The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
We've got CNN on down here at work - some guy was giving a speech on the progress of the war at the UN HQ in Baghdad and then the cameras went black and there was a massive power cut. All I can hear is screaming in the background. It was a bomb. I can't believe they're showing this footage.
Page:
Except I'm not saying there is any blame to pass around, it's a simple case of how do we get Iraq back on track, it has the resources, and it has a largely willing people. The UN, Kofi Annan, and other members, have been all too quick to criticise the coalition, well here's their chance to show how they would do things, except they are not going to do anything. To my mind if the UN will not get involved then it loses any right to being involved in rebuilding Iraq security wise, which for the coalition forces is a long term bonus.
When Iraq is rebuilt, and prosperous once more, then the coalition forces will undoubtedly be granted some kind of area for bases in the area, it'sa big country so getting them out of the way of civilians is no problem, and that gives a fantastic new capability.
When Iraq is rebuilt, and prosperous once more, then the coalition forces will undoubtedly be granted some kind of area for bases in the area, it'sa big country so getting them out of the way of civilians is no problem, and that gives a fantastic new capability.
Belldandy wrote:
> I'm saying it's time to stop the squabbling, we have a situation in
> Iraq, and the resources to make it better, faster, all that remains
> is for Annan to get his ass in gear and stopl playing politician.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. But the thing is, I think you're laying too much blame at Annan's door at the expense of laying it where it should be; the doors of Dubya and Blair. After all, Annan didn't order the invasion, so it's not his mess to clear up. And to cap it all, Dubya's administration don't even really want the UN there in the first place.
> I'm saying it's time to stop the squabbling, we have a situation in
> Iraq, and the resources to make it better, faster, all that remains
> is for Annan to get his ass in gear and stopl playing politician.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. But the thing is, I think you're laying too much blame at Annan's door at the expense of laying it where it should be; the doors of Dubya and Blair. After all, Annan didn't order the invasion, so it's not his mess to clear up. And to cap it all, Dubya's administration don't even really want the UN there in the first place.
Light wrote:
> The UN could not stop a war in Iraq, twice now, least it could is
> help save a peace.
>
> Erm...so after you've said that the UN are obsolete and should have
> no place in Iraq, you're now ready to blame them for the US and UK
> screwing things up in peacetime? Make up your mind Bell.
I'll clarify; the UN is obsolete, but it looks like we're stuck with it for a while yet. If the UN came in, as the US is in fact asking it to right now, then it would commit all countries to establishing a peaceful Iraq and begin to repair the damage done by the pre Iraq political manouvering. The US and UK troops are not all trained for peacekeeping, they're trained to kill, and many, such as the US 3rd infantry, should not be deployed in a peace role. No one nation has enough units trained in peacekeeping, but put a group of nations together and we can get a force into the country in months, if not weeks.
Ultimately, it is in the interest of every UN member to get Iraq stable, already today we've seen the semblance of a Middle East ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians end, and you can bet both sides will now go at each other with reknewed enthusiasm.
I'm saying it's time to stop the squabbling, we have a situation in Iraq, and the resources to make it better, faster, all that remains is for Annan to get his ass in gear and stopl playing politician.
> The UN could not stop a war in Iraq, twice now, least it could is
> help save a peace.
>
> Erm...so after you've said that the UN are obsolete and should have
> no place in Iraq, you're now ready to blame them for the US and UK
> screwing things up in peacetime? Make up your mind Bell.
I'll clarify; the UN is obsolete, but it looks like we're stuck with it for a while yet. If the UN came in, as the US is in fact asking it to right now, then it would commit all countries to establishing a peaceful Iraq and begin to repair the damage done by the pre Iraq political manouvering. The US and UK troops are not all trained for peacekeeping, they're trained to kill, and many, such as the US 3rd infantry, should not be deployed in a peace role. No one nation has enough units trained in peacekeeping, but put a group of nations together and we can get a force into the country in months, if not weeks.
Ultimately, it is in the interest of every UN member to get Iraq stable, already today we've seen the semblance of a Middle East ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians end, and you can bet both sides will now go at each other with reknewed enthusiasm.
I'm saying it's time to stop the squabbling, we have a situation in Iraq, and the resources to make it better, faster, all that remains is for Annan to get his ass in gear and stopl playing politician.
Belldandy wrote:
> I'd say terrorism and retaliation. We know it used military grade
> explosives, whilst the security situation in Iraq does mean anyone
> could have gotten hold of them, it's more likely the work of the
> guerilla forces that have been plaguing the country since the war
> ended.
Yeah, the extremist Islamic guerilla's probably. The ones that never even got close to establishing a toe-hold in Iraq as Hussein was a secular dicatator. The ones that only became active in Iraq after the war.
Not that I'm blaming the US and UK for that, but I do find it amusing how they're trying to say that it's 'proof' that Iraq is a legitimate battleground against terrorists...
>
> Objective ? Get the UN to retreat fro Iraq, eventually the coalition.
> Annan disappoints me, he's not doing anything in response, right now
> we should be forming up a UN peacekeeping force and uniting it with
> the coalition forces under the UN banner.
I agree. A pity, then, that the US opposes such a move and opposes giving the UN a sizeable role in Iraq.
>
> The UN could not stop a war in Iraq, twice now, least it could is
> help save a peace.
Erm...so after you've said that the UN are obsolete and should have no place in Iraq, you're now ready to blame them for the US and UK screwing things up in peacetime? Make up your mind Bell.
> I'd say terrorism and retaliation. We know it used military grade
> explosives, whilst the security situation in Iraq does mean anyone
> could have gotten hold of them, it's more likely the work of the
> guerilla forces that have been plaguing the country since the war
> ended.
Yeah, the extremist Islamic guerilla's probably. The ones that never even got close to establishing a toe-hold in Iraq as Hussein was a secular dicatator. The ones that only became active in Iraq after the war.
Not that I'm blaming the US and UK for that, but I do find it amusing how they're trying to say that it's 'proof' that Iraq is a legitimate battleground against terrorists...
>
> Objective ? Get the UN to retreat fro Iraq, eventually the coalition.
> Annan disappoints me, he's not doing anything in response, right now
> we should be forming up a UN peacekeeping force and uniting it with
> the coalition forces under the UN banner.
I agree. A pity, then, that the US opposes such a move and opposes giving the UN a sizeable role in Iraq.
>
> The UN could not stop a war in Iraq, twice now, least it could is
> help save a peace.
Erm...so after you've said that the UN are obsolete and should have no place in Iraq, you're now ready to blame them for the US and UK screwing things up in peacetime? Make up your mind Bell.
I'd say terrorism and retaliation. We know it used military grade explosives, whilst the security situation in Iraq does mean anyone could have gotten hold of them, it's more likely the work of the guerilla forces that have been plaguing the country since the war ended.
Objective ? Get the UN to retreat fro Iraq, eventually the coalition. Annan disappoints me, he's not doing anything in response, right now we should be forming up a UN peacekeeping force and uniting it with the coalition forces under the UN banner.
The UN could not stop a war in Iraq, twice now, least it could is help save a peace.
Objective ? Get the UN to retreat fro Iraq, eventually the coalition. Annan disappoints me, he's not doing anything in response, right now we should be forming up a UN peacekeeping force and uniting it with the coalition forces under the UN banner.
The UN could not stop a war in Iraq, twice now, least it could is help save a peace.
On the subject of WMD, my own personal thoughts are this:
What we understand to be WMD, the definition offered up by Blair as an excuse for invading Iraq, are things like chemical bombs, range-missiles, biological weapons (one of the prime examples offered by Blair on his televised "Why we must invade a nation that has never acted aggresively towards The West" address).
Yet Sept 11th, the UN bomb, Bali, Indonesia etc etc have all been homemade explosives - or in the case of the WTC attacks, boxcutters to hijack a plane.
If you accept the broad definition of a plane as WMD, then we need to invade every single country in the world, Arab or not.
Terrorism is wrong, nobody can deny this with any sanity.
But there needs to be clarification on just what is meant by WMD from our government. Because at the moment, the buzzwords "WMD" and "Terrorist" pretty much covers anything you want to use to justify killing.
Palastine and Isreal are calling each other terrorists, Colombia is referring to "rebels" as terrorists, Zapatistas have long been called terrorists.
My belief is that the UN bomb was not terrorism but retaliation.
What we understand to be WMD, the definition offered up by Blair as an excuse for invading Iraq, are things like chemical bombs, range-missiles, biological weapons (one of the prime examples offered by Blair on his televised "Why we must invade a nation that has never acted aggresively towards The West" address).
Yet Sept 11th, the UN bomb, Bali, Indonesia etc etc have all been homemade explosives - or in the case of the WTC attacks, boxcutters to hijack a plane.
If you accept the broad definition of a plane as WMD, then we need to invade every single country in the world, Arab or not.
Terrorism is wrong, nobody can deny this with any sanity.
But there needs to be clarification on just what is meant by WMD from our government. Because at the moment, the buzzwords "WMD" and "Terrorist" pretty much covers anything you want to use to justify killing.
Palastine and Isreal are calling each other terrorists, Colombia is referring to "rebels" as terrorists, Zapatistas have long been called terrorists.
My belief is that the UN bomb was not terrorism but retaliation.
Blank wrote:
> What the hell are you on about now? Once again, Belldandy goes off
> topic. I'll answer your question: because they might not have a
> couple of million.
>
> My point about that was you don't NEED WMD for a terrorist attack.
My point, if you'd calm down and see another point of view for a moment, was that you'd get a pretty spectacular result with WMD, and considering Bin Laden's wealth alone, and the fact we've recovered a couple of hundred million from Iraq hat Saddam horded in secret, then a couple of million is small change for the major groups, and there is nothing to say it's even cost that much if they found the right person.
Russia and it's former states are full of military hardware and nuclear weapons, not to mention the missing ones, and people whose pay grade makes a person working at McDonalds cleaning tables look comparitively rich.
Also you'll find the 9/11 use of airliners as missiles was classed under the broad terminology of a WMD, 2000 odd people and two towers is pretty much mass destruction.
> What the hell are you on about now? Once again, Belldandy goes off
> topic. I'll answer your question: because they might not have a
> couple of million.
>
> My point about that was you don't NEED WMD for a terrorist attack.
My point, if you'd calm down and see another point of view for a moment, was that you'd get a pretty spectacular result with WMD, and considering Bin Laden's wealth alone, and the fact we've recovered a couple of hundred million from Iraq hat Saddam horded in secret, then a couple of million is small change for the major groups, and there is nothing to say it's even cost that much if they found the right person.
Russia and it's former states are full of military hardware and nuclear weapons, not to mention the missing ones, and people whose pay grade makes a person working at McDonalds cleaning tables look comparitively rich.
Also you'll find the 9/11 use of airliners as missiles was classed under the broad terminology of a WMD, 2000 odd people and two towers is pretty much mass destruction.
What the hell are you on about now? Once again, Belldandy goes off topic. I'll answer your question: because they might not have a couple of million.
My point about that was you don't NEED WMD for a terrorist attack.
My point about that was you don't NEED WMD for a terrorist attack.
Blank, on WMD, why stop at destroying a building if a couple of million buys a suitcase nuke which takes down an entire city ? Get a clue...
Belldandy wrote:
> Welcome to the 9/11 strategy of pre emptive strike. The old dictum of
> "hit them once they've hit us" died and this is the new
> one.
But with no evidence of any terrorism (bar what happened yesterday - which wouldn't have happened without our intervention) how can a pre-emptive strike be justified. It's like beating someone up in the street, because "they looked a bit shifty and I thought they were going to hit me".
> Maybe, but go back 4 years and people like you were saying the
> Balkans would always be as it was, and guess what, it isn't now.
> Things change, but only if we try to change them. Terrorism actually
> dates back to Roman times, but only became a serious problem in the
> world around the 1960's, incidentally as the Cold War began to get
> serious.
Please don't use "people like you" - if I haven't actually said something you can't use it against me.
> It depends, you make the classical mistake of muslim=terrorist for
> starters, last time I looked no religion says it's okay to whack
> airliners into buildings so you may want to rethink that... plus it's
> not just people who believe in a WARPED version of Islam that are
> terrorists, all faiths have the problem to some degree with a few
> exceptions. What is astoundingly arrogant, and more so than any
> amount of military campaigns against terrorism, are people like you
> with your damn stupid "let's kill all the muslims and the
> problem goes" rhetoric which borders on insanity itself. If
> those who fund, support, and aid terrorism will not cease or change,
> then we go after them, and not always in ways that involve all out
> war. Cutting funding, seizing money, arresting, assassinating....
No, no, I didn't mean it like that. I'm completely against the whole Muslim/terrorist association (although Bush did use the word "crusade" - make of that what you will). My point was that if these terrorists are Muslim, then bombing Muslim areas and killing off these Muslim terrorists is likely to make other Muslims go into terrorism - ie for revenge, or because they've seen what the West has done to their people.
I never meant to say that all Muslims are terrorists, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.
> Whilst groups like Al Qaeda have a cell structure, they rely on money
> and so forth usually from a few sources, you take out the sources,
> and the cells cannot exist or are ineffective. We also need a more
> two pronged attack, not only taking out the people who recruit
> usually nothing more than troubled or misguided people, but
> addressing the reasons which makes it possible for normal people to
> be recruited and becoming terrorists.
Yes, I think it takes more than firepower to solve the problem.
> I'd say you're wrong. The next century will be make or break time,
> because the clock is seriously ticking down to the use of a WMD by a
> terrorist group, and to deny otherwise is naive at best. We failed to
> control successfully proliferation of the weapons during the Cold War
> and afterwards, the only question is can we win before they do ?
But terrorism does not need WMD. Look at September 11th. What were they armed with? Scissors, cardboard cutters etc. Hardly WMD. After all this has died down we'll be in exactly the same state as pre-9/11. Everything seems to be going swimmingly, we get more and more relaxed, and eventually someone who for whatever reason doesn't like our way of life has an opportunity to do damage.
Even if we catch every terrorist, possible terrorist and their family and friends in the whole world, more will come along one day. it's inevitable.
> At one point, somebody said there would always be wars, but do you
> seriously see another real honest to god war happening in all but a
> few places around the world ? No chance whatsoever, yet knock 60
> years off the calendar and Europe is in rubble as Russians and Allied
> troops race to Berlin, with millions dead. Yet 60 years from then
> look at us, we've come so far. It's your view, but I believe that
> it's a shortlived struggle we'll see, and that it is more than a page
> in history, but the beginning of a new book, and a turning point.
To me a third World War isn't as unlikely as you make out. I'm sure pre-WWII people had the same attitude.
But I'm sure for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan this seems like a "real honest to god war". To us it's just something abstract that's happening, but to them they don't know if they'll live to see ten minutes from now.
> Welcome to the 9/11 strategy of pre emptive strike. The old dictum of
> "hit them once they've hit us" died and this is the new
> one.
But with no evidence of any terrorism (bar what happened yesterday - which wouldn't have happened without our intervention) how can a pre-emptive strike be justified. It's like beating someone up in the street, because "they looked a bit shifty and I thought they were going to hit me".
> Maybe, but go back 4 years and people like you were saying the
> Balkans would always be as it was, and guess what, it isn't now.
> Things change, but only if we try to change them. Terrorism actually
> dates back to Roman times, but only became a serious problem in the
> world around the 1960's, incidentally as the Cold War began to get
> serious.
Please don't use "people like you" - if I haven't actually said something you can't use it against me.
> It depends, you make the classical mistake of muslim=terrorist for
> starters, last time I looked no religion says it's okay to whack
> airliners into buildings so you may want to rethink that... plus it's
> not just people who believe in a WARPED version of Islam that are
> terrorists, all faiths have the problem to some degree with a few
> exceptions. What is astoundingly arrogant, and more so than any
> amount of military campaigns against terrorism, are people like you
> with your damn stupid "let's kill all the muslims and the
> problem goes" rhetoric which borders on insanity itself. If
> those who fund, support, and aid terrorism will not cease or change,
> then we go after them, and not always in ways that involve all out
> war. Cutting funding, seizing money, arresting, assassinating....
No, no, I didn't mean it like that. I'm completely against the whole Muslim/terrorist association (although Bush did use the word "crusade" - make of that what you will). My point was that if these terrorists are Muslim, then bombing Muslim areas and killing off these Muslim terrorists is likely to make other Muslims go into terrorism - ie for revenge, or because they've seen what the West has done to their people.
I never meant to say that all Muslims are terrorists, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.
> Whilst groups like Al Qaeda have a cell structure, they rely on money
> and so forth usually from a few sources, you take out the sources,
> and the cells cannot exist or are ineffective. We also need a more
> two pronged attack, not only taking out the people who recruit
> usually nothing more than troubled or misguided people, but
> addressing the reasons which makes it possible for normal people to
> be recruited and becoming terrorists.
Yes, I think it takes more than firepower to solve the problem.
> I'd say you're wrong. The next century will be make or break time,
> because the clock is seriously ticking down to the use of a WMD by a
> terrorist group, and to deny otherwise is naive at best. We failed to
> control successfully proliferation of the weapons during the Cold War
> and afterwards, the only question is can we win before they do ?
But terrorism does not need WMD. Look at September 11th. What were they armed with? Scissors, cardboard cutters etc. Hardly WMD. After all this has died down we'll be in exactly the same state as pre-9/11. Everything seems to be going swimmingly, we get more and more relaxed, and eventually someone who for whatever reason doesn't like our way of life has an opportunity to do damage.
Even if we catch every terrorist, possible terrorist and their family and friends in the whole world, more will come along one day. it's inevitable.
> At one point, somebody said there would always be wars, but do you
> seriously see another real honest to god war happening in all but a
> few places around the world ? No chance whatsoever, yet knock 60
> years off the calendar and Europe is in rubble as Russians and Allied
> troops race to Berlin, with millions dead. Yet 60 years from then
> look at us, we've come so far. It's your view, but I believe that
> it's a shortlived struggle we'll see, and that it is more than a page
> in history, but the beginning of a new book, and a turning point.
To me a third World War isn't as unlikely as you make out. I'm sure pre-WWII people had the same attitude.
But I'm sure for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan this seems like a "real honest to god war". To us it's just something abstract that's happening, but to them they don't know if they'll live to see ten minutes from now.
Page: