The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Weapons of mass destruction not found in Iraq and in my opinion they didn’t need to be found.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Page:
Light wrote:
> True, true. There IS however a UN resolution telling Israel to get
> the hell out of the West Bank. Do you want to talk about that one, or
> do UN resolutions only count when they're against Iraq?
Historically, there have been dozens of UN resolutions to stop Israel from doing certain things, unfortunately, almost all of them have been vetoed by the USA.
> True, true. There IS however a UN resolution telling Israel to get
> the hell out of the West Bank. Do you want to talk about that one, or
> do UN resolutions only count when they're against Iraq?
Historically, there have been dozens of UN resolutions to stop Israel from doing certain things, unfortunately, almost all of them have been vetoed by the USA.
Skarra wrote:
>
> Well, i wasn't aware the UN resolution said, you can have missiles
> that can go as far as you like, as long as they aren't armed with
> warheads.
True, true. There IS however a UN resolution telling Israel to get the hell out of the West Bank. Do you want to talk about that one, or do UN resolutions only count when they're against Iraq?
>
> Well, i wasn't aware the UN resolution said, you can have missiles
> that can go as far as you like, as long as they aren't armed with
> warheads.
True, true. There IS however a UN resolution telling Israel to get the hell out of the West Bank. Do you want to talk about that one, or do UN resolutions only count when they're against Iraq?
Dr Duck wrote:
> Were those the ones that didn't have a long enough range to breach
> regulations when they were loaded with their warheads?
Well, i wasn't aware the UN resolution said, you can have missiles that can go as far as you like, as long as they aren't armed with warheads.
> Were those the ones that didn't have a long enough range to breach
> regulations when they were loaded with their warheads?
Well, i wasn't aware the UN resolution said, you can have missiles that can go as far as you like, as long as they aren't armed with warheads.
Strafex wrote:
> There were better ways of liberating the people of Iraq.
>
> Apparently, the best one was supporting a revolt led by the people
> and then supporting and assisting them.
Alas, cos we screwed up when last that one was tried, it would probably have been just as costly. But screw the cost quite frankly...
> There were better ways of liberating the people of Iraq.
>
> Apparently, the best one was supporting a revolt led by the people
> and then supporting and assisting them.
Alas, cos we screwed up when last that one was tried, it would probably have been just as costly. But screw the cost quite frankly...
Yup. They were probably found at the same time as the 'chemical warheads' that turned out to be weather balloons.
Were those the ones that didn't have a long enough range to breach regulations when they were loaded with their warheads?
Don't forget, Saddam wasn't co-operating fully, or did he just forget the Al Samund 2 Missiles could go futher that the UN would allow.
Der Nazi wrote:
> Th reason we went to war with Iraq was because Saddam Hussain wouldn't
> let weapons inspectors in.
I seem to remember they did, a few months before war was delcared. I think it went something like this...
"Saddam, let the weapons inspectors in or we will have no option but to use force"
"Okay, we'll let them in"
"Now give them free access to any and all installations they wish to inspect, at any time."
"Done"
"You must co-operate, or we will be forced into action!"
"We're assisting the weapons inspectors in every way we can."
"No you're not, you haven't told them where the WoMD are!"
"That's because there aren't any"
"Yes there are. Co-operate with us or we'll use force!"
"I've done everything you've asked."
"Too little too late! We're gonna invade anyway! CHAAAAAARGE!"
> Th reason we went to war with Iraq was because Saddam Hussain wouldn't
> let weapons inspectors in.
I seem to remember they did, a few months before war was delcared. I think it went something like this...
"Saddam, let the weapons inspectors in or we will have no option but to use force"
"Okay, we'll let them in"
"Now give them free access to any and all installations they wish to inspect, at any time."
"Done"
"You must co-operate, or we will be forced into action!"
"We're assisting the weapons inspectors in every way we can."
"No you're not, you haven't told them where the WoMD are!"
"That's because there aren't any"
"Yes there are. Co-operate with us or we'll use force!"
"I've done everything you've asked."
"Too little too late! We're gonna invade anyway! CHAAAAAARGE!"
There were better ways of liberating the people of Iraq.
Apparently, the best one was supporting a revolt led by the people and then supporting and assisting them.
A full scale invasion like this was much more costly (someone said double the total third world aid from America over 50 years) and caused a lot more death, and left the country being run by American's rather than Iraqi's, and the Iraqi people who used to turn up at the American HQ's trying to help them restore order were often shouted at and patronised (as I remember on TV footage).
And yes, our government mislead us over the threats of weapons, and I'm VERY disappointed in them.
Apparently, the best one was supporting a revolt led by the people and then supporting and assisting them.
A full scale invasion like this was much more costly (someone said double the total third world aid from America over 50 years) and caused a lot more death, and left the country being run by American's rather than Iraqi's, and the Iraqi people who used to turn up at the American HQ's trying to help them restore order were often shouted at and patronised (as I remember on TV footage).
And yes, our government mislead us over the threats of weapons, and I'm VERY disappointed in them.
I think that Saddam was playing mind games on all of the governments, he wanted to scare us or threaten us and he must know George Bush doesnt liked to be threaten and by not letting the weapons inspectors in he did this. George Bush was threaten, scared maybe, this wasnt meant to be, Bush wasnt meant to be scared, he was no coward in his own eyes. He couldnt let this happen, not to be threaten by that man. Maybe this is why he wanted war.
Its the same with all the terrorist groups as well, they all play mind games and they indeed are clever people. Because people expect an attack when something major happens like the Bush visit, but then those people start to think that would be to obvious. And then they get paranoid, they think, "They only want us to think that because they are actually going to that". It goes on like this, so they never know when an attack will happen, which leads to everyone being scared.
Its the same with all the terrorist groups as well, they all play mind games and they indeed are clever people. Because people expect an attack when something major happens like the Bush visit, but then those people start to think that would be to obvious. And then they get paranoid, they think, "They only want us to think that because they are actually going to that". It goes on like this, so they never know when an attack will happen, which leads to everyone being scared.
Page: