The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Who failed to mention said strategy for doing so.
Emperor Bob wrote:
> I would send in a small mammal with a head mounted laser. Preferably a
> hamster.
Sharks with frickin' laser beams would be and Dr Evil's choice.
> I would send in a small mammal with a head mounted laser. Preferably a
> hamster.
Sharks with frickin' laser beams would be and Dr Evil's choice.
Belldandy wrote:
> Who failed to mention said strategy for doing so.
?
> Who failed to mention said strategy for doing so.
?
unknown kernel wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Who failed to mention said strategy for doing so.
>
> ?
I mean it's all fine saying "helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam" but unless there is an actual plan, it's words. Useless.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Who failed to mention said strategy for doing so.
>
> ?
I mean it's all fine saying "helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam" but unless there is an actual plan, it's words. Useless.
He did have a plan (of sorts, and not one that I agree with). Check out newamericancentury.org if you want to hear it from the horse's mouth. The real point is that Paul Wolfowitz, architect of war on Iraq, said
"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."
I wonder what changed his mind? Oil?
Incidentally if you want a reminder of the hypocrisy that the neo-conservative hawks are capable of then read Wolfowitz's comments about weapons inspector Scott Ritter:
"It is an honor to appear as part of a hearing in which Scott Ritter testifies. Scott Ritter is a public servant of exceptional integrity and moral courage, one of those individuals who is not afraid to speak the truth."
Could this be the same Scott Ritter who was dismissed as lone nutter when he was telling the Bush administration that Iraq had no WMD, despite later being proved correct?
"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."
I wonder what changed his mind? Oil?
Incidentally if you want a reminder of the hypocrisy that the neo-conservative hawks are capable of then read Wolfowitz's comments about weapons inspector Scott Ritter:
"It is an honor to appear as part of a hearing in which Scott Ritter testifies. Scott Ritter is a public servant of exceptional integrity and moral courage, one of those individuals who is not afraid to speak the truth."
Could this be the same Scott Ritter who was dismissed as lone nutter when he was telling the Bush administration that Iraq had no WMD, despite later being proved correct?
HálloHowArtThou wrote:
> Using my super-human powers I will make him ejeculate while making a
> speach, á la BrassEye.
> Using my super-human powers I will make him ejeculate while making a
> speach, á la BrassEye.
I'll admit you gave good head, but you're not superhuman man!
Mwah ha ha haaa! Thought you weren't talking to me Bell?
Belldandy wrote:
> Heh, the nice to see Light tying himself in knots for a change, the
> contradictions are building up aren't they ?
What a surprise: I accuse Bell of contradicting himself, and then Bell accuses me of the same. Well lets see shall we?
>
> 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.
Yes, I complained about them being provided to dictatorships (such as Saddam), or to elements fighting against the Soviets regardless of what their own actual behaviour was (the Taliban). Did I complain about, for example, the US led mission in Liberia? Uh-uh. Nor did I object to the UK led mission in the Ivory Coast, even though the latter was plainly about safeguarding national interest. So what I complain about is the US supporting inhumane or dictatorial regimes and rebels. I've never complained about them supporting the oppressed. Do you see?
>
> Light says US should not buy oil, when the US bought oil under the
> oil for food program which benefitted normal Iraqi's.
Benefitted normal Iraqis?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA!!
So how come normal Iraqi's continued to starve? How come the US, in all the time it was buying the oil, continued to complain that Saddam was using the money to keep himself and his army supported?
C'mon Bell; at least make the effort to lie convincingly.
>
> Light says war wrong, but Saddam gone is good, yet without war Saddam
> not gone.
My, you're really reaching now, aren't you? Resorting to the "The war was to get rid of Saddam" line despite the fact that the US Government have admitted that the purpose of the war was WOMD and Al-Quaida...
Still, for the record; as my post was about possible methods to get rid of Saddam without war, I'd like you to rebutt that suggestion. So far, all you've managed is "we had a war and that worked". Lets ignore the fact that Saddam is still at large and more Americans have died since the end of the war than they did during the initial conflict. Lets ignore the fact that a Gallup poll shows that 1% of Iraqi people actually believe the US are there to restore democracy. Lets stick with 1 thing;
Try and rebutt my suggestion Bell. I dare you. Lets see if you're too cowardly to do anything other than snipe ineffectually.
>
> I can see why so many people like to just read these things know, far
> more entertaining.
Heh. And far better thought out and justified than your warwankery too Bell. It still grinds on you that you're regarded as joke, doesn't it?
Belldandy wrote:
> Heh, the nice to see Light tying himself in knots for a change, the
> contradictions are building up aren't they ?
What a surprise: I accuse Bell of contradicting himself, and then Bell accuses me of the same. Well lets see shall we?
>
> 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.
Yes, I complained about them being provided to dictatorships (such as Saddam), or to elements fighting against the Soviets regardless of what their own actual behaviour was (the Taliban). Did I complain about, for example, the US led mission in Liberia? Uh-uh. Nor did I object to the UK led mission in the Ivory Coast, even though the latter was plainly about safeguarding national interest. So what I complain about is the US supporting inhumane or dictatorial regimes and rebels. I've never complained about them supporting the oppressed. Do you see?
>
> Light says US should not buy oil, when the US bought oil under the
> oil for food program which benefitted normal Iraqi's.
Benefitted normal Iraqis?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA!!
So how come normal Iraqi's continued to starve? How come the US, in all the time it was buying the oil, continued to complain that Saddam was using the money to keep himself and his army supported?
C'mon Bell; at least make the effort to lie convincingly.
>
> Light says war wrong, but Saddam gone is good, yet without war Saddam
> not gone.
My, you're really reaching now, aren't you? Resorting to the "The war was to get rid of Saddam" line despite the fact that the US Government have admitted that the purpose of the war was WOMD and Al-Quaida...
Still, for the record; as my post was about possible methods to get rid of Saddam without war, I'd like you to rebutt that suggestion. So far, all you've managed is "we had a war and that worked". Lets ignore the fact that Saddam is still at large and more Americans have died since the end of the war than they did during the initial conflict. Lets ignore the fact that a Gallup poll shows that 1% of Iraqi people actually believe the US are there to restore democracy. Lets stick with 1 thing;
Try and rebutt my suggestion Bell. I dare you. Lets see if you're too cowardly to do anything other than snipe ineffectually.
>
> I can see why so many people like to just read these things know, far
> more entertaining.
Heh. And far better thought out and justified than your warwankery too Bell. It still grinds on you that you're regarded as joke, doesn't it?
Belldandy wrote:
> I mean it's all fine saying "helping the Iraqi people to
> liberate themselves from Saddam" but unless there is an actual
> plan, it's words. Useless.
I agree. What a shame then that Paul Wolfowitz was one of the US's main planners for the war in Iraq...
Jesus Bell, do you even bother to check your facts before wading in?
> I mean it's all fine saying "helping the Iraqi people to
> liberate themselves from Saddam" but unless there is an actual
> plan, it's words. Useless.
I agree. What a shame then that Paul Wolfowitz was one of the US's main planners for the war in Iraq...
Jesus Bell, do you even bother to check your facts before wading in?
Well where is the actual suggestion in your post Light ? All I see is the same weary old rhetoric.
Page: