The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
US sneers, belittles and ignores the UN before build up to invasion of Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld particularly scathing.
War declared over early May.
Now US asks UN to assist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3202991.stm
"Up your ass UN, we don't need no pasty Eurocrats telling us who we can and cayan't kill"
"Umm...that's not wise US"
"Screw you Eurotrash"
(fast forward to the "ceasation of hostilities")
"Ah, 'scuse us Mr UN, Mr Nice, could you like, gissa hand here? We're getting our butts kicked daily, in fact we've lost more soldiers since the invasion was over than during."
"Um...no"
"C'mon guys, we're not a police force! We kill people, we don't keep the peace"
"Um...no"
War declared over early May.
Now US asks UN to assist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3202991.stm
"Up your ass UN, we don't need no pasty Eurocrats telling us who we can and cayan't kill"
"Umm...that's not wise US"
"Screw you Eurotrash"
(fast forward to the "ceasation of hostilities")
"Ah, 'scuse us Mr UN, Mr Nice, could you like, gissa hand here? We're getting our butts kicked daily, in fact we've lost more soldiers since the invasion was over than during."
"Um...no"
"C'mon guys, we're not a police force! We kill people, we don't keep the peace"
"Um...no"
Page:
But he doesn't force anyone to worship him, he doesn't enforce a brtual regime and he hasn't plunged America into the dark ages.
If all dictators were that good the world would be a great place in which to live.
If all dictators were that good the world would be a great place in which to live.
I'd say it's enough.
He is the president, the single most powerful man in the country.
He is the president, the single most powerful man in the country.
Dr Duck wrote:
> The sagacious one wrote:
> Dr Duck wrote:
>
> Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
> The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
>
> Hardly a dictatorship.
>
> If you accept that but for the dubious activity in florida, Gore
> would have got in (which I figure seems reasonable, from what I've
> seen), then you accept that America's president is not democratically
> elected, but siezed office via a fixed election.
> Isn't that enough?
Ah but does that make him a dictator Bush needs the backing of the senate to make desicions and he thus has not assumed total control of the country. His word is not law.
> The sagacious one wrote:
> Dr Duck wrote:
>
> Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
> The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
>
> Hardly a dictatorship.
>
> If you accept that but for the dubious activity in florida, Gore
> would have got in (which I figure seems reasonable, from what I've
> seen), then you accept that America's president is not democratically
> elected, but siezed office via a fixed election.
> Isn't that enough?
Ah but does that make him a dictator Bush needs the backing of the senate to make desicions and he thus has not assumed total control of the country. His word is not law.
The sagacious one wrote:
> Dr Duck wrote:
>
> Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
> The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
>
> Hardly a dictatorship.
If you accept that but for the dubious activity in florida, Gore would have got in (which I figure seems reasonable, from what I've seen), then you accept that America's president is not democratically elected, but siezed office via a fixed election.
Isn't that enough?
> Iraq: "bans alcohol"
> The West: Bans canabis
>
> Yet we can have open debates about legalising it and to be honest
> anyone who wants to smoke it does. We tolerate Rastafarians smoking
> it blatantly and no one will have their heads cut off or their
> bolloxx mashed just because the smoke dope.
I'd guess I'd try to build the retribution aspect into the 'dictatorship' point.
Banning alcohol, penalties aside, isn't any worse than banning canabis (tolerance of use aside). And there are still plenty of westerners who'll stand by the position of keeping it illegal.
> Iraq: "hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to
> them"
> The West: Hate(d) communists because they fear them
>
> No one hates commies. We just don't like dictatorship. And I can't
> remember the last Christian who crashed a plane into a Chinese
> skyscraper.
I'd say America hated, and still strongly dislikes (at best) communism.
No skyscrapers, but we're not so far removed from the cold war or Kissinger's killings - several thousand towers' worth.
I guess we're straying from the original point. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad :^)
> Dr Duck wrote:
>
> Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
> The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
>
> Hardly a dictatorship.
If you accept that but for the dubious activity in florida, Gore would have got in (which I figure seems reasonable, from what I've seen), then you accept that America's president is not democratically elected, but siezed office via a fixed election.
Isn't that enough?
> Iraq: "bans alcohol"
> The West: Bans canabis
>
> Yet we can have open debates about legalising it and to be honest
> anyone who wants to smoke it does. We tolerate Rastafarians smoking
> it blatantly and no one will have their heads cut off or their
> bolloxx mashed just because the smoke dope.
I'd guess I'd try to build the retribution aspect into the 'dictatorship' point.
Banning alcohol, penalties aside, isn't any worse than banning canabis (tolerance of use aside). And there are still plenty of westerners who'll stand by the position of keeping it illegal.
> Iraq: "hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to
> them"
> The West: Hate(d) communists because they fear them
>
> No one hates commies. We just don't like dictatorship. And I can't
> remember the last Christian who crashed a plane into a Chinese
> skyscraper.
I'd say America hated, and still strongly dislikes (at best) communism.
No skyscrapers, but we're not so far removed from the cold war or Kissinger's killings - several thousand towers' worth.
I guess we're straying from the original point. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad :^)
Dr Duck wrote:
> Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
> The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
Hardly a dictatorship. No one is forced to watch Blair TV all day. A little aside: a bloke I met from Russia told me that when Communism was in it's prime Russian TV had two channels. Channel 1 had continuous communist propaganda, channel 2 however was run by the KGB, which had KGB agents telling you that you better turn over to channel 1.
> Iraq: "bans alcohol"
> The West: Bans canabis
Yet we can have open debates about legalising it and to be honest anyone who wants to smoke it does. We tolerate Rastafarians smoking it blatantly and no one will have their heads cut off or their bolloxx mashed just because the smoke dope.
> Iraq: "treats women like crap"
> The West: By no means perfect for equal rights for minority groups
> and gets in a mess over 'positive discrimination'.
Women have got it good in this country. They act like sluuts, get fat and seem to think that they are somehow superior to men. In fact I take my point back. We should be more like Iraq was.
> Iraq: "hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to
> them"
> The West: Hate(d) communists because they fear them
No one hates commies. We just don't like dictatorship. And I can't remember the last Christian who crashed a plane into a Chinese skyscraper.
> I'd say we're still in a better position, but we mirror many of their
> faults to a significant degree.
We have our faults but we have developed our society to a level where we actually complain about the provision of free medical assistance and the fact that there is crap on TV. We have it lucky.
> Irqais will be saying in ten years time “what did the Americans ever
> do for us?”
>
> A bet there will be a long list of mostly good things.
>
>
> For all I've written, I guess I do agree with you.
>
> It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth as we seem to take advantage
> of our position.
> Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
> The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
Hardly a dictatorship. No one is forced to watch Blair TV all day. A little aside: a bloke I met from Russia told me that when Communism was in it's prime Russian TV had two channels. Channel 1 had continuous communist propaganda, channel 2 however was run by the KGB, which had KGB agents telling you that you better turn over to channel 1.
> Iraq: "bans alcohol"
> The West: Bans canabis
Yet we can have open debates about legalising it and to be honest anyone who wants to smoke it does. We tolerate Rastafarians smoking it blatantly and no one will have their heads cut off or their bolloxx mashed just because the smoke dope.
> Iraq: "treats women like crap"
> The West: By no means perfect for equal rights for minority groups
> and gets in a mess over 'positive discrimination'.
Women have got it good in this country. They act like sluuts, get fat and seem to think that they are somehow superior to men. In fact I take my point back. We should be more like Iraq was.
> Iraq: "hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to
> them"
> The West: Hate(d) communists because they fear them
No one hates commies. We just don't like dictatorship. And I can't remember the last Christian who crashed a plane into a Chinese skyscraper.
> I'd say we're still in a better position, but we mirror many of their
> faults to a significant degree.
We have our faults but we have developed our society to a level where we actually complain about the provision of free medical assistance and the fact that there is crap on TV. We have it lucky.
> Irqais will be saying in ten years time “what did the Americans ever
> do for us?”
>
> A bet there will be a long list of mostly good things.
>
>
> For all I've written, I guess I do agree with you.
>
> It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth as we seem to take advantage
> of our position.
The sagacious one wrote:
> I think that they have proved how incapable they are of running a
> country. They have only realised one third of their potential to
> obtain oil (so any improvement to this will improve their economy)
> and they surely would benefit from some sound advice and assistance.
Hmm. Their oil is in limited supply, and when it's gone what source of revenue is left for Iraq ?
So far as I can tell it makes perfect sense for Iraq to take only what it needs, make their reserves last as long as possible - viscious dictator aside, I believe the standard of living was pretty good in Iraq when running as 1/3 of their potential.
"Don't kill the goose [that lays the golden eggs]" to quote some film I saw once.
Of course, when we introduce foreign companies they won't be so concerned for long-term sustainability of Iraq's economy, and we'll probably see the goose torn inside out, with it's insides scraped out. Then the companies will ship out.
> This is not patronising it’s practical. As for being “stupid
> unevolved idiots” you have to question the sort of Nation that lived
> under a dictatorship, bans alcohol, treats women like crap, hate
> Westerners just because they feel inferior to them (though we have
> provoked them on numerous occasions), and spend their time robbing
> their own hospitals etc when they aren’t blowing them up. It’s funny
> how the West has managed to organise society in such a way that we
> have democracies and people are generally able to live decent lives
That point presupposes that we ourselves are better.
Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
Iraq: "bans alcohol"
The West: Bans canabis
Iraq: "treats women like crap"
The West: By no means perfect for equal rights for minority groups and gets in a mess over 'positive discrimination'.
Iraq: "hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to them"
The West: Hate(d) communists because they fear them
I'd say we're still in a better position, but we mirror many of their faults to a significant degree.
> Irqais will be saying in ten years time “what did the Americans ever
> do for us?”
>
> A bet there will be a long list of mostly good things.
For all I've written, I guess I do agree with you.
It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth as we seem to take advantage of our position.
> I think that they have proved how incapable they are of running a
> country. They have only realised one third of their potential to
> obtain oil (so any improvement to this will improve their economy)
> and they surely would benefit from some sound advice and assistance.
Hmm. Their oil is in limited supply, and when it's gone what source of revenue is left for Iraq ?
So far as I can tell it makes perfect sense for Iraq to take only what it needs, make their reserves last as long as possible - viscious dictator aside, I believe the standard of living was pretty good in Iraq when running as 1/3 of their potential.
"Don't kill the goose [that lays the golden eggs]" to quote some film I saw once.
Of course, when we introduce foreign companies they won't be so concerned for long-term sustainability of Iraq's economy, and we'll probably see the goose torn inside out, with it's insides scraped out. Then the companies will ship out.
> This is not patronising it’s practical. As for being “stupid
> unevolved idiots” you have to question the sort of Nation that lived
> under a dictatorship, bans alcohol, treats women like crap, hate
> Westerners just because they feel inferior to them (though we have
> provoked them on numerous occasions), and spend their time robbing
> their own hospitals etc when they aren’t blowing them up. It’s funny
> how the West has managed to organise society in such a way that we
> have democracies and people are generally able to live decent lives
That point presupposes that we ourselves are better.
Iraq: "lived under a dictatorship"
The West: Tolerated the florida elections without serious question
Iraq: "bans alcohol"
The West: Bans canabis
Iraq: "treats women like crap"
The West: By no means perfect for equal rights for minority groups and gets in a mess over 'positive discrimination'.
Iraq: "hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to them"
The West: Hate(d) communists because they fear them
I'd say we're still in a better position, but we mirror many of their faults to a significant degree.
> Irqais will be saying in ten years time “what did the Americans ever
> do for us?”
>
> A bet there will be a long list of mostly good things.
For all I've written, I guess I do agree with you.
It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth as we seem to take advantage of our position.
Dr Duck wrote:
> In the short term we've not seen any benefit for the Iraqis yet -
> since their 'liberation' they've been living in worse conditions than
> under Saddam. To weigh up the number of civilian deaths since the war
> began against how many would probably have occured under Saddam..
> I've not seen any statistics I really trust for either, but I'd wager
> it'll be some time of non-killing before we average out to the same
> death rate as the former regime.
> So you'll have to forgive me for not taking it as a given that Iraq
> will benefit substantially.
You’re right about the short term; things have got worse but it was impossible to ensure that infrastructure wouldn’t be damaged (or sabotaged) during the liberation and people were going to be killed. My analogy regarding the situation is this: 100 people are locked in a cage with no apparent means of escape. Then one of them realises that if everyone throws himself or herself at the bars of the cage they will eventually break and everyone will be free. However this course of action will result in some deaths. Therefore if they do nothing they will never be free.
> But yeah, in the very long term I do expect them to be better off
> with freedom.
> Do they 'need' foreign companies ? I don't think so, that seems like
> a pretty patronising (not to mention arrogant) tone to take. They've
> taken care of their own oil trade before, we've seen an Iraqi-run
> company capable of, yet prevented from, running a mobile phone
> network.
> These are not stupid unevolved idiots who need us 'superior'
> Westerners to take care of the 'complicated' jobs.
I think that they have proved how incapable they are of running a country. They have only realised one third of their potential to obtain oil (so any improvement to this will improve their economy) and they surely would benefit from some sound advice and assistance. This is not patronising it’s practical. As for being “stupid unevolved idiots” you have to question the sort of Nation that lived under a dictatorship, bans alcohol, treats women like crap, hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to them (though we have provoked them on numerous occasions), and spend their time robbing their own hospitals etc when they aren’t blowing them up. It’s funny how the West has managed to organise society in such a way that we have democracies and people are generally able to live decent lives
> Then there's the moral position. Even if they do benefit form foreign
> companies, they're denied any say in the matter, and any chance to
> compete on a fair level.
> More importantly they're not being allowed to find the best contracts
> available. By protecting 'our' companies and their roles in Iraq we,
> like so many other dictators, are taking from the people we control
> to serve our own ends.
I agree, it’s not fair. Western multinationals will make a considerable amount of money out of Iraqi oil, amongst other things. But the way I see it, you arrive at the Monty Pythonesque scenario: Irqais will be saying in ten years time “what did the Americans ever do for us?”
A bet there will be a long list of mostly good things.
> In the short term we've not seen any benefit for the Iraqis yet -
> since their 'liberation' they've been living in worse conditions than
> under Saddam. To weigh up the number of civilian deaths since the war
> began against how many would probably have occured under Saddam..
> I've not seen any statistics I really trust for either, but I'd wager
> it'll be some time of non-killing before we average out to the same
> death rate as the former regime.
> So you'll have to forgive me for not taking it as a given that Iraq
> will benefit substantially.
You’re right about the short term; things have got worse but it was impossible to ensure that infrastructure wouldn’t be damaged (or sabotaged) during the liberation and people were going to be killed. My analogy regarding the situation is this: 100 people are locked in a cage with no apparent means of escape. Then one of them realises that if everyone throws himself or herself at the bars of the cage they will eventually break and everyone will be free. However this course of action will result in some deaths. Therefore if they do nothing they will never be free.
> But yeah, in the very long term I do expect them to be better off
> with freedom.
> Do they 'need' foreign companies ? I don't think so, that seems like
> a pretty patronising (not to mention arrogant) tone to take. They've
> taken care of their own oil trade before, we've seen an Iraqi-run
> company capable of, yet prevented from, running a mobile phone
> network.
> These are not stupid unevolved idiots who need us 'superior'
> Westerners to take care of the 'complicated' jobs.
I think that they have proved how incapable they are of running a country. They have only realised one third of their potential to obtain oil (so any improvement to this will improve their economy) and they surely would benefit from some sound advice and assistance. This is not patronising it’s practical. As for being “stupid unevolved idiots” you have to question the sort of Nation that lived under a dictatorship, bans alcohol, treats women like crap, hate Westerners just because they feel inferior to them (though we have provoked them on numerous occasions), and spend their time robbing their own hospitals etc when they aren’t blowing them up. It’s funny how the West has managed to organise society in such a way that we have democracies and people are generally able to live decent lives
> Then there's the moral position. Even if they do benefit form foreign
> companies, they're denied any say in the matter, and any chance to
> compete on a fair level.
> More importantly they're not being allowed to find the best contracts
> available. By protecting 'our' companies and their roles in Iraq we,
> like so many other dictators, are taking from the people we control
> to serve our own ends.
I agree, it’s not fair. Western multinationals will make a considerable amount of money out of Iraqi oil, amongst other things. But the way I see it, you arrive at the Monty Pythonesque scenario: Irqais will be saying in ten years time “what did the Americans ever do for us?”
A bet there will be a long list of mostly good things.
Light wrote:
> I disagree; how can you justify that view when, prior to the war, the
> US government made it plain that they wanted no UN involvement?
But that's plain wrong. The US and allies made it clear, not that they didn't want UN involvement, but that if the UN had no will to act they would. There is a difference.
>The
> US government has had to do a U-turn, and is losing face because of
> it. Aren't you just trying to shift attention away from the fact that
> the pre-war anti-UN rhetoric is being exposed as an arrogant folly?
It wasn't folly, it still remains right. Has the UN done anything to dramatically help Iraq ? Nope. Does the UN continue to barely enforce most resolutions ? Yep. Does the UN continue to be little more than an economic barter house ? Yep. The UN is still useless, but if the coalition can get some real troops that way then so be it. Y'see, you see the USA as losing face, because that's how you want to see it, that's how any anti war person wants to see it, when in reality it's all interpretation.
In ten, twenty years time, the Iraq that exists then will determine how this part of history is made, anyone saying this was wrong and a failure is assessing it in the short term. Bringing law and order to post war Germany took months, as did repairing vital services, yet the allies have a similar task to do, with more complex repairs, a more difficult enemy, and a fraction of the troops to do it with.
If twenty years from now Iraq is another Somalia, then we will have failed and history will judge Bush, Blair etc respectively. But if in twenty years, as Sagacious one hints at, we have democratic, prosperous Iraq, then the conjecture over why and how will not matter, it will be a footnote in history outshone by the greater deed.
Time will tell.
> I disagree; how can you justify that view when, prior to the war, the
> US government made it plain that they wanted no UN involvement?
But that's plain wrong. The US and allies made it clear, not that they didn't want UN involvement, but that if the UN had no will to act they would. There is a difference.
>The
> US government has had to do a U-turn, and is losing face because of
> it. Aren't you just trying to shift attention away from the fact that
> the pre-war anti-UN rhetoric is being exposed as an arrogant folly?
It wasn't folly, it still remains right. Has the UN done anything to dramatically help Iraq ? Nope. Does the UN continue to barely enforce most resolutions ? Yep. Does the UN continue to be little more than an economic barter house ? Yep. The UN is still useless, but if the coalition can get some real troops that way then so be it. Y'see, you see the USA as losing face, because that's how you want to see it, that's how any anti war person wants to see it, when in reality it's all interpretation.
In ten, twenty years time, the Iraq that exists then will determine how this part of history is made, anyone saying this was wrong and a failure is assessing it in the short term. Bringing law and order to post war Germany took months, as did repairing vital services, yet the allies have a similar task to do, with more complex repairs, a more difficult enemy, and a fraction of the troops to do it with.
If twenty years from now Iraq is another Somalia, then we will have failed and history will judge Bush, Blair etc respectively. But if in twenty years, as Sagacious one hints at, we have democratic, prosperous Iraq, then the conjecture over why and how will not matter, it will be a footnote in history outshone by the greater deed.
Time will tell.
Dr Duck wrote:
Good points.
I'll chew the fat over lunch and post a reply, tis good to get involved in a debate rather than simply posting "funny" stuff.
Good points.
I'll chew the fat over lunch and post a reply, tis good to get involved in a debate rather than simply posting "funny" stuff.
The sagacious one wrote:
> The Iraqis will benefit from having their infrastructure rebuilt and
> in turn their economy (oil) will run more efficiently. American and
> British companies will profit, I don't disagree but any developed
> country needs a health economy in which to thrive; this often means
> that many of the companies in the country may be multinationals or
> simply "foreign". Britain has many such organisations, who
> are in efect only here for their own self interests.
In the short term we've not seen any benefit for the Iraqis yet - since their 'liberation' they've been living in worse conditions than under Saddam. To weigh up the number of civilian deaths since the war began against how many would probably have occured under Saddam.. I've not seen any statistics I really trust for either, but I'd wager it'll be some time of non-killing before we average out to the same death rate as the former regime.
So you'll have to forgive me for not taking it as a given that Iraq will benefit substantially.
But yeah, in the very long term I do expect them to be better off with freedom.
Do they 'need' foreign companies ? I don't think so, that seems like a pretty patronising (not to mention arrogant) tone to take. They've taken care of their own oil trade before, we've seen an Iraqi-run company capable of, yet prevented from, running a mobile phone network.
These are not stupid unevolved idiots who need us 'superior' Westerners to take care of the 'complicated' jobs.
Then there's the moral position. Even if they do benefit form foreign companies, they're denied any say in the matter, and any chance to compete on a fair level.
More importantly they're not being allowed to find the best contracts available. By protecting 'our' companies and their roles in Iraq we, like so many other dictators, are taking from the people we control to serve our own ends.
> The Iraqis will benefit from having their infrastructure rebuilt and
> in turn their economy (oil) will run more efficiently. American and
> British companies will profit, I don't disagree but any developed
> country needs a health economy in which to thrive; this often means
> that many of the companies in the country may be multinationals or
> simply "foreign". Britain has many such organisations, who
> are in efect only here for their own self interests.
In the short term we've not seen any benefit for the Iraqis yet - since their 'liberation' they've been living in worse conditions than under Saddam. To weigh up the number of civilian deaths since the war began against how many would probably have occured under Saddam.. I've not seen any statistics I really trust for either, but I'd wager it'll be some time of non-killing before we average out to the same death rate as the former regime.
So you'll have to forgive me for not taking it as a given that Iraq will benefit substantially.
But yeah, in the very long term I do expect them to be better off with freedom.
Do they 'need' foreign companies ? I don't think so, that seems like a pretty patronising (not to mention arrogant) tone to take. They've taken care of their own oil trade before, we've seen an Iraqi-run company capable of, yet prevented from, running a mobile phone network.
These are not stupid unevolved idiots who need us 'superior' Westerners to take care of the 'complicated' jobs.
Then there's the moral position. Even if they do benefit form foreign companies, they're denied any say in the matter, and any chance to compete on a fair level.
More importantly they're not being allowed to find the best contracts available. By protecting 'our' companies and their roles in Iraq we, like so many other dictators, are taking from the people we control to serve our own ends.
Page: