The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Jus**t a little something I wrote for a college publication. I think about five get handed out free of charge, so not much chance of anyone reading my article, but I'd like people to proof read it, tell me what they think and point out any glaring errors.
___
Iraq: were we misled?
The issue of whether the general public were misled regarding the war on Iraq is not really an issue at all. We were misled. It’s a fact. Regardless of what your opinion on the war is, we were told several things before our troops entered the country in order to gain our support, mos**t of which turned out to be false.
In the latter months of las**t year and the early months of this, the situation was “urgent”. Saddam had chemical and biological weapons amongs**t other forms of WMD, he could launch them within 45 minutes and posed an immediate threat to Wes**tern targets and the Wes**tern way of life. In fact, the threat was so dangerous that Tony Blair felt the need to send tanks to Heathrow, and we certainly didn’t have time to let the UN in on the action (because, you know, weapons inspectors are the las**t people you’d expect to be able to find weapons…).
All of a sudden the country thinks “Oh sh*t, maybe this is a threat, what with 9/11 and Osama bin Lay-din and all”. A large part of the country is soiling itself. When people think they’re 45 minutes away from radiation poisoning, they tend to support anything to reduce the chances of it happening.
So we went to war. Not only did we go to war, but we went to war with the cons**tant nagging of “You’ve got to support our boys out there now!” Really? I wasn’t aware that I have to give support to people who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come from the same land-mass as me. My mis**take.
Anyway, we go through with the war, Saddam is nowhere to be found and it looks like we’ve got mos**t of the playing card pack (although for me Bush can shove it up his ‘earts). And now the ques**tion s**tarts to arise…where are these mys**terious weapons of mass des**truction? “Iraq’s a big country, there are lots of places to hide them. Give us time” is the answer that inevitably came. Okay…it’s a few months on, how about now? “Well, you see, we gave him so much warning that he had time to dispose of them.” So why didn’t he jus**t use them agains**t us? After all, he did have these things trained on every kitten, pony and small child in the country. “Well, you see, we hit him so fas**t, and with so little warning that he didn’t have time to.” Right…
Over six months on and we s**till haven’t found weapons, nor are we going to. The US and UK are reduced to finding the ingredients for WMD (although the average swimming pool contains essential ingredients for chemical weapons) or plans for cons**truction of WMD. Not a massive difference in wording, but large implications.
Add to this the recent news that Blair was told pre-war that what he was about to do could actually increase an al-Qaida threat (to quote the warning of Whitehall’s Joint Intelligence Committee: "al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greates**t threat to wes**tern interes**ts, and that threat would be heightened by military action agains**t Iraq…any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terroris**ts, including al-Qaida”), the 45 minute claim was actually referring to short range battlefield weapons (helpfully edited out of the dossier) and a quote from Donald Rumsfeld to say that we had no new evidence at all, but only old intelligence “viewed through the prism of September 11th”. Now it looks as if the countries involved knew the WMD weren’t there to s**tart with. Oh-oh.
So now the pro-war lobby no longer have chemical weapons as the jus**tification for their war. What do they have? Iraq’s been liberated! Of course. The people are jus**t so much happier, and live in freedom, as people in favour of the war like to tell us so very often. And I’m sure they are. I’d be happy too, with no clean water or electricity. But hey! These citizens can now speak out agains**t Saddam without fear. The only problem is they can’t speak out for Saddam. Far be it from me to sugges**t that this is jus**t a reshuffle of what the Iraqi people can and can’t do…okay, that is entirely what I’m sugges**ting. We as a country have imposed our beliefs onto another, without gaining UN backing, as if we’re some kind of public avenger. And before we forget, there s**till isn’t a new democratic government set up.
Then why did we invade Iraq? There mus**t be some reason. Well, it could jus**t be a coincidence that the five companies who put up 68% of the funding for Bush’s presidential campaign are now the five companies with the larges**t contracts in Iraq. No it couldn’t. I’m talking about companies like Halliburton (former chairman and CEO: Dick (…) Cheney. Vice President of the United States of America. And while we’re at it Donald Rumsfeld has changed his tune a bit – in 2000 he was the director of a company selling nuclear reactors to North Korea…but I digress). It could be twofold if the “finishing off what Daddy s**tarted” argument holds any water with you.
But this doesn’t seem to show why we, the UK, played follow the leader. Well, possibly we’ll benefit from the oil gained. Another reason might be that we didn’t want to harm relations with the US (and in doing so harmed relation with France, Germany etc, but it’s alright because we can’t tell what they’re saying anyway. Jus**t speak louder and they’ll get the message). Maybe time will tell, maybe it won’t. The simple fact is that we were misled into the reasons for going to war, and that is that is that.
___
Iraq: were we misled?
The issue of whether the general public were misled regarding the war on Iraq is not really an issue at all. We were misled. It’s a fact. Regardless of what your opinion on the war is, we were told several things before our troops entered the country in order to gain our support, mos**t of which turned out to be false.
In the latter months of las**t year and the early months of this, the situation was “urgent”. Saddam had chemical and biological weapons amongs**t other forms of WMD, he could launch them within 45 minutes and posed an immediate threat to Wes**tern targets and the Wes**tern way of life. In fact, the threat was so dangerous that Tony Blair felt the need to send tanks to Heathrow, and we certainly didn’t have time to let the UN in on the action (because, you know, weapons inspectors are the las**t people you’d expect to be able to find weapons…).
All of a sudden the country thinks “Oh sh*t, maybe this is a threat, what with 9/11 and Osama bin Lay-din and all”. A large part of the country is soiling itself. When people think they’re 45 minutes away from radiation poisoning, they tend to support anything to reduce the chances of it happening.
So we went to war. Not only did we go to war, but we went to war with the cons**tant nagging of “You’ve got to support our boys out there now!” Really? I wasn’t aware that I have to give support to people who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come from the same land-mass as me. My mis**take.
Anyway, we go through with the war, Saddam is nowhere to be found and it looks like we’ve got mos**t of the playing card pack (although for me Bush can shove it up his ‘earts). And now the ques**tion s**tarts to arise…where are these mys**terious weapons of mass des**truction? “Iraq’s a big country, there are lots of places to hide them. Give us time” is the answer that inevitably came. Okay…it’s a few months on, how about now? “Well, you see, we gave him so much warning that he had time to dispose of them.” So why didn’t he jus**t use them agains**t us? After all, he did have these things trained on every kitten, pony and small child in the country. “Well, you see, we hit him so fas**t, and with so little warning that he didn’t have time to.” Right…
Over six months on and we s**till haven’t found weapons, nor are we going to. The US and UK are reduced to finding the ingredients for WMD (although the average swimming pool contains essential ingredients for chemical weapons) or plans for cons**truction of WMD. Not a massive difference in wording, but large implications.
Add to this the recent news that Blair was told pre-war that what he was about to do could actually increase an al-Qaida threat (to quote the warning of Whitehall’s Joint Intelligence Committee: "al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greates**t threat to wes**tern interes**ts, and that threat would be heightened by military action agains**t Iraq…any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terroris**ts, including al-Qaida”), the 45 minute claim was actually referring to short range battlefield weapons (helpfully edited out of the dossier) and a quote from Donald Rumsfeld to say that we had no new evidence at all, but only old intelligence “viewed through the prism of September 11th”. Now it looks as if the countries involved knew the WMD weren’t there to s**tart with. Oh-oh.
So now the pro-war lobby no longer have chemical weapons as the jus**tification for their war. What do they have? Iraq’s been liberated! Of course. The people are jus**t so much happier, and live in freedom, as people in favour of the war like to tell us so very often. And I’m sure they are. I’d be happy too, with no clean water or electricity. But hey! These citizens can now speak out agains**t Saddam without fear. The only problem is they can’t speak out for Saddam. Far be it from me to sugges**t that this is jus**t a reshuffle of what the Iraqi people can and can’t do…okay, that is entirely what I’m sugges**ting. We as a country have imposed our beliefs onto another, without gaining UN backing, as if we’re some kind of public avenger. And before we forget, there s**till isn’t a new democratic government set up.
Then why did we invade Iraq? There mus**t be some reason. Well, it could jus**t be a coincidence that the five companies who put up 68% of the funding for Bush’s presidential campaign are now the five companies with the larges**t contracts in Iraq. No it couldn’t. I’m talking about companies like Halliburton (former chairman and CEO: Dick (…) Cheney. Vice President of the United States of America. And while we’re at it Donald Rumsfeld has changed his tune a bit – in 2000 he was the director of a company selling nuclear reactors to North Korea…but I digress). It could be twofold if the “finishing off what Daddy s**tarted” argument holds any water with you.
But this doesn’t seem to show why we, the UK, played follow the leader. Well, possibly we’ll benefit from the oil gained. Another reason might be that we didn’t want to harm relations with the US (and in doing so harmed relation with France, Germany etc, but it’s alright because we can’t tell what they’re saying anyway. Jus**t speak louder and they’ll get the message). Maybe time will tell, maybe it won’t. The simple fact is that we were misled into the reasons for going to war, and that is that is that.
Page:
Blank wrote:
> So because Iraq was in breach of 17 UN resolutions that means WE
> should also go against the UN? Use your brain, two wrongs don't make
> a right.
So you think we should have allowed Iraq to get away with the breach of resolutions???
> So because Iraq was in breach of 17 UN resolutions that means WE
> should also go against the UN? Use your brain, two wrongs don't make
> a right.
So you think we should have allowed Iraq to get away with the breach of resolutions???
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> You could insult
> those who made the decisions but calling the man on the frontline,
> whom I am sure didn't want to be there anymore than you would,
> ''people who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come
> from the same land-mass as me'' is plain wrong.
You've misread it. I meant I don't have to support them because they come from the same country as me. Simple.
> Constant nagging? Maybe you should read newspapers other than the Sun
> or Mirror. I don't remember my friends or family nagging me to
> support the troops.
Well some of us use other sources rather than friends and family for our information...
> Thus, in conclusion, I think most of the points raised are good, but
> this one thing insulting the troops, our army, even if you don't
> support their commands I think most people will be offended.
I wasn't having a go at the troops directly, but the rhetoric that we HAVE to support them.
> Sorry, but quite frankly I was discusted at that remark, even from
> someone who was so strongly against the war as you. Also, none if
> this info is really new. Everyone is quite aware I should think that
> no WOMD have been found and Saddam is still on the loose. That won't
> change the situation. And another thing, I don't remember that many
> of the public all talking in fear of Iraq last year and 'soiling'
> themselves. In fact to be honest the vast majority of the public,
> while there was anti-war feeling, really didn't give a damn I am
> sorry to say. When it doesn't affect peoples lives directly in the
> nation people don't care. But you already know that.
It's called poetic license. I exaggerated a tad. And I know there weren't many new points, but this wasn't written for ukchatforums.com.
> You could insult
> those who made the decisions but calling the man on the frontline,
> whom I am sure didn't want to be there anymore than you would,
> ''people who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come
> from the same land-mass as me'' is plain wrong.
You've misread it. I meant I don't have to support them because they come from the same country as me. Simple.
> Constant nagging? Maybe you should read newspapers other than the Sun
> or Mirror. I don't remember my friends or family nagging me to
> support the troops.
Well some of us use other sources rather than friends and family for our information...
> Thus, in conclusion, I think most of the points raised are good, but
> this one thing insulting the troops, our army, even if you don't
> support their commands I think most people will be offended.
I wasn't having a go at the troops directly, but the rhetoric that we HAVE to support them.
> Sorry, but quite frankly I was discusted at that remark, even from
> someone who was so strongly against the war as you. Also, none if
> this info is really new. Everyone is quite aware I should think that
> no WOMD have been found and Saddam is still on the loose. That won't
> change the situation. And another thing, I don't remember that many
> of the public all talking in fear of Iraq last year and 'soiling'
> themselves. In fact to be honest the vast majority of the public,
> while there was anti-war feeling, really didn't give a damn I am
> sorry to say. When it doesn't affect peoples lives directly in the
> nation people don't care. But you already know that.
It's called poetic license. I exaggerated a tad. And I know there weren't many new points, but this wasn't written for ukchatforums.com.
Blank wrote:
>Not only did we go to war, but we went to war with
> the constant nagging of “You’ve got to support our boys out there
> now!” Really? I wasn’t aware that I have to give support to people
> who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come from the
> same land-mass as me. My mistake.
Now thats just low. You may hate the war. You may not like our troops being sent out. You didn't even have to go out onto the streets or put up posters of propaganda to support the troops. But insulting them is discusting. If they are told what to do they have to do it, even if they don't support the war politically. You could insult those who made the decisions but calling the man on the frontline, whom I am sure didn't want to be there anymore than you would, ''people who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come from the same land-mass as me'' is plain wrong. That is what they are conditioned to do. They can not stand against it. That is your job as a citizen. And while there is little, in fact nothing you or I can do to make a differance insulting the troops on the ground is again, shallow, a gross over simpification of what our troops do and frankly hideous.
Constant nagging? Maybe you should read newspapers other than the Sun or Mirror. I don't remember my friends or family nagging me to support the troops.
Thus, in conclusion, I think most of the points raised are good, but this one thing insulting the troops, our army, even if you don't support their commands I think most people will be offended.
Sorry, but quite frankly I was discusted at that remark, even from someone who was so strongly against the war as you. Also, none if this info is really new. Everyone is quite aware I should think that no WOMD have been found and Saddam is still on the loose. That won't change the situation. And another thing, I don't remember that many of the public all talking in fear of Iraq last year and 'soiling' themselves. In fact to be honest the vast majority of the public, while there was anti-war feeling, really didn't give a damn I am sorry to say. When it doesn't affect peoples lives directly in the nation people don't care. But you already know that.
You don't have to support the troops. But insulting them was very wrong.
>Not only did we go to war, but we went to war with
> the constant nagging of “You’ve got to support our boys out there
> now!” Really? I wasn’t aware that I have to give support to people
> who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come from the
> same land-mass as me. My mistake.
Now thats just low. You may hate the war. You may not like our troops being sent out. You didn't even have to go out onto the streets or put up posters of propaganda to support the troops. But insulting them is discusting. If they are told what to do they have to do it, even if they don't support the war politically. You could insult those who made the decisions but calling the man on the frontline, whom I am sure didn't want to be there anymore than you would, ''people who mindlessly carry out orders of murder because they come from the same land-mass as me'' is plain wrong. That is what they are conditioned to do. They can not stand against it. That is your job as a citizen. And while there is little, in fact nothing you or I can do to make a differance insulting the troops on the ground is again, shallow, a gross over simpification of what our troops do and frankly hideous.
Constant nagging? Maybe you should read newspapers other than the Sun or Mirror. I don't remember my friends or family nagging me to support the troops.
Thus, in conclusion, I think most of the points raised are good, but this one thing insulting the troops, our army, even if you don't support their commands I think most people will be offended.
Sorry, but quite frankly I was discusted at that remark, even from someone who was so strongly against the war as you. Also, none if this info is really new. Everyone is quite aware I should think that no WOMD have been found and Saddam is still on the loose. That won't change the situation. And another thing, I don't remember that many of the public all talking in fear of Iraq last year and 'soiling' themselves. In fact to be honest the vast majority of the public, while there was anti-war feeling, really didn't give a damn I am sorry to say. When it doesn't affect peoples lives directly in the nation people don't care. But you already know that.
You don't have to support the troops. But insulting them was very wrong.
Blank wrote:
>
> And the other thing I meant to say was that I think I stole a piece
> of information from Light. Sorry about that. :)
Heh. No need to apologise; it's always nice (not to mention ego-boosting) to know that some of what I churn out is sticking in somebody's head.
Oh, and Skarra (apologies if this has been raised), but what about Israel and it's breach of UN resolutions? Why aren't THEY being invaded?
Lastly; less than a week until I get my piece out in front of a paying audience...
>
> And the other thing I meant to say was that I think I stole a piece
> of information from Light. Sorry about that. :)
Heh. No need to apologise; it's always nice (not to mention ego-boosting) to know that some of what I churn out is sticking in somebody's head.
Oh, and Skarra (apologies if this has been raised), but what about Israel and it's breach of UN resolutions? Why aren't THEY being invaded?
Lastly; less than a week until I get my piece out in front of a paying audience...
Skarra wrote:
> Ok, just for arguments sake, say there were no WMD.
> You say there was no just reason. Well, how about the reason that
> Iraq was in material breach of 17, yes, 17 UN resolution. This is a
> fact! So, there is a reason on it's own.
So because Iraq was in breach of 17 UN resolutions that means WE should also go against the UN? Use your brain, two wrongs don't make a right.
> You also point out the fact that the UN didn't give it's consent.
> Well here's one for you. Remember Kosovo, you know, that place where
> there was Ethnic clensing was going on. Well what did the UN say when
> the US and Allies wanted to go in. They said, No, No, it's not up to
> us.
>
> So do you think we were wrong to go into Kosovo, just because the
> Omniscient UN didn't give it's backing? Well, that just shows you
> have to much faith in the UN.
Not at all. I never said tha UN was the be all and end all. Nor do I think that. It's just another point in a portfolio of many.
> Ok, just for arguments sake, say there were no WMD.
> You say there was no just reason. Well, how about the reason that
> Iraq was in material breach of 17, yes, 17 UN resolution. This is a
> fact! So, there is a reason on it's own.
So because Iraq was in breach of 17 UN resolutions that means WE should also go against the UN? Use your brain, two wrongs don't make a right.
> You also point out the fact that the UN didn't give it's consent.
> Well here's one for you. Remember Kosovo, you know, that place where
> there was Ethnic clensing was going on. Well what did the UN say when
> the US and Allies wanted to go in. They said, No, No, it's not up to
> us.
>
> So do you think we were wrong to go into Kosovo, just because the
> Omniscient UN didn't give it's backing? Well, that just shows you
> have to much faith in the UN.
Not at all. I never said tha UN was the be all and end all. Nor do I think that. It's just another point in a portfolio of many.
Skarra wrote:
> Ok, just for arguments sake, say there were no WMD.
> You say there was no just reason. Well, how about the reason that
> Iraq was in material breach of 17, yes, 17 UN resolution. This is a
> fact! So, there is a reason on it's own.
Yep, fair point. Tell me, what would you do about Israel? Being in breach of a good 40 or so resolutions, many of them telling Israel to pull out of Palestinian land, what does that warrant?
> Ok, just for arguments sake, say there were no WMD.
> You say there was no just reason. Well, how about the reason that
> Iraq was in material breach of 17, yes, 17 UN resolution. This is a
> fact! So, there is a reason on it's own.
Yep, fair point. Tell me, what would you do about Israel? Being in breach of a good 40 or so resolutions, many of them telling Israel to pull out of Palestinian land, what does that warrant?
maddmun wrote:
> We were going to war, no matter what.
> But, hey, Tony won't mind, neither will George, because, they ain't
> gonna be re-elected, so, it won't be their problem.
That's interesting, tell me, who will replace them???
> We were going to war, no matter what.
> But, hey, Tony won't mind, neither will George, because, they ain't
> gonna be re-elected, so, it won't be their problem.
That's interesting, tell me, who will replace them???
Blank wrote:
> 'There’s a name for countries who invade others, without any just
> reason or consent of organisations like the UN, and possess weapons
> of mass destruction. That name is “rogue nation”.'
Ok, just for arguments sake, say there were no WMD.
You say there was no just reason. Well, how about the reason that Iraq was in material breach of 17, yes, 17 UN resolution. This is a fact! So, there is a reason on it's own.
You also point out the fact that the UN didn't give it's consent.
Well here's one for you. Remember Kosovo, you know, that place where there was Ethnic clensing was going on. Well what did the UN say when the US and Allies wanted to go in. They said, No, No, it's not up to us.
So do you think we were wrong to go into Kosovo, just because the Omniscient UN didn't give it's backing? Well, that just shows you have to much faith in the UN.
Just because it's big, and powerful(Not without the US, as shown in Somalia) doesn't mean there always right!
> 'There’s a name for countries who invade others, without any just
> reason or consent of organisations like the UN, and possess weapons
> of mass destruction. That name is “rogue nation”.'
Ok, just for arguments sake, say there were no WMD.
You say there was no just reason. Well, how about the reason that Iraq was in material breach of 17, yes, 17 UN resolution. This is a fact! So, there is a reason on it's own.
You also point out the fact that the UN didn't give it's consent.
Well here's one for you. Remember Kosovo, you know, that place where there was Ethnic clensing was going on. Well what did the UN say when the US and Allies wanted to go in. They said, No, No, it's not up to us.
So do you think we were wrong to go into Kosovo, just because the Omniscient UN didn't give it's backing? Well, that just shows you have to much faith in the UN.
Just because it's big, and powerful(Not without the US, as shown in Somalia) doesn't mean there always right!
We were going to war, no matter what.
But, hey, Tony won't mind, neither will George, because, they ain't gonna be re-elected, so, it won't be their problem.
But, hey, Tony won't mind, neither will George, because, they ain't gonna be re-elected, so, it won't be their problem.
I hate pressing the wrong button. It should have had this end to it:
'There’s a name for countries who invade others, without any just reason or consent of organisations like the UN, and possess weapons of mass destruction. That name is “rogue nation”.'
And the other thing I meant to say was that I think I stole a piece of information from Light. Sorry about that. :)
'There’s a name for countries who invade others, without any just reason or consent of organisations like the UN, and possess weapons of mass destruction. That name is “rogue nation”.'
And the other thing I meant to say was that I think I stole a piece of information from Light. Sorry about that. :)
Page: