The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Goatboy - ever consider that the threats to this country are now low BECAUSE we have taken so much action to prevent it, and because we have given our security services wider powers than ever before to counter terrorism and threats to this country, and poured money into training, systems etc to combat terrorism ?
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.
Next, your thinking that threats originate from countries is old hat. The greatest threats are from non geographically fixed groups. Sure, old Cold War enemies like North Korea remain, but have everything to lose. The nature of warfare now is that a country cannot fight another country without massive lost, at least where both are on the same technology level. Hence the threat is from groups in those countries - in Iraq's case Saddam's regime.
Next, I've no reason to mention the FASC report findings - innocent is all I needed to know. Sexing up the document ? innocent with no contrary proof. The best they could do was say undue emphasis was given to the 45 minute claim, hardly damning. 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.....
I wouldn't get your hopes up, Politicians only care for political points scoring, and after Blair's speech to congress last night there will be less criticism, not more. The papers are only criticising for their own reasons, and are also somewhat short of take-it-to-the-bank evidence.
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.
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.
Next, your thinking that threats originate from countries is old hat. The greatest threats are from non geographically fixed groups. Sure, old Cold War enemies like North Korea remain, but have everything to lose. The nature of warfare now is that a country cannot fight another country without massive lost, at least where both are on the same technology level. Hence the threat is from groups in those countries - in Iraq's case Saddam's regime.
Next, I've no reason to mention the FASC report findings - innocent is all I needed to know. Sexing up the document ? innocent with no contrary proof. The best they could do was say undue emphasis was given to the 45 minute claim, hardly damning. 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.....
I wouldn't get your hopes up, Politicians only care for political points scoring, and after Blair's speech to congress last night there will be less criticism, not more. The papers are only criticising for their own reasons, and are also somewhat short of take-it-to-the-bank evidence.
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.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Cubist wrote:
> Maybe this analogy will help get my views across -
>
> How do you protect a flock of sheep?
> You kill the wolf
> Woolf's travel in packs though
> How do protect the sheep then?
> Kill all the wolfs
>
> You make it so that you do not need to protect the sheep in the first
> place, they protect themselves. That way Wolves, bears or any predator
> finds it has a difficult time harming them.
>
> Alternatively you stop the creation of new wolves.
>
> But, really, it depends on who the wolf and sheep in this analogy are.
Let's forget the analogies here. It's real war and a matter of life and death - not some black and white representation of the matter that can be decided in a clean cut manner.
We don't have black and white - just a series of grey.
Oh, that's an analogy as well, isn't it?
*fumes*
> Blank wrote:
> Cubist wrote:
> Maybe this analogy will help get my views across -
>
> How do you protect a flock of sheep?
> You kill the wolf
> Woolf's travel in packs though
> How do protect the sheep then?
> Kill all the wolfs
>
> You make it so that you do not need to protect the sheep in the first
> place, they protect themselves. That way Wolves, bears or any predator
> finds it has a difficult time harming them.
>
> Alternatively you stop the creation of new wolves.
>
> But, really, it depends on who the wolf and sheep in this analogy are.
Let's forget the analogies here. It's real war and a matter of life and death - not some black and white representation of the matter that can be decided in a clean cut manner.
We don't have black and white - just a series of grey.
Oh, that's an analogy as well, isn't it?
*fumes*
And both Bin Laden and Saddam (reputedly) are still at large.
What gets me is the fact that Blair said ON NATIONAL TV to a select panel of interviewers, that he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd resolution. When none was forthcoming, he still went to war.
How can you trust that sort of man?
What gets me is the fact that Blair said ON NATIONAL TV to a select panel of interviewers, that he wouldn't go to war without a 2nd resolution. When none was forthcoming, he still went to war.
How can you trust that sort of man?
Blank wrote:
> Cubist wrote:
> Maybe this analogy will help get my views across -
>
> How do you protect a flock of sheep?
> You kill the wolf
> Woolf's travel in packs though
> How do protect the sheep then?
> Kill all the wolfs
You make it so that you do not need to protect the sheep in the first place, they protect themselves. That way Wolves, bears or any predator finds it has a difficult time harming them.
Alternatively you stop the creation of new wolves.
But, really, it depends on who the wolf and sheep in this analogy are.
> Cubist wrote:
> Maybe this analogy will help get my views across -
>
> How do you protect a flock of sheep?
> You kill the wolf
> Woolf's travel in packs though
> How do protect the sheep then?
> Kill all the wolfs
You make it so that you do not need to protect the sheep in the first place, they protect themselves. That way Wolves, bears or any predator finds it has a difficult time harming them.
Alternatively you stop the creation of new wolves.
But, really, it depends on who the wolf and sheep in this analogy are.
What I find frustrating is the sea-change in opinion now.
I have been saying, for months, that there is no link between Al-Queda and Iraq - Hussein & Bin Laden.
But Bell, and others, have repeatedly shot that notion down with "Well they've found Al Queda training camps, so explain that one Mr. Cynic".
And there was a thread here yesterday or the day before, where Al Queda claimed to be operating independantly of Hussein and without his knowledge.
Yet again, comments along the line of "Yeah but he probably knew" flowed freely.
I'd like to know why it is that I've personally been saying since the announcement of weapons inspections in Iraq "There aren't any there", when the intelligence was offered, those against the war said "It's wrong evidence cribbed from a 12yr old thesis written during the previous war".
Both occasions, especially in this forum, that was drowned out and those voicing concern and opposition were labelled "pacifists" and "Pro-Saddam".
Yet now, even The Daily Mail are questioning the genuine likelihood of there ever being these weapons.
Then Rumsfeld openly admits that there has been "no new evidence" and they were merely viewing it through the "prism of 9/11"
Well I'm sorry but that's not a good enough reason to invade another country.
And the media were guilty of that too, linking terrorist activities to Iraq and, in the run up to the invasion, we were subjected daily to stories of ricin (what happened to that?), tanks at airports, practice-drills in London, cars stopped at airports, mosque's raided.
But since the invasion?
Nothing to do with potential terrorist threats to our country.
It just dropped off the radar.
And now people are starting to question whether we should have been there.
"Ah but he's gone now!!!1!!!" is the response from the pro-war lobby, but regime change was never the reason offered for this faux-war.
Remember that and do not forget it for one single second.
We were told "immediate and very real danger to the safety of our country"
That was the reason.
Except there was no new evidence. And nothing has been found, most sources are now doubting whether it ever will be. Because they aren't there.
We went to war on the basis that we were about to attacked by Iraq.
A state not once, at all, ever, responsible for terror attacks to any Western country.
I challenge you to find otherwise.
A country that has never acted in a hostile manner towards the UK or USA.
So evidence was manufactured, a climate of fear was engineered and we sent thousands of "our boys" to fight.
Some died. Many through "blue on blue incidents"
American servicemen are getting fed up because they are being told they'll stay until...well...whenever.
And they're being killed daily.
When there was no need to be there at all.
Sure Hussein is a bad man, but not a threat towards us at all.
"Oh but he might have been"
Sure, but then using that logic, so could you. A possibility of future bad-actions is not enough to send people to their deaths.
No evidence of WOMD.
No new evidence since 1991
No nuclear programme
No uranium bought from Niger - White House admittance and the government report
No Al-Queda links or support
So where's this threat?
There isn't one. Never has been and never will be. There is no country that is a threat to us. "Taliban!!!" - nope, not a country. Sure, they were based in a country. And we? Bombed the living christ out of it.
For what? No aid given to Afghanistan since (or very little), no infrastructure support, no Bin Laden in custody.
I said it waaay back and I'll say it again:
The Gulf War of 2003 was wrong. Morally, legally and justifiably.
Difference now?
More and more people are starting to think the same, more news papers and politicians are demanding answers and starting to realise what was said before English and American and Iraqis lost their lives:
There was no reason for war as given by our government.
We were lied to, intentionally or otherwise.
Some opposed and were sneered at, called "Pro-Saddam" and roundly ignored.
Well that's building and building each day with more reports about the false evidence, missing experts and even a rift between the US and UK with this Niger/Uranium claim.
This can only be a good thing.
I've noticed absolutely zero talk from you, Bell, about the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report. Which is odd because the week before, you were crowing about "looks like they'll be found innocent"
Well they werent.
I have been saying, for months, that there is no link between Al-Queda and Iraq - Hussein & Bin Laden.
But Bell, and others, have repeatedly shot that notion down with "Well they've found Al Queda training camps, so explain that one Mr. Cynic".
And there was a thread here yesterday or the day before, where Al Queda claimed to be operating independantly of Hussein and without his knowledge.
Yet again, comments along the line of "Yeah but he probably knew" flowed freely.
I'd like to know why it is that I've personally been saying since the announcement of weapons inspections in Iraq "There aren't any there", when the intelligence was offered, those against the war said "It's wrong evidence cribbed from a 12yr old thesis written during the previous war".
Both occasions, especially in this forum, that was drowned out and those voicing concern and opposition were labelled "pacifists" and "Pro-Saddam".
Yet now, even The Daily Mail are questioning the genuine likelihood of there ever being these weapons.
Then Rumsfeld openly admits that there has been "no new evidence" and they were merely viewing it through the "prism of 9/11"
Well I'm sorry but that's not a good enough reason to invade another country.
And the media were guilty of that too, linking terrorist activities to Iraq and, in the run up to the invasion, we were subjected daily to stories of ricin (what happened to that?), tanks at airports, practice-drills in London, cars stopped at airports, mosque's raided.
But since the invasion?
Nothing to do with potential terrorist threats to our country.
It just dropped off the radar.
And now people are starting to question whether we should have been there.
"Ah but he's gone now!!!1!!!" is the response from the pro-war lobby, but regime change was never the reason offered for this faux-war.
Remember that and do not forget it for one single second.
We were told "immediate and very real danger to the safety of our country"
That was the reason.
Except there was no new evidence. And nothing has been found, most sources are now doubting whether it ever will be. Because they aren't there.
We went to war on the basis that we were about to attacked by Iraq.
A state not once, at all, ever, responsible for terror attacks to any Western country.
I challenge you to find otherwise.
A country that has never acted in a hostile manner towards the UK or USA.
So evidence was manufactured, a climate of fear was engineered and we sent thousands of "our boys" to fight.
Some died. Many through "blue on blue incidents"
American servicemen are getting fed up because they are being told they'll stay until...well...whenever.
And they're being killed daily.
When there was no need to be there at all.
Sure Hussein is a bad man, but not a threat towards us at all.
"Oh but he might have been"
Sure, but then using that logic, so could you. A possibility of future bad-actions is not enough to send people to their deaths.
No evidence of WOMD.
No new evidence since 1991
No nuclear programme
No uranium bought from Niger - White House admittance and the government report
No Al-Queda links or support
So where's this threat?
There isn't one. Never has been and never will be. There is no country that is a threat to us. "Taliban!!!" - nope, not a country. Sure, they were based in a country. And we? Bombed the living christ out of it.
For what? No aid given to Afghanistan since (or very little), no infrastructure support, no Bin Laden in custody.
I said it waaay back and I'll say it again:
The Gulf War of 2003 was wrong. Morally, legally and justifiably.
Difference now?
More and more people are starting to think the same, more news papers and politicians are demanding answers and starting to realise what was said before English and American and Iraqis lost their lives:
There was no reason for war as given by our government.
We were lied to, intentionally or otherwise.
Some opposed and were sneered at, called "Pro-Saddam" and roundly ignored.
Well that's building and building each day with more reports about the false evidence, missing experts and even a rift between the US and UK with this Niger/Uranium claim.
This can only be a good thing.
I've noticed absolutely zero talk from you, Bell, about the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's report. Which is odd because the week before, you were crowing about "looks like they'll be found innocent"
Well they werent.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Nuke Ireland?
>
> That's the best suggestion I've heard all day.
Done and done...
Hey...whats that green cloud coming from Ireland...and why are all the people here suddenly dying of radiation poison....noooo the giant cockroaches!
:-)
By the way Cubist, earlier you talked of how the Iraqi's have attacked our soldiers, may I point out that this was only AFTER we had invaded and occupied their country and commanded the places of government.
Personally I feel this is much better than before but still your point borders on farce. It's almost as if you are doing an intentional spoof of the Daily Mail or something. Well thank God we live under a democracy and not you or there wouldn't be much left of this planet.
> Nuke Ireland?
>
> That's the best suggestion I've heard all day.
Done and done...
Hey...whats that green cloud coming from Ireland...and why are all the people here suddenly dying of radiation poison....noooo the giant cockroaches!
:-)
By the way Cubist, earlier you talked of how the Iraqi's have attacked our soldiers, may I point out that this was only AFTER we had invaded and occupied their country and commanded the places of government.
Personally I feel this is much better than before but still your point borders on farce. It's almost as if you are doing an intentional spoof of the Daily Mail or something. Well thank God we live under a democracy and not you or there wouldn't be much left of this planet.
Blank wrote:
> Secondly, it makes no sense because it was not Iraq or
> Iraqis that carried out the destruction of the WTC, so what you're
> proposing is "Wolves kill sheep, so let's kill all the
> bears".
That is one of the most sensible things I have read in this post. Another analogy? Well, what Cubist is proposing is like saying, "a kid got run over by a drunk driver. So let's ban drinking and ban driving." No- you ban drink driving!
I can't believe Iraq and Sept 11th are being confused here. They are nearly totally independent subjects, with Islam being one of the only links. The attitude Cubist displays is similar to Bush's of using Sept 11th as one of the excuses to attack Iraq when it is blatently obvious that oil is the reason behind it.
> Secondly, it makes no sense because it was not Iraq or
> Iraqis that carried out the destruction of the WTC, so what you're
> proposing is "Wolves kill sheep, so let's kill all the
> bears".
That is one of the most sensible things I have read in this post. Another analogy? Well, what Cubist is proposing is like saying, "a kid got run over by a drunk driver. So let's ban drinking and ban driving." No- you ban drink driving!
I can't believe Iraq and Sept 11th are being confused here. They are nearly totally independent subjects, with Islam being one of the only links. The attitude Cubist displays is similar to Bush's of using Sept 11th as one of the excuses to attack Iraq when it is blatently obvious that oil is the reason behind it.
Nuke Ireland?
That's the best suggestion I've heard all day.
That's the best suggestion I've heard all day.
So Cubist, should we nuke Northern Ireland? After all, the IRA have killed more British Soldiers over the last 30 years than any middle eastern conflict.
Well?
Well?
Unbeliever wrote:
> I meant initially, not a belated retropective reason.
---
Because Dubya needs to prove he can something, seeing as Bin Laden still lives and broadcasts.
Because keeping the Middle East destabilised has been the objective of The West since the mid 50s.
Because having a war is good for the economy.
> I meant initially, not a belated retropective reason.
---
Because Dubya needs to prove he can something, seeing as Bin Laden still lives and broadcasts.
Because keeping the Middle East destabilised has been the objective of The West since the mid 50s.
Because having a war is good for the economy.
Page: