The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
No.
At no point have I said anything about leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
I suggest you read back the past few months to see where I'm coming from.
At no point have I said anything about leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
I suggest you read back the past few months to see where I'm coming from.
Goatboy wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> So, though not intentional, you were in favour of Saddam staying in
> power, rather than going in for 'baseless reasons'.
> -
>
> That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read this week.
Why? Think about it. You'd rather have Saddam in power, than go in for the so called 'baseless reasons'. It does make sense!
> Skarra wrote:
> So, though not intentional, you were in favour of Saddam staying in
> power, rather than going in for 'baseless reasons'.
> -
>
> That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read this week.
Why? Think about it. You'd rather have Saddam in power, than go in for the so called 'baseless reasons'. It does make sense!
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> No. Far more is spent during war. Far more technical advances are
> made during war than at any other time. Not to mention the huge
> increase in sales that occurs during and after a war as arsenals are
> replenished.
> Only really nukes are, everything else can and will be used. Even
> nukes might if such drastic action was required.
I disagree, nearly all weapons systems are deterrance to others in some way. Why does any military hate using helicopters in urban areas ? RPG's. Thermal sights on tanks counteract smoke launchers and are better than night vision. Why did we go into Iraq on the ground ? Because very little they had was a deterrant. Why don't we steamroller China and North Korea ? Because their weapons match ours pretty well, in other words I believe any weapons systems can work as a deterrant.
> I don't like the F22. It's too slow and stealth radars are now
> available, courtesy of the Ukranians.
Yes, unfortunately for the Ukranians, their technology was developed for use against the F117 stealth technology, which is not the same as that on the B2 and F22, more to the point, the F22 can hit targets and enemy aircrafy well outside the range of that technology, and the range of any interceptor currently in service.
> A MiG 25 with upgraded weapons systems would blow every other plane
> out of the sky. Sadly however Hoon is in charge of sourcing, not me.
Actually the MOD does seem to be doing a good job in terms of future planning, we're signed up for a bucketload of Joint Strike Fighters, the new Apache variant, Blackhawks, three 'super carriers' are under construction, and the RAF is slowly taking delivery of Eurofighters, and having seen the Eurofighter fly alongside a Mig 29, it kicks it's ass.
MIG 25's have a big problem - nearly all the instrumentation is analogue, nothing like (as far as I'm aware) the digital cockpits of Western fighters, plus I (again not 100%) don't think they're fly by wire ?
Anyway, after yesterday, seems like my cynicism of Mr Gilligan was well founded, increasingly it looks like he lied, and used Kelly.
> No. Far more is spent during war. Far more technical advances are
> made during war than at any other time. Not to mention the huge
> increase in sales that occurs during and after a war as arsenals are
> replenished.
> Only really nukes are, everything else can and will be used. Even
> nukes might if such drastic action was required.
I disagree, nearly all weapons systems are deterrance to others in some way. Why does any military hate using helicopters in urban areas ? RPG's. Thermal sights on tanks counteract smoke launchers and are better than night vision. Why did we go into Iraq on the ground ? Because very little they had was a deterrant. Why don't we steamroller China and North Korea ? Because their weapons match ours pretty well, in other words I believe any weapons systems can work as a deterrant.
> I don't like the F22. It's too slow and stealth radars are now
> available, courtesy of the Ukranians.
Yes, unfortunately for the Ukranians, their technology was developed for use against the F117 stealth technology, which is not the same as that on the B2 and F22, more to the point, the F22 can hit targets and enemy aircrafy well outside the range of that technology, and the range of any interceptor currently in service.
> A MiG 25 with upgraded weapons systems would blow every other plane
> out of the sky. Sadly however Hoon is in charge of sourcing, not me.
Actually the MOD does seem to be doing a good job in terms of future planning, we're signed up for a bucketload of Joint Strike Fighters, the new Apache variant, Blackhawks, three 'super carriers' are under construction, and the RAF is slowly taking delivery of Eurofighters, and having seen the Eurofighter fly alongside a Mig 29, it kicks it's ass.
MIG 25's have a big problem - nearly all the instrumentation is analogue, nothing like (as far as I'm aware) the digital cockpits of Western fighters, plus I (again not 100%) don't think they're fly by wire ?
Anyway, after yesterday, seems like my cynicism of Mr Gilligan was well founded, increasingly it looks like he lied, and used Kelly.
Goatboy wrote:
> My point is nobody is arguing Iraqi's didnt want him removed.
> The argument is that the reasons offered for invading were
> groundless, as of yet some months after, we still have not found
> these "immediate threats".
> The salvation of civilians wasn't an issue until they couldn't find,
> as Rumsfeld boasted "the smoking gun"
>
> So that's a moot argument.
--
That's my issue, summed up neatly.
> My point is nobody is arguing Iraqi's didnt want him removed.
> The argument is that the reasons offered for invading were
> groundless, as of yet some months after, we still have not found
> these "immediate threats".
> The salvation of civilians wasn't an issue until they couldn't find,
> as Rumsfeld boasted "the smoking gun"
>
> So that's a moot argument.
--
That's my issue, summed up neatly.
Skarra wrote:
> So, though not intentional, you were in favour of Saddam staying in
> power, rather than going in for 'baseless reasons'.
-
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read this week.
> So, though not intentional, you were in favour of Saddam staying in
> power, rather than going in for 'baseless reasons'.
-
That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've read this week.
Firebrand wrote:
> I think Goatboy objects more on the reasons used for going to war,
> rather than the war itself...
>
> If we'd used regime change as the basis all a long (we didn't), or if
> we'd actually found WOMD, then I'm sure he'd have no problem.
---
Bingo.
100% correct.
I object to the lies, manipulation of the media and blatant crap we've been fed.
If Blair/Bush had said "Look, we put him there but he's out of control, he needs taking down because he's an idiot"?
Cool
Dont lie to me about terrorist threats and immediate threats of missiles.
> I think Goatboy objects more on the reasons used for going to war,
> rather than the war itself...
>
> If we'd used regime change as the basis all a long (we didn't), or if
> we'd actually found WOMD, then I'm sure he'd have no problem.
---
Bingo.
100% correct.
I object to the lies, manipulation of the media and blatant crap we've been fed.
If Blair/Bush had said "Look, we put him there but he's out of control, he needs taking down because he's an idiot"?
Cool
Dont lie to me about terrorist threats and immediate threats of missiles.
I think Goatboy objects more on the reasons used for going to war, rather than the war itself...
If we'd used regime change as the basis all a long (we didn't), or if we'd actually found WOMD, then I'm sure he'd have no problem.
If we'd used regime change as the basis all a long (we didn't), or if we'd actually found WOMD, then I'm sure he'd have no problem.
I'm sorry Goatboy, but i just don't understand people like you. You'd rather see people suffer that go into Iraq 'for baseless reasons'.
You people go on the march's to stop war's. You say it will cost innocent people their lives. That is oh so flawed.
Every day we deleyed by trying to get UN backing, more people were tortured and killed by Saddam every day.
So, though not intentional, you were in favour of Saddam staying in power, rather than going in for 'baseless reasons'.
Also, you say we don't have the right to be there, well answer me this, what gives us the right to hide behind the shroud of diplomacy whilst people die by the dozens.
Which is more important, the freedom, and very existance of a people, or reasons to suit you. Personally, if i were moaning about reasons, knowing it was delaying an action, and costing others their lives. Well, i don't know how i'd live with myself.
You people go on the march's to stop war's. You say it will cost innocent people their lives. That is oh so flawed.
Every day we deleyed by trying to get UN backing, more people were tortured and killed by Saddam every day.
So, though not intentional, you were in favour of Saddam staying in power, rather than going in for 'baseless reasons'.
Also, you say we don't have the right to be there, well answer me this, what gives us the right to hide behind the shroud of diplomacy whilst people die by the dozens.
Which is more important, the freedom, and very existance of a people, or reasons to suit you. Personally, if i were moaning about reasons, knowing it was delaying an action, and costing others their lives. Well, i don't know how i'd live with myself.
I don't know.
I've lost the point of what I was saying now...
I've lost the point of what I was saying now...
Goatboy wrote:
> Does it make your pants tight?
> Splashing about with sharks and men with moustaches...
What men with moustaches?
> Does it make your pants tight?
> Splashing about with sharks and men with moustaches...
What men with moustaches?
Page: