The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
> But they gain MORE from no actual war happening.
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.
Why ? Countries only
> have so much to spend, and mobilising to a war costs money, hence
> less to spend. Sure, munitions and equipment need replacing, but the
> big money now is in R+D which takes years. Ultimately most weapons
> are aimed at deterrance rather than war.
Only really nukes are, everything else can and will be used. Even nukes might if such drastic action was required.
>
> You make something like the F22 Raptor and suddenly any tin pot
> nation with a few Mig 29's knows those planes will not get within
> firing range. Not surprisingly, just about every nation in the world
> gets arms, and not all of them come from the West, so acting like
> every war going is fuelled by the arms trade, whilst very James Bond,
> is not really true.
I don't like the F22. It's too slow and stealth radars are now available, courtesy of the Ukranians.
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.
Splashing about with sharks and men with moustaches...
I imagine you going swimming dressed like this:
http://www.yarwood.com.au/slz2001/ photos/rubbernosirous02.jpg
> *scrolls through topic and chooses to reply to this*
>
> Excellent. Scuba diving rocks.
Indeed, completed pool skills last weekend, and got 92% on the exam. Doing 4 open water dives this weekend and then I'm a qualified PADI Open Water diver!
Wahoo! Plus one of the instructors is as shark mad as I am (actually, he is more so), and I will be discussing with him how to break into swimming with Tigers, Bulls and Whites as he has...
And Goatboy, do you really think that wearing something like a neoprene wetsuit seems odd to someone who wears Star Wars helmets and loads pictures of himself onto the internet in *that* kimono and *those* furry love cuffs?
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.
> The Glasgow march also featured a bunch of kids who realised that it
> was the perfect opportunity to break the 'no drinking on the streets'
> law, but I thought that might undermine my point.
And as was in the paper the next day, they only went because they got given the day off.
Someone mentioned how many Iraqis protested against the war. Well there are a few who stay not far from me, who I see around and know a bit. They all were for his removal.