The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I was watching the news, a special report on a Shi-ite group in Iran.
One of them said (paraphrased) 'there are many of us willing to give our lives to prevent the American occupation of Iraq'.
And I felt admiration.
People with the balls to stand up.
I should probably qualify that by confirming that the only implication of harm was towards the American military.
But nonetheless, when I caught myself thinking that.. damn.
On reflection I feel like I shouldn't think this way. If I'm completely honest with myself I'm not sure whether I really do or not.
IMO, the American occupation does increasingly look like just another corrupt dictatorship, hanging onto power for as long as the international community will stand by watching.
I saw on the news that all over Iraq, oil production is at upwards of 90% of pre-war levels, while cities still lie in ruins and a population are left largely unaided as they try to get to their feet.
But even so...
Damn.
Maybe I've lost objectivity. Maybe I've been swept along with an overreacting media / public opinion.
Maybe I've come to realise that the evil is truely inherant in all sides, and I'm just yet to learn to balance for the lesser.
Or maybe that instinct was right.
I don't know anymore. And I don't know who to trust from the people who claim to know.
One of them said (paraphrased) 'there are many of us willing to give our lives to prevent the American occupation of Iraq'.
And I felt admiration.
People with the balls to stand up.
I should probably qualify that by confirming that the only implication of harm was towards the American military.
But nonetheless, when I caught myself thinking that.. damn.
On reflection I feel like I shouldn't think this way. If I'm completely honest with myself I'm not sure whether I really do or not.
IMO, the American occupation does increasingly look like just another corrupt dictatorship, hanging onto power for as long as the international community will stand by watching.
I saw on the news that all over Iraq, oil production is at upwards of 90% of pre-war levels, while cities still lie in ruins and a population are left largely unaided as they try to get to their feet.
But even so...
Damn.
Maybe I've lost objectivity. Maybe I've been swept along with an overreacting media / public opinion.
Maybe I've come to realise that the evil is truely inherant in all sides, and I'm just yet to learn to balance for the lesser.
Or maybe that instinct was right.
I don't know anymore. And I don't know who to trust from the people who claim to know.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> ?
>
> No? Do you remember the first gulf war, and the destruction wreaked?
>
> Yes, I also remember UN sanctions not preventing rebuilding or the
> materials needed to do so.
I'd point out the fact that Saddam quite deliberately did not rebuild anything other than the military.
> I'd also point out that the Iraqi military
> had an awfully active building schedule post 1991. It seems pretty
> obvious that the money went into Saddam's pockets and his military
> projects/personnel/hardware. Unless Iraq also had a secret military
> hardware production centre that beggars the question as to where it
> came from. Seeing as just about everything was wiped out in 1991 they
> seemed to have rearmed awfully easily.
Well yeah, but that's not the same as "this level of destruction couldn't have happened in a short war". Now you seem to be saying "It could, but it could have been rebuilt". Have I got that right?
As to where it came from; are you really saying that you expect arms dealers to question who they sell to as long as the money is forthcoming?
> ?
>
> No? Do you remember the first gulf war, and the destruction wreaked?
>
> Yes, I also remember UN sanctions not preventing rebuilding or the
> materials needed to do so.
I'd point out the fact that Saddam quite deliberately did not rebuild anything other than the military.
> I'd also point out that the Iraqi military
> had an awfully active building schedule post 1991. It seems pretty
> obvious that the money went into Saddam's pockets and his military
> projects/personnel/hardware. Unless Iraq also had a secret military
> hardware production centre that beggars the question as to where it
> came from. Seeing as just about everything was wiped out in 1991 they
> seemed to have rearmed awfully easily.
Well yeah, but that's not the same as "this level of destruction couldn't have happened in a short war". Now you seem to be saying "It could, but it could have been rebuilt". Have I got that right?
As to where it came from; are you really saying that you expect arms dealers to question who they sell to as long as the money is forthcoming?
Light wrote:
> However, it IS also like a bank giving a 6 grand overdraft to a
> homeless man with no income, then expecting repayment. If the bank
> are so stupid as to do that in the first place, would you support
> their demand for repayment?
Good point, does anyone actually know which bank(s) are responsible ?
> No? Do you remember the first gulf war, and the destruction wreaked?
Yes, I also remember UN sanctions not preventing rebuilding or the materials needed to do so. I'd also point out that the Iraqi military had an awfully active building schedule post 1991. It seems pretty obvious that the money went into Saddam's pockets and his military projects/personnel/hardware. Unless Iraq also had a secret military hardware production centre that beggars the question as to where it came from. Seeing as just about everything was wiped out in 1991 they seemed to have rearmed awfully easily.
> However, it IS also like a bank giving a 6 grand overdraft to a
> homeless man with no income, then expecting repayment. If the bank
> are so stupid as to do that in the first place, would you support
> their demand for repayment?
Good point, does anyone actually know which bank(s) are responsible ?
> No? Do you remember the first gulf war, and the destruction wreaked?
Yes, I also remember UN sanctions not preventing rebuilding or the materials needed to do so. I'd also point out that the Iraqi military had an awfully active building schedule post 1991. It seems pretty obvious that the money went into Saddam's pockets and his military projects/personnel/hardware. Unless Iraq also had a secret military hardware production centre that beggars the question as to where it came from. Seeing as just about everything was wiped out in 1991 they seemed to have rearmed awfully easily.
Belldandy wrote:
> But "we" do need it, that money is other peoples money that
> was held in banks, and it's been spent. If it isn't brought back then
> who paid for it ? It's like me telling the bank I won't pay the
> overdraft and them saying, no problem we'll take it from Bane's
> wages... Just aboutevery country (us included) is in debt and owes
> money to someone/something, but because most have adequate means to
> pay the debt they're allowed to do it.
However, it IS also like a bank giving a 6 grand overdraft to a homeless man with no income, then expecting repayment. If the bank are so stupid as to do that in the first place, would you support their demand for repayment?
>
> Where was it spent, because it isn't lying in some vault, and form
> the news footage there is no way one short military campaign made
> that amount of improvements disappear.
No? Do you remember the first gulf war, and the destruction wreaked?
> But "we" do need it, that money is other peoples money that
> was held in banks, and it's been spent. If it isn't brought back then
> who paid for it ? It's like me telling the bank I won't pay the
> overdraft and them saying, no problem we'll take it from Bane's
> wages... Just aboutevery country (us included) is in debt and owes
> money to someone/something, but because most have adequate means to
> pay the debt they're allowed to do it.
However, it IS also like a bank giving a 6 grand overdraft to a homeless man with no income, then expecting repayment. If the bank are so stupid as to do that in the first place, would you support their demand for repayment?
>
> Where was it spent, because it isn't lying in some vault, and form
> the news footage there is no way one short military campaign made
> that amount of improvements disappear.
No? Do you remember the first gulf war, and the destruction wreaked?
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Going back to blind faith, isn't being suspect of the motives of
> government and it's supporters a faith in itself ? I don't think it's
> right to call people idiots just for a belief because that belief is
> obviously rooted in something powerful enough for them to believe in
> it in the first place. What's stupid or idiotic to one person may not
> be to another, and so on.
Blind faith is believing something and not bothering to question it, or even think about WHY they believe it. For example, let's say that X believes that Government Y will always do 'the right thing'. Then numerous media articles emerge that question the motives of government Y. If X is a thinking human being, he'll at least read those articles, look a little further into it, and make a judgement on how this affects his beliefs. If however, X is blinkered and blind in his faith, he'll simply not read and then condemn the articles, the media who wrote them, and anyone who doesn't dismiss them out of hand.
To accept something without questioning it is ALWAYS stupid and idiotic, no matter what the belief.
>
> Going back to blind faith, isn't being suspect of the motives of
> government and it's supporters a faith in itself ? I don't think it's
> right to call people idiots just for a belief because that belief is
> obviously rooted in something powerful enough for them to believe in
> it in the first place. What's stupid or idiotic to one person may not
> be to another, and so on.
Blind faith is believing something and not bothering to question it, or even think about WHY they believe it. For example, let's say that X believes that Government Y will always do 'the right thing'. Then numerous media articles emerge that question the motives of government Y. If X is a thinking human being, he'll at least read those articles, look a little further into it, and make a judgement on how this affects his beliefs. If however, X is blinkered and blind in his faith, he'll simply not read and then condemn the articles, the media who wrote them, and anyone who doesn't dismiss them out of hand.
To accept something without questioning it is ALWAYS stupid and idiotic, no matter what the belief.
Icarus wrote:
> Surprisngly, my mother mentioned something about this - with all the
> money in the world, how much of it is actually physically real?
Yeah it's funny that everyone and everything seems to somehow revole around money yet what is money? metal? paper? digits in a bank database?
> Surprisngly, my mother mentioned something about this - with all the
> money in the world, how much of it is actually physically real?
Yeah it's funny that everyone and everything seems to somehow revole around money yet what is money? metal? paper? digits in a bank database?
Dr Duck wrote:
> Speaking of which, did anyone see that 'grass' documentary on late
> channel 4 last night?
>
> Very funny, the bit about how in the '50s the government insisted
> that buying drugs was funding communism.
The drugs came from Anti-Capitalist (hence in the Cold War days they were classed as Communist) groups in South America, Asia, Africa e.t.c. Hence, ultimately, it was, kind of.
> 50 years on and the line is 'buying dugs is funding terrorism'.
I'm certain you mean drugs :) When the Soviet Union went under many groups needed a new source of funds, hence in places like Afghanistan the sales of drugs were (and still are) vital to the economy.
> Speaking of which, did anyone see that 'grass' documentary on late
> channel 4 last night?
>
> Very funny, the bit about how in the '50s the government insisted
> that buying drugs was funding communism.
The drugs came from Anti-Capitalist (hence in the Cold War days they were classed as Communist) groups in South America, Asia, Africa e.t.c. Hence, ultimately, it was, kind of.
> 50 years on and the line is 'buying dugs is funding terrorism'.
I'm certain you mean drugs :) When the Soviet Union went under many groups needed a new source of funds, hence in places like Afghanistan the sales of drugs were (and still are) vital to the economy.
Icarus wrote:
> DIE COMMIE SCUM !!!!! SMOKINNN12121
>
> Does that ring a bell, dandy?
You just made the Communist list as well Icarus.
> DIE COMMIE SCUM !!!!! SMOKINNN12121
>
> Does that ring a bell, dandy?
You just made the Communist list as well Icarus.
Um, which is why I don't buy dugs...
¦^)
¦^)
Speaking of which, did anyone see that 'grass' documentary on late channel 4 last night?
Very funny, the bit about how in the '50s the government insisted that buying drugs was funding communism.
50 years on and the line is 'buying dugs is funding terrorism'.
Neither with any supporting evidence.
I like spotting these kinds of similarities :^)
Very funny, the bit about how in the '50s the government insisted that buying drugs was funding communism.
50 years on and the line is 'buying dugs is funding terrorism'.
Neither with any supporting evidence.
I like spotting these kinds of similarities :^)
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Meh, let the Russians and Chinese pay it off, they've got plenty of
> his money in their banks from weapons sales and had contracts with
> him right up until 2003.
DIE COMMIE SCUM !!!!! SMOKINNN12121
Does that ring a bell, dandy?
>
> Meh, let the Russians and Chinese pay it off, they've got plenty of
> his money in their banks from weapons sales and had contracts with
> him right up until 2003.
DIE COMMIE SCUM !!!!! SMOKINNN12121
Does that ring a bell, dandy?
Page: