The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 mean 'Coalition' policy.
Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.
My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.
Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?
What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.
The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.
In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?
I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.
Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''
My summary:
-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.
My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.
Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.
Your views?
Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.
My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.
Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?
What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.
The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.
In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?
I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.
Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''
My summary:
-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.
My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.
Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.
Your views?
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> So you still see the USA as a superpower then ?
Yup.
>
> It was a perfectly reasonable comment to make, and had anyone else
> made it you would be civil.
Had anyone else made it, yes I would. But lets be honest here Bell; you're a clown. And it is a well known fact that you're an unthinking parrot when it comes to the US. So I made an assumption of your tone. If I got that tone wrong, well I'm surprised but I apologise.
>
> Noticeably when I made a few posts under a different user name a
> month or so back, with no change in opinion, you posted in a civil
> manner. Yet when you see it is me that civility goes.
Yes, because you see what happened there was that you made 1 post giving an opinion. I responded to that opinion, and asked for further clarification of why that opinion was there. You then posted as yourself going "ha! it was me all along".
So you see, had you stayed as that username and done what you always do (avoid explaining yourself), I would be equally as contemptuous, disrespectful, and insulting towards you.
>
> You can't even discuss a point without whining.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! Says the man who in the very post I am responding to here complains bitterly about how he is treated differently by me. Says the man who spammed the board with "IB i s guilty". Says the man who DEMANDED IB be banned. Says the man who has on 3 separate occasions said "I'm leaving forever" before coming crawling back. Says the man who came back as Halo Fan to try and avoid ridicule.
Get out of your glass house Bell, then you can throw stones. Better still, take a long hard look at yourself before blaming Goaty, IB, Blank, Snuggly, kernal, and everyone else on the board for your own inadequacy, 'kay? You get treated the way you do because you are (and I can't emphasise this enough) a retarded clown who tries to sound knowledgable about issues he has no knowledge on, and then squirms to avoid explaining his reasons for the opinions. You're a joke, and for the most part it seems that posters on this board think the same. Is that all my fault? Or could it be that you're regarded as a box of foreskin-brie because of your utter refusal to back down, even when you're proved beyond all doubt to be talking about something you are utterly ill informed about?
> So you still see the USA as a superpower then ?
Yup.
>
> It was a perfectly reasonable comment to make, and had anyone else
> made it you would be civil.
Had anyone else made it, yes I would. But lets be honest here Bell; you're a clown. And it is a well known fact that you're an unthinking parrot when it comes to the US. So I made an assumption of your tone. If I got that tone wrong, well I'm surprised but I apologise.
>
> Noticeably when I made a few posts under a different user name a
> month or so back, with no change in opinion, you posted in a civil
> manner. Yet when you see it is me that civility goes.
Yes, because you see what happened there was that you made 1 post giving an opinion. I responded to that opinion, and asked for further clarification of why that opinion was there. You then posted as yourself going "ha! it was me all along".
So you see, had you stayed as that username and done what you always do (avoid explaining yourself), I would be equally as contemptuous, disrespectful, and insulting towards you.
>
> You can't even discuss a point without whining.
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! Says the man who in the very post I am responding to here complains bitterly about how he is treated differently by me. Says the man who spammed the board with "IB i s guilty". Says the man who DEMANDED IB be banned. Says the man who has on 3 separate occasions said "I'm leaving forever" before coming crawling back. Says the man who came back as Halo Fan to try and avoid ridicule.
Get out of your glass house Bell, then you can throw stones. Better still, take a long hard look at yourself before blaming Goaty, IB, Blank, Snuggly, kernal, and everyone else on the board for your own inadequacy, 'kay? You get treated the way you do because you are (and I can't emphasise this enough) a retarded clown who tries to sound knowledgable about issues he has no knowledge on, and then squirms to avoid explaining his reasons for the opinions. You're a joke, and for the most part it seems that posters on this board think the same. Is that all my fault? Or could it be that you're regarded as a box of foreskin-brie because of your utter refusal to back down, even when you're proved beyond all doubt to be talking about something you are utterly ill informed about?
So, again, in summary:
Light berates me for never answering a point.
I make a point.
Light gives one word answer.
Light spends another pile of words going off on one.
Light berates me for never answering a point.
I make a point.
Light gives one word answer.
Light spends another pile of words going off on one.
Belldandy wrote:
> So, again, in summary:
>
> Light berates me for never answering a point.
>
> I make a point.
>
> Light gives one word answer.
>
> Light spends another pile of words going off on one.
Which is it; do I give a one word answer, or do I spend a pile of words? I can't do both, can I? And even if I did manage someone to spend a pile of words on a one word answer, at least I answer. More than you, isn't it?
Dear oh dear Bell; contradicting yourself in the same post? And not only that, but lying about what's happened in this thread. Y'see, whilst Dubya can tell blatant lies even though everyone can see that he is lying, he at least has the resources of the US Govt. to make his lies seem more palatable. You're just a rather sad, scrotty little coward who gets upset when forced to think for himself.
> So, again, in summary:
>
> Light berates me for never answering a point.
>
> I make a point.
>
> Light gives one word answer.
>
> Light spends another pile of words going off on one.
Which is it; do I give a one word answer, or do I spend a pile of words? I can't do both, can I? And even if I did manage someone to spend a pile of words on a one word answer, at least I answer. More than you, isn't it?
Dear oh dear Bell; contradicting yourself in the same post? And not only that, but lying about what's happened in this thread. Y'see, whilst Dubya can tell blatant lies even though everyone can see that he is lying, he at least has the resources of the US Govt. to make his lies seem more palatable. You're just a rather sad, scrotty little coward who gets upset when forced to think for himself.
games have led me to believe that 'the coalition' is an evil people name...
Page: