The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
You're in London for Bush's arrival. You have the resources and legal immunity do make whatever protest you want.
So what do you do?
So what do you do?
Page:
He's not here to argue his case. That leaves you. So tell me, living in a country where opposition to the government inevitably leads to death, do you a) rise up against Saddam, dying in the process and becoming a statistic for people to quote on gaming chat forums, or b) sit tight and pray that somebody somewhere acknowledges the hardship of your country and comes in to help?
Answers on a postcard.
To be clear, I was pro-war. I wanted Saddam out, regardless of whatever supposed weapons he might have had at his disposal. The following occupation, and what looks to be little more than a land grab "bobbing for oil" exercise, I object to mightily. I was under the impression that the idea was to oust the oppressive regime and give power to the Iraqi people, not create investment opportunities to American firms that backed Dubya's election campaign.
Answers on a postcard.
To be clear, I was pro-war. I wanted Saddam out, regardless of whatever supposed weapons he might have had at his disposal. The following occupation, and what looks to be little more than a land grab "bobbing for oil" exercise, I object to mightily. I was under the impression that the idea was to oust the oppressive regime and give power to the Iraqi people, not create investment opportunities to American firms that backed Dubya's election campaign.
Bane wrote:
> He's not here to argue his case. That leaves you. So tell me, living
> in a country where opposition to the government inevitably leads to
> death, do you a) rise up against Saddam, dying in the process and
> becoming a statistic for people to quote on gaming chat forums, or b)
> sit tight and pray that somebody somewhere acknowledges the hardship
> of your country and comes in to help?
>
> Answers on a postcard.
You do it economically. The US was the largest buyer of Iraqi oil right up until the invasion. Kinda difficult to buy weapons when no-one is buying your oil.
So you then get a resolution via the UN banning the purchase of any oil whatsoever from Iraq by any nation for whatever reason whilst Saddam is the bossman.
You then, via the UN, offer humanitarian aid that will be directly administered by the UN so that Saddam can take no credit.
Iraqi people are given a measure of aid in their daily life, whilst the military machine finds itself rusting.
For the record, that is a GREATLY simplified version of what I would have liked to have seen happen.
OR
You encourage the people to rise up and you actually support them with hardware when they do. That way, one avoids saying "Look at these mass graves! Wasn't Saddam evil!!" whilst conveniently forgetting that your lack of support is the reason for these mass graves in the first place...
>
> To be clear, I was pro-war. I wanted Saddam out, regardless of
> whatever supposed weapons he might have had at his disposal.
Can't argue with that, but at the moment it looks like the situation for Iraqi's will get worse rather than better.
> The
> following occupation, and what looks to be little more than a land
> grab "bobbing for oil" exercise, I object to mightily. I
> was under the impression that the idea was to oust the oppressive
> regime and give power to the Iraqi people, not create investment
> opportunities to American firms that backed Dubya's election
> campaign.
That's the whole reason for the majority of sensible opposition to war (by sensible I mean opposition the basis for which isn't just "I hate America"); once the US and UK went in, there was never any chance of them turning things over to the Iraqi's.
> He's not here to argue his case. That leaves you. So tell me, living
> in a country where opposition to the government inevitably leads to
> death, do you a) rise up against Saddam, dying in the process and
> becoming a statistic for people to quote on gaming chat forums, or b)
> sit tight and pray that somebody somewhere acknowledges the hardship
> of your country and comes in to help?
>
> Answers on a postcard.
You do it economically. The US was the largest buyer of Iraqi oil right up until the invasion. Kinda difficult to buy weapons when no-one is buying your oil.
So you then get a resolution via the UN banning the purchase of any oil whatsoever from Iraq by any nation for whatever reason whilst Saddam is the bossman.
You then, via the UN, offer humanitarian aid that will be directly administered by the UN so that Saddam can take no credit.
Iraqi people are given a measure of aid in their daily life, whilst the military machine finds itself rusting.
For the record, that is a GREATLY simplified version of what I would have liked to have seen happen.
OR
You encourage the people to rise up and you actually support them with hardware when they do. That way, one avoids saying "Look at these mass graves! Wasn't Saddam evil!!" whilst conveniently forgetting that your lack of support is the reason for these mass graves in the first place...
>
> To be clear, I was pro-war. I wanted Saddam out, regardless of
> whatever supposed weapons he might have had at his disposal.
Can't argue with that, but at the moment it looks like the situation for Iraqi's will get worse rather than better.
> The
> following occupation, and what looks to be little more than a land
> grab "bobbing for oil" exercise, I object to mightily. I
> was under the impression that the idea was to oust the oppressive
> regime and give power to the Iraqi people, not create investment
> opportunities to American firms that backed Dubya's election
> campaign.
That's the whole reason for the majority of sensible opposition to war (by sensible I mean opposition the basis for which isn't just "I hate America"); once the US and UK went in, there was never any chance of them turning things over to the Iraqi's.
I would send in a small mammal with a head mounted laser. Preferably a hamster.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Eh? Surely it was the people who supported war that were arguing
> with very little information?
No, i looked into a number of sources, including the UN website, and found they saw Iraq as a threat also.
> After all Tony Blair had just
> presented a fictional dossier on non-existent weapons of mass
> destruction, claiming that Saddam was on the verge of blowing up our
> troops in Cyprus with ebola filled nukes.
Well, as a number of Scud and Al-Samund missiles are still un-accounted for to this day, how can you be so sure he wasn't ready to do that.
> Our leaders lied and
> tricked their way into war, feeding misinformation to the public and
> scaring them into supporting an illegal, foolish and unnecessary
> war.
Illegal, check out the UN resolution 1441, it does find Iraq in material breach of its resolutions.
Foolish, why was it foolish.
Unnecessary, well, the Kurds tried to get rid of Saddam in 1991, and they ended up in mass graves, or at the end of Chemical Bombardment!
> "Administration officials continue to claim that the only
> alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to
> send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said
> repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress
> by myself and other former defense officials, including two former
> secretaries of defense, and a former director of central
> intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad,
> but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from
> Saddam."
Helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselfs would only to lead to tribal leaders and war lords coming to power (if they wern't killed by the Republican Guard first), which they are now, but thanks to the coalition, their influence is extremely limited.
> Eh? Surely it was the people who supported war that were arguing
> with very little information?
No, i looked into a number of sources, including the UN website, and found they saw Iraq as a threat also.
> After all Tony Blair had just
> presented a fictional dossier on non-existent weapons of mass
> destruction, claiming that Saddam was on the verge of blowing up our
> troops in Cyprus with ebola filled nukes.
Well, as a number of Scud and Al-Samund missiles are still un-accounted for to this day, how can you be so sure he wasn't ready to do that.
> Our leaders lied and
> tricked their way into war, feeding misinformation to the public and
> scaring them into supporting an illegal, foolish and unnecessary
> war.
Illegal, check out the UN resolution 1441, it does find Iraq in material breach of its resolutions.
Foolish, why was it foolish.
Unnecessary, well, the Kurds tried to get rid of Saddam in 1991, and they ended up in mass graves, or at the end of Chemical Bombardment!
> "Administration officials continue to claim that the only
> alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to
> send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said
> repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress
> by myself and other former defense officials, including two former
> secretaries of defense, and a former director of central
> intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad,
> but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from
> Saddam."
Helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselfs would only to lead to tribal leaders and war lords coming to power (if they wern't killed by the Republican Guard first), which they are now, but thanks to the coalition, their influence is extremely limited.
By the way, at the end of Gulf War 1, all the people in charge, i.e. Stormin Norman, G. Bush, all knew that if they went into Iraq, the events happening now, would have happened anyway. Also, they knew US troops would need to be there for decades. Some people think once Saddam is gone, all you need to do is give power up to the Iraqi's. In an ideal world, that would be the case, but do we live in an ideal world? I think not. The Kurds will vouch for that.
Sorry to butt in here...
Skarra wrote:
>
> No, i looked into a number of sources, including the UN website, and
> found they saw Iraq as a threat also.
Sorry, what do you mean here? The point kernal made was that the war was started despite the fact that there was next to no solid (ie. truthful) info about Iraq. Who saw Iraq as a threat also? What has that to do with lack of info? Are you inferring that the anti-war camp had little info because they didn't see Iraq as a threat to world peace? And if that is the case, how can you say that they are or were a threat?
>
> Well, as a number of Scud and Al-Samund missiles are still
> un-accounted for to this day, how can you be so sure he wasn't ready
> to do that.
Because those unaccounted for missiles REMAIN unaccounted for, despite the fact that US weapons inspectors and UN weapons inspectors had combed the place for them. No chemical weapons were used to defend Iraq either. Have you anything more to add other than "Well he might have done"? Only that is an extremely poor justification for war, especially when all the evidence so far available indicates that he wasn't ready to do any such thing.
>
> Illegal, check out the UN resolution 1441, it does find Iraq in
> material breach of its resolutions.
And as I say to you repeatedly, what about Israel? They are in breach of several UN resolutions; so why aren't we going after them?
Also, their are a number of cases pending that question the legality of the war. Whilst none of these have yet been heard, a number of legal commentators from all sides of the political spectrum believe that the war was illegal because if the justification is "Breach of UN Resolution", one has to have UN backing to enforce their mandate. Which the US and UK did not.
> Foolish, why was it foolish.
Because it's destabalised the region, the Iraqi people are still living under a dictator, there is a large group of fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq killing Iraqi's as well as Americans, and (on a more cynical level) it's going to lose Dubya the next election.
> Unnecessary, well, the Kurds tried to get rid of Saddam in 1991, and
> they ended up in mass graves, or at the end of Chemical Bombardment!
Yes, and we encouraged them to try and get rid of Saddam. We did everything we could to support a rebellion....except providing any sort of material aid. That uprising would never have happened had we not encouraged it. The mass graves would not exist had we not then abandoned it.
>
> Helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselfs would only to lead to
> tribal leaders and war lords coming to power (if they wern't killed
> by the Republican Guard first), which they are now, but thanks to the
> coalition, their influence is extremely limited.
Sorry, are we talking about Afghanistan or Iraq here? Just cos you've used the sort of terminology (warlords and tribal leaders) that I tend to associate with Afghanistan.
Thanks to the coalition, influence is limited? Er...in what way exactly? There are more fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq now than there ever were before the war.
Also, you seem to be saying that if the Iraqi people were allowed to rule themselves, it would only lead to fragmentation of power in Iraq. If that is what you're saying, then what is your evidence for that belief? And if you do believe that, what is supposed to be done with Iraq? Should it be ruled by the coalition, or what?
Skarra wrote:
>
> No, i looked into a number of sources, including the UN website, and
> found they saw Iraq as a threat also.
Sorry, what do you mean here? The point kernal made was that the war was started despite the fact that there was next to no solid (ie. truthful) info about Iraq. Who saw Iraq as a threat also? What has that to do with lack of info? Are you inferring that the anti-war camp had little info because they didn't see Iraq as a threat to world peace? And if that is the case, how can you say that they are or were a threat?
>
> Well, as a number of Scud and Al-Samund missiles are still
> un-accounted for to this day, how can you be so sure he wasn't ready
> to do that.
Because those unaccounted for missiles REMAIN unaccounted for, despite the fact that US weapons inspectors and UN weapons inspectors had combed the place for them. No chemical weapons were used to defend Iraq either. Have you anything more to add other than "Well he might have done"? Only that is an extremely poor justification for war, especially when all the evidence so far available indicates that he wasn't ready to do any such thing.
>
> Illegal, check out the UN resolution 1441, it does find Iraq in
> material breach of its resolutions.
And as I say to you repeatedly, what about Israel? They are in breach of several UN resolutions; so why aren't we going after them?
Also, their are a number of cases pending that question the legality of the war. Whilst none of these have yet been heard, a number of legal commentators from all sides of the political spectrum believe that the war was illegal because if the justification is "Breach of UN Resolution", one has to have UN backing to enforce their mandate. Which the US and UK did not.
> Foolish, why was it foolish.
Because it's destabalised the region, the Iraqi people are still living under a dictator, there is a large group of fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq killing Iraqi's as well as Americans, and (on a more cynical level) it's going to lose Dubya the next election.
> Unnecessary, well, the Kurds tried to get rid of Saddam in 1991, and
> they ended up in mass graves, or at the end of Chemical Bombardment!
Yes, and we encouraged them to try and get rid of Saddam. We did everything we could to support a rebellion....except providing any sort of material aid. That uprising would never have happened had we not encouraged it. The mass graves would not exist had we not then abandoned it.
>
> Helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselfs would only to lead to
> tribal leaders and war lords coming to power (if they wern't killed
> by the Republican Guard first), which they are now, but thanks to the
> coalition, their influence is extremely limited.
Sorry, are we talking about Afghanistan or Iraq here? Just cos you've used the sort of terminology (warlords and tribal leaders) that I tend to associate with Afghanistan.
Thanks to the coalition, influence is limited? Er...in what way exactly? There are more fundamentalist terrorists in Iraq now than there ever were before the war.
Also, you seem to be saying that if the Iraqi people were allowed to rule themselves, it would only lead to fragmentation of power in Iraq. If that is what you're saying, then what is your evidence for that belief? And if you do believe that, what is supposed to be done with Iraq? Should it be ruled by the coalition, or what?
Skarra wrote:
> By the way, at the end of Gulf War 1, all the people in charge, i.e.
> Stormin Norman, G. Bush, all knew that if they went into Iraq, the
> events happening now, would have happened anyway. #
Did they? How do you know?
> Also, they knew US
> troops would need to be there for decades. Some people think once
> Saddam is gone, all you need to do is give power up to the Iraqi's.
> In an ideal world, that would be the case, but do we live in an ideal
> world? I think not. The Kurds will vouch for that.
The Kurds will also ask why we sold Saddam the chemical weapons he used to gas hundreds of thousands of their people.
So what do we do? Keep power in Iraq away from the Iraqi's? So...how is that any different to a dictatorship?
> By the way, at the end of Gulf War 1, all the people in charge, i.e.
> Stormin Norman, G. Bush, all knew that if they went into Iraq, the
> events happening now, would have happened anyway. #
Did they? How do you know?
> Also, they knew US
> troops would need to be there for decades. Some people think once
> Saddam is gone, all you need to do is give power up to the Iraqi's.
> In an ideal world, that would be the case, but do we live in an ideal
> world? I think not. The Kurds will vouch for that.
The Kurds will also ask why we sold Saddam the chemical weapons he used to gas hundreds of thousands of their people.
So what do we do? Keep power in Iraq away from the Iraqi's? So...how is that any different to a dictatorship?
Skarra wrote:
> It also seems to me, over 1/3 of those were protesting with very
> little information.
Lol. This from the person who estimated Iraqi civilian deaths to be around 1000.
The irony...
Back to the current debate, it just seems worth pointing out again that there was no threat to *us* from Saddam. This was even expressly acknowledged by Tony Blair in the penultimate draft of his foreword for the infamous Iraq dossier, before on the dy before publication he edited it out to allow people to fear they were actually under direct threat.
Of course, there were other reasons for going in, but for clarity it seemed worth reminding people.
> It also seems to me, over 1/3 of those were protesting with very
> little information.
Lol. This from the person who estimated Iraqi civilian deaths to be around 1000.
The irony...
Back to the current debate, it just seems worth pointing out again that there was no threat to *us* from Saddam. This was even expressly acknowledged by Tony Blair in the penultimate draft of his foreword for the infamous Iraq dossier, before on the dy before publication he edited it out to allow people to fear they were actually under direct threat.
Of course, there were other reasons for going in, but for clarity it seemed worth reminding people.
Heh, the nice to see Light tying himself in knots for a change, the contradictions are building up aren't they ?
Light wanted the US to provide hardware to the Iraqi resistance. US provided hardware to others in the past and this is something Light complains about.
Light says US should not buy oil, when the US bought oil under the oil for food program which benefitted normal Iraqi's.
Light says war wrong, but Saddam gone is good, yet without war Saddam not gone.
I can see why so many people like to just read these things know, far more entertaining.
Light wanted the US to provide hardware to the Iraqi resistance. US provided hardware to others in the past and this is something Light complains about.
Light says US should not buy oil, when the US bought oil under the oil for food program which benefitted normal Iraqi's.
Light says war wrong, but Saddam gone is good, yet without war Saddam not gone.
I can see why so many people like to just read these things know, far more entertaining.
In case anyone is interested the quote I mentioned earlier...
"Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam."
...was the work of Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense and a leading hawk.
"Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam."
...was the work of Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense and a leading hawk.
Page: