The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Spin that you vile little man.
Page:
I think, in hindsight, I may have misinterpreted your comment that I posted about the 300000 odd and counting in response to, It is a valid point that Saddam got where he is because of the West - UK and USA sold weapons, equipment and training, France and Germany did deals for oil, and so on. But you'll find Russia and China both involved as well, after teh 1991 war Western support (obviously) was completely removed, but China and Russia both still sold equipment and training personnel to him. In Iraq coalition forces have found the latest versions of the Hind series helicopter, a relatively, post 1991 era, set of Mig 29's, as well as other equipment.
Even so, going back to the Iran/Iraq war, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Western intelligence knew the Soviets were pushing large amounts of equipment into Iran, and the danger was Iran would go for Iraq, and continue onwards, landing control of vital oil supplies slap bang in Soviet hands. War by proxy was no rare thing in the Cold War, and that's what this was Iran (Russia) vs Iraq (West), During the war Iraq supplied a large amount of captured Russian issue tanks, APC's, weapons, missiles etc all of which was flown out to research facilities in the West for analysis, all of which provided vital information should it be needed.
Bad news is the Berlin Wall comes down unexpectedly and suddenly we don't need that information, we don't need a lot of people who we made alliances with even when we knew full well what they were like. In 1980 the enemy flew a hammer and sickle flag, now it doesn't have a flag but it's supporters do. That's the crucial difference.
now, back on topic, odds on seeing a "Blair resigns" topic in the near future ? Certainly a "Hoon resigns" one is a dead cert now I reckon...
Even so, going back to the Iran/Iraq war, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Western intelligence knew the Soviets were pushing large amounts of equipment into Iran, and the danger was Iran would go for Iraq, and continue onwards, landing control of vital oil supplies slap bang in Soviet hands. War by proxy was no rare thing in the Cold War, and that's what this was Iran (Russia) vs Iraq (West), During the war Iraq supplied a large amount of captured Russian issue tanks, APC's, weapons, missiles etc all of which was flown out to research facilities in the West for analysis, all of which provided vital information should it be needed.
Bad news is the Berlin Wall comes down unexpectedly and suddenly we don't need that information, we don't need a lot of people who we made alliances with even when we knew full well what they were like. In 1980 the enemy flew a hammer and sickle flag, now it doesn't have a flag but it's supporters do. That's the crucial difference.
now, back on topic, odds on seeing a "Blair resigns" topic in the near future ? Certainly a "Hoon resigns" one is a dead cert now I reckon...
Actually Bell forget it, I'm in a good mood and arguing over the internet with Clancy Jr doesn't appeal.
Feel free to edit/reply/highlight my posts with lengthy diatribes against people that don't support the war yet are anti-Sadadm.
I'm going outside to play.
Toodle-pip
Feel free to edit/reply/highlight my posts with lengthy diatribes against people that don't support the war yet are anti-Sadadm.
I'm going outside to play.
Toodle-pip
Belldandy wrote:
> And where do I say it's okay we left in 1991 ? I don't, my point is
> tens of thousands are dead, because we left Saddam there, and by we
> were talking about the UN this time.
No, your point was in response to my "it's better than" comment.
"Or tens of thousands of executed Iraqi's who opposed Saddam and lay buried in unmarked graves which the UN is having a wonderful time unearthing" - implying that Saddam was an evil man etc and it's good we went in, otherwise why put that directly in response to my "illegal invasion".
Or was that comment just a test?
> Just saying "oh they died because we didn't take Saddam in
> 1991" is a ludicrous argument to justify letting Saddam continue
> as he was, as is the Iran Iraq war. You do not make it all okay by
> pointing to the past.
It is a ludicrous argument, and not one I raised. You made the "tens of thousands of Iraqis" comment, and I only said they died because we left.
It wasn't justification for leaving Hussein in power, I'm not sure where you got that from.
> The Iran Iraq war was a different period, different time, different
> rules.
??? No it's not. Pro-War lobby talks about Evil Saddam Hitler.
The only reason, make sure you read that, the *ONLY* reason he exists is because we put him there. If it wasn't for the UK and US installing him, there would be no trouble.
And why is Iraq a problem? Because of Iran. And why was Iran a problem? Because of the CIA,MI5 assisted coup in 1953.
Honestly Bell, to say "different period, different time, different rules" shows staggering idiocy.
> How many people, who trumpet the US UK role in past conflicts, care
> about similar USSR involvement ? Seems awfully, well, blinkered....
Not at all.
I'm not Russian, it's my governments involvement in this debacle that concerns me primarily.
I'm sure there are Russians just as angry about their government's actions, but I am British.
Therefore I am primarily concerned with The UK and their actions.
I dont know why you're throwing Russia in, they had no involvement with this invasion.
> And where do I say it's okay we left in 1991 ? I don't, my point is
> tens of thousands are dead, because we left Saddam there, and by we
> were talking about the UN this time.
No, your point was in response to my "it's better than" comment.
"Or tens of thousands of executed Iraqi's who opposed Saddam and lay buried in unmarked graves which the UN is having a wonderful time unearthing" - implying that Saddam was an evil man etc and it's good we went in, otherwise why put that directly in response to my "illegal invasion".
Or was that comment just a test?
> Just saying "oh they died because we didn't take Saddam in
> 1991" is a ludicrous argument to justify letting Saddam continue
> as he was, as is the Iran Iraq war. You do not make it all okay by
> pointing to the past.
It is a ludicrous argument, and not one I raised. You made the "tens of thousands of Iraqis" comment, and I only said they died because we left.
It wasn't justification for leaving Hussein in power, I'm not sure where you got that from.
> The Iran Iraq war was a different period, different time, different
> rules.
??? No it's not. Pro-War lobby talks about Evil Saddam Hitler.
The only reason, make sure you read that, the *ONLY* reason he exists is because we put him there. If it wasn't for the UK and US installing him, there would be no trouble.
And why is Iraq a problem? Because of Iran. And why was Iran a problem? Because of the CIA,MI5 assisted coup in 1953.
Honestly Bell, to say "different period, different time, different rules" shows staggering idiocy.
> How many people, who trumpet the US UK role in past conflicts, care
> about similar USSR involvement ? Seems awfully, well, blinkered....
Not at all.
I'm not Russian, it's my governments involvement in this debacle that concerns me primarily.
I'm sure there are Russians just as angry about their government's actions, but I am British.
Therefore I am primarily concerned with The UK and their actions.
I dont know why you're throwing Russia in, they had no involvement with this invasion.
Did I say every person against the war was a commie ? No, but it is proven that the people who organised the Coalition from the US recieved funding from Communist/Socialist groups.
And where do I say it's okay we left in 1991 ? I don't, my point is tens of thousands are dead, because we left Saddam there, and by we were talking about the UN this time.
If we leave now, more will die. Either way the normal Iraqi people die - if we stay they will still be targeted by old regime members and supporters, if we go those same people will resume control and continue to kill.
Just saying "oh they died because we didn't take Saddam in 1991" is a ludicrous argument to justify letting Saddam continue as he was, as is the Iran Iraq war. You do not make it all okay by pointing to the past.
The Iran Iraq war was a different period, different time, different rules.
How many people, who trumpet the US UK role in past conflicts, care about similar USSR involvement ? Seems awfully, well, blinkered....
And where do I say it's okay we left in 1991 ? I don't, my point is tens of thousands are dead, because we left Saddam there, and by we were talking about the UN this time.
If we leave now, more will die. Either way the normal Iraqi people die - if we stay they will still be targeted by old regime members and supporters, if we go those same people will resume control and continue to kill.
Just saying "oh they died because we didn't take Saddam in 1991" is a ludicrous argument to justify letting Saddam continue as he was, as is the Iran Iraq war. You do not make it all okay by pointing to the past.
The Iran Iraq war was a different period, different time, different rules.
How many people, who trumpet the US UK role in past conflicts, care about similar USSR involvement ? Seems awfully, well, blinkered....
Belldandy wrote:
> Or tens of thousands of executed Iraqi's who opposed Saddam and lay
> buried in unmarked graves which the UN is having a wonderful time
> unearthing.
---
Because we promised to support their uprising against him.
And then we promptly left.
Don't get moralistic Preachy, you'll lose mate ok?
FACT: The UK installed Saddam Hussein, armed, trained, funded and assisted him to fight Iran.
FACT: The UK supplied, through Pains Wessex, nerve gas that was used to massacre his own people. With our knowledge and silent consent because he was battling the Ayotollah Khomeni
FACT: We became anti-Hussein when Iran fell to pro-Western influences.
It must be nice to be so utterly blinkered, makes the world so much easier to deal with.
> Or tens of thousands of executed Iraqi's who opposed Saddam and lay
> buried in unmarked graves which the UN is having a wonderful time
> unearthing.
---
Because we promised to support their uprising against him.
And then we promptly left.
Don't get moralistic Preachy, you'll lose mate ok?
FACT: The UK installed Saddam Hussein, armed, trained, funded and assisted him to fight Iran.
FACT: The UK supplied, through Pains Wessex, nerve gas that was used to massacre his own people. With our knowledge and silent consent because he was battling the Ayotollah Khomeni
FACT: We became anti-Hussein when Iran fell to pro-Western influences.
It must be nice to be so utterly blinkered, makes the world so much easier to deal with.
Belldandy wrote:
I beginning to wonder where the Coalitions
> funding really does come from, apart from old Communist groups of
> course....
---
*sniggers*
Yeah, each and every person against the war is a Commie.
Or a lefty lovemonger.
"Support this illegal invasion or you are anti-Freedom"
"Ah,well actually I was anti-Saddam when we were funding him and ignoring the gassing of Kurds when he fought Iran for us"
"Commie!"
"...whatever"
I beginning to wonder where the Coalitions
> funding really does come from, apart from old Communist groups of
> course....
---
*sniggers*
Yeah, each and every person against the war is a Commie.
Or a lefty lovemonger.
"Support this illegal invasion or you are anti-Freedom"
"Ah,well actually I was anti-Saddam when we were funding him and ignoring the gassing of Kurds when he fought Iran for us"
"Commie!"
"...whatever"
Goatboy wrote:
> Not as horrible as burned, twisted bodies thanks to an illegal
> invasion based on erroneous information, downright lies and possibly
> deliberately tampered dossiers.
Or tens of thousands of executed Iraqi's who opposed Saddam and lay buried in unmarked graves which the UN is having a wonderful time unearthing. Think we're just bordering on the 300000 mark at the moment...
> Not as horrible as burned, twisted bodies thanks to an illegal
> invasion based on erroneous information, downright lies and possibly
> deliberately tampered dossiers.
Or tens of thousands of executed Iraqi's who opposed Saddam and lay buried in unmarked graves which the UN is having a wonderful time unearthing. Think we're just bordering on the 300000 mark at the moment...
Light wrote:
> So, it's an uncorroborated source then? That's all I was asking.
No it's not, go back and read what I said. I can't be bothered to post tons of links because you don't want to believe it.
> Yup, I agree. But on the other hand, most of the anti-war people have
> been saying that from the word go. And I seem to recall you
> dismissing those concerns.
~Which would be why Stop The War Coalition is marching on 27th of September with the express aim of an immediate pull out of all coalition troops ? Oookay, I beginning to wonder where the Coalitions funding really does come from, apart from old Communist groups of course....
> So, it's an uncorroborated source then? That's all I was asking.
No it's not, go back and read what I said. I can't be bothered to post tons of links because you don't want to believe it.
> Yup, I agree. But on the other hand, most of the anti-war people have
> been saying that from the word go. And I seem to recall you
> dismissing those concerns.
~Which would be why Stop The War Coalition is marching on 27th of September with the express aim of an immediate pull out of all coalition troops ? Oookay, I beginning to wonder where the Coalitions funding really does come from, apart from old Communist groups of course....
Not as horrible as burned, twisted bodies thanks to an illegal invasion based on erroneous information, downright lies and possibly deliberately tampered dossiers.
Goatboy wrote:
and I'll skip naked through the town
> centre, throwing flowers to all and sundry with a big smile on my
> face.
What a horrible image.
and I'll skip naked through the town
> centre, throwing flowers to all and sundry with a big smile on my
> face.
What a horrible image.
Page: