The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton /story/0,13822,1040476,00.html
Blair told in advance that the war would increase the threat of an al-Qaida attack, and that Iraq could not nuke the UK. Although for some reason he apparently didn't "sex up" the dossier. Maybe they thought, "Well, if they *could* launch WMD, they could probably do it in 45 mins".
Blair told in advance that the war would increase the threat of an al-Qaida attack, and that Iraq could not nuke the UK. Although for some reason he apparently didn't "sex up" the dossier. Maybe they thought, "Well, if they *could* launch WMD, they could probably do it in 45 mins".
Page:
I think you summed it up in the last paragraph. It's the sort of thought that you don't want to think. It's the sort of thought that has horrible implications, and makes you feel slightly ashamed to think it at first. But there's no reason to. From where I'm standing it doesn't seem all that unlikely, unless I'm missing something.
And as you say, it would explain things such as the warning of an attack being ignored. I don't know about anyone else, but everything I've heard, seen or read about the US (and to a certain extent UK) government on this matter really makes me sick from whatever reasonable angle I try to look at it. I just can't buy that Bush is doing it from the goodness of his heart. Maybe I'm being cynical, but this is an issue that brings a sour taste to my mouth.
And as you say, it would explain things such as the warning of an attack being ignored. I don't know about anyone else, but everything I've heard, seen or read about the US (and to a certain extent UK) government on this matter really makes me sick from whatever reasonable angle I try to look at it. I just can't buy that Bush is doing it from the goodness of his heart. Maybe I'm being cynical, but this is an issue that brings a sour taste to my mouth.
Blank wrote:
> And that could be the answer. Carrying on Daddy's battles. So in that
> sense you'd have to think that Bush was somehow glad for the
> September 11th attacks, as it gives him a good cover and gets up
> public support for the war. Or maybe you wouldn't. But I think you
> would.
Well, if suspicions about the US ignoring the threat, maybe to the extent of 'letting it happen', are correct then it goes beyond merely being 'glad'.
It's the kind of thing you don't want to believe could happen, yet it's something we've seen so many times in America's history, and it's not the worst of the accusations levelled against the US of late, many of which have even greater supporting evidence.
> And that could be the answer. Carrying on Daddy's battles. So in that
> sense you'd have to think that Bush was somehow glad for the
> September 11th attacks, as it gives him a good cover and gets up
> public support for the war. Or maybe you wouldn't. But I think you
> would.
Well, if suspicions about the US ignoring the threat, maybe to the extent of 'letting it happen', are correct then it goes beyond merely being 'glad'.
It's the kind of thing you don't want to believe could happen, yet it's something we've seen so many times in America's history, and it's not the worst of the accusations levelled against the US of late, many of which have even greater supporting evidence.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> I've said for months, and Belldandy has refuted for the same length
> of
> time, that it's a war over contracts.
>
> Maybe. It's also plausible that after deciding to go in, Bush noted
> the opportunity to 'give something back' to some of those who put him
> in office.
> Also dirty nasty worm-ness, but of a lesser degree.
Plausible, yes. But then that leaves open the reason for going in in the first place.
> It's that or a simple grudge match against Saddam, I fear.
And that could be the answer. Carrying on Daddy's battles. So in that sense you'd have to think that Bush was somehow glad for the September 11th attacks, as it gives him a good cover and gets up public support for the war. Or maybe you wouldn't. But I think you would.
> Blank wrote:
> I've said for months, and Belldandy has refuted for the same length
> of
> time, that it's a war over contracts.
>
> Maybe. It's also plausible that after deciding to go in, Bush noted
> the opportunity to 'give something back' to some of those who put him
> in office.
> Also dirty nasty worm-ness, but of a lesser degree.
Plausible, yes. But then that leaves open the reason for going in in the first place.
> It's that or a simple grudge match against Saddam, I fear.
And that could be the answer. Carrying on Daddy's battles. So in that sense you'd have to think that Bush was somehow glad for the September 11th attacks, as it gives him a good cover and gets up public support for the war. Or maybe you wouldn't. But I think you would.
Skarra wrote:
> Blank wrote:
>
> What do they have left then? "The Iraqis are better off".
> Sure. And they're even grateful, too! In fact, we have the scars to
> prove it! There are still skirmishes every day resulting in death,
> and the citizens are hardly living in luxury. In fact, most don't
> have basic facilities like clean water and electricity.
>
> Can you please tell me where you heard that. Last time i heard that
> was weeks ago.
A few days ago on Radio 4, I believe. Probably the Today Programme or PM.
> And to be blunt, it wasn't really all that developed
> before the war! The allies are not just re-building, their almost
> building Iraq.
But it's our responsibility now. To go with the notion that they are now somehow better off, we have to actually do something. Right now the conversation is like this:
"The Iraqis have a better lifestyle now"
"They still don't have clean water, electricity etc"
"They didn't have that before we came in though"
"So what you're saying is, they're no better off?"
> Well maybe they are still getting killed, but do some math. A dozen
> or so are killed a day. At most. Under Saddam, that many were
> tortured and mutilated in an hour. More so killed in a day.
I'm glad you know all the facts and figures. But my point wasn't about the amount of people getting killed, my point was that people are fighting back. People are fighting us and getting killed. Something about that isn't right when they're supposedly liberated.
> You can't say the whole country has gone down the toilet! Some good
> has come from it! Iraq's not funding to terrorists now, which they
> were before(fact). Maybe not on Bin Ladens scale, but enough to kill
> people. Saddam isn't a threat to Kuwaits security, or others. The
> people don't get pulled of the streets and tortured, simply for their
> political views.
1. We don't know where Saddam is. He could be doing quite a lot of thigns that we don't want him to, or planning them.
2. Is it not possible that Saddam supporters can still persecute other citizens? I don't mean any of the playing card pack, I mean extremist citizens.
> The news only focus's on the negative. But there is good from it
> aswell.
> A lot of people seem to forget that.
But the negative is still there, nothing takes away from that. And there's a lot of it. Ultimately, I believe this war is unjust and completely done for personal gain. Would bush really spend billions on a war if he stood to gain nothing from it? I don't think so. This isn't fighting for justice, or even safety for out own citizens. It's a con on a catastrophic scale.
> Blank wrote:
>
> What do they have left then? "The Iraqis are better off".
> Sure. And they're even grateful, too! In fact, we have the scars to
> prove it! There are still skirmishes every day resulting in death,
> and the citizens are hardly living in luxury. In fact, most don't
> have basic facilities like clean water and electricity.
>
> Can you please tell me where you heard that. Last time i heard that
> was weeks ago.
A few days ago on Radio 4, I believe. Probably the Today Programme or PM.
> And to be blunt, it wasn't really all that developed
> before the war! The allies are not just re-building, their almost
> building Iraq.
But it's our responsibility now. To go with the notion that they are now somehow better off, we have to actually do something. Right now the conversation is like this:
"The Iraqis have a better lifestyle now"
"They still don't have clean water, electricity etc"
"They didn't have that before we came in though"
"So what you're saying is, they're no better off?"
> Well maybe they are still getting killed, but do some math. A dozen
> or so are killed a day. At most. Under Saddam, that many were
> tortured and mutilated in an hour. More so killed in a day.
I'm glad you know all the facts and figures. But my point wasn't about the amount of people getting killed, my point was that people are fighting back. People are fighting us and getting killed. Something about that isn't right when they're supposedly liberated.
> You can't say the whole country has gone down the toilet! Some good
> has come from it! Iraq's not funding to terrorists now, which they
> were before(fact). Maybe not on Bin Ladens scale, but enough to kill
> people. Saddam isn't a threat to Kuwaits security, or others. The
> people don't get pulled of the streets and tortured, simply for their
> political views.
1. We don't know where Saddam is. He could be doing quite a lot of thigns that we don't want him to, or planning them.
2. Is it not possible that Saddam supporters can still persecute other citizens? I don't mean any of the playing card pack, I mean extremist citizens.
> The news only focus's on the negative. But there is good from it
> aswell.
> A lot of people seem to forget that.
But the negative is still there, nothing takes away from that. And there's a lot of it. Ultimately, I believe this war is unjust and completely done for personal gain. Would bush really spend billions on a war if he stood to gain nothing from it? I don't think so. This isn't fighting for justice, or even safety for out own citizens. It's a con on a catastrophic scale.
Blank wrote:
> I've said for months, and Belldandy has refuted for the same length of
> time, that it's a war over contracts.
Maybe. It's also plausible that after deciding to go in, Bush noted the opportunity to 'give something back' to some of those who put him in office.
Also dirty nasty worm-ness, but of a lesser degree.
Goatboy wrote:
> Pax Americana is why.
Yeah, probably to a large degree. Well, we certainly wouldn't have gone in alone! :^)
So presumably we can apply the same arguments to the US and again, ask: Why?
Maybe Blank's already answered that. There are plenty of theories, most of which overlap to getting American companies middle eastern oil and natural gas reserves.
It's that or a simple grudge match against Saddam, I fear.
> I've said for months, and Belldandy has refuted for the same length of
> time, that it's a war over contracts.
Maybe. It's also plausible that after deciding to go in, Bush noted the opportunity to 'give something back' to some of those who put him in office.
Also dirty nasty worm-ness, but of a lesser degree.
Goatboy wrote:
> Pax Americana is why.
Yeah, probably to a large degree. Well, we certainly wouldn't have gone in alone! :^)
So presumably we can apply the same arguments to the US and again, ask: Why?
Maybe Blank's already answered that. There are plenty of theories, most of which overlap to getting American companies middle eastern oil and natural gas reserves.
It's that or a simple grudge match against Saddam, I fear.
Blank wrote:
> What do they have left then? "The Iraqis are better off".
> Sure. And they're even grateful, too! In fact, we have the scars to
> prove it! There are still skirmishes every day resulting in death,
> and the citizens are hardly living in luxury. In fact, most don't
> have basic facilities like clean water and electricity.
Can you please tell me where you heard that. Last time i heard that was weeks ago. And to be blunt, it wasn't really all that developed before the war! The allies are not just re-building, their almost building Iraq. Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm sure it takes more than a few months to construct a nation.
> But hey! They aren't under Saddam any more. Kind of like the
> "pig satisfied/Socrates dissatisfied" question.
Well maybe they are still getting killed, but do some math. A dozen or so are killed a day. At most. Under Saddam, that many were tortured and mutilated in an hour. More so killed in a day.
You can't say the whole country has gone down the toilet! Some good has come from it! Iraq's not funding to terrorists now, which they were before(fact). Maybe not on Bin Ladens scale, but enough to kill people. Saddam isn't a threat to Kuwaits security, or others. The people don't get pulled of the streets and tortured, simply for their political views.
The news only focus's on the negative. But there is good from it aswell.
A lot of people seem to forget that.
> What do they have left then? "The Iraqis are better off".
> Sure. And they're even grateful, too! In fact, we have the scars to
> prove it! There are still skirmishes every day resulting in death,
> and the citizens are hardly living in luxury. In fact, most don't
> have basic facilities like clean water and electricity.
Can you please tell me where you heard that. Last time i heard that was weeks ago. And to be blunt, it wasn't really all that developed before the war! The allies are not just re-building, their almost building Iraq. Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm sure it takes more than a few months to construct a nation.
> But hey! They aren't under Saddam any more. Kind of like the
> "pig satisfied/Socrates dissatisfied" question.
Well maybe they are still getting killed, but do some math. A dozen or so are killed a day. At most. Under Saddam, that many were tortured and mutilated in an hour. More so killed in a day.
You can't say the whole country has gone down the toilet! Some good has come from it! Iraq's not funding to terrorists now, which they were before(fact). Maybe not on Bin Ladens scale, but enough to kill people. Saddam isn't a threat to Kuwaits security, or others. The people don't get pulled of the streets and tortured, simply for their political views.
The news only focus's on the negative. But there is good from it aswell.
A lot of people seem to forget that.
I've said for months, and Belldandy has refuted for the same length of time, that it's a war over contracts. You can see that from that fact that the five companies who put up 68% of the funding for Bush's presidential campaign now have the five biggest contracts in Iraq. That's pretty much enough to convince me, but unfortunately for our chums in number 10 there is much more evidence.
Pax Americana is why.
Blank wrote:
> What do they have left then? "The Iraqis are better off".
But the government never even offered that one, not until after we'd gone in and they were searching for additional justifications.
Before this news it could be argued Blair did believe WMDs could get to terrorists. However unfounded that may seem, he could have believed it.
But now, he didn't go in because of the threat of WMDs being used by Iraq, he didn't go in to stop WMDs getting into terrorist hands, and he sure as hell didn't do this for Iraqi civilians' benefit.
So Why?
> What do they have left then? "The Iraqis are better off".
But the government never even offered that one, not until after we'd gone in and they were searching for additional justifications.
Before this news it could be argued Blair did believe WMDs could get to terrorists. However unfounded that may seem, he could have believed it.
But now, he didn't go in because of the threat of WMDs being used by Iraq, he didn't go in to stop WMDs getting into terrorist hands, and he sure as hell didn't do this for Iraqi civilians' benefit.
So Why?
Were it not for the fact that he's busy wiping the man fat off of his laminated stars and stripes, and then playing with his US Marine dolls in a sandpit in order to drive away the salty tears of rage and humiliation, we could doubtless ask Bell to explain why we're all wrong, and how the report proves beyond shadow of a doubt that we were right to invade Iraq.
Or, he'd spit his dummy and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a goddam commie. ~shrugs~ Either or, it doesn't really matter.
~waves~
Hello Bell. I'm sure you're reading this.
Or, he'd spit his dummy and accuse everyone who disagrees with him of being a goddam commie. ~shrugs~ Either or, it doesn't really matter.
~waves~
Hello Bell. I'm sure you're reading this.
Page: