The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Dr Kelly apparently comitting suicide.
The revelations at the Hutton inquiry that he told a friend should Iraq be invaded, he fully expected to "be found dead in the woods".
Why? Because he had promised prominent Iraqi officials that if they co-operated with UN inspectors, there would be no war.
But it happened anyway.
And Iraqis are extremely big on honour and loyalty.
So what if Dr Kelly *was* murdered. But why immediately suspect the MOD?
Is it not possible that Iraqi exiles/hardcore supporters of Hussein over here (the same ones we're drafting all this legislation for our protection over), would have arranged it?
I'm just mulling this one over.
Kelly promises Iraq no war if co-operate with UN
They do so.
War anyway.
Kelly's name leaked
Kelly turns up "dead in the woods", as he predicted.
The revelations at the Hutton inquiry that he told a friend should Iraq be invaded, he fully expected to "be found dead in the woods".
Why? Because he had promised prominent Iraqi officials that if they co-operated with UN inspectors, there would be no war.
But it happened anyway.
And Iraqis are extremely big on honour and loyalty.
So what if Dr Kelly *was* murdered. But why immediately suspect the MOD?
Is it not possible that Iraqi exiles/hardcore supporters of Hussein over here (the same ones we're drafting all this legislation for our protection over), would have arranged it?
I'm just mulling this one over.
Kelly promises Iraq no war if co-operate with UN
They do so.
War anyway.
Kelly's name leaked
Kelly turns up "dead in the woods", as he predicted.
Page:
This guy is at university and he still hasn't grasped the use of inverted commas.
*chuckles*
*chuckles*
Blank wrote:
> Which is why it has inverted commas around it.
>
> Jesus Christ do you still not get it?
There is no point to it though ! It's pointless, don't call them what they are not !
Blank you're a total "barney" , you'll notice that my use of "'s there means you can substitute any word you wish as can any forum users.
> Which is why it has inverted commas around it.
>
> Jesus Christ do you still not get it?
There is no point to it though ! It's pointless, don't call them what they are not !
Blank you're a total "barney" , you'll notice that my use of "'s there means you can substitute any word you wish as can any forum users.
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> >Kelly, IMO, did not lie to the FAC hearing, but I'll bet money
> that Gilligan did.
>
> Based on? You're entitled to your opinion, but you're showing quite
> clearly that no matter what Gilligan says, you won't believe him.
> That indicates you're not so much interested in the truth as
> vindication of your beliefs.
I base it on reasonable assumptions. Kelly would know that everything he had ever written, every email he'd sent, every contact he'd had and opinions he had voiced whilst at work would be a matter of record. Kelly had no reason to lie because his job was entirely about presenting the truth to others. Gilligan, on the other hand, has a job where presenting the truth often comes second place to getting an exclusive/controversial story.
> Belldandy wrote:
> >Kelly, IMO, did not lie to the FAC hearing, but I'll bet money
> that Gilligan did.
>
> Based on? You're entitled to your opinion, but you're showing quite
> clearly that no matter what Gilligan says, you won't believe him.
> That indicates you're not so much interested in the truth as
> vindication of your beliefs.
I base it on reasonable assumptions. Kelly would know that everything he had ever written, every email he'd sent, every contact he'd had and opinions he had voiced whilst at work would be a matter of record. Kelly had no reason to lie because his job was entirely about presenting the truth to others. Gilligan, on the other hand, has a job where presenting the truth often comes second place to getting an exclusive/controversial story.
Belldandy wrote:
>Kelly, IMO, did not lie to the FAC hearing, but I'll bet money that Gilligan did.
Based on? You're entitled to your opinion, but you're showing quite clearly that no matter what Gilligan says, you won't believe him. That indicates you're not so much interested in the truth as vindication of your beliefs.
>Kelly, IMO, did not lie to the FAC hearing, but I'll bet money that Gilligan did.
Based on? You're entitled to your opinion, but you're showing quite clearly that no matter what Gilligan says, you won't believe him. That indicates you're not so much interested in the truth as vindication of your beliefs.
They could offer irony transplants on the NHS if it weren't for those costly illegal immigrants.
Which is why it has inverted commas around it.
Jesus Christ do you still not get it?
Jesus Christ do you still not get it?
Bull, you were wrong on the tanks thing, so now you resort to this stupid insistence about "civilians", is the use of " an excuse to change the names of everything put into the "'s ? They're terrorists, or guerilla fighters, not civilians. Using "civilians" intentionally confuses combatants with innocents, theyre not civilians, they're terrorists.
Belldandy wrote:
> He's not sending in civlians, they're guerillas/terrorists and not
> representative of the Iraqi population as general, so thorw away this
> "civilians" bull.
Are you totally stupid? Can you not see the inverted commas around the word? If you had been bothered to read back instead of jumping in headfirst you would have known exactly what I meant (which if you still haven't got it is soldiers/terrorists or in some way enemies of our forces dressed as civilians. Hence the term "civilians". I thought it was simple enough) This is why I don't like to get into these type of discussions with you.
> He's not sending in civlians, they're guerillas/terrorists and not
> representative of the Iraqi population as general, so thorw away this
> "civilians" bull.
Are you totally stupid? Can you not see the inverted commas around the word? If you had been bothered to read back instead of jumping in headfirst you would have known exactly what I meant (which if you still haven't got it is soldiers/terrorists or in some way enemies of our forces dressed as civilians. Hence the term "civilians". I thought it was simple enough) This is why I don't like to get into these type of discussions with you.
Blank wrote:
> When I referred to tanks, I meant as a defence, not an offense.
It is irrelevant, armoured vechiles don't suddenly get any better in either use, they just don't work well in an urban setting, period.
> So in essence, what you're saying (for Dr Duck it seems to be more of
> a theroy or idea, but to me it looks like Bell's belief) is that the
> best thing to do would be to send in "civilians" (not
> civilians Belldandy) and run off with the chemical weapons?
He's not sending in civlians, they're guerillas/terrorists and not representative of the Iraqi population as general, so thorw away this "civilians" bull.
>Meaning
> he'd lose power? What happens to the chem weapons after that anyway?
Okay, look at this tactically. From the moment Cruise Missiles hit Baghdad the night before the invasion begins Saddam suddenly gets the feeling this is the real deal. Not Washington having a periodical attempt to unseat him, this is the fully fledged 'were coming for you' attack. The guy is many things, but he is not stupid. He knows what his forces are, he knows what the Americans and Co have.
Also, thanks to exhaustive coverage on the media, he knows the political situation in the world. America, the UK, Spain, and a few others, split against the rest of Europe, China and Russia. Saddam knows the main split is on WMD, he also knows that if he gives the UN security council a reason to unite, then this really is the end. He's stood against the UN before and only the efforts of some member states stopped his overthrow then. Saddam also knows that this is the post 9/11 world and that this time he cannot rely on the usual culprits to hold back the USA and UK alliance. He also knows that Israel is different from 1991, if he attacks them this time, then he knows, because Israel made this abundantly clear before the conflict, that Israel will turn Iraq into radioactive real estate.
Anyway, at first the slow progess of our troops into Iraq would have encouraged him, but then he finds he's got a massive armoured column of American forces, and by golly, it's blasting through all in it's path and heading for him, and surprise surprise, nothing the Iraqi army can do can stop it for long.
Eventually it's at Baghdad, Saddam can either stand, in which case he knows he's dead, or flee, ordering other forces to disband and meld into the civilian population, because Saddam cannot win the war now. But he can win the peace, and he can retain power should the coalition forces be forced out of the country by a mounting death toll, because he knows the Western politicians will be hard pressed to justify such casualites for a long period of time.
Added into this, you have masses of people whom held power as part of Saddam's regime, if they lay down their arms, then they are loooking at prison at best, death at worst, hence no incentive to stop fighting.
As for the WMD ? That's the most interesting, and potentially dangerous part of all this. It did exist, I'm sure of it, there is far too much evidence suggesting it to the contrary as I've already said in Dr Duck's other theory topic so I won't repeat it here. Suffice to say that it is entirely feasible for it to be snuck out of the country, or hidden in Iraq. Don't believe me ? Well at the moment Bin Laden, assuming he is still alive, has evaded the combined might of the Western world, endless satellites, surveillance equipment, and he's a guy wrapped in cloth with an AK.
Part of the whole problem now it that human intelligence is still not recovered from the nineties where successive Western governments cut funding to it....plus we just do not have the people with the right skills available.
> When I referred to tanks, I meant as a defence, not an offense.
It is irrelevant, armoured vechiles don't suddenly get any better in either use, they just don't work well in an urban setting, period.
> So in essence, what you're saying (for Dr Duck it seems to be more of
> a theroy or idea, but to me it looks like Bell's belief) is that the
> best thing to do would be to send in "civilians" (not
> civilians Belldandy) and run off with the chemical weapons?
He's not sending in civlians, they're guerillas/terrorists and not representative of the Iraqi population as general, so thorw away this "civilians" bull.
>Meaning
> he'd lose power? What happens to the chem weapons after that anyway?
Okay, look at this tactically. From the moment Cruise Missiles hit Baghdad the night before the invasion begins Saddam suddenly gets the feeling this is the real deal. Not Washington having a periodical attempt to unseat him, this is the fully fledged 'were coming for you' attack. The guy is many things, but he is not stupid. He knows what his forces are, he knows what the Americans and Co have.
Also, thanks to exhaustive coverage on the media, he knows the political situation in the world. America, the UK, Spain, and a few others, split against the rest of Europe, China and Russia. Saddam knows the main split is on WMD, he also knows that if he gives the UN security council a reason to unite, then this really is the end. He's stood against the UN before and only the efforts of some member states stopped his overthrow then. Saddam also knows that this is the post 9/11 world and that this time he cannot rely on the usual culprits to hold back the USA and UK alliance. He also knows that Israel is different from 1991, if he attacks them this time, then he knows, because Israel made this abundantly clear before the conflict, that Israel will turn Iraq into radioactive real estate.
Anyway, at first the slow progess of our troops into Iraq would have encouraged him, but then he finds he's got a massive armoured column of American forces, and by golly, it's blasting through all in it's path and heading for him, and surprise surprise, nothing the Iraqi army can do can stop it for long.
Eventually it's at Baghdad, Saddam can either stand, in which case he knows he's dead, or flee, ordering other forces to disband and meld into the civilian population, because Saddam cannot win the war now. But he can win the peace, and he can retain power should the coalition forces be forced out of the country by a mounting death toll, because he knows the Western politicians will be hard pressed to justify such casualites for a long period of time.
Added into this, you have masses of people whom held power as part of Saddam's regime, if they lay down their arms, then they are loooking at prison at best, death at worst, hence no incentive to stop fighting.
As for the WMD ? That's the most interesting, and potentially dangerous part of all this. It did exist, I'm sure of it, there is far too much evidence suggesting it to the contrary as I've already said in Dr Duck's other theory topic so I won't repeat it here. Suffice to say that it is entirely feasible for it to be snuck out of the country, or hidden in Iraq. Don't believe me ? Well at the moment Bin Laden, assuming he is still alive, has evaded the combined might of the Western world, endless satellites, surveillance equipment, and he's a guy wrapped in cloth with an AK.
Part of the whole problem now it that human intelligence is still not recovered from the nineties where successive Western governments cut funding to it....plus we just do not have the people with the right skills available.
When I referred to tanks, I meant as a defence, not an offense.
So in essence, what you're saying (for Dr Duck it seems to be more of a theroy or idea, but to me it looks like Bell's belief) is that the best thing to do would be to send in "civilians" (not civilians Belldandy) and run off with the chemical weapons? Meaning he'd lose power? What happens to the chem weapons after that anyway?
So in essence, what you're saying (for Dr Duck it seems to be more of a theroy or idea, but to me it looks like Bell's belief) is that the best thing to do would be to send in "civilians" (not civilians Belldandy) and run off with the chemical weapons? Meaning he'd lose power? What happens to the chem weapons after that anyway?
Page: