The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Campbell resigned.
I'm still getting a warm, happy feeling from that.
Now we just need Blair to ritually disembowel himself live on GMTV so a nation of lowing morons see and I'll skip naked through the town centre, throwing flowers to all and sundry with a big smile on my face.
I'm still getting a warm, happy feeling from that.
Now we just need Blair to ritually disembowel himself live on GMTV so a nation of lowing morons see and I'll skip naked through the town centre, throwing flowers to all and sundry with a big smile on my face.
Belldandy wrote:
> Saddam facts originate from Con Coughlin, who produced his
> autobiography of Saddam before the war in Iraq. He's teh executive
> editor of the Sunday Telegraph and worked in the Middle East for 20
> years, whilst he cannot for obvious reasons divulge all his
> information sources, I believe he is truthful, and the fact he holds
> his editiorial post backs that up. As far as I know no one has ever
> challenged this fact, or any fact in his work at all.
So, it's an uncorroborated source then? That's all I was asking.
>
> I gave you my opinion regarding the Iraqi people, and unless you're
> on a lap top in Iraq uploading via Wifi then that opinion is as valid
> as yours, so you're going to have to learn to live with that.
Umm...that's why I said that my opinion was just guesswork as well...
>
> Ultimately, if we do pull out, then wave bye to Iraq, simple as that.
> The Iraqi people may want us out, but they want law and order, power,
> water etc How does us leaving make that happen ? We leave it's Somali
> mark 2 minus the aid agencies. A hell hole of the highest order.
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.
>
> And I guarantee you this, if the coalition does pull out, IN MY
> OPINION (lets make this stupidly clear) you'll Western forces pull
> back to secure the West and ignore the rest of the world unless
> absolutely necessary. There'll be two worlds, one of law and order,
> one of rule by the gun.
*L* Erm...this world of Law and Order....that would be the one whose will is being enforced by warfare, yes?
I don't mean to sound like I'm taking the proverbial here, but you're showing an inordinate amount of blind faith in the governments of the US and UK, and believe it or not I do hope you're right as it would mean an easier life for all of us.
Calm down, and try not to get so hopelessly defensive and blinkered whenever one of your assumptions is challenged. It just detracts from whatever point you're trying to make.
> Saddam facts originate from Con Coughlin, who produced his
> autobiography of Saddam before the war in Iraq. He's teh executive
> editor of the Sunday Telegraph and worked in the Middle East for 20
> years, whilst he cannot for obvious reasons divulge all his
> information sources, I believe he is truthful, and the fact he holds
> his editiorial post backs that up. As far as I know no one has ever
> challenged this fact, or any fact in his work at all.
So, it's an uncorroborated source then? That's all I was asking.
>
> I gave you my opinion regarding the Iraqi people, and unless you're
> on a lap top in Iraq uploading via Wifi then that opinion is as valid
> as yours, so you're going to have to learn to live with that.
Umm...that's why I said that my opinion was just guesswork as well...
>
> Ultimately, if we do pull out, then wave bye to Iraq, simple as that.
> The Iraqi people may want us out, but they want law and order, power,
> water etc How does us leaving make that happen ? We leave it's Somali
> mark 2 minus the aid agencies. A hell hole of the highest order.
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.
>
> And I guarantee you this, if the coalition does pull out, IN MY
> OPINION (lets make this stupidly clear) you'll Western forces pull
> back to secure the West and ignore the rest of the world unless
> absolutely necessary. There'll be two worlds, one of law and order,
> one of rule by the gun.
*L* Erm...this world of Law and Order....that would be the one whose will is being enforced by warfare, yes?
I don't mean to sound like I'm taking the proverbial here, but you're showing an inordinate amount of blind faith in the governments of the US and UK, and believe it or not I do hope you're right as it would mean an easier life for all of us.
Calm down, and try not to get so hopelessly defensive and blinkered whenever one of your assumptions is challenged. It just detracts from whatever point you're trying to make.
Light wrote:
> B******t. Who's 'they'? Are you talking about Al-Quaida? That would
> be the organisation that wanted to topple Hussein after his invasion
> of Kuwait? That would be the group that despised the secular regime
> in Iraq. That would be the group with absolutely no links whatsoever
> to Iraq.
> Main funders? Mm, well with Usama Bin Laden being, y'know, a multi
> multi millionaire, I can see how that loss of non existent funding is
> a blow...
So you think Saddam never funded terrorists? And although it may not have been as much as Bin Laden gives the terrorists, i'll bet its enough to buy a fair bit of explosives and stuff to kill with.
> Yeah, all those demonstrations in Iraq with thousands of ordinary
> Iraqi's demanding the coalition troops leave the country would
> suggest that...
Yeah, and what's the population? More than you see on the news screens.
> In that case, would you object to an unsanctioned invasion of Israel
> to relieve the human rights abuses there? How about China? Maybe
> Zimbabwe?
Israel, yes, i'd object. I don't know vast ammounts about this, but from what i do know, there just playing the hand they were dealt.
China, no.
Zimbabwe, hell, i'd encourage that!
> You are of course entitled to your opinion, but yours seems to be
> rooted in a mish-mash of half known facts and spin.
Then tell me, where are your sources from?
> B******t. Who's 'they'? Are you talking about Al-Quaida? That would
> be the organisation that wanted to topple Hussein after his invasion
> of Kuwait? That would be the group that despised the secular regime
> in Iraq. That would be the group with absolutely no links whatsoever
> to Iraq.
> Main funders? Mm, well with Usama Bin Laden being, y'know, a multi
> multi millionaire, I can see how that loss of non existent funding is
> a blow...
So you think Saddam never funded terrorists? And although it may not have been as much as Bin Laden gives the terrorists, i'll bet its enough to buy a fair bit of explosives and stuff to kill with.
> Yeah, all those demonstrations in Iraq with thousands of ordinary
> Iraqi's demanding the coalition troops leave the country would
> suggest that...
Yeah, and what's the population? More than you see on the news screens.
> In that case, would you object to an unsanctioned invasion of Israel
> to relieve the human rights abuses there? How about China? Maybe
> Zimbabwe?
Israel, yes, i'd object. I don't know vast ammounts about this, but from what i do know, there just playing the hand they were dealt.
China, no.
Zimbabwe, hell, i'd encourage that!
> You are of course entitled to your opinion, but yours seems to be
> rooted in a mish-mash of half known facts and spin.
Then tell me, where are your sources from?
Saddam facts originate from Con Coughlin, who produced his autobiography of Saddam before the war in Iraq. He's teh executive editor of the Sunday Telegraph and worked in the Middle East for 20 years, whilst he cannot for obvious reasons divulge all his information sources, I believe he is truthful, and the fact he holds his editiorial post backs that up. As far as I know no one has ever challenged this fact, or any fact in his work at all.
I gave you my opinion regarding the Iraqi people, and unless you're on a lap top in Iraq uploading via Wifi then that opinion is as valid as yours, so you're going to have to learn to live with that.
Ultimately, if we do pull out, then wave bye to Iraq, simple as that. The Iraqi people may want us out, but they want law and order, power, water etc How does us leaving make that happen ? We leave it's Somali mark 2 minus the aid agencies. A hell hole of the highest order.
And I guarantee you this, if the coalition does pull out, IN MY OPINION (lets make this stupidly clear) you'll Western forces pull back to secure the West and ignore the rest of the world unless absolutely necessary. There'll be two worlds, one of law and order, one of rule by the gun.
I gave you my opinion regarding the Iraqi people, and unless you're on a lap top in Iraq uploading via Wifi then that opinion is as valid as yours, so you're going to have to learn to live with that.
Ultimately, if we do pull out, then wave bye to Iraq, simple as that. The Iraqi people may want us out, but they want law and order, power, water etc How does us leaving make that happen ? We leave it's Somali mark 2 minus the aid agencies. A hell hole of the highest order.
And I guarantee you this, if the coalition does pull out, IN MY OPINION (lets make this stupidly clear) you'll Western forces pull back to secure the West and ignore the rest of the world unless absolutely necessary. There'll be two worlds, one of law and order, one of rule by the gun.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Okay dokey, guess we'll up sticks and leave them then, to be honest I
> don't think ordinary Iraqi's appreciate their position, if we pull
> out now a new regime will make Saddam look positively good... but to
> be honest both Bush and Blair can score major political points by
> withdrawing now. Sure, we'll have to go back there one day, but
> that'll be a problem for another administration...
Yeah, damn those sand-nig's for not being more grateful eh? They'll be wanting a say in the running of their own country next...
>
> More likely, I suspect the protests are more to do with a lack of
> amenities and a general frustration. Our people are trying to give
> aid out in a country where people sell it on, repair power when the
> power lines are being stolen for sale, and so on. I think you're
> taking the protests too much at face value Light.
And I think you're dismissing them too readily. Yes, the coalition are doing a lot to repair the damage. But that hasn't changed the fact that there are still protests about their presence. The very simple fact remains that, as far as anyone knows, the Iraqi people want the coalition out and any attempt to guess the underlying cause of this (my own included) is just a guess, not fact.
This was supposedly a war of liberation. How come the liberators are ignoring the wishes of the newly liberated?
>
> Okay dokey, guess we'll up sticks and leave them then, to be honest I
> don't think ordinary Iraqi's appreciate their position, if we pull
> out now a new regime will make Saddam look positively good... but to
> be honest both Bush and Blair can score major political points by
> withdrawing now. Sure, we'll have to go back there one day, but
> that'll be a problem for another administration...
Yeah, damn those sand-nig's for not being more grateful eh? They'll be wanting a say in the running of their own country next...
>
> More likely, I suspect the protests are more to do with a lack of
> amenities and a general frustration. Our people are trying to give
> aid out in a country where people sell it on, repair power when the
> power lines are being stolen for sale, and so on. I think you're
> taking the protests too much at face value Light.
And I think you're dismissing them too readily. Yes, the coalition are doing a lot to repair the damage. But that hasn't changed the fact that there are still protests about their presence. The very simple fact remains that, as far as anyone knows, the Iraqi people want the coalition out and any attempt to guess the underlying cause of this (my own included) is just a guess, not fact.
This was supposedly a war of liberation. How come the liberators are ignoring the wishes of the newly liberated?
Belldandy wrote:
> And Light, Saddam paid money to Palestinian Suicide Bombers families,
> which was proven beyond doubt.
True. As did numerous other Middle Eastern countries. Any sign of them being invaded? Also, the US gave money and funding to the Taliban. So are they going to face any punishments? You're applying the 'He's a bad guy' stuff very selectively Bell; almost everything you've criticised Hussein for can be applied the other way. It's just that you choose not to.
>
> And while were here, no one has ever offered an alternative
> explanation for why, on the evening of September 10th 2001, Saddam
> and his entire staff and family moved to his largest bunker complex
> at Tikrit, the Iraqi army went to the highest alert level since 1990
> and mechanised/assault units began moving towards the Iraqi border,
> and intercepted radio traffic reached a high not seen since 1990.
No. But then, if that were really true then d'you think it would have been held back from the media? Wouldn't it have been something mentioned an awful lot more in the build up? But it wasn't, was it? Funny that...it's almost as if it was completely made up. I mean, if you can give me independant verification of that, then I'm, listening.
>
> All these facts are triple verified and published in multiple
> sources, some even reported before 9/11.
Where? Prove it.
>
> I mean, a causal observer would think it was almost like Saddam knew
> what was about to happen, and that his biggest foe would lose it's
> Commander In Chief...
*L* B******t. Conjecture of the highest order by the sounds of things, and yet one more desperate attempt by the coalition to justify the unjustifiable. Bell, I'm afraid this reads like you've just found out about this 'fact'. Otherwise, you'd have been mentioning this from the off.
> And Light, Saddam paid money to Palestinian Suicide Bombers families,
> which was proven beyond doubt.
True. As did numerous other Middle Eastern countries. Any sign of them being invaded? Also, the US gave money and funding to the Taliban. So are they going to face any punishments? You're applying the 'He's a bad guy' stuff very selectively Bell; almost everything you've criticised Hussein for can be applied the other way. It's just that you choose not to.
>
> And while were here, no one has ever offered an alternative
> explanation for why, on the evening of September 10th 2001, Saddam
> and his entire staff and family moved to his largest bunker complex
> at Tikrit, the Iraqi army went to the highest alert level since 1990
> and mechanised/assault units began moving towards the Iraqi border,
> and intercepted radio traffic reached a high not seen since 1990.
No. But then, if that were really true then d'you think it would have been held back from the media? Wouldn't it have been something mentioned an awful lot more in the build up? But it wasn't, was it? Funny that...it's almost as if it was completely made up. I mean, if you can give me independant verification of that, then I'm, listening.
>
> All these facts are triple verified and published in multiple
> sources, some even reported before 9/11.
Where? Prove it.
>
> I mean, a causal observer would think it was almost like Saddam knew
> what was about to happen, and that his biggest foe would lose it's
> Commander In Chief...
*L* B******t. Conjecture of the highest order by the sounds of things, and yet one more desperate attempt by the coalition to justify the unjustifiable. Bell, I'm afraid this reads like you've just found out about this 'fact'. Otherwise, you'd have been mentioning this from the off.
And Light, Saddam paid money to Palestinian Suicide Bombers families, which was proven beyond doubt.
And while were here, no one has ever offered an alternative explanation for why, on the evening of September 10th 2001, Saddam and his entire staff and family moved to his largest bunker complex at Tikrit, the Iraqi army went to the highest alert level since 1990 and mechanised/assault units began moving towards the Iraqi border, and intercepted radio traffic reached a high not seen since 1990.
All these facts are triple verified and published in multiple sources, some even reported before 9/11.
I mean, a causal observer would think it was almost like Saddam knew what was about to happen, and that his biggest foe would lose it's Commander In Chief...
And while were here, no one has ever offered an alternative explanation for why, on the evening of September 10th 2001, Saddam and his entire staff and family moved to his largest bunker complex at Tikrit, the Iraqi army went to the highest alert level since 1990 and mechanised/assault units began moving towards the Iraqi border, and intercepted radio traffic reached a high not seen since 1990.
All these facts are triple verified and published in multiple sources, some even reported before 9/11.
I mean, a causal observer would think it was almost like Saddam knew what was about to happen, and that his biggest foe would lose it's Commander In Chief...
Light wrote:
> Yeah, all those demonstrations in Iraq with thousands of ordinary
> Iraqi's demanding the coalition troops leave the country would
> suggest that...
Okay dokey, guess we'll up sticks and leave them then, to be honest I don't think ordinary Iraqi's appreciate their position, if we pull out now a new regime will make Saddam look positively good... but to be honest both Bush and Blair can score major political points by withdrawing now. Sure, we'll have to go back there one day, but that'll be a problem for another administration...
More likely, I suspect the protests are more to do with a lack of amenities and a general frustration. Our people are trying to give aid out in a country where people sell it on, repair power when the power lines are being stolen for sale, and so on. I think you're taking the protests too much at face value Light.
> Yeah, all those demonstrations in Iraq with thousands of ordinary
> Iraqi's demanding the coalition troops leave the country would
> suggest that...
Okay dokey, guess we'll up sticks and leave them then, to be honest I don't think ordinary Iraqi's appreciate their position, if we pull out now a new regime will make Saddam look positively good... but to be honest both Bush and Blair can score major political points by withdrawing now. Sure, we'll have to go back there one day, but that'll be a problem for another administration...
More likely, I suspect the protests are more to do with a lack of amenities and a general frustration. Our people are trying to give aid out in a country where people sell it on, repair power when the power lines are being stolen for sale, and so on. I think you're taking the protests too much at face value Light.
Skarra wrote:
>
> Have you read the latest theory? Well, it's that Saddam used people
> to tell lies to the allies. I.e, people saying there's WOMD in Iraq,
> when in fact there were none. Saddam did this to become popular
> amongst the Arab nations. He didn't for a second think it would
> backfire as it did.
Mm....amazing what new 'theories' are coming up to justify the land grab. Funnily, none of them seem to deal with the point that we've just waged a war of aggression based on lies told by our leaders. Still, at least Hussein was clearly a good liar if that theory is within spitting distance of the truth.
>
>
> They wanted to kill us for along time before Iraq. All this war did
> is take away one of their main funders, i.e. Saddam. And before you
> say it won't make that much difference to terrorists, just make more
> Arab's mad at us, what should we have done, nothing? Just left Iraq
> to fund terrorism???
B******t. Who's 'they'? Are you talking about Al-Quaida? That would be the organisation that wanted to topple Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait? That would be the group that despised the secular regime in Iraq. That would be the group with absolutely no links whatsoever to Iraq.
Main funders? Mm, well with Usama Bin Laden being, y'know, a multi multi millionaire, I can see how that loss of non existent funding is a blow...
>
> I'm sure a lot of Iraqi's would want to do that to Saddam, and thank
> Tony Blair for liberating them from 25 years of hell.
Yeah, all those demonstrations in Iraq with thousands of ordinary Iraqi's demanding the coalition troops leave the country would suggest that...
>
> Illegal, there were 17 sanctions against Iraq, some of which covered
> Human Rights they was breaching. Even if no WOMD are wound, it was
> legal on the human rights side.
In that case, would you object to an unsanctioned invasion of Israel to relieve the human rights abuses there? How about China? Maybe Zimbabwe?
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but yours seems to be rooted in a mish-mash of half known facts and spin.
>
> Have you read the latest theory? Well, it's that Saddam used people
> to tell lies to the allies. I.e, people saying there's WOMD in Iraq,
> when in fact there were none. Saddam did this to become popular
> amongst the Arab nations. He didn't for a second think it would
> backfire as it did.
Mm....amazing what new 'theories' are coming up to justify the land grab. Funnily, none of them seem to deal with the point that we've just waged a war of aggression based on lies told by our leaders. Still, at least Hussein was clearly a good liar if that theory is within spitting distance of the truth.
>
>
> They wanted to kill us for along time before Iraq. All this war did
> is take away one of their main funders, i.e. Saddam. And before you
> say it won't make that much difference to terrorists, just make more
> Arab's mad at us, what should we have done, nothing? Just left Iraq
> to fund terrorism???
B******t. Who's 'they'? Are you talking about Al-Quaida? That would be the organisation that wanted to topple Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait? That would be the group that despised the secular regime in Iraq. That would be the group with absolutely no links whatsoever to Iraq.
Main funders? Mm, well with Usama Bin Laden being, y'know, a multi multi millionaire, I can see how that loss of non existent funding is a blow...
>
> I'm sure a lot of Iraqi's would want to do that to Saddam, and thank
> Tony Blair for liberating them from 25 years of hell.
Yeah, all those demonstrations in Iraq with thousands of ordinary Iraqi's demanding the coalition troops leave the country would suggest that...
>
> Illegal, there were 17 sanctions against Iraq, some of which covered
> Human Rights they was breaching. Even if no WOMD are wound, it was
> legal on the human rights side.
In that case, would you object to an unsanctioned invasion of Israel to relieve the human rights abuses there? How about China? Maybe Zimbabwe?
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but yours seems to be rooted in a mish-mash of half known facts and spin.
Back to the original topic - see, it's started already http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/ 0,,30000-12754845,00.html
Page: