The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Apparently so. Both Bush and Blair are comfirming it but I only just heard the news so I don't know any of the details. If you have any further news or any thoughts on the subject please post them here, thanks.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Erm...let's see if I've got this straight; you are happy to be lied
> to by your government, and go to war on the basis of a lie?
> Tell me, have you read 1984?!
>
> It doesn't really bother me, as a byproduct of this war is a free
> Iraq.
Is it? Not so far it isn't; the coalition run the country, and that's not freedom. And if the Iraqi people get their way, they'll be electing some pretty totalitarian-thinking Shi'a clergy as their leaders. Not really freedom either. It's only a few months since Saddam was toppled; talk of "It's definitely gonna turn to poo" or "It's definitely gonna work out for the best"...well, both those statements are premature. Don't you think you're being rather rash in saying "That's it; Saddam has gone, therefore it'll all work out"? Especially as history has shown time and time again that dictators tend to be replaced by...well, dictators?
I don't mean to get quite so worked up about it, but the attitude of "I don't care cos this has happened" is sorta deluded in a well meaning way. I mean, I'm sure ordinary Germans everywhere weren't too fussed about Kristallnacht cos at least the unemployment problem had been sorted out. Ignoring a big bad thing because one has been fobbed off by a good thing...nah, it just doesn't wash with me.
>
> Hasn't most of the population now got power, water and food, not to
> mention freedoms, such as a right to say what they want, buy what
> they want etc... As i said, i'd rather be lied to and see a nation be
> free, that be told the truth and leave them to Saddam's will.
Except that if the truth had been told from the outset, then Saddam could quite easily have been removed from power with international consensus. And as I say, would you still rather be lied to when those lies were told solely to increase a few people's already enormous wealth? I've posted the Friendly Dictators thing about a million times now so I won't repost, but are you seriously telling me that you believe that either the US or UK gave the first toss about the Iraqi people? The US administration have admitted that they would not have gone to war if that was the sole justification. THE US AND UK WOULDN'T HAVE GONE TO WAR IF IT WAS JUST ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE!! Are you saying you're happy to be lied to, manipulated, and cheated as long as a byproduct is that people will be represented as being free, despite the fact that it's early days and true freedom is a long way off?
>
> Are they the exact same Government that sold him the weapons? Was
> Tony Blair in power 30 years ago. Yes, we shoudn't of backed him,
> hindsight is great, but it can't change past mistakes. No matter how
> much people complain about those decisions, the fact is, they
> happened, and there's nothing we can do about it.
No, there isn't. But don't you find it objectionable that the moral high ground and sanctimony of the coalition conveniently forgets about these facts? Don't you find it slightly hypocritical that we lambast Saddam, yet we still to this day sell arms to Indonesia (to name just one) which are used for oppression? Especially as numerous member of the US administration actually DID sell him the weapons. How come you are willing to blind yourself to the fact that the only people definitely benefitted are Dick Cheney et al, whilst the freedoms of the Iraqi people are rather ephemoral at the moment, and it remains to be seen if they'll even last?
>
> Taken as a statement in isolation, I agree. But when that war means
> an increase in tax burden on the average person whilst some
> industrialist gets another few billion out of it, I kinda have
> problems with it.
>
> My biggest gripe about this whole affair is big companies getting
> rich from the conflict, so, i'd agree, it's not fair that the rich
> get richer, but i'd rather that than see the people of Iraq condemed
> to live under Saddam.
Is that all it boils down to? Saddam is gone, therefore whatever was done was good? I applaud the sentiment, but home come you're not banging the same drum for the various dictators actively supported and encouraged by the US and UK? Aren't the people who live in those countries worth your sympathy? As far as I can tell you supported this war because it furthered the cause of freedom. Yet I opposed it because I believe it does the exact opposite.
> Light wrote:
> Erm...let's see if I've got this straight; you are happy to be lied
> to by your government, and go to war on the basis of a lie?
> Tell me, have you read 1984?!
>
> It doesn't really bother me, as a byproduct of this war is a free
> Iraq.
Is it? Not so far it isn't; the coalition run the country, and that's not freedom. And if the Iraqi people get their way, they'll be electing some pretty totalitarian-thinking Shi'a clergy as their leaders. Not really freedom either. It's only a few months since Saddam was toppled; talk of "It's definitely gonna turn to poo" or "It's definitely gonna work out for the best"...well, both those statements are premature. Don't you think you're being rather rash in saying "That's it; Saddam has gone, therefore it'll all work out"? Especially as history has shown time and time again that dictators tend to be replaced by...well, dictators?
I don't mean to get quite so worked up about it, but the attitude of "I don't care cos this has happened" is sorta deluded in a well meaning way. I mean, I'm sure ordinary Germans everywhere weren't too fussed about Kristallnacht cos at least the unemployment problem had been sorted out. Ignoring a big bad thing because one has been fobbed off by a good thing...nah, it just doesn't wash with me.
>
> Hasn't most of the population now got power, water and food, not to
> mention freedoms, such as a right to say what they want, buy what
> they want etc... As i said, i'd rather be lied to and see a nation be
> free, that be told the truth and leave them to Saddam's will.
Except that if the truth had been told from the outset, then Saddam could quite easily have been removed from power with international consensus. And as I say, would you still rather be lied to when those lies were told solely to increase a few people's already enormous wealth? I've posted the Friendly Dictators thing about a million times now so I won't repost, but are you seriously telling me that you believe that either the US or UK gave the first toss about the Iraqi people? The US administration have admitted that they would not have gone to war if that was the sole justification. THE US AND UK WOULDN'T HAVE GONE TO WAR IF IT WAS JUST ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE!! Are you saying you're happy to be lied to, manipulated, and cheated as long as a byproduct is that people will be represented as being free, despite the fact that it's early days and true freedom is a long way off?
>
> Are they the exact same Government that sold him the weapons? Was
> Tony Blair in power 30 years ago. Yes, we shoudn't of backed him,
> hindsight is great, but it can't change past mistakes. No matter how
> much people complain about those decisions, the fact is, they
> happened, and there's nothing we can do about it.
No, there isn't. But don't you find it objectionable that the moral high ground and sanctimony of the coalition conveniently forgets about these facts? Don't you find it slightly hypocritical that we lambast Saddam, yet we still to this day sell arms to Indonesia (to name just one) which are used for oppression? Especially as numerous member of the US administration actually DID sell him the weapons. How come you are willing to blind yourself to the fact that the only people definitely benefitted are Dick Cheney et al, whilst the freedoms of the Iraqi people are rather ephemoral at the moment, and it remains to be seen if they'll even last?
>
> Taken as a statement in isolation, I agree. But when that war means
> an increase in tax burden on the average person whilst some
> industrialist gets another few billion out of it, I kinda have
> problems with it.
>
> My biggest gripe about this whole affair is big companies getting
> rich from the conflict, so, i'd agree, it's not fair that the rich
> get richer, but i'd rather that than see the people of Iraq condemed
> to live under Saddam.
Is that all it boils down to? Saddam is gone, therefore whatever was done was good? I applaud the sentiment, but home come you're not banging the same drum for the various dictators actively supported and encouraged by the US and UK? Aren't the people who live in those countries worth your sympathy? As far as I can tell you supported this war because it furthered the cause of freedom. Yet I opposed it because I believe it does the exact opposite.
Light wrote:
> A war was the only way effective way to remove Saddam from power.
> Non
> of the alternatives could have been so effective.
>
> They could have been, had the will to enforce them been present in
> the US/UK/Russia/France/China. But alas it was not.
By the way, your right, they might of, had other nations backed them.
> A war was the only way effective way to remove Saddam from power.
> Non
> of the alternatives could have been so effective.
>
> They could have been, had the will to enforce them been present in
> the US/UK/Russia/France/China. But alas it was not.
By the way, your right, they might of, had other nations backed them.
Light wrote:
> Erm...let's see if I've got this straight; you are happy to be lied
> to by your government, and go to war on the basis of a lie?
> Tell me, have you read 1984?!
It doesn't really bother me, as a byproduct of this war is a free Iraq.
> One other point; the benefit to the Iraqi population has yet to be
> seen, but the benefit to the 50 or so companies that supported
> Dubya's election campaign has been seen pretty much straight away.
> Doesn't it bother you that a war has been waged for no reason other
> than to benefit one or two wealthy people? After all, we're all going
> to be worse off thanks to increased taxes. The rich have gotten
> richer off of this war, and we've gotten poorer. But because a few
> lies were told, you're okay with this?
Hasn't most of the population now got power, water and food, not to mention freedoms, such as a right to say what they want, buy what they want etc... As i said, i'd rather be lied to and see a nation be free, that be told the truth and leave them to Saddam's will.
> Or on the same scale as they were when the west kept him in power and
> supplied him with the means to kill on such a grand scale. I mean
> come on; do you actually believe that after 30 years of selling
> Saddam weapons, the US and UK governments suddenly grew a
> conscience?
Are they the exact same Government that sold him the weapons? Was Tony Blair in power 30 years ago. Yes, we shoudn't of backed him, hindsight is great, but it can't change past mistakes. No matter how much people complain about those decisions, the fact is, they happened, and there's nothing we can do about it.
> Taken as a statement in isolation, I agree. But when that war means
> an increase in tax burden on the average person whilst some
> industrialist gets another few billion out of it, I kinda have
> problems with it.
My biggest gripe about this whole affair is big companies getting rich from the conflict, so, i'd agree, it's not fair that the rich get richer, but i'd rather that than see the people of Iraq condemed to live under Saddam.
> Erm...let's see if I've got this straight; you are happy to be lied
> to by your government, and go to war on the basis of a lie?
> Tell me, have you read 1984?!
It doesn't really bother me, as a byproduct of this war is a free Iraq.
> One other point; the benefit to the Iraqi population has yet to be
> seen, but the benefit to the 50 or so companies that supported
> Dubya's election campaign has been seen pretty much straight away.
> Doesn't it bother you that a war has been waged for no reason other
> than to benefit one or two wealthy people? After all, we're all going
> to be worse off thanks to increased taxes. The rich have gotten
> richer off of this war, and we've gotten poorer. But because a few
> lies were told, you're okay with this?
Hasn't most of the population now got power, water and food, not to mention freedoms, such as a right to say what they want, buy what they want etc... As i said, i'd rather be lied to and see a nation be free, that be told the truth and leave them to Saddam's will.
> Or on the same scale as they were when the west kept him in power and
> supplied him with the means to kill on such a grand scale. I mean
> come on; do you actually believe that after 30 years of selling
> Saddam weapons, the US and UK governments suddenly grew a
> conscience?
Are they the exact same Government that sold him the weapons? Was Tony Blair in power 30 years ago. Yes, we shoudn't of backed him, hindsight is great, but it can't change past mistakes. No matter how much people complain about those decisions, the fact is, they happened, and there's nothing we can do about it.
> Taken as a statement in isolation, I agree. But when that war means
> an increase in tax burden on the average person whilst some
> industrialist gets another few billion out of it, I kinda have
> problems with it.
My biggest gripe about this whole affair is big companies getting rich from the conflict, so, i'd agree, it's not fair that the rich get richer, but i'd rather that than see the people of Iraq condemed to live under Saddam.
Skarra wrote:
>
> The way i see it is like this.
>
> A war was the only way effective way to remove Saddam from power. Non
> of the alternatives could have been so effective.
They could have been, had the will to enforce them been present in the US/UK/Russia/France/China. But alas it was not.
>
> I don't much care if no WMD are found. What ever the reasons for
> going to war, the hope is that it will be a huge benefit to the whole
> Iraqi population in the long run.
Erm...let's see if I've got this straight; you are happy to be lied to by your government, and go to war on the basis of a lie?
Tell me, have you read 1984?!
One other point; the benefit to the Iraqi population has yet to be seen, but the benefit to the 50 or so companies that supported Dubya's election campaign has been seen pretty much straight away. Doesn't it bother you that a war has been waged for no reason other than to benefit one or two wealthy people? After all, we're all going to be worse off thanks to increased taxes. The rich have gotten richer off of this war, and we've gotten poorer. But because a few lies were told, you're okay with this?
>
> I feel that few people realise that if there had been no war, he'd
> still be in power. Sure, Iraqis are still dying, but not on the same
> scale as if Saddam were still in power.
Or on the same scale as they were when the west kept him in power and supplied him with the means to kill on such a grand scale. I mean come on; do you actually believe that after 30 years of selling Saddam weapons, the US and UK governments suddenly grew a conscience?
>
> A war and occupation is the lesser of two evils compaired to Saddam.
Taken as a statement in isolation, I agree. But when that war means an increase in tax burden on the average person whilst some industrialist gets another few billion out of it, I kinda have problems with it.
>
> The way i see it is like this.
>
> A war was the only way effective way to remove Saddam from power. Non
> of the alternatives could have been so effective.
They could have been, had the will to enforce them been present in the US/UK/Russia/France/China. But alas it was not.
>
> I don't much care if no WMD are found. What ever the reasons for
> going to war, the hope is that it will be a huge benefit to the whole
> Iraqi population in the long run.
Erm...let's see if I've got this straight; you are happy to be lied to by your government, and go to war on the basis of a lie?
Tell me, have you read 1984?!
One other point; the benefit to the Iraqi population has yet to be seen, but the benefit to the 50 or so companies that supported Dubya's election campaign has been seen pretty much straight away. Doesn't it bother you that a war has been waged for no reason other than to benefit one or two wealthy people? After all, we're all going to be worse off thanks to increased taxes. The rich have gotten richer off of this war, and we've gotten poorer. But because a few lies were told, you're okay with this?
>
> I feel that few people realise that if there had been no war, he'd
> still be in power. Sure, Iraqis are still dying, but not on the same
> scale as if Saddam were still in power.
Or on the same scale as they were when the west kept him in power and supplied him with the means to kill on such a grand scale. I mean come on; do you actually believe that after 30 years of selling Saddam weapons, the US and UK governments suddenly grew a conscience?
>
> A war and occupation is the lesser of two evils compaired to Saddam.
Taken as a statement in isolation, I agree. But when that war means an increase in tax burden on the average person whilst some industrialist gets another few billion out of it, I kinda have problems with it.
Heh. Yesterday morning, around 7am, bbc breakfast news were going over the papers' headlines, one was about the coalition having intercepted a bunch of Saddam's personal e-mails to people.
I though ' they're this close? But they haven't got him yet? Surely it can't be long then...
And a few hours later, there he was :^)
I know the only real effect of capturing him will be symbolic and psychological (I'm not a big one for revenge), since he'd already lost his direct power and influence, so it's probably not really as big as it feels. Nevertheless I've had a nice warm glow in my stomach since I heard about it.
We may have been taken to war on the basis of lies and greed, coalition forces (both American and UK seem glaringly guilty) may have been negligent and wreckless in their military tactics, at the expense of human lives, the Iraqis may be getting screwed over as countries grab for contracting rights, but long term, if we can put in a stable government and control the resistance, in the long run the people of Iraq will benefit.
That said, we may be the lesser of two evils, but we're still pretty damn evil.
One point does slare at me though:
Rummy says Saddam will be treated as a P.O.W. and will be protected by the Geneva convention. And he'll not only get a trial, but quite possibly a fair one too.
He's definitely less of a P.O.W. than the people taken from Afghanistan, but they don't get P.O.W. status and consequently lose the Geneva Convention. They're held for 2 years (so far) without a trial, and when they do get one it'll probably be a military tribunal (not a 'fair' trial by a long stretch).
Plus, some of the people in Guantanamo Bay are actually innocent (statistically, given the numbers and the lax and weakly justified way they were picked up, there's no doubt that a lot of them are).
Another point that stands in my mind - how long did the coalition have tabs on him?
The timing of Saddam's capture wins Bush support as attention begins to turn to the next election, when he was taking real heat over Iraq, and distracts the international community from his contracting coup.
If you were Bush, you could keep track of Saddam's whereabouts and knew he posed no threat, wouldn't you chose to wait, before bringing him in at the most politically beneficial time?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I know Bush would be capable of it. On all levels.
It's just a thought.
I though ' they're this close? But they haven't got him yet? Surely it can't be long then...
And a few hours later, there he was :^)
I know the only real effect of capturing him will be symbolic and psychological (I'm not a big one for revenge), since he'd already lost his direct power and influence, so it's probably not really as big as it feels. Nevertheless I've had a nice warm glow in my stomach since I heard about it.
We may have been taken to war on the basis of lies and greed, coalition forces (both American and UK seem glaringly guilty) may have been negligent and wreckless in their military tactics, at the expense of human lives, the Iraqis may be getting screwed over as countries grab for contracting rights, but long term, if we can put in a stable government and control the resistance, in the long run the people of Iraq will benefit.
That said, we may be the lesser of two evils, but we're still pretty damn evil.
One point does slare at me though:
Rummy says Saddam will be treated as a P.O.W. and will be protected by the Geneva convention. And he'll not only get a trial, but quite possibly a fair one too.
He's definitely less of a P.O.W. than the people taken from Afghanistan, but they don't get P.O.W. status and consequently lose the Geneva Convention. They're held for 2 years (so far) without a trial, and when they do get one it'll probably be a military tribunal (not a 'fair' trial by a long stretch).
Plus, some of the people in Guantanamo Bay are actually innocent (statistically, given the numbers and the lax and weakly justified way they were picked up, there's no doubt that a lot of them are).
Another point that stands in my mind - how long did the coalition have tabs on him?
The timing of Saddam's capture wins Bush support as attention begins to turn to the next election, when he was taking real heat over Iraq, and distracts the international community from his contracting coup.
If you were Bush, you could keep track of Saddam's whereabouts and knew he posed no threat, wouldn't you chose to wait, before bringing him in at the most politically beneficial time?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I know Bush would be capable of it. On all levels.
It's just a thought.
Goatboy wrote:
> I repeat:
> Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam.
> If you think it does, then you are beyond thick.
> Nobody here, at any point, has ever supported Hussein.
> Opposed to the invasion, yes.
> You cannot stand there and realistically expect those with questions
> as to WMD, reasons offered for war etc to simply stop asking
> questions because a puppet dictator has been captured, shortly to be
> put on trial for crimes committed with our full consent and
> compliance.
The way i see it is like this.
A war was the only way effective way to remove Saddam from power. Non of the alternatives could have been so effective.
I don't much care if no WMD are found. What ever the reasons for going to war, the hope is that it will be a huge benefit to the whole Iraqi population in the long run.
I feel that few people realise that if there had been no war, he'd still be in power. Sure, Iraqis are still dying, but not on the same scale as if Saddam were still in power.
A war and occupation is the lesser of two evils compaired to Saddam.
> I repeat:
> Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam.
> If you think it does, then you are beyond thick.
> Nobody here, at any point, has ever supported Hussein.
> Opposed to the invasion, yes.
> You cannot stand there and realistically expect those with questions
> as to WMD, reasons offered for war etc to simply stop asking
> questions because a puppet dictator has been captured, shortly to be
> put on trial for crimes committed with our full consent and
> compliance.
The way i see it is like this.
A war was the only way effective way to remove Saddam from power. Non of the alternatives could have been so effective.
I don't much care if no WMD are found. What ever the reasons for going to war, the hope is that it will be a huge benefit to the whole Iraqi population in the long run.
I feel that few people realise that if there had been no war, he'd still be in power. Sure, Iraqis are still dying, but not on the same scale as if Saddam were still in power.
A war and occupation is the lesser of two evils compaired to Saddam.
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> I think at the end of the day many more Iraqi's will keep their lives
> under U.S. occupation than Baathist dictatorship and given time
> better quality lives at that.
Let's hope so. Now they've got Saddam i hope the American troops don't think *Ok we've got him now let's go home* and actually stay around and rebuild the country and give them the better quality of life they deserve and wouldn't have under Saddam.
> If anyone thinks that the Iraq War took
> place because of suspected WOMD is a fool. It was always about power
> politics.
True and i also believe Bush just wants to play with all his new toys he's got at his disposal. Afghanistan was about revenge and this was about Bush finishing off daddy's work. In my opinion anyway.
> I think at the end of the day many more Iraqi's will keep their lives
> under U.S. occupation than Baathist dictatorship and given time
> better quality lives at that.
Let's hope so. Now they've got Saddam i hope the American troops don't think *Ok we've got him now let's go home* and actually stay around and rebuild the country and give them the better quality of life they deserve and wouldn't have under Saddam.
> If anyone thinks that the Iraq War took
> place because of suspected WOMD is a fool. It was always about power
> politics.
True and i also believe Bush just wants to play with all his new toys he's got at his disposal. Afghanistan was about revenge and this was about Bush finishing off daddy's work. In my opinion anyway.
I think at the end of the day many more Iraqi's will keep their lives under U.S. occupation than Baathist dictatorship and given time better quality lives at that. If anyone thinks that the Iraq War took place because of suspected WOMD is a fool. It was always about power politics. But for once the people of the said country will benifit this time.
And good riddance to Saddam anyway.
Just my opinions.
And good riddance to Saddam anyway.
Just my opinions.
Light wrote:
> Don't you think that, as all other networks were slavish in their
> praise, that the BBC, by giving the bad as well as the good, WERE
> being balanced?
My version of being balanced is reporting both the bad and good in the same way. Not reporting that one coalition soldier dying in the early stages of the war was a disastrous tragedy for the war effort and we should pull out now while adding *oh and by the way the american troops captured Tikrit today but back to that soldier*
However like i said i could only stomach it for the first 2 weeks or so, so maybe the BBC suddenly did change into a fair and balanced channel but during the time i watched their coverage they were anything but.
However FOX were on the opposite scale and i couldn't stand watching them either. Skimmed over the bad stuff and lavished praise on the slightest thing.
> Don't you think that, as all other networks were slavish in their
> praise, that the BBC, by giving the bad as well as the good, WERE
> being balanced?
My version of being balanced is reporting both the bad and good in the same way. Not reporting that one coalition soldier dying in the early stages of the war was a disastrous tragedy for the war effort and we should pull out now while adding *oh and by the way the american troops captured Tikrit today but back to that soldier*
However like i said i could only stomach it for the first 2 weeks or so, so maybe the BBC suddenly did change into a fair and balanced channel but during the time i watched their coverage they were anything but.
However FOX were on the opposite scale and i couldn't stand watching them either. Skimmed over the bad stuff and lavished praise on the slightest thing.
lalakersrule wrote:
>
>
> Oh i don't know probably the time something bad ever happened to
> coalition troops we were suddenly 'losing the war, choas is ruling
> over all' Hardly ever did the BBC concentrate on any of the good
> things that happened, why do that when you can just concentrate on
> the bad things and get over the agenda of the war is bad and America
> and Britain are evil for going in? Forget fair and balanced
> reporting. It's why i switched their coverage off after a week or
> so.
Don't you think that, as all other networks were slavish in their praise, that the BBC, by giving the bad as well as the good, WERE being balanced?
>
>
> Oh i don't know probably the time something bad ever happened to
> coalition troops we were suddenly 'losing the war, choas is ruling
> over all' Hardly ever did the BBC concentrate on any of the good
> things that happened, why do that when you can just concentrate on
> the bad things and get over the agenda of the war is bad and America
> and Britain are evil for going in? Forget fair and balanced
> reporting. It's why i switched their coverage off after a week or
> so.
Don't you think that, as all other networks were slavish in their praise, that the BBC, by giving the bad as well as the good, WERE being balanced?
Page: