The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Blank wrote:
> I think the later portion of your post is a tad naive. Terrorists may
> be "the enemy", but when was the last terrorist attack on
> us that hailed from Iraq?
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.
>I also think you're being a bit hopeful to
> think that we could eliminate all the world's problems within a few
> years. There will always be bad seeds. For every good person, there's
> a bad person. It's not like people willing to commit terrorism have
> suddenly sprung up, they've been there since the dawn of time and
> will continue to be there.
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.
> And you can't just go in bombing everyone to kill off terrorists. I
> don't believe it's the right way to do it. You can't fight fire with
> fire. If they are willing to kill us, bombing them only makes them
> more aggressive. I know I'm coming across as a pacifist here, but
> that's not my intention.
Did I say war was the only option ? No, I made it clear it is always the last, but you have to accept that some people will not negotiate and will not surrender, those people you have to kill or let them continue. Of course, hurting them does make them more antagonised, but already we've seen since Bali that the capability of any group to attack a western target in the west has dissapeared, and now they're going for softer targets and more desperate tactics. The bomb in Iraq yesterday, a truck suicide bomb, that's desperate, and despite the images coming from Baghdad, it shows we have them on the run now. In Israel, do you see the Israeli's using suicide bombers ? No, because they're not desperate.
> 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.
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....
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.
> I honestly think you have a very Hollywood vision of how things are
> going. The next few years will not see the end of terrorism, or
> anything like that. It will merely be one page in the book of
> history. Bad things will continue to happen, and I don't mean
> accidents. It's an ongoing struggle that we will never see the end
> of.
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 ?
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.
> I think the later portion of your post is a tad naive. Terrorists may
> be "the enemy", but when was the last terrorist attack on
> us that hailed from Iraq?
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.
>I also think you're being a bit hopeful to
> think that we could eliminate all the world's problems within a few
> years. There will always be bad seeds. For every good person, there's
> a bad person. It's not like people willing to commit terrorism have
> suddenly sprung up, they've been there since the dawn of time and
> will continue to be there.
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.
> And you can't just go in bombing everyone to kill off terrorists. I
> don't believe it's the right way to do it. You can't fight fire with
> fire. If they are willing to kill us, bombing them only makes them
> more aggressive. I know I'm coming across as a pacifist here, but
> that's not my intention.
Did I say war was the only option ? No, I made it clear it is always the last, but you have to accept that some people will not negotiate and will not surrender, those people you have to kill or let them continue. Of course, hurting them does make them more antagonised, but already we've seen since Bali that the capability of any group to attack a western target in the west has dissapeared, and now they're going for softer targets and more desperate tactics. The bomb in Iraq yesterday, a truck suicide bomb, that's desperate, and despite the images coming from Baghdad, it shows we have them on the run now. In Israel, do you see the Israeli's using suicide bombers ? No, because they're not desperate.
> 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.
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....
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.
> I honestly think you have a very Hollywood vision of how things are
> going. The next few years will not see the end of terrorism, or
> anything like that. It will merely be one page in the book of
> history. Bad things will continue to happen, and I don't mean
> accidents. It's an ongoing struggle that we will never see the end
> of.
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 ?
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.
Incidentally, have you seen the cover of today's Guardian?
For a start, your comment on "All this contracts stuff was started by..." is rubbish. It's a conclusion I've come to on my own based on the evidence I've seen.
I think the later portion of your post is a tad naive. Terrorists may be "the enemy", but when was the last terrorist attack on us that hailed from Iraq? I also think you're being a bit hopeful to think that we could eliminate all the world's problems within a few years. There will always be bad seeds. For every good person, there's a bad person. It's not like people willing to commit terrorism have suddenly sprung up, they've been there since the dawn of time and will continue to be there.
And you can't just go in bombing everyone to kill off terrorists. I don't believe it's the right way to do it. You can't fight fire with fire. If they are willing to kill us, bombing them only makes them more aggressive. I know I'm coming across as a pacifist here, but that's not my intention.
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.
I honestly think you have a very Hollywood vision of how things are going. The next few years will not see the end of terrorism, or anything like that. It will merely be one page in the book of history. Bad things will continue to happen, and I don't mean accidents. It's an ongoing struggle that we will never see the end of.
I think the later portion of your post is a tad naive. Terrorists may be "the enemy", but when was the last terrorist attack on us that hailed from Iraq? I also think you're being a bit hopeful to think that we could eliminate all the world's problems within a few years. There will always be bad seeds. For every good person, there's a bad person. It's not like people willing to commit terrorism have suddenly sprung up, they've been there since the dawn of time and will continue to be there.
And you can't just go in bombing everyone to kill off terrorists. I don't believe it's the right way to do it. You can't fight fire with fire. If they are willing to kill us, bombing them only makes them more aggressive. I know I'm coming across as a pacifist here, but that's not my intention.
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.
I honestly think you have a very Hollywood vision of how things are going. The next few years will not see the end of terrorism, or anything like that. It will merely be one page in the book of history. Bad things will continue to happen, and I don't mean accidents. It's an ongoing struggle that we will never see the end of.
They have the contracts but none of them want to go in ! You're blindly accepting your own words Blank but not evidence to the contrary. And seeing as ALL of Iraq's wealth is under UN management for the time being it's not likely that it will be used as you alledge. Seriously the whole contracts thing was started by Stop The War coalition which is rooted in Europe, STW coaltiion are the absolute d%ck heads who are holding rallies on 27th September calling for a total withdrawal of the coalition forces.
Are they insane, stupid, or just morons, or all 3 ?
One thing's for certain, after today I can only see more coalition and UN resources being poured into Iraq.
Sadly my earlier comments that the Israel/Palestinian situation was semi peacefull have been proved wrong, bus suicide bombing, so far 3 dead and scores more wounded.
This is the enemy Blank, these terrorists, and if we simply move out of there way then they will not stop what they do, but continue to do so elsewhere, unless we stop them.
Some of you will cringe at this, but I don't care, I honestly think the coming years hold our best chance to rid this world of those who cause so much cruelty, suffering and misery to millions, and who have done so unchallenged for too long. Now is the time to take them, one by one, however possible. And we only get one chance, I believe, blow it and we may as well metaphocially barricade the door as the siege begins.
Are they insane, stupid, or just morons, or all 3 ?
One thing's for certain, after today I can only see more coalition and UN resources being poured into Iraq.
Sadly my earlier comments that the Israel/Palestinian situation was semi peacefull have been proved wrong, bus suicide bombing, so far 3 dead and scores more wounded.
This is the enemy Blank, these terrorists, and if we simply move out of there way then they will not stop what they do, but continue to do so elsewhere, unless we stop them.
Some of you will cringe at this, but I don't care, I honestly think the coming years hold our best chance to rid this world of those who cause so much cruelty, suffering and misery to millions, and who have done so unchallenged for too long. Now is the time to take them, one by one, however possible. And we only get one chance, I believe, blow it and we may as well metaphocially barricade the door as the siege begins.
I don't want to get involved in a lengthy discussion, because frankly it just doesn't work with you. You'll never even accept that you don't know 100% of the information, 100% of the time.
The war in Iraq was over contracts. You said that if it was, they'd want to get work done quickly to get the cash. That's not how these things work. You don't get money when you complete it, you get it just like a regular wage until it is finished. Thusly they'd want to keep it going for as long as possible.
Or is it just coincidence that the five companies who put up 68% of the funding for the Bush presidential campaign now have the five biggest contracts in Iraq?
The war in Iraq was over contracts. You said that if it was, they'd want to get work done quickly to get the cash. That's not how these things work. You don't get money when you complete it, you get it just like a regular wage until it is finished. Thusly they'd want to keep it going for as long as possible.
Or is it just coincidence that the five companies who put up 68% of the funding for the Bush presidential campaign now have the five biggest contracts in Iraq?
The UN's special representative, essentialy thier highest official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, is dead after being injured and trapped by rubble, along 16 others so far dead.
I think whoever did this has made a very big mistake, as all the news networks are beginning to suggest, the UN will not take this lying down and neither will coalition forces.
I think whoever did this has made a very big mistake, as all the news networks are beginning to suggest, the UN will not take this lying down and neither will coalition forces.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> The only thing we did wrong in Iraq was that we waited too long, it
> took the deaths of 2000 people on 9/11 to finally give the political
> leaderships in the UK and USA the necessary to public support so we
> can start taking down people like Saddam and Bin Laden.
>
> And it was companies like Haliburton that finally gave Bush the kick
> up the rear needed to go through with it.
And how does that bring any of the dead back Blank ? How does a country that has had most of it's industries crippled by numerous wars, the two greatet of which were instigated by it, and has no capability of it's own to harness the resources that Saddam sought to deny his own people, exploit them without help from other companies ? Seriously, you know why the whole "it's all oil" thing started, because Europe was pi$$ed it wasn't getting any of the money for contracts. If anyone solely wanted oil then there are far easier places to go for it, and unless you failed to notice so far all the US companies, in fact all the foreign companies, have generally said the situation is to dangerous to work over there at the moment. You want oil, there's Alaska, Greenland, Siberia,, Africa, all of which do not involve fighting a potentially politcally damaging foreign war.
> How can you honestly believe that Bush cares about the Iraqi people
> living under the regime? Saddam was in power for over a decade, and
> although I take on board that Bush wasn't in power for all of that,
> no one did a damn thing. He blatantly didn't go into this to help
> people, for a number of reasons:
Erm, the USA and UK SOLELY maintained no fly zones where possible, in 1999 we gave him a minor kicking from the air, we've intercepted as many of his supply ships and tankers as possible, we've pressed since 1991 for the UN to take action, and only the threats from the USA even got the weapons inspectors in in the first place. Why, if there was nothing, did it require the threat of force in 2002 to get the inspectors in if there was nothing to hide ? Come to think of it, at least the USA and UK actually finally did something. Most nations did jack all, yet you're concerned about those that did ?
> 1) People in Iraq still don't have clean water, electricity etc.
Neither does everyone in the UK or USA, plus it would have helped if Saddam hadn't taken them off line himself. You know what conditions are like out there, it's difficult and people are doing the best they can. In a short space of time we've taken out a dangerous regime, restored a semblance of law and order, began a semblance of democracy, and begun repairs. Come to think of it, no one gets any repairs without the companies whom have contracts to put in the new systems in the first place. If, as you alledge, this was a war about awarding contracts, then by your own logic those companies would have all things sorted by now, to get the money for payment and dash out...
> 2) This wasn't the reason given for war in the first place.
Hmm, primary reason, to remove a dangerous regime. Yup, we've done that, and you can't shout down the WMD yet because the investigation is ongoing so far and evn Dr Kelly appears to have been firm in the belief Iraq had them. No offence, but I think someone like that knew his stuff.
> 3) There are plenty of other places with oppressive regimes that we
> haven't targetted.
Because we can't light a thousand fires at once, and war is not the only option, simply the last. N.Korea has been quietenend diplomatically, Libya admitted Lockerbie and renounces terrorism, Iran has begun to co-operate, as has Syria. The Isreal/Palestinian situation is semi-peaceful and there is nor a road map plan. US troops went into Liberia, in the Phillipine US advisors have helped destroy terrorist groups there. Sure, we haven't taken on every evil, but some is better than none, and to sell it politically there has to be a perceived reason because no public in the West will support a war thats stated aim is to help people in other foreign country, especially if those people happen to be anything other than white.
> And neither did we invade because they posed a threat. Because for a
> start they didn't pose a threat. Also look at Saudi Arabia, the
> country of origin of most of the World Trade Center attackers. We
> haven't touched them.
No reason to. Did the Saudi government train them, equip them, aid them ? No. Did they support them ? No. Do they support terrorism ? Quite the opposite.
You do know, Blank, that we, England, and America, have educated just about every major terrorist and dictator in living history at some point, 'cause if you want to play that blame game it stops right back here.
> The guy on Sky News summed it up when he said "They've brought
> about something which they were trying to destroy". There's
> still terrorism going on, but as long as it's not on US soil, right?
Again, no offence, but you're best not forming opinions or supporting them with the sound bites of a news reporter. Of course there is still terrorism going on, did you fail to notice last weeks sting operation that netted a group allegedly trying to sell a missile launcher to a US terrorist group ? Have you missed god knows how many suspected cells captured by the american authorities ? The frequent alerts ? Howabout concrete blocks outside parliament, number plate scanners in London, tanks at Heathrow ? What the hell do you think the largest US military deployment since the Gulf War is, eh ? Is that not a comittment to preventing terrorism in Iraq now the war is over, 'cause terrorism is what these attacks are.
Get a clue.
> Belldandy wrote:
> The only thing we did wrong in Iraq was that we waited too long, it
> took the deaths of 2000 people on 9/11 to finally give the political
> leaderships in the UK and USA the necessary to public support so we
> can start taking down people like Saddam and Bin Laden.
>
> And it was companies like Haliburton that finally gave Bush the kick
> up the rear needed to go through with it.
And how does that bring any of the dead back Blank ? How does a country that has had most of it's industries crippled by numerous wars, the two greatet of which were instigated by it, and has no capability of it's own to harness the resources that Saddam sought to deny his own people, exploit them without help from other companies ? Seriously, you know why the whole "it's all oil" thing started, because Europe was pi$$ed it wasn't getting any of the money for contracts. If anyone solely wanted oil then there are far easier places to go for it, and unless you failed to notice so far all the US companies, in fact all the foreign companies, have generally said the situation is to dangerous to work over there at the moment. You want oil, there's Alaska, Greenland, Siberia,, Africa, all of which do not involve fighting a potentially politcally damaging foreign war.
> How can you honestly believe that Bush cares about the Iraqi people
> living under the regime? Saddam was in power for over a decade, and
> although I take on board that Bush wasn't in power for all of that,
> no one did a damn thing. He blatantly didn't go into this to help
> people, for a number of reasons:
Erm, the USA and UK SOLELY maintained no fly zones where possible, in 1999 we gave him a minor kicking from the air, we've intercepted as many of his supply ships and tankers as possible, we've pressed since 1991 for the UN to take action, and only the threats from the USA even got the weapons inspectors in in the first place. Why, if there was nothing, did it require the threat of force in 2002 to get the inspectors in if there was nothing to hide ? Come to think of it, at least the USA and UK actually finally did something. Most nations did jack all, yet you're concerned about those that did ?
> 1) People in Iraq still don't have clean water, electricity etc.
Neither does everyone in the UK or USA, plus it would have helped if Saddam hadn't taken them off line himself. You know what conditions are like out there, it's difficult and people are doing the best they can. In a short space of time we've taken out a dangerous regime, restored a semblance of law and order, began a semblance of democracy, and begun repairs. Come to think of it, no one gets any repairs without the companies whom have contracts to put in the new systems in the first place. If, as you alledge, this was a war about awarding contracts, then by your own logic those companies would have all things sorted by now, to get the money for payment and dash out...
> 2) This wasn't the reason given for war in the first place.
Hmm, primary reason, to remove a dangerous regime. Yup, we've done that, and you can't shout down the WMD yet because the investigation is ongoing so far and evn Dr Kelly appears to have been firm in the belief Iraq had them. No offence, but I think someone like that knew his stuff.
> 3) There are plenty of other places with oppressive regimes that we
> haven't targetted.
Because we can't light a thousand fires at once, and war is not the only option, simply the last. N.Korea has been quietenend diplomatically, Libya admitted Lockerbie and renounces terrorism, Iran has begun to co-operate, as has Syria. The Isreal/Palestinian situation is semi-peaceful and there is nor a road map plan. US troops went into Liberia, in the Phillipine US advisors have helped destroy terrorist groups there. Sure, we haven't taken on every evil, but some is better than none, and to sell it politically there has to be a perceived reason because no public in the West will support a war thats stated aim is to help people in other foreign country, especially if those people happen to be anything other than white.
> And neither did we invade because they posed a threat. Because for a
> start they didn't pose a threat. Also look at Saudi Arabia, the
> country of origin of most of the World Trade Center attackers. We
> haven't touched them.
No reason to. Did the Saudi government train them, equip them, aid them ? No. Did they support them ? No. Do they support terrorism ? Quite the opposite.
You do know, Blank, that we, England, and America, have educated just about every major terrorist and dictator in living history at some point, 'cause if you want to play that blame game it stops right back here.
> The guy on Sky News summed it up when he said "They've brought
> about something which they were trying to destroy". There's
> still terrorism going on, but as long as it's not on US soil, right?
Again, no offence, but you're best not forming opinions or supporting them with the sound bites of a news reporter. Of course there is still terrorism going on, did you fail to notice last weeks sting operation that netted a group allegedly trying to sell a missile launcher to a US terrorist group ? Have you missed god knows how many suspected cells captured by the american authorities ? The frequent alerts ? Howabout concrete blocks outside parliament, number plate scanners in London, tanks at Heathrow ? What the hell do you think the largest US military deployment since the Gulf War is, eh ? Is that not a comittment to preventing terrorism in Iraq now the war is over, 'cause terrorism is what these attacks are.
Get a clue.
Belldandy wrote:
> The only thing we did wrong in Iraq was that we waited too long, it
> took the deaths of 2000 people on 9/11 to finally give the political
> leaderships in the UK and USA the necessary to public support so we
> can start taking down people like Saddam and Bin Laden.
And it was companies like Haliburton that finally gave Bush the kick up the rear needed to go through with it.
How can you honestly believe that Bush cares about the Iraqi people living under the regime? Saddam was in power for over a decade, and although I take on board that Bush wasn't in power for all of that, no one did a damn thing. He blatantly didn't go into this to help people, for a number of reasons:
1) People in Iraq still don't have clean water, electricity etc.
2) This wasn't the reason given for war in the first place.
3) There are plenty of other places with oppressive regimes that we haven't targetted.
And neither did we invade because they posed a threat. Because for a start they didn't pose a threat. Also look at Saudi Arabia, the country of origin of most of the World Trade Center attackers. We haven't touched them.
The guy on Sky News summed it up when he said "They've brought about something which they were trying to destroy". There's still terrorism going on, but as long as it's not on US soil, right?
> The only thing we did wrong in Iraq was that we waited too long, it
> took the deaths of 2000 people on 9/11 to finally give the political
> leaderships in the UK and USA the necessary to public support so we
> can start taking down people like Saddam and Bin Laden.
And it was companies like Haliburton that finally gave Bush the kick up the rear needed to go through with it.
How can you honestly believe that Bush cares about the Iraqi people living under the regime? Saddam was in power for over a decade, and although I take on board that Bush wasn't in power for all of that, no one did a damn thing. He blatantly didn't go into this to help people, for a number of reasons:
1) People in Iraq still don't have clean water, electricity etc.
2) This wasn't the reason given for war in the first place.
3) There are plenty of other places with oppressive regimes that we haven't targetted.
And neither did we invade because they posed a threat. Because for a start they didn't pose a threat. Also look at Saudi Arabia, the country of origin of most of the World Trade Center attackers. We haven't touched them.
The guy on Sky News summed it up when he said "They've brought about something which they were trying to destroy". There's still terrorism going on, but as long as it's not on US soil, right?
Blank wrote:
> And it's nice to know that this wouldn't have happened without two of
> the nicest governments around. I hope they feel all snuggly inside
> knowing that.
Yes, make sure you tell that to the tens of thousands of corpses Un personnel have so far found in Iraq, all killed by Saddam's regime.
The only thing we did wrong in Iraq was that we waited too long, it took the deaths of 2000 people on 9/11 to finally give the political leaderships in the UK and USA the necessary to public support so we can start taking down people like Saddam and Bin Laden. We may not have them personally, but we've got damn near everyone around them.
Light's right about the UN/Middle East thing, most terrorist groups, especially those with Palestinian links, believe the UN is akin to a world government bent on the destruction of Islam (or any religion except christianity), and portray the UN as a crusading force. Also, most groups are none too rational about this, if you're seen as not being against America then you're a legitimate target.
On another note, many in the Middle East will see the UN as hypocritical, acting against Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations, yet Israel can flout resolutions as much as they want with little negative effects, also, whilst the UN did not sanction the invasion, it failed to act on two counts, both of which give motive for an attack on the UN.
Firstly, it did nothing to prevent an invasion of Iraq.
Secondly, it did nothing to hasten an invasion of Iraq or ensure goods and revenue went to the civilian population during sanctions.
Being the UN does not give any sort of protection at this moment, and never will do until it gets tough. Currently UN forces in Iraq, Liberia, and previously in Somalia and Bosnia, have had rule of engagement dictating that they can only return fire when shot at, and only in defence of other UN personnel. This means that, say, in Bosnia, Serbs could kill civilians within sight of UN troops and as long as they didn't fire at the UN, the UN troops could do nothing.
When you're enemies know you are impotent to act you become a waste of white paint...
> And it's nice to know that this wouldn't have happened without two of
> the nicest governments around. I hope they feel all snuggly inside
> knowing that.
Yes, make sure you tell that to the tens of thousands of corpses Un personnel have so far found in Iraq, all killed by Saddam's regime.
The only thing we did wrong in Iraq was that we waited too long, it took the deaths of 2000 people on 9/11 to finally give the political leaderships in the UK and USA the necessary to public support so we can start taking down people like Saddam and Bin Laden. We may not have them personally, but we've got damn near everyone around them.
Light's right about the UN/Middle East thing, most terrorist groups, especially those with Palestinian links, believe the UN is akin to a world government bent on the destruction of Islam (or any religion except christianity), and portray the UN as a crusading force. Also, most groups are none too rational about this, if you're seen as not being against America then you're a legitimate target.
On another note, many in the Middle East will see the UN as hypocritical, acting against Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations, yet Israel can flout resolutions as much as they want with little negative effects, also, whilst the UN did not sanction the invasion, it failed to act on two counts, both of which give motive for an attack on the UN.
Firstly, it did nothing to prevent an invasion of Iraq.
Secondly, it did nothing to hasten an invasion of Iraq or ensure goods and revenue went to the civilian population during sanctions.
Being the UN does not give any sort of protection at this moment, and never will do until it gets tough. Currently UN forces in Iraq, Liberia, and previously in Somalia and Bosnia, have had rule of engagement dictating that they can only return fire when shot at, and only in defence of other UN personnel. This means that, say, in Bosnia, Serbs could kill civilians within sight of UN troops and as long as they didn't fire at the UN, the UN troops could do nothing.
When you're enemies know you are impotent to act you become a waste of white paint...
And it's nice to know that this wouldn't have happened without two of the nicest governments around. I hope they feel all snuggly inside knowing that.
Page: