one another is quite laughable.
> The UN is supposed to be the governing body to decided whether to go
> to war or not.
I'm sorry, but I find the very concept of a ruling body which decides whether or not nations can wage war upon one another is quite laughable.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Next, the Gulf War of 2003 morally wrong ? Your morals allow a people
> to be oppressed by a dictator all of a sudden ? It's okay in your
> morals for people to be carted off, tortured, killed, murdered, raped
> etc for speaking against Saddam in his country ? Yeah right. It was
> totally moral, the only immoral aspect is we should have done it in
> 1991.
Practical Magic; another user who skipped reading lessons.
> Next, the Gulf War of 2003 morally wrong ? Your morals allow a people
> to be oppressed by a dictator all of a sudden ? It's okay in your
> morals for people to be carted off, tortured, killed, murdered, raped
> etc for speaking against Saddam in his country ? Yeah right. It was
> totally moral, the only immoral aspect is we should have done it in
> 1991.
Practical Magic; another user who skipped reading lessons.
Practical Magic wrote:
> In short, we went to war, won, are rebuilding, and nothing stopped
> that. We were right to do so, and we will do so again in the future
> because if we will not then who will ? The UN ? *laughs* Some
> leaderships will not negotiate or practice free government without a
> spear at their metaphorical throat. Right now the US/UK are the tip of
> that spear.
I don't agree with what you say. Yes, we went to war. Was it the right thing to do? Not in the face of evidence. The basis on the war was proving WOMD's existed. If the UN wasn't allowed more time to search for them, why should the UK/US have all the time they need to search for them? Our PM specifically said he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd resolution, yet he did.
The UN is supposed to be the governing body to decided whether to go to war or not. What was has the US to instigate a war against Iraq? None. Not without an official UN endorsement which they didn't receive. The fact that so many people are asking questions now about the legality of the war only serves to emphasise this point.
> In short, we went to war, won, are rebuilding, and nothing stopped
> that. We were right to do so, and we will do so again in the future
> because if we will not then who will ? The UN ? *laughs* Some
> leaderships will not negotiate or practice free government without a
> spear at their metaphorical throat. Right now the US/UK are the tip of
> that spear.
I don't agree with what you say. Yes, we went to war. Was it the right thing to do? Not in the face of evidence. The basis on the war was proving WOMD's existed. If the UN wasn't allowed more time to search for them, why should the UK/US have all the time they need to search for them? Our PM specifically said he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd resolution, yet he did.
The UN is supposed to be the governing body to decided whether to go to war or not. What was has the US to instigate a war against Iraq? None. Not without an official UN endorsement which they didn't receive. The fact that so many people are asking questions now about the legality of the war only serves to emphasise this point.
Practical Magic wrote:
> And no report yet tells
> us why the Iraqi army was fitted out with chem/bio suits. We didn't
> have it, an internet search would tell Saddam's generals that, so that
> must mean.....
...that they had chem/bio suits? I expect you have a condom in your wallet, but that doesn't mean you're out having wild sex every night.
> And no report yet tells
> us why the Iraqi army was fitted out with chem/bio suits. We didn't
> have it, an internet search would tell Saddam's generals that, so that
> must mean.....
...that they had chem/bio suits? I expect you have a condom in your wallet, but that doesn't mean you're out having wild sex every night.
Why are you refusing to read and acknowledge my perfectly polite comments in the "dossier" thread?
Page: