The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm
1st Bush says "No link between Sept 11th and Iraq", now a Washington source has indicated the report into WOMD will more than likely say that they never were there in the first place.
Wow, it's almost like the reasons offered for the invasion were lies.
Now, the chances of Blair acting honourably and resigning/commiting Sepuku in front of the assembled media is highly unlikely, but here's to hoping.
Never an Oswald when you need one
1st Bush says "No link between Sept 11th and Iraq", now a Washington source has indicated the report into WOMD will more than likely say that they never were there in the first place.
Wow, it's almost like the reasons offered for the invasion were lies.
Now, the chances of Blair acting honourably and resigning/commiting Sepuku in front of the assembled media is highly unlikely, but here's to hoping.
Never an Oswald when you need one
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> 'Propaganda'
> The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information
> reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a
> doctrine or cause
Your post might be considered a good example of that.
I think that statement could have a different meaning in its original context. Its interesting really that you, Light etc. engage in your own versions of "spin" whilst so strongly condemning the government for it. :)
> 'Propaganda'
> The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information
> reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a
> doctrine or cause
Your post might be considered a good example of that.
I think that statement could have a different meaning in its original context. Its interesting really that you, Light etc. engage in your own versions of "spin" whilst so strongly condemning the government for it. :)
Garin wrote:
> I think that statement could have a different meaning in its original
> context. Its interesting really that you, Light etc. engage in your
> own versions of "spin" whilst so strongly condemning the
> government for it. :)
--
So kindly put that comment in the correct context.
Show me how that email is not indicative of the manner in which this government waged war on baseless reason.
Go on.
> I think that statement could have a different meaning in its original
> context. Its interesting really that you, Light etc. engage in your
> own versions of "spin" whilst so strongly condemning the
> government for it. :)
--
So kindly put that comment in the correct context.
Show me how that email is not indicative of the manner in which this government waged war on baseless reason.
Go on.
I love that the lawyer for the Government had the balls to claim the Dossier had been "Fundamentally honest".
Convieniently forgetting about the '45 minute claim' and that a few days before Bush had admitted he got it wrong about WOMD.
Remember you're a WOMDle...
*Picks up litter*
Why this appears to be a dossier of somesort...
*Puts it in the trash where it belongs*
Convieniently forgetting about the '45 minute claim' and that a few days before Bush had admitted he got it wrong about WOMD.
Remember you're a WOMDle...
*Picks up litter*
Why this appears to be a dossier of somesort...
*Puts it in the trash where it belongs*
Garin wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> 'Propaganda'
> The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information
> reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a
> doctrine or cause
>
> Your post might be considered a good example of that.
> I think that statement could have a different meaning in its original
> context. Its interesting really that you, Light etc. engage in your
> own versions of "spin" whilst so strongly condemning the
> government for it. :)
The difference being that
A: GB and I never purport to give anything other than our opinion.
B: Our opinions won't lead to a war
C: If your definition was true, then what would be the point of posting here, as everyone's opinions can be said to be 'spin'?
A nice try to do the Devil's Advocate thing, but your logic is, to my mind, flawed.
> Goatboy wrote:
> 'Propaganda'
> The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information
> reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a
> doctrine or cause
>
> Your post might be considered a good example of that.
> I think that statement could have a different meaning in its original
> context. Its interesting really that you, Light etc. engage in your
> own versions of "spin" whilst so strongly condemning the
> government for it. :)
The difference being that
A: GB and I never purport to give anything other than our opinion.
B: Our opinions won't lead to a war
C: If your definition was true, then what would be the point of posting here, as everyone's opinions can be said to be 'spin'?
A nice try to do the Devil's Advocate thing, but your logic is, to my mind, flawed.
Plus I've provided the link to the original source article for people to read and draw their own conclusions.
Hardly propaganda is it?
Hardly propaganda is it?
Fiery Salamander wrote:
> because Bush and Blair didn't find WOMD but invaded Iraq anyway isn't
> that some kind of warcrime?
They never found Hitler.
Maybe there are no WOMD in Iraq, but rather than just saying that Blair lied to us, look at the evidence. There was a lot of stuff suggesting there were WOMD, but Saddam did have months between the US asking the UN for help, and invading Iraq. He had plenty of time to hide/ move his WOMD.
Also, there are only 1400 people looking for them in a place bigger than Texas. That's like looking for a needle in a stack of needles hidden in hanger full of hay.
Don't just say Blair lied to us, maybe he got it wrong, but this report about to be released will probably say there was a huge deception infastructure in Iraq.
And this Dr. Kelly stuff. He signed the Official Secters Act, so if he did blab to the BBC about the dossier, if it were true or not, then the MOD should not held accountable for anythin'. He abandond them by going to the BBC.
> because Bush and Blair didn't find WOMD but invaded Iraq anyway isn't
> that some kind of warcrime?
They never found Hitler.
Maybe there are no WOMD in Iraq, but rather than just saying that Blair lied to us, look at the evidence. There was a lot of stuff suggesting there were WOMD, but Saddam did have months between the US asking the UN for help, and invading Iraq. He had plenty of time to hide/ move his WOMD.
Also, there are only 1400 people looking for them in a place bigger than Texas. That's like looking for a needle in a stack of needles hidden in hanger full of hay.
Don't just say Blair lied to us, maybe he got it wrong, but this report about to be released will probably say there was a huge deception infastructure in Iraq.
And this Dr. Kelly stuff. He signed the Official Secters Act, so if he did blab to the BBC about the dossier, if it were true or not, then the MOD should not held accountable for anythin'. He abandond them by going to the BBC.
Skarra wrote:
> They never found Hitler.
That's because Hitler shot himself in a bunker.
And Hitler waged war on Europe, whereas Hussein waged war on...well...nobody once he had assisted us overthrow Iran.
That's a lazy comparison
> They never found Hitler.
That's because Hitler shot himself in a bunker.
And Hitler waged war on Europe, whereas Hussein waged war on...well...nobody once he had assisted us overthrow Iran.
That's a lazy comparison
Skarra wrote:
> They never found Hitler.
Actually, they did. His remains were taken to Moscow after being discovered by Soviet soldiers. If memory serves, a piece of his skull is still held by Russia. The rest of his body was destroyed.
>
> Maybe there are no WOMD in Iraq, but rather than just saying that
> Blair lied to us, look at the evidence. There was a lot of stuff
> suggesting there were WOMD, but Saddam did have months between the US
> asking the UN for help, and invading Iraq. He had plenty of time to
> hide/ move his WOMD.
...during which time the weapons inspectors were there. How did he hide his multitude of WOMD from under their noses? And what about satellite photo's; would something like that have shown?
>
> Also, there are only 1400 people looking for them in a place bigger
> than Texas. That's like looking for a needle in a stack of needles
> hidden in hanger full of hay.
Mm, I can take your point. A pity then that the US and UK refused to accept that when they denied the UN weapons inspectors more time, no?
>
> Don't just say Blair lied to us, maybe he got it wrong, but this
> report about to be released will probably say there was a huge
> deception infastructure in Iraq.
'probably'? How do you know? And what if it doesn't? And what the hell is a 'deception infrastructure'?!
The leaked parts of the report suggest that no WOMD have been or will be found.
>
> And this Dr. Kelly stuff. He signed the Official Secters Act, so if
> he did blab to the BBC about the dossier, if it were true or not,
> then the MOD should not held accountable for anythin'. He abandond
> them by going to the BBC.
Erm...so he deserved to be hounded into an early grave then for telling the BBC that the government were lying about evidence that would lead to war? You're saying he should have obeyed his orders, despite the dictates of his conscience?
Under that logic, no nazi's other than Hitler would ever have been accountable for war crimes because 'they were following orders'.
You also seem to be saying "Just because Kelly exposed their lies, they shouldn't be accountable because he shouldn't have grassed them up". Am I right in that, or have I misunderstood what you were saying?
> They never found Hitler.
Actually, they did. His remains were taken to Moscow after being discovered by Soviet soldiers. If memory serves, a piece of his skull is still held by Russia. The rest of his body was destroyed.
>
> Maybe there are no WOMD in Iraq, but rather than just saying that
> Blair lied to us, look at the evidence. There was a lot of stuff
> suggesting there were WOMD, but Saddam did have months between the US
> asking the UN for help, and invading Iraq. He had plenty of time to
> hide/ move his WOMD.
...during which time the weapons inspectors were there. How did he hide his multitude of WOMD from under their noses? And what about satellite photo's; would something like that have shown?
>
> Also, there are only 1400 people looking for them in a place bigger
> than Texas. That's like looking for a needle in a stack of needles
> hidden in hanger full of hay.
Mm, I can take your point. A pity then that the US and UK refused to accept that when they denied the UN weapons inspectors more time, no?
>
> Don't just say Blair lied to us, maybe he got it wrong, but this
> report about to be released will probably say there was a huge
> deception infastructure in Iraq.
'probably'? How do you know? And what if it doesn't? And what the hell is a 'deception infrastructure'?!
The leaked parts of the report suggest that no WOMD have been or will be found.
>
> And this Dr. Kelly stuff. He signed the Official Secters Act, so if
> he did blab to the BBC about the dossier, if it were true or not,
> then the MOD should not held accountable for anythin'. He abandond
> them by going to the BBC.
Erm...so he deserved to be hounded into an early grave then for telling the BBC that the government were lying about evidence that would lead to war? You're saying he should have obeyed his orders, despite the dictates of his conscience?
Under that logic, no nazi's other than Hitler would ever have been accountable for war crimes because 'they were following orders'.
You also seem to be saying "Just because Kelly exposed their lies, they shouldn't be accountable because he shouldn't have grassed them up". Am I right in that, or have I misunderstood what you were saying?
Goatboy wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> They never found Hitler.
>
> That's because Hitler shot himself in a bunker.
> And Hitler waged war on Europe, whereas Hussein waged war
> on...well...nobody once he had assisted us overthrow Iran.
>
> That's a lazy comparison
Um... invading Kuwait, firing missiles at Israel.
The Hitler thing is just a comparison. Every body knew Hitler was about, Germany was invaded, but he was never found.
Every body knew Iraq had WOMD, this is a fact, i.e. they were used in Halabja, Iraq was invaded, but they havn't been found. I lost a bag of o-rings and tools in my room, i knew they were there, but never found them.
My point is, it shouldn't be Innocent until proven guilty, but the other way round. Guilty until proven innocent. Iraq has been proven Guilty(Halabja), but the lack of WOMD is in conclusive, not proof of innocence!
> Skarra wrote:
> They never found Hitler.
>
> That's because Hitler shot himself in a bunker.
> And Hitler waged war on Europe, whereas Hussein waged war
> on...well...nobody once he had assisted us overthrow Iran.
>
> That's a lazy comparison
Um... invading Kuwait, firing missiles at Israel.
The Hitler thing is just a comparison. Every body knew Hitler was about, Germany was invaded, but he was never found.
Every body knew Iraq had WOMD, this is a fact, i.e. they were used in Halabja, Iraq was invaded, but they havn't been found. I lost a bag of o-rings and tools in my room, i knew they were there, but never found them.
My point is, it shouldn't be Innocent until proven guilty, but the other way round. Guilty until proven innocent. Iraq has been proven Guilty(Halabja), but the lack of WOMD is in conclusive, not proof of innocence!
Skarra wrote:
> My point is, it shouldn't be Innocent until proven guilty, but the
> other way round.
---
Agreed.
But when it's something as serious as war, I would suggest that you need conclusive evidence to support your reasons.
Which there wasn't.
Nor has there been any evidence whatsoever found since.
And we are now at the point where Bush is saying "they probably weren't even there in the first place" - the original link to story.
UN inspectors found nothing.
Nobody has found anything since, despite the majority of his government in custody.
White House admitting they might not even have been there in the first place.
This isn't some anti-war lefty making stuff up, this is somebody linking to press releases from the governments that invaded a country.
> My point is, it shouldn't be Innocent until proven guilty, but the
> other way round.
---
Agreed.
But when it's something as serious as war, I would suggest that you need conclusive evidence to support your reasons.
Which there wasn't.
Nor has there been any evidence whatsoever found since.
And we are now at the point where Bush is saying "they probably weren't even there in the first place" - the original link to story.
UN inspectors found nothing.
Nobody has found anything since, despite the majority of his government in custody.
White House admitting they might not even have been there in the first place.
This isn't some anti-war lefty making stuff up, this is somebody linking to press releases from the governments that invaded a country.
Page: