The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Wouldn't put it past some sicko organisation organising huge fires, what do you think?
Page:
Oh God...I just about agree with all that.
Liberia - it's one of a number of countries in turmoil in Africa but I can't help feeling the UN peacekeepers are going to be hamstrung by the same rules of engagement which condemned the UN units in the Balkans - they can fire to protect themselves but nothing else. Rebels or government forces can be spraying high calibre rounds onto people but as long as the UN forces are not hit then the UN troops can do nothing. Plus hopes from the Liberian civlians that the US will get involved are false, the UN gave no remit to the US to join the mission.
Whilst I'm reluctant to bad mouth the Nigerian army which makes up the peacekeeping force, I can't help feeling that they see this as a PR exercise more than anything. The initial landing, two (yes a scary show of force) UN white helicopters landing at the Monrovia airport as 30 troops deployed, with new shiny weapons and text book camo face paint/clothing and a hadnful of what lookied like M60's (heavy machine guns).
Being a rather military fascinated soul I've been reading a book by ex 'Soldier OF Fortune' J Mullins (pseudonym) and his ideas on analysing media images of fighters can be useful. For instance, the troops that deployed had little supplies because the helicopters wouldn't fit much in once the 15 men per copter were in them. The guys with heavy weapons wore the spare ammo on belts around themselves, which gets dirt into the weapons, can cause jams etc, also less than easy to reload in a fighting situation. Armour, or lack of it, was noticeable, even our military issues standard troops with a basic kevlar body armour - essential in urban areas. I could go on, but it'd be boring I know, hence to say that my assessment of the troops sent to Liberia are akin to the landing of US troops in Somalia, more media event than fighting force.
The logic of the situation is stupid. Taylor will step down, he says, once the peacekeepers secure the capital to prevent reprisals on his people and further rebel advances. But hang on, the rebels hold 60% of the country, they're winning by all accounts, so will they let the UN forces stop them. More to the point how will the UN stop them ? Words ? And to add to it all Nigeria will give Taylor sanctuary.
I don't profess to know the full background of the situation and Taylor's background, undoubtedly it's Cold War blowover related, but it seems a mess that won't get better any time soon.
Liberia - it's one of a number of countries in turmoil in Africa but I can't help feeling the UN peacekeepers are going to be hamstrung by the same rules of engagement which condemned the UN units in the Balkans - they can fire to protect themselves but nothing else. Rebels or government forces can be spraying high calibre rounds onto people but as long as the UN forces are not hit then the UN troops can do nothing. Plus hopes from the Liberian civlians that the US will get involved are false, the UN gave no remit to the US to join the mission.
Whilst I'm reluctant to bad mouth the Nigerian army which makes up the peacekeeping force, I can't help feeling that they see this as a PR exercise more than anything. The initial landing, two (yes a scary show of force) UN white helicopters landing at the Monrovia airport as 30 troops deployed, with new shiny weapons and text book camo face paint/clothing and a hadnful of what lookied like M60's (heavy machine guns).
Being a rather military fascinated soul I've been reading a book by ex 'Soldier OF Fortune' J Mullins (pseudonym) and his ideas on analysing media images of fighters can be useful. For instance, the troops that deployed had little supplies because the helicopters wouldn't fit much in once the 15 men per copter were in them. The guys with heavy weapons wore the spare ammo on belts around themselves, which gets dirt into the weapons, can cause jams etc, also less than easy to reload in a fighting situation. Armour, or lack of it, was noticeable, even our military issues standard troops with a basic kevlar body armour - essential in urban areas. I could go on, but it'd be boring I know, hence to say that my assessment of the troops sent to Liberia are akin to the landing of US troops in Somalia, more media event than fighting force.
The logic of the situation is stupid. Taylor will step down, he says, once the peacekeepers secure the capital to prevent reprisals on his people and further rebel advances. But hang on, the rebels hold 60% of the country, they're winning by all accounts, so will they let the UN forces stop them. More to the point how will the UN stop them ? Words ? And to add to it all Nigeria will give Taylor sanctuary.
I don't profess to know the full background of the situation and Taylor's background, undoubtedly it's Cold War blowover related, but it seems a mess that won't get better any time soon.
Yep.
Yeah, but what if you like big gay fights?
Can we set aside one thread per week for oiled up bitchslapping?
Can we set aside one thread per week for oiled up bitchslapping?
I dont get it either but reasonable expression of personal views instead of insisting "this is how the world is" from either side seems to equal a polite discussion of views instead of big gay fights.
Fair point, and one that a number of people are trying to do.
Chomsky chooses to focus on the human rights breaches of The USA, because that's the country he lives in, and pretty much the only global superpower left.
It seems socially acceptable to protest about East Timoor, China, El Salvador, Guatamala, Brazil, Tibet etc for the way in which they run their countries etc, but as soon as someone does it to the USA, they are immediately branded "leftists" "Liberals" and "traitors".
Whereas that may be true for a portion of so-called-activists, there are also vast numbers of people that would never consider breaking the law to try and achieve their aims.
To point out the injustice in American foreign policy, or UK is to leave yourself open to charges of traitor etc, when you are merely making people aware of the hypocrisy and double-standards.
As you yourself, and I and many others have said, change should start within, at home.
By tackling the causes of hatred, terrorism and war is the only way to prevent it, not by acting on the result afterwards - it's slapping a bandage on an already wounded limb and achieves nothing.
To try and address the reasons that countries hate each other is the only way to combat terrorism. And I believe, as we live in a democracy, it is our inherent duty to call into view that which we see as unreasonable, unjust, unfair or just plain wrong.
Which is why, despite labels, I have since a young age and will always continue to call attention to that which I percieve as wrong.
Such as the smearing of Dr Kelly, the Alistair Campbell attempts at deflecting attention from the enquiry, the hypocrisy of assisting the coup for, arming and supplying of Saddam Hussein and the ignoring of Kurdish genocide in the mid-late eighties, the continual funding of groups designed to destabilise anti-western interests etc.
What summed it up for me, the reason why America specifically, but certainly The West, is hated was on Radio 4 with an 8 week series about the history of The CIA.
The former head of The CIA was talking about the coup in Iran and deposing of The Shah, and his exact words stuck in my head:
"It is better to have a friendly dictator than rely on the unpredictable nature of independant rule".
That, to me, sums up why Sept 11th happened, why people are murdered day in and day out around the world for having different beliefs/ethnic backgrounds.
Liberia. I'm glad someone is finally helping, but why has it taken 14 years? This is not a new situation, the world has known for a long time.
Is the intervention merely coincidentally timed with falling public trust and belief in Bush and Blair over Iraq?
I dont know, but I do know that in the end it's not about saving lives, it's about profit, places in history and big business.
Chomsky chooses to focus on the human rights breaches of The USA, because that's the country he lives in, and pretty much the only global superpower left.
It seems socially acceptable to protest about East Timoor, China, El Salvador, Guatamala, Brazil, Tibet etc for the way in which they run their countries etc, but as soon as someone does it to the USA, they are immediately branded "leftists" "Liberals" and "traitors".
Whereas that may be true for a portion of so-called-activists, there are also vast numbers of people that would never consider breaking the law to try and achieve their aims.
To point out the injustice in American foreign policy, or UK is to leave yourself open to charges of traitor etc, when you are merely making people aware of the hypocrisy and double-standards.
As you yourself, and I and many others have said, change should start within, at home.
By tackling the causes of hatred, terrorism and war is the only way to prevent it, not by acting on the result afterwards - it's slapping a bandage on an already wounded limb and achieves nothing.
To try and address the reasons that countries hate each other is the only way to combat terrorism. And I believe, as we live in a democracy, it is our inherent duty to call into view that which we see as unreasonable, unjust, unfair or just plain wrong.
Which is why, despite labels, I have since a young age and will always continue to call attention to that which I percieve as wrong.
Such as the smearing of Dr Kelly, the Alistair Campbell attempts at deflecting attention from the enquiry, the hypocrisy of assisting the coup for, arming and supplying of Saddam Hussein and the ignoring of Kurdish genocide in the mid-late eighties, the continual funding of groups designed to destabilise anti-western interests etc.
What summed it up for me, the reason why America specifically, but certainly The West, is hated was on Radio 4 with an 8 week series about the history of The CIA.
The former head of The CIA was talking about the coup in Iran and deposing of The Shah, and his exact words stuck in my head:
"It is better to have a friendly dictator than rely on the unpredictable nature of independant rule".
That, to me, sums up why Sept 11th happened, why people are murdered day in and day out around the world for having different beliefs/ethnic backgrounds.
Liberia. I'm glad someone is finally helping, but why has it taken 14 years? This is not a new situation, the world has known for a long time.
Is the intervention merely coincidentally timed with falling public trust and belief in Bush and Blair over Iraq?
I dont know, but I do know that in the end it's not about saving lives, it's about profit, places in history and big business.
I'd agree that the rest of the world seems to have that attitude, but I find that shortsighted.
I keep ranting on about this guy, Ralph Peters, and his book, Fighting The Future. Written in 1999 by him, an ex US army officer and White House advisor, and on the subject of US military future operations, conduct and the challenges he foresaw we would face in this century. He isn't a gung who type of person, in fact he quit the military and his post to write frankly about it.
He recognised that future conflicts would not be between states as such, but elements within them, and that the aftermaths would require troops to maintain the law, and he argued they could not do this, and also that declaring victory in such situations would need to be redefinied as more than the crushing of the regular enemy army.
It's a 200 odd page book, so obviously I can't be too detailed, but his closing chapter focused on how conflicts in what he still termed 'third world' countries, and he included places like Iraq, Iran, Syria in this definition, would increasingly require the West to make decisions about intervention, and that he guessed fewer and fewer countries would act in situations where the gains - strategis, military, economic etc - were not clear cut and easily achievable.
Rather than try to put what I mean into words, I'll quote the final passage that concludes his book, which will hopefully give forum users the essence of what I mean;
"This is our choice: Shall we dominate the earth for the good of humankind? Or will we risk the enslavement of our country and our civilization? Will we pursue asymmetrical weapoons that allow us to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction where that threat originates, in the human mind and soul? Or will we continue to insist that diplomatic niceties and the social prejudices of global elites demand that we wait, decade after decade, for evil men to act first? Will we protect our own citizens? Or will we continue to defend the rights of monsters?
If we are willing to fight for the future, to act in confidence and justice, we may create something akin to a golden age - so long the stuff of myth - for humanity. We will never be able to prevent every violent act, but we may be able to eliminate traditional wars, mass violence and the use of weapons of mass destruction, including behaviour control weapons in renegage hands. If we have the courage, we can serve mankind. If we prove cowards, the future may make the dying twentieth century look like paradise."
What's important is to analyse his words in the context of his work. IT may appear the usual americanised type speech, but in context of his work, where he sees the willingness to act as a deterrant to wars, it begins to make sense. He is not talking about simply solving single problems, like Iraq, he's talking about intervening everywhere, even if that means a conflict of interest with western companies and governments. It's not taking out or stopping selected renegade states or those who pursue WMD, it's about stopping all of them. Not just protesting the breach of human rights in one place, but all of them, even if that means in the US as well.
I keep ranting on about this guy, Ralph Peters, and his book, Fighting The Future. Written in 1999 by him, an ex US army officer and White House advisor, and on the subject of US military future operations, conduct and the challenges he foresaw we would face in this century. He isn't a gung who type of person, in fact he quit the military and his post to write frankly about it.
He recognised that future conflicts would not be between states as such, but elements within them, and that the aftermaths would require troops to maintain the law, and he argued they could not do this, and also that declaring victory in such situations would need to be redefinied as more than the crushing of the regular enemy army.
It's a 200 odd page book, so obviously I can't be too detailed, but his closing chapter focused on how conflicts in what he still termed 'third world' countries, and he included places like Iraq, Iran, Syria in this definition, would increasingly require the West to make decisions about intervention, and that he guessed fewer and fewer countries would act in situations where the gains - strategis, military, economic etc - were not clear cut and easily achievable.
Rather than try to put what I mean into words, I'll quote the final passage that concludes his book, which will hopefully give forum users the essence of what I mean;
"This is our choice: Shall we dominate the earth for the good of humankind? Or will we risk the enslavement of our country and our civilization? Will we pursue asymmetrical weapoons that allow us to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction where that threat originates, in the human mind and soul? Or will we continue to insist that diplomatic niceties and the social prejudices of global elites demand that we wait, decade after decade, for evil men to act first? Will we protect our own citizens? Or will we continue to defend the rights of monsters?
If we are willing to fight for the future, to act in confidence and justice, we may create something akin to a golden age - so long the stuff of myth - for humanity. We will never be able to prevent every violent act, but we may be able to eliminate traditional wars, mass violence and the use of weapons of mass destruction, including behaviour control weapons in renegage hands. If we have the courage, we can serve mankind. If we prove cowards, the future may make the dying twentieth century look like paradise."
What's important is to analyse his words in the context of his work. IT may appear the usual americanised type speech, but in context of his work, where he sees the willingness to act as a deterrant to wars, it begins to make sense. He is not talking about simply solving single problems, like Iraq, he's talking about intervening everywhere, even if that means a conflict of interest with western companies and governments. It's not taking out or stopping selected renegade states or those who pursue WMD, it's about stopping all of them. Not just protesting the breach of human rights in one place, but all of them, even if that means in the US as well.
What's really odd is that I find myself agreeing once again.
Fundamentalists, of any religion, are the most dangerous because, as you say, that see it as honour to die for their cause. You cannot discuss or point out the illogicality of this, and there is no reasoning with them.
As for the US occupation, it's pretty much understood that whilst the US may be well trained and well armed, they are not peace-keepers, but essentially killers.
What galled me was Bush's insistence on invoking a UN Resolution calling on support from other countries now the war is "over".
I don't see how he can dismiss, insult and ignore the UN when it was opposed to his desire for invasion, yet suddenly hold them as a model of moral guide when he now needs help?
Having soldiers there being killed sucks, they've done their job and should now be elsewhere. But by the same token, countries that weren't interested in fighting are hardly going to sacrifice their troops simply to maintain peace.
I get the impression that pretty much the rest of the world has a "you made you bed, now lay in it" approach to Iraq now.
Fundamentalists, of any religion, are the most dangerous because, as you say, that see it as honour to die for their cause. You cannot discuss or point out the illogicality of this, and there is no reasoning with them.
As for the US occupation, it's pretty much understood that whilst the US may be well trained and well armed, they are not peace-keepers, but essentially killers.
What galled me was Bush's insistence on invoking a UN Resolution calling on support from other countries now the war is "over".
I don't see how he can dismiss, insult and ignore the UN when it was opposed to his desire for invasion, yet suddenly hold them as a model of moral guide when he now needs help?
Having soldiers there being killed sucks, they've done their job and should now be elsewhere. But by the same token, countries that weren't interested in fighting are hardly going to sacrifice their troops simply to maintain peace.
I get the impression that pretty much the rest of the world has a "you made you bed, now lay in it" approach to Iraq now.
Plus certain types of attacks can work if the one doing them is prepared to die.
In Iraq it's a case of who has the most to lose.
US soldiers are dying for two main reasons.
1) Those who had power during Saddam's rule know they have lost everything. They are hampering the coalition but cannot seriously threaten it, they hope to cause enough damage that troops withdraw so they can regain their power.
2) Wrong troops for the mission. You do not really want military forces in a police role, they receive minimal training for it, and it saps morale amongst the forces. The military attacks, peacekeepers keep the peace.
But, to the suicide topic. Those who will willingly die for their belief are more dangerous than those who only say they will. The US militias are by nature, survivalist. They want to be alive, basically. Terrorist attacks increasingly use suicide people, making them more dangerous than the US militias ever could be. In Iraq anyone resisting is effectively comitting suicide - as the two brothers proved - they know that capture will see them imprisoned at best, hence they are prepared to die. The exception is, I beleive, Saddam. He wants to live and I don't believe he's ready to die as much as his followers are.
US soldiers are dying for two main reasons.
1) Those who had power during Saddam's rule know they have lost everything. They are hampering the coalition but cannot seriously threaten it, they hope to cause enough damage that troops withdraw so they can regain their power.
2) Wrong troops for the mission. You do not really want military forces in a police role, they receive minimal training for it, and it saps morale amongst the forces. The military attacks, peacekeepers keep the peace.
But, to the suicide topic. Those who will willingly die for their belief are more dangerous than those who only say they will. The US militias are by nature, survivalist. They want to be alive, basically. Terrorist attacks increasingly use suicide people, making them more dangerous than the US militias ever could be. In Iraq anyone resisting is effectively comitting suicide - as the two brothers proved - they know that capture will see them imprisoned at best, hence they are prepared to die. The exception is, I beleive, Saddam. He wants to live and I don't believe he's ready to die as much as his followers are.
True.
But I'm not understanding the suicide thing and how that's a threat in relation to Iraqis?
It was Saudi's that made up a large portion of the WTC, and Iraq still has to act aggressively towards The West as far as I'm aware.
Personal politics aside, reacting against an invading force in your own country is hardly terrorism, seeing as the only reason for these continual US deaths is the fact that these soldiers are in their country?
I'm not justifying their actions at all, but if you remove yourself from the notion of "just" or "right and wrong", it's not terrorism to defend your country from a percieved attack is it?
But I'm not understanding the suicide thing and how that's a threat in relation to Iraqis?
It was Saudi's that made up a large portion of the WTC, and Iraq still has to act aggressively towards The West as far as I'm aware.
Personal politics aside, reacting against an invading force in your own country is hardly terrorism, seeing as the only reason for these continual US deaths is the fact that these soldiers are in their country?
I'm not justifying their actions at all, but if you remove yourself from the notion of "just" or "right and wrong", it's not terrorism to defend your country from a percieved attack is it?
Page: