The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I think I've posted this here before, but something Belldandy said got me thinking...
He mentioned that he couldn't believe that no-one intervened in Uganda during Idi Amin's rule; I took that to mean that he would have thought the US or UK would have stepped in to stop the butchery.
But here's the thing; no country has ever, EVER committed to a war/police action/whatever euphamism you want, unless there was something in it for them. Bell and I both seem to want the same thing; a world where nation states do the right thing, but whilst he seems to think that happens now, I'm rather more cynical.
Anyway, without further ado....
Do you ever get the feeling that you're wasting your time? I seem to be getting it more and more these days, especially every time I check the news. For example, I like to think of myself as a basically good person. I try to get on with people and if it is within my power to help someone then I will do so without hesitation. This gives me the smug satisfying feeling of wanton self righteousness that makes all of my dear friends want to punch me occasionally (I said I thought of myself as good; I'm realistic enough to realise what an arrogant sod I am!)
But today I find myself thinking, "What is the point?" And what has caused this rethink on my part? Well, it is the overwhelming body of evidence that says the bigger the git, the better the time they have, and the higher the chance they have of living out their lives in relative peace. I refer of course to that darling old man, Augusto Pinochet. The man who pleaded ill health throughout his stay at the more exclusive branch of Butlins in this country before getting up from his wheelchair to salute the waiting crowd in Santiago. The man who has fought false tooth and manicured nail against accepting even the tiniest piece of responsibility for any of the quite appalling crimes committed during his dictatorship.
I'm sure you're familiar with the generalities of the brutality during his CIA sponsored coup, but as a quick refresher he executed the Marxist president of Chile, Salvador Allende (because America, being the bastion of democracy that it is, couldn't allow a democratically elected president to be Marxist and therefore minded to be sympathetic to USSR). He organised the Caravan of Death (which to me lends itself to a quite horrific image of being dragged along on camping holidays to the wilds of Scotland, but that's beside the point...) which butchered at least 75 political prisoners in the aftermath of his takeover. And to cap it off, it is thought that at least 3,200 people died during his reign. All in all, not the sort of man one would like as a babysitter ("Now Timmy, do as Uncle Augusto tells you tonight or else he'll have to have to administer electro torture to the genitals before having you thrown into the Atlantic from 20,000 feet.")
Had the above catalogue of Bogminded badness been committed by your average citizen (yes, yes, I know that your average citizen would have a certain amount of difficulty in assassinating the Tony Blair and massacring over 3000 people; I suppose he'd have to take a couple of weeks off work or something. Shall we just assume he/she used a bomb and continue? Good...) then it's a fairly safe bet that the full weight of the law would come crashing down upon them. Hell, look at the resources dedicated to finding Usama bin Laden after 9/11. Had bin Laden been responsible for the above, then I wouldn't have expected a number of prominent Lords to campaign passionately for his release. I wouldn't have expected mass demonstrations on his behalf by some of my countrymen. Yet there were no shortage of peers, politicians, and members of the public (admittedly they were tories, but they were still people in the strictest sense of the word...) clamouring for his release.
As it is, our vaunted British justice allowed him to go home and make a mockery of the law on the steps of his airplane. Chilean law is faring slightly better having began proceedings to bring him to book for covering up his crimes and attempting still to charge him for the acts themselves. However, the old swine still has numerous appeal options open to him and I have my doubts as to whether he will ever stand trial. It has been said that the sullying of his name caused by all of these proceedings is sufficient. Balls say I! If one were able to ask those murdered and disappeared at Pinochet's orders, do you think that a besmirched name would be adequate justice for them?
But this is by no means an exception. Modern history is littered with infamous dictators who committed quite the most disgusting crimes against humanity and who have escaped any form of justice. Oh, they've lost their power and their influence, but they have their lives, liberty, and invariably their money. Idi Amin committed atrocities for fun yet he lives out his peaceful (albeit enforced) retirement in Saudi Arabia with all of the oranges he can eat (nb - Not any more he doesn't.HA!). Baby Doc Duvalier continued the work of his father (their work being the economic ruin of Haiti in order to line their own pockets) and after he was eventually forced to flee he settled somewhere in France. Other than a halfhearted attempt at arresting him he is still at large to the best of my knowledge. Radovan Karadic is a tourist attraction in Serbia. Pol Pot and Stalin were old men when they died in their beds having been responsible for killing millions of their own people. The only one of the b*stards who suffered any kind of retribution was Hitler and that was only because he downed a cyanide cocktail with bullet chaser.
Now if you have any sense of justice at all, the above will make you stamp your feet and scream that it is so unfair! Fine, so it's unfair. We seem to be singularly rubbish at actually expressing this in any meaningful way; will anybody change their vote because of the handling of the Pinochet affair, or the Totalitarian tactics used during the visit of the Chinese premier? I think not. Will anyone take issue with the French (not that we need any excuse to take issue with them) about their sheltering of a thug who terrorised his people? Nope. Has the Moslem community any intention of pressing our government to raise the issue about Idi Amin's safe haven? Uh-uh.
We don't like what goes on in the world, but the prevailing attitude is "I'm alright Jack". I don't make any major criticism of that, but it does mean that we allow such realpolitik to take place. By that I mean that no country will condemn or prosecute any of the above unless they have political reasons to do so. In other words, our leaders share our attitude for different reasons. We remain quite willingly blind to the evil of these men because it is easier to do this rather than speak out against it, and frankly most of us (myself included) wouldn't know where to start.
Anyway, that is just my own view and that counts for little. What makes the big picture somewhat more worrying is that we now have countless examples of dictators being beastly and to all intents, getting away with it. Even Saddam Hussein only received the military equivalent of a spanking during the first Gulf War. Has he been ousted from power? Has a period of peace and rebuilding been ushered in throughout Iraq? Erm...no. It wasn't in anyone's interests to get rid of him initially, and coupled with the restrictions placed on the coalition by the UN, this led to the UK and US fabricating huge numbers of reasons to finish the job.
So then, the point to this little rant (yes, there is a point throughout the endless rambling) is as follows; there are flare-ups and dictatorships in place the world over, and the UN and NATO are sending peacekeeping forces here, there, and everywhere. Why should they be taken seriously when history has shown that the main movers and shakers behind the trouble will stay free whilst the people have to live with whatever indignities their former leaders have heaped upon them. The organisation before the UN was the League of Nations. By the time it was dissolved it was universally regarded as impotent. That was in 1939. I'd say in was in the UN's interests to be seen as strong. It's too easy to say "Get rid of the UN". And replace it with what exactly? Fact is, the world has been generally a lot more peaceful with the UN than without. So to regain some sort of strength means punishing the people responsible for the brutality and deaths during their rule. There's plenty of the old b*stards still around, so why don't we make a start?
He mentioned that he couldn't believe that no-one intervened in Uganda during Idi Amin's rule; I took that to mean that he would have thought the US or UK would have stepped in to stop the butchery.
But here's the thing; no country has ever, EVER committed to a war/police action/whatever euphamism you want, unless there was something in it for them. Bell and I both seem to want the same thing; a world where nation states do the right thing, but whilst he seems to think that happens now, I'm rather more cynical.
Anyway, without further ado....
Do you ever get the feeling that you're wasting your time? I seem to be getting it more and more these days, especially every time I check the news. For example, I like to think of myself as a basically good person. I try to get on with people and if it is within my power to help someone then I will do so without hesitation. This gives me the smug satisfying feeling of wanton self righteousness that makes all of my dear friends want to punch me occasionally (I said I thought of myself as good; I'm realistic enough to realise what an arrogant sod I am!)
But today I find myself thinking, "What is the point?" And what has caused this rethink on my part? Well, it is the overwhelming body of evidence that says the bigger the git, the better the time they have, and the higher the chance they have of living out their lives in relative peace. I refer of course to that darling old man, Augusto Pinochet. The man who pleaded ill health throughout his stay at the more exclusive branch of Butlins in this country before getting up from his wheelchair to salute the waiting crowd in Santiago. The man who has fought false tooth and manicured nail against accepting even the tiniest piece of responsibility for any of the quite appalling crimes committed during his dictatorship.
I'm sure you're familiar with the generalities of the brutality during his CIA sponsored coup, but as a quick refresher he executed the Marxist president of Chile, Salvador Allende (because America, being the bastion of democracy that it is, couldn't allow a democratically elected president to be Marxist and therefore minded to be sympathetic to USSR). He organised the Caravan of Death (which to me lends itself to a quite horrific image of being dragged along on camping holidays to the wilds of Scotland, but that's beside the point...) which butchered at least 75 political prisoners in the aftermath of his takeover. And to cap it off, it is thought that at least 3,200 people died during his reign. All in all, not the sort of man one would like as a babysitter ("Now Timmy, do as Uncle Augusto tells you tonight or else he'll have to have to administer electro torture to the genitals before having you thrown into the Atlantic from 20,000 feet.")
Had the above catalogue of Bogminded badness been committed by your average citizen (yes, yes, I know that your average citizen would have a certain amount of difficulty in assassinating the Tony Blair and massacring over 3000 people; I suppose he'd have to take a couple of weeks off work or something. Shall we just assume he/she used a bomb and continue? Good...) then it's a fairly safe bet that the full weight of the law would come crashing down upon them. Hell, look at the resources dedicated to finding Usama bin Laden after 9/11. Had bin Laden been responsible for the above, then I wouldn't have expected a number of prominent Lords to campaign passionately for his release. I wouldn't have expected mass demonstrations on his behalf by some of my countrymen. Yet there were no shortage of peers, politicians, and members of the public (admittedly they were tories, but they were still people in the strictest sense of the word...) clamouring for his release.
As it is, our vaunted British justice allowed him to go home and make a mockery of the law on the steps of his airplane. Chilean law is faring slightly better having began proceedings to bring him to book for covering up his crimes and attempting still to charge him for the acts themselves. However, the old swine still has numerous appeal options open to him and I have my doubts as to whether he will ever stand trial. It has been said that the sullying of his name caused by all of these proceedings is sufficient. Balls say I! If one were able to ask those murdered and disappeared at Pinochet's orders, do you think that a besmirched name would be adequate justice for them?
But this is by no means an exception. Modern history is littered with infamous dictators who committed quite the most disgusting crimes against humanity and who have escaped any form of justice. Oh, they've lost their power and their influence, but they have their lives, liberty, and invariably their money. Idi Amin committed atrocities for fun yet he lives out his peaceful (albeit enforced) retirement in Saudi Arabia with all of the oranges he can eat (nb - Not any more he doesn't.HA!). Baby Doc Duvalier continued the work of his father (their work being the economic ruin of Haiti in order to line their own pockets) and after he was eventually forced to flee he settled somewhere in France. Other than a halfhearted attempt at arresting him he is still at large to the best of my knowledge. Radovan Karadic is a tourist attraction in Serbia. Pol Pot and Stalin were old men when they died in their beds having been responsible for killing millions of their own people. The only one of the b*stards who suffered any kind of retribution was Hitler and that was only because he downed a cyanide cocktail with bullet chaser.
Now if you have any sense of justice at all, the above will make you stamp your feet and scream that it is so unfair! Fine, so it's unfair. We seem to be singularly rubbish at actually expressing this in any meaningful way; will anybody change their vote because of the handling of the Pinochet affair, or the Totalitarian tactics used during the visit of the Chinese premier? I think not. Will anyone take issue with the French (not that we need any excuse to take issue with them) about their sheltering of a thug who terrorised his people? Nope. Has the Moslem community any intention of pressing our government to raise the issue about Idi Amin's safe haven? Uh-uh.
We don't like what goes on in the world, but the prevailing attitude is "I'm alright Jack". I don't make any major criticism of that, but it does mean that we allow such realpolitik to take place. By that I mean that no country will condemn or prosecute any of the above unless they have political reasons to do so. In other words, our leaders share our attitude for different reasons. We remain quite willingly blind to the evil of these men because it is easier to do this rather than speak out against it, and frankly most of us (myself included) wouldn't know where to start.
Anyway, that is just my own view and that counts for little. What makes the big picture somewhat more worrying is that we now have countless examples of dictators being beastly and to all intents, getting away with it. Even Saddam Hussein only received the military equivalent of a spanking during the first Gulf War. Has he been ousted from power? Has a period of peace and rebuilding been ushered in throughout Iraq? Erm...no. It wasn't in anyone's interests to get rid of him initially, and coupled with the restrictions placed on the coalition by the UN, this led to the UK and US fabricating huge numbers of reasons to finish the job.
So then, the point to this little rant (yes, there is a point throughout the endless rambling) is as follows; there are flare-ups and dictatorships in place the world over, and the UN and NATO are sending peacekeeping forces here, there, and everywhere. Why should they be taken seriously when history has shown that the main movers and shakers behind the trouble will stay free whilst the people have to live with whatever indignities their former leaders have heaped upon them. The organisation before the UN was the League of Nations. By the time it was dissolved it was universally regarded as impotent. That was in 1939. I'd say in was in the UN's interests to be seen as strong. It's too easy to say "Get rid of the UN". And replace it with what exactly? Fact is, the world has been generally a lot more peaceful with the UN than without. So to regain some sort of strength means punishing the people responsible for the brutality and deaths during their rule. There's plenty of the old b*stards still around, so why don't we make a start?
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Terrorists are terrorists.
Even the ones supported by the US and UK?
Bell, I'm with Blank on this one because you're resorting to sophistry and deliberately misrepresenting what people have said in order to make your own point of view seem that much better. If you're that confident of your beliefs, why attempt to smear (in the political 'S**t throwing' sense) the beliefs of someone who disagrees with you?
> Terrorists are terrorists.
Even the ones supported by the US and UK?
Bell, I'm with Blank on this one because you're resorting to sophistry and deliberately misrepresenting what people have said in order to make your own point of view seem that much better. If you're that confident of your beliefs, why attempt to smear (in the political 'S**t throwing' sense) the beliefs of someone who disagrees with you?
But why choose Muslim ? They aren't, none of them are Muslims, you know full well that no religion says terrorism is okay, terrorist leaders have to pervert it to get it to justify their acts. True Muslims know they are not terrorists and that the terrorists are not Muslims, just the same as I know Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian.
If you were a politician and you had said that then you'd be emptying your desk right now.
You're the only one saying your racist, I just think things like the abovem ake you appear a little stupid. I wouldn't call you racist because you're not like that, but if you singlemindedly want to focus on it then go ahead.
Terrorists are terrorists.
If you were a politician and you had said that then you'd be emptying your desk right now.
You're the only one saying your racist, I just think things like the abovem ake you appear a little stupid. I wouldn't call you racist because you're not like that, but if you singlemindedly want to focus on it then go ahead.
Terrorists are terrorists.
Belldandy, if you don't understand then that's fine. I don't really mind. What I do mind is you promoting the idea that I'm racist to further your own argument. And what's more I think you know what I meant anyway.
And just in case you don't (or are feeling awkward), here's what I meant: if the people who committed a terrorist attack are Muslim, and we start a bombing campaign to hurt them, this will make other Muslims hateful towards us and more likely to attack us. Right? With me so far? So, if we DO decide to attack them, we have to make sure we wipe the whole religion off the face of the Earth, otherwise there still exists a potential threat (no matter how small). And even then there will still be others willing to commit these crimes.
I was trying to highlight the futility of it, but sod it. It's obviously passed you by. I even apologised for my sounding racist, but that's seemingly not good enough for you.
I never claimed that all Muslims are Western hating terrorists just gagging to blow themselves up in public placs, because that's a ludicrous notion.
And just in case you don't (or are feeling awkward), here's what I meant: if the people who committed a terrorist attack are Muslim, and we start a bombing campaign to hurt them, this will make other Muslims hateful towards us and more likely to attack us. Right? With me so far? So, if we DO decide to attack them, we have to make sure we wipe the whole religion off the face of the Earth, otherwise there still exists a potential threat (no matter how small). And even then there will still be others willing to commit these crimes.
I was trying to highlight the futility of it, but sod it. It's obviously passed you by. I even apologised for my sounding racist, but that's seemingly not good enough for you.
I never claimed that all Muslims are Western hating terrorists just gagging to blow themselves up in public placs, because that's a ludicrous notion.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Note to Light - you're defending someone whose post in the Iraq
> topic
> reads along the lines of 'if we kill all the Muslims then we stop
> terrorism' - not the actual words, but the essence of it.....
>
> Misquote.
Blank's exact words;
> Take the World Trade Center attacks. Those people obviously already
> had a deep hatred of Westerners/USA/whatever, so much so that they're
> willing to kill themselves to punish us. So how would bombing them
> improve the situation? Unless you could be damn sure of wiping out -
> and let's face it - every Muslim in the world. It would just serve
> the purpose of accentuating our arrogant persona.
How else do we read "So how would bombing them improve the situation? Unless you could be damn sure of wiping out and let's face it - every Muslim in the world. It would just serve the purpose of accentuating our arrogant persona."
> Belldandy wrote:
> Note to Light - you're defending someone whose post in the Iraq
> topic
> reads along the lines of 'if we kill all the Muslims then we stop
> terrorism' - not the actual words, but the essence of it.....
>
> Misquote.
Blank's exact words;
> Take the World Trade Center attacks. Those people obviously already
> had a deep hatred of Westerners/USA/whatever, so much so that they're
> willing to kill themselves to punish us. So how would bombing them
> improve the situation? Unless you could be damn sure of wiping out -
> and let's face it - every Muslim in the world. It would just serve
> the purpose of accentuating our arrogant persona.
How else do we read "So how would bombing them improve the situation? Unless you could be damn sure of wiping out and let's face it - every Muslim in the world. It would just serve the purpose of accentuating our arrogant persona."
Belldandy wrote:
> Note to Light - you're defending someone whose post in the Iraq topic
> reads along the lines of 'if we kill all the Muslims then we stop
> terrorism' - not the actual words, but the essence of it.....
Misquote.
> Note to Light - you're defending someone whose post in the Iraq topic
> reads along the lines of 'if we kill all the Muslims then we stop
> terrorism' - not the actual words, but the essence of it.....
Misquote.
Blank wrote:
> "You idiot, you're almost as bad as I used to be" - that was
> hilarious.
>
> But the reason I didn't engage in argument was not for the reasons
> you stated. I didn't want to go into depth because I've argued with
> you before and seen where it gets me. No-where.
>
> Please don't bring that debate in here.
*watches Blank sidestep every point*
Note to Light - you're defending someone whose post in the Iraq topic reads along the lines of 'if we kill all the Muslims then we stop terrorism' - not the actual words, but the essence of it.....
> "You idiot, you're almost as bad as I used to be" - that was
> hilarious.
>
> But the reason I didn't engage in argument was not for the reasons
> you stated. I didn't want to go into depth because I've argued with
> you before and seen where it gets me. No-where.
>
> Please don't bring that debate in here.
*watches Blank sidestep every point*
Note to Light - you're defending someone whose post in the Iraq topic reads along the lines of 'if we kill all the Muslims then we stop terrorism' - not the actual words, but the essence of it.....
Blank wrote:
> "You idiot, you're almost as bad as I used to be" - that was
> hilarious.
>
> But the reason I didn't engage in argument was not for the reasons
> you stated. I didn't want to go into depth because I've argued with
> you before and seen where it gets me. No-where.
>
> Please don't bring that debate in here.
I'm with Blank on this one to be honest. I can debate a hell of a lot easier with Bell these days, but having read through his responses to Blank, it seems to be more of the "I'm right and you're wrong and nothing you say will make a difference" school of thought. Still, baby steps...
> "You idiot, you're almost as bad as I used to be" - that was
> hilarious.
>
> But the reason I didn't engage in argument was not for the reasons
> you stated. I didn't want to go into depth because I've argued with
> you before and seen where it gets me. No-where.
>
> Please don't bring that debate in here.
I'm with Blank on this one to be honest. I can debate a hell of a lot easier with Bell these days, but having read through his responses to Blank, it seems to be more of the "I'm right and you're wrong and nothing you say will make a difference" school of thought. Still, baby steps...
"You idiot, you're almost as bad as I used to be" - that was hilarious.
But the reason I didn't engage in argument was not for the reasons you stated. I didn't want to go into depth because I've argued with you before and seen where it gets me. No-where.
Please don't bring that debate in here.
But the reason I didn't engage in argument was not for the reasons you stated. I didn't want to go into depth because I've argued with you before and seen where it gets me. No-where.
Please don't bring that debate in here.
The reason I pay you little attention Blank is because you're little better than how I used to be, you state something and won't differ from it even in the face of evidence to the contrary. In the other topic I made reasonable, evidence based, points, and all you do is say you're not replying. Why should I take you seriously ? I know if Goatboy or Light make a point then, most of the time, it'll be true, maybe objectively true, but it won't just be a regurgitation of the network news or protest group propoganda.
Are you really so cynical that you cannot see past the immediate ? When Al Qaeda bombed US Embassies in Africa, Clinton was shown by the Pentagon a plan which was essentially an invasion of Afghanistan. Clinton, reportedly, wanted to do it but knew that to do so would be political suicide, neither he nor the allies could get public support for such a campaign because, historically, the 'public' will only support a war they perceive to benefit them, or because the target threatens them. And the destruction of embassies in Africa was not a big priority for US citizens, nor did the UK give it little attention other than the obligatory and predictable criticism from some groups when America sent Cruise Missiles at suspected bomb factories.
In a different world, with a different public, Clinton gives the go order and changes history. It does not take a devestating attack that will live in human memory for decades to change partially public opinion to allow governments to act when necessary.
I agree with Light's point that, historically, the movers and shakers remain free, but if we do nothing then that is worse than doing something. Yes, Mugabe is free, Taylor is free, Bin Laden is, Saddam is, but we're coming for all of them, and one day we will get them.
We sit here, and some of us will happily condemn other nations far away to something akin to a living hell because they cannot see why we should act, and they say we only act out of greed.
How dare we stand by and watch parts of the world go to hell?
How dare we ?
You know what my main concern was today? Amazon had ran out of a CD I wanted. How utterly inconsequential is that ? Look at all the complaints and moaning across these forums. Nintendo in trouble, game delays, no order confirmation, where to buy DVDs..... there are people on this planet who don't know if they will wake up tomorrow morning, or if their children will live the night.
And they are not a million miles away, they are not seperate, we may be theoretically divided into East and West, First World, Third World, but we're all one and if one has a problem then you can bet anything that one day it'll bite the other in the literal ass.
We cannot act against everyone at once, but to say we should not act ever, and to criticise unfairly and unjustly when we do, is hypocrisy. While we argue real people are dying,dying by the hundred every minute but that doesn't matter, most never make the news and even then it'll all be over in 30 minutes and another show will be on. Someone said in the Iragq bomb blast topic they could not believe the footage would be shown as it was, well that is reality for many people. They're watching in real life, and unless we act then one day that scene, or worse, will be played out in this country, and then we will wish we had done more, but it will be too late.
Yes, the history of this is not exactly praiseworthy, but we are not damned to repeat it.
Rant over.
Are you really so cynical that you cannot see past the immediate ? When Al Qaeda bombed US Embassies in Africa, Clinton was shown by the Pentagon a plan which was essentially an invasion of Afghanistan. Clinton, reportedly, wanted to do it but knew that to do so would be political suicide, neither he nor the allies could get public support for such a campaign because, historically, the 'public' will only support a war they perceive to benefit them, or because the target threatens them. And the destruction of embassies in Africa was not a big priority for US citizens, nor did the UK give it little attention other than the obligatory and predictable criticism from some groups when America sent Cruise Missiles at suspected bomb factories.
In a different world, with a different public, Clinton gives the go order and changes history. It does not take a devestating attack that will live in human memory for decades to change partially public opinion to allow governments to act when necessary.
I agree with Light's point that, historically, the movers and shakers remain free, but if we do nothing then that is worse than doing something. Yes, Mugabe is free, Taylor is free, Bin Laden is, Saddam is, but we're coming for all of them, and one day we will get them.
We sit here, and some of us will happily condemn other nations far away to something akin to a living hell because they cannot see why we should act, and they say we only act out of greed.
How dare we stand by and watch parts of the world go to hell?
How dare we ?
You know what my main concern was today? Amazon had ran out of a CD I wanted. How utterly inconsequential is that ? Look at all the complaints and moaning across these forums. Nintendo in trouble, game delays, no order confirmation, where to buy DVDs..... there are people on this planet who don't know if they will wake up tomorrow morning, or if their children will live the night.
And they are not a million miles away, they are not seperate, we may be theoretically divided into East and West, First World, Third World, but we're all one and if one has a problem then you can bet anything that one day it'll bite the other in the literal ass.
We cannot act against everyone at once, but to say we should not act ever, and to criticise unfairly and unjustly when we do, is hypocrisy. While we argue real people are dying,dying by the hundred every minute but that doesn't matter, most never make the news and even then it'll all be over in 30 minutes and another show will be on. Someone said in the Iragq bomb blast topic they could not believe the footage would be shown as it was, well that is reality for many people. They're watching in real life, and unless we act then one day that scene, or worse, will be played out in this country, and then we will wish we had done more, but it will be too late.
Yes, the history of this is not exactly praiseworthy, but we are not damned to repeat it.
Rant over.
Some of that summed up what I was trying to explain to Belldandy - that no one would bother interfering with another country/regime/government, at their own expense, unless there was something in it for them.
Personally I'd rather see my money (and by that I mean tax payer's money) spent on the NHS, education etc. I know throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it, but even just for extra supplies would be better than a war - because those things might benefit me, a war against Iraq won't.
A good read Light.
Personally I'd rather see my money (and by that I mean tax payer's money) spent on the NHS, education etc. I know throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it, but even just for extra supplies would be better than a war - because those things might benefit me, a war against Iraq won't.
A good read Light.
Page: