The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
in this eternal life every man and nation is not bestowed with all the good things by the devine, this is a precious understanding. but we mostly fail to realise this so we fail to tame our mind and it becomes occupied by jealousy, which leads us to war.
now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of devil.
the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which are against social justice and global environment.
it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus demolishing culture of other people and society.
now a days we mostly find that the rulers of certain developed nations are always practicing the war culture, they are mostly using science for the development of weapons, which is the finest means of snatching wealth from the weaker nations. so we can comment that these rulers are against mankind and they are simply followers of devil.
the rulers and their associates are encouraging simple people to go to war, which in turn bringing immens misery for mass people. the arrogant rulers are mostly engaged in such kind of activities which are against social justice and global environment.
it is very miserable to find some wise people as the associates of the arrogant rulers and their support for war. it is the meanest way to occupy another people or nation's wealth through war and thus demolishing culture of other people and society.
Page:
Skarra wrote:
>
> No, i'm saying, you call Tony Blair a liar. I'm saying, i don't think
> he knew Iraq had no WMD, but sent us to war anyway. I then said that
> if we went to war on dodgy inteligence, how were we to know it was
> dodgy. There was no possible way.
So he sent us to war on a "Maybe, and the evidence we do have is dodgy". That's actually as bad as outright lying, don't you think?
>
> Oh, not just the diamond mines, i know this is not the case. There
> was a base that was no where near a diamond mine, loaded with peace
> keepers. The 'bad guys' put seige to it. 4 people escaped and
> journied through the jungle for days. It was on a Ray Mears survival
> show, so he didn't just sent them to the mines.
Oh of course not; that wouldn't have played well at all and would have been too blatant. Much better to have a token rescue of some peace keepers (just to check; are you talking about the Sandline people getting involved, or the actual British troops? I think the former but I'm not sure.)
>
> It was a live interview.
Yeah? Hmm....well, I stand corrected.
>
> I'm not happy, but what is there to do???
Whinge, moan, complain, write to people, make your voice heard. If a government hears nothing but deafening silence when they pull tricks like this, they'll do it again. And again. And again.
>
> Not really. By your logic, if a person tells a lie, every word they
> say is a lie. I don't believe this to be so. The links were to the
> aid branch of the US Gov. It is nothing short of paranoid to beleive
> ebery aspect of the US tells nothing but lies.
Okay, my fault for not being clear; I'm not saying it's outright lies on that website. What I am saying is that it is in the US government's interests to show the invasion and aftermath in a favourable light. Ergo, any stats they provide must be viewed with that in mind.
>
> Well, why don't you look at news reports and take THEM at face
> value?
> How come if something negative is said then you cry out
> "Negative bias", yet these positive facts are something to
> be taken at face value and just believed outright?
>
>
> For the love of God, i think i have put that i accept bad is going on
> in Iraq, and that the coalition have made big mistakes in most of my
> posts. I don't know what else i can do to convince you that i'm not
> 'the coalition are good, no matter what.
Yeah, sorry again; more sloppy phrasing on my part. What I was trying to get at is that you're saying that, whatever the reasons and lies told for the invasion, the outcome is a good one. I'm saying that is not a realistic point of view and I tried (poorly it would seem) to contrast your view with one of "No matter the outcome of the invasion, none of the reasons for it hold water".
I give you more credit than to tar you as some blinkered brain donor who doesn't understand an issue before commenting on it. But that said, I don't agree with your viewpoint as it is FAR too soon to say that all will now be well in Iraq.
>
> No, i'm saying, you call Tony Blair a liar. I'm saying, i don't think
> he knew Iraq had no WMD, but sent us to war anyway. I then said that
> if we went to war on dodgy inteligence, how were we to know it was
> dodgy. There was no possible way.
So he sent us to war on a "Maybe, and the evidence we do have is dodgy". That's actually as bad as outright lying, don't you think?
>
> Oh, not just the diamond mines, i know this is not the case. There
> was a base that was no where near a diamond mine, loaded with peace
> keepers. The 'bad guys' put seige to it. 4 people escaped and
> journied through the jungle for days. It was on a Ray Mears survival
> show, so he didn't just sent them to the mines.
Oh of course not; that wouldn't have played well at all and would have been too blatant. Much better to have a token rescue of some peace keepers (just to check; are you talking about the Sandline people getting involved, or the actual British troops? I think the former but I'm not sure.)
>
> It was a live interview.
Yeah? Hmm....well, I stand corrected.
>
> I'm not happy, but what is there to do???
Whinge, moan, complain, write to people, make your voice heard. If a government hears nothing but deafening silence when they pull tricks like this, they'll do it again. And again. And again.
>
> Not really. By your logic, if a person tells a lie, every word they
> say is a lie. I don't believe this to be so. The links were to the
> aid branch of the US Gov. It is nothing short of paranoid to beleive
> ebery aspect of the US tells nothing but lies.
Okay, my fault for not being clear; I'm not saying it's outright lies on that website. What I am saying is that it is in the US government's interests to show the invasion and aftermath in a favourable light. Ergo, any stats they provide must be viewed with that in mind.
>
> Well, why don't you look at news reports and take THEM at face
> value?
> How come if something negative is said then you cry out
> "Negative bias", yet these positive facts are something to
> be taken at face value and just believed outright?
>
>
> For the love of God, i think i have put that i accept bad is going on
> in Iraq, and that the coalition have made big mistakes in most of my
> posts. I don't know what else i can do to convince you that i'm not
> 'the coalition are good, no matter what.
Yeah, sorry again; more sloppy phrasing on my part. What I was trying to get at is that you're saying that, whatever the reasons and lies told for the invasion, the outcome is a good one. I'm saying that is not a realistic point of view and I tried (poorly it would seem) to contrast your view with one of "No matter the outcome of the invasion, none of the reasons for it hold water".
I give you more credit than to tar you as some blinkered brain donor who doesn't understand an issue before commenting on it. But that said, I don't agree with your viewpoint as it is FAR too soon to say that all will now be well in Iraq.
Skarra wrote:
>
> To be fair, Light isn't aruuing against removing Saddam's vile
> regime. He/She(no offence, but i've never asked) just doesn't agree
> with the reasons behind the war.
Hey, don't worry about it; NERV is nothing more than Belldandy DESPERATELY trying to get a reaction in order to validate his existence. I mean, I'm glad to see that others have correctly gotten the gist of my beliefs concerning the war, but I'm not at all surprised to see moronic trolls like Bell continue to mis-state and outright lie about 'em.
>
> To be fair, Light isn't aruuing against removing Saddam's vile
> regime. He/She(no offence, but i've never asked) just doesn't agree
> with the reasons behind the war.
Hey, don't worry about it; NERV is nothing more than Belldandy DESPERATELY trying to get a reaction in order to validate his existence. I mean, I'm glad to see that others have correctly gotten the gist of my beliefs concerning the war, but I'm not at all surprised to see moronic trolls like Bell continue to mis-state and outright lie about 'em.
bon bon wrote:
> actually this is a good piece of thought and we can say america is a
> state
> which always creates environment for its own interest. whatever
> mission it takes it only keeps consideration of it's own interest,
> america wants to send everybody and everything in hell and only
> america wants to exist. so please do not support american mission
> because in turn you will find yourself as a maniac.
If America only does things to suit itself, what did it gain from the 1993 Somalia operations, except US troops being dragged through the streets?
Granted, they often do things to suit their own interests, but sometimes they do things in the interest of the world. Indeed, sometimes, to gain nothing for themselfs at all, as was the case in Somalia. Its just a shame it went booby up.
> actually this is a good piece of thought and we can say america is a
> state
> which always creates environment for its own interest. whatever
> mission it takes it only keeps consideration of it's own interest,
> america wants to send everybody and everything in hell and only
> america wants to exist. so please do not support american mission
> because in turn you will find yourself as a maniac.
If America only does things to suit itself, what did it gain from the 1993 Somalia operations, except US troops being dragged through the streets?
Granted, they often do things to suit their own interests, but sometimes they do things in the interest of the world. Indeed, sometimes, to gain nothing for themselfs at all, as was the case in Somalia. Its just a shame it went booby up.
the main message of 'war is an expression of jealousy' is a self-assessment of what the leaders of so called powerful nations are doing especially against humanity, we should aware ourselvs against all these war lords and must not support their activities.
dear brothers please note this message from ignition which is superb -
"Also, if you remember in the Gulf War...America supplied most of Iraq's weaponry to use against it's rival country (whoever that was). After the war, Iraq pretty much lost all of it's WMD.
America then realized that Iraq had lots of oil, but they couldn't go in and blow up most of Iraq just for some oil, so America (exploring the receipts of the WMD that they sold to Iraq in the Gulf War) decided that Iraq was a dangerous country (with a dangerous dictator) that had WMD.
You know all that already, but Iraq don't have WMD which is why America went into Iraq. If Saddam had WMD, he would have used them straight away against America as soon as they declared war with Iraq.
Take North Korea for example, they have WMD and almost literally threatened America to come and disarm them. North Korea are even more dangerous than Iraq, but America isn't sending over squadrons of F-16's with their laser guided (though not accurate) missiles. If America did, North Korea would laugh and launch a few nuclear missiles over to America and end the war (of course, so would America probaly but thats not the point)."
actually this is a good piece of thought and we can say america is a state
which always creates environment for its own interest. whatever mission it takes it only keeps consideration of it's own interest, america wants to send everybody and everything in hell and only america wants to exist. so please do not support american mission because in turn you will find yourself as a maniac.
dear brothers please note this message from ignition which is superb -
"Also, if you remember in the Gulf War...America supplied most of Iraq's weaponry to use against it's rival country (whoever that was). After the war, Iraq pretty much lost all of it's WMD.
America then realized that Iraq had lots of oil, but they couldn't go in and blow up most of Iraq just for some oil, so America (exploring the receipts of the WMD that they sold to Iraq in the Gulf War) decided that Iraq was a dangerous country (with a dangerous dictator) that had WMD.
You know all that already, but Iraq don't have WMD which is why America went into Iraq. If Saddam had WMD, he would have used them straight away against America as soon as they declared war with Iraq.
Take North Korea for example, they have WMD and almost literally threatened America to come and disarm them. North Korea are even more dangerous than Iraq, but America isn't sending over squadrons of F-16's with their laser guided (though not accurate) missiles. If America did, North Korea would laugh and launch a few nuclear missiles over to America and end the war (of course, so would America probaly but thats not the point)."
actually this is a good piece of thought and we can say america is a state
which always creates environment for its own interest. whatever mission it takes it only keeps consideration of it's own interest, america wants to send everybody and everything in hell and only america wants to exist. so please do not support american mission because in turn you will find yourself as a maniac.
NERV wrote:
> Another year, another topic with Light arguing against removing a
> ruthless and dangerous regime, and showing considerable naivety at
> the same time. Ho hum.
To be fair, Light isn't aruuing against removing Saddam's vile regime. He/She(no offence, but i've never asked) just doesn't agree with the reasons behind the war.
> Another year, another topic with Light arguing against removing a
> ruthless and dangerous regime, and showing considerable naivety at
> the same time. Ho hum.
To be fair, Light isn't aruuing against removing Saddam's vile regime. He/She(no offence, but i've never asked) just doesn't agree with the reasons behind the war.
Another year, another topic with Light arguing against removing a ruthless and dangerous regime, and showing considerable naivety at the same time. Ho hum.
Light wrote:
> Hang on, hang on; you're now saying that pretty much all intelligence
> is total b*ll*cks, yet you're also saying that we're right to go to
> war on it? Isn't that like saying "Well, all we hear is lies but
> we give credence to the lies that serve our purposes"?
No, i'm saying, you call Tony Blair a liar. I'm saying, i don't think he knew Iraq had no WMD, but sent us to war anyway. I then said that if we went to war on dodgy inteligence, how were we to know it was dodgy. There was no possible way.
> Looking at Tony Blair in the way i do, i don't think he'd be low
> enough to sent British Troops to fight, just for contracts, even if
> you believe that of George W.
>
> Why not? Why don't you believe that of him? On what basis? He ordered
> troops to Sierra Leone to safeguard national interest in their
> diamond mines. Why wouldn't he send troops to improve national
> interests in the middle east?
Oh, not just the diamond mines, i know this is not the case. There was a base that was no where near a diamond mine, loaded with peace keepers. The 'bad guys' put seige to it. 4 people escaped and journied through the jungle for days. It was on a Ray Mears survival show, so he didn't just sent them to the mines.
> No, she isn't. But as Fox choose which soundbites to use, don't you
> think they'll have used the most favourable one?
It was a live interview.
> As is shown in the US GOVERNMENT links. And, as you said, you don't
> mind that they lied in order to get the war. I'll ask again; why are
> you happy to believe them with no questions asked?
I'm not happy, but what is there to do???
> Well, is it not a little naive to think that, as they've lied to us
> about something like starting an unprovoked war on another country,
> they wouldn't lie about the state of that country now that they
> occupy it?
Not really. By your logic, if a person tells a lie, every word they say is a lie. I don't believe this to be so. The links were to the aid branch of the US Gov. It is nothing short of paranoid to beleive ebery aspect of the US tells nothing but lies.
> Well, why don't you look at news reports and take THEM at face value?
> How come if something negative is said then you cry out
> "Negative bias", yet these positive facts are something to
> be taken at face value and just believed outright?
Because i've seen months of nothing but negative reports on the news. They really are negatively biased. Why shouldn't i put some positivly biased links up?
> Look, I'm not arguing that I've deliberately taken an excessively
> "Coalition are bad, no matter what" stance. But I've done
> so to highlight your own view of "Coalition are good, no matter
> what". Surely you can see through this thread that you're being
> just as blinkered and paranoid as you accuse the anti-war bunch of
> being? I mean, in one breath you say that you're okay with a
> government lying in order to get an unjustified war, yet with the
> next you're claiming that the government should be trusted
> because...well, just because.
For the love of God, i think i have put that i accept bad is going on in Iraq, and that the coalition have made big mistakes in most of my posts. I don't know what else i can do to convince you that i'm not 'the coalition are good, no matter what.
> Hang on, hang on; you're now saying that pretty much all intelligence
> is total b*ll*cks, yet you're also saying that we're right to go to
> war on it? Isn't that like saying "Well, all we hear is lies but
> we give credence to the lies that serve our purposes"?
No, i'm saying, you call Tony Blair a liar. I'm saying, i don't think he knew Iraq had no WMD, but sent us to war anyway. I then said that if we went to war on dodgy inteligence, how were we to know it was dodgy. There was no possible way.
> Looking at Tony Blair in the way i do, i don't think he'd be low
> enough to sent British Troops to fight, just for contracts, even if
> you believe that of George W.
>
> Why not? Why don't you believe that of him? On what basis? He ordered
> troops to Sierra Leone to safeguard national interest in their
> diamond mines. Why wouldn't he send troops to improve national
> interests in the middle east?
Oh, not just the diamond mines, i know this is not the case. There was a base that was no where near a diamond mine, loaded with peace keepers. The 'bad guys' put seige to it. 4 people escaped and journied through the jungle for days. It was on a Ray Mears survival show, so he didn't just sent them to the mines.
> No, she isn't. But as Fox choose which soundbites to use, don't you
> think they'll have used the most favourable one?
It was a live interview.
> As is shown in the US GOVERNMENT links. And, as you said, you don't
> mind that they lied in order to get the war. I'll ask again; why are
> you happy to believe them with no questions asked?
I'm not happy, but what is there to do???
> Well, is it not a little naive to think that, as they've lied to us
> about something like starting an unprovoked war on another country,
> they wouldn't lie about the state of that country now that they
> occupy it?
Not really. By your logic, if a person tells a lie, every word they say is a lie. I don't believe this to be so. The links were to the aid branch of the US Gov. It is nothing short of paranoid to beleive ebery aspect of the US tells nothing but lies.
> Well, why don't you look at news reports and take THEM at face value?
> How come if something negative is said then you cry out
> "Negative bias", yet these positive facts are something to
> be taken at face value and just believed outright?
Because i've seen months of nothing but negative reports on the news. They really are negatively biased. Why shouldn't i put some positivly biased links up?
> Look, I'm not arguing that I've deliberately taken an excessively
> "Coalition are bad, no matter what" stance. But I've done
> so to highlight your own view of "Coalition are good, no matter
> what". Surely you can see through this thread that you're being
> just as blinkered and paranoid as you accuse the anti-war bunch of
> being? I mean, in one breath you say that you're okay with a
> government lying in order to get an unjustified war, yet with the
> next you're claiming that the government should be trusted
> because...well, just because.
For the love of God, i think i have put that i accept bad is going on in Iraq, and that the coalition have made big mistakes in most of my posts. I don't know what else i can do to convince you that i'm not 'the coalition are good, no matter what.
theres lies, lies and damn stastics
Skarra wrote:
>
> No one is trying to put a spin on that, i was just saying thats what
> the news focuses on. Not just covers, but focuses on. They, for want
> of a better word, ignore the positive in Iraq.
Lest you think that I'm ignoring any of the negative bias that is present...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/ 0,11882,1114169,00.html
As I say, all you've got to show for the positive are some US government stats. And why should they be trusted? Especially when indepedant aid agencies are painting a rather less rosy picture. Are Oxfam, the Red Cross, Christian aid etc...are they just concentrating on the negative?
>
> Yes, check out the US Gov links.
Right...so check out the links from the Government whom you freely admit lied to us about Iraq? And...and we should totally trust that info should we? Erm...why?
>
> I'm very prowd of that 'potential' line. Perhaps if anybody from New
> Labour is reading, i'm looking for part-time work.
Bwah ha ha ha haaa! A strange place to do a Spin Doctor audition, but hey...thanks for acknowledging that you were pushing the boundaries of believability there.
>
> Hindsight is great for spoting that information may have been flawed,
> but how was Tony Blair to know it could have been wrong. The only
> sources he had were Iraq, and you couldn't really take what they said
> as Gospel could you. I mean Mohamid Al Sahaf(Comical Ali) proves
> that. The UN, and they'd been wrong in the past. And Western
> Inteligence, and, although they'd been wrong in the past, they have
> proven to be quite a compitent force. So if the intel said Iraq had
> WMD, was he to ignore that intel?
Hang on, hang on; you're now saying that pretty much all intelligence is total b*ll*cks, yet you're also saying that we're right to go to war on it? Isn't that like saying "Well, all we hear is lies but we give credence to the lies that serve our purposes"?
>
> Looking at Tony Blair in the way i do, i don't think he'd be low
> enough to sent British Troops to fight, just for contracts, even if
> you believe that of George W.
Why not? Why don't you believe that of him? On what basis? He ordered troops to Sierra Leone to safeguard national interest in their diamond mines. Why wouldn't he send troops to improve national interests in the middle east?
>
> Polls are unreliable; I say that cos a Gallup poll said 74% of
> people
> said they don't want the coalition there. But 60% said they did.
> Odd...
>
> Anyway, as I said I would utterly disagree with your notion that the
> majority want the troops there. I suspect very strongly that they do
> not want ANYONE there and to be left to there own devices.
>
> I could be wrong, but i thought i said, most don't want troops there,
> but recognise they are doing good.
Fair enough. I suspect that, as neither of us have any hard evidence, we'll be agreeing to disagree.
>
> 1000? A very precise figure. How did they come to that?
>
> Not sure, heard it somewhere.
Right. So what's to say it's actually true? You've said that you don't mind the fact that the coalition lied to get their war. So why do you slavishly believe every fact that they spunk out onto your face now?
>
> On Fox News eh? That well known bastion of independant reporting
> that
> gave a balanced account of the whole war? Okay; how come you're
> saying 70% of Baghdad say that, yet in the next sentence you say
> that
> it was only one old lady on the most biased and pro-war news network
> that there is?
>
> Actually, as i said, the woman was just talking about reconstruction,
> she wasn't actually part of Fox News, so she isn't as biased as you
> may think, but, true, polls can be unreliable. Just as Iraqs
> election, when 99.9% of the people said they wanted Saddam in
> charge.
No, she isn't. But as Fox choose which soundbites to use, don't you think they'll have used the most favourable one?
>
>
> No, some of it is, i recognise that, but as i said, they don't just
> cover the negative, they focus on it, and effectivly ignore the good,
> as is shown in the links.
As is shown in the US GOVERNMENT links. And, as you said, you don't mind that they lied in order to get the war. I'll ask again; why are you happy to believe them with no questions asked?
>
> Well, there are other links not from the US Gov. And this is just a
> branch of the US Gov, it is a little paranoid to think that every
> branch of the US Gov is corrupt and full of lies.
Well, is it not a little naive to think that, as they've lied to us about something like starting an unprovoked war on another country, they wouldn't lie about the state of that country now that they occupy it?
>
> But, just look at the links, and take them at face value, don't just
> assume their lies. There are also photo's there, they may prove a
> little.
Well, why don't you look at news reports and take THEM at face value? How come if something negative is said then you cry out "Negative bias", yet these positive facts are something to be taken at face value and just believed outright?
Look, I'm not arguing that I've deliberately taken an excessively "Coalition are bad, no matter what" stance. But I've done so to highlight your own view of "Coalition are good, no matter what". Surely you can see through this thread that you're being just as blinkered and paranoid as you accuse the anti-war bunch of being? I mean, in one breath you say that you're okay with a government lying in order to get an unjustified war, yet with the next you're claiming that the government should be trusted because...well, just because.
>
> No one is trying to put a spin on that, i was just saying thats what
> the news focuses on. Not just covers, but focuses on. They, for want
> of a better word, ignore the positive in Iraq.
Lest you think that I'm ignoring any of the negative bias that is present...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/ 0,11882,1114169,00.html
As I say, all you've got to show for the positive are some US government stats. And why should they be trusted? Especially when indepedant aid agencies are painting a rather less rosy picture. Are Oxfam, the Red Cross, Christian aid etc...are they just concentrating on the negative?
>
> Yes, check out the US Gov links.
Right...so check out the links from the Government whom you freely admit lied to us about Iraq? And...and we should totally trust that info should we? Erm...why?
>
> I'm very prowd of that 'potential' line. Perhaps if anybody from New
> Labour is reading, i'm looking for part-time work.
Bwah ha ha ha haaa! A strange place to do a Spin Doctor audition, but hey...thanks for acknowledging that you were pushing the boundaries of believability there.
>
> Hindsight is great for spoting that information may have been flawed,
> but how was Tony Blair to know it could have been wrong. The only
> sources he had were Iraq, and you couldn't really take what they said
> as Gospel could you. I mean Mohamid Al Sahaf(Comical Ali) proves
> that. The UN, and they'd been wrong in the past. And Western
> Inteligence, and, although they'd been wrong in the past, they have
> proven to be quite a compitent force. So if the intel said Iraq had
> WMD, was he to ignore that intel?
Hang on, hang on; you're now saying that pretty much all intelligence is total b*ll*cks, yet you're also saying that we're right to go to war on it? Isn't that like saying "Well, all we hear is lies but we give credence to the lies that serve our purposes"?
>
> Looking at Tony Blair in the way i do, i don't think he'd be low
> enough to sent British Troops to fight, just for contracts, even if
> you believe that of George W.
Why not? Why don't you believe that of him? On what basis? He ordered troops to Sierra Leone to safeguard national interest in their diamond mines. Why wouldn't he send troops to improve national interests in the middle east?
>
> Polls are unreliable; I say that cos a Gallup poll said 74% of
> people
> said they don't want the coalition there. But 60% said they did.
> Odd...
>
> Anyway, as I said I would utterly disagree with your notion that the
> majority want the troops there. I suspect very strongly that they do
> not want ANYONE there and to be left to there own devices.
>
> I could be wrong, but i thought i said, most don't want troops there,
> but recognise they are doing good.
Fair enough. I suspect that, as neither of us have any hard evidence, we'll be agreeing to disagree.
>
> 1000? A very precise figure. How did they come to that?
>
> Not sure, heard it somewhere.
Right. So what's to say it's actually true? You've said that you don't mind the fact that the coalition lied to get their war. So why do you slavishly believe every fact that they spunk out onto your face now?
>
> On Fox News eh? That well known bastion of independant reporting
> that
> gave a balanced account of the whole war? Okay; how come you're
> saying 70% of Baghdad say that, yet in the next sentence you say
> that
> it was only one old lady on the most biased and pro-war news network
> that there is?
>
> Actually, as i said, the woman was just talking about reconstruction,
> she wasn't actually part of Fox News, so she isn't as biased as you
> may think, but, true, polls can be unreliable. Just as Iraqs
> election, when 99.9% of the people said they wanted Saddam in
> charge.
No, she isn't. But as Fox choose which soundbites to use, don't you think they'll have used the most favourable one?
>
>
> No, some of it is, i recognise that, but as i said, they don't just
> cover the negative, they focus on it, and effectivly ignore the good,
> as is shown in the links.
As is shown in the US GOVERNMENT links. And, as you said, you don't mind that they lied in order to get the war. I'll ask again; why are you happy to believe them with no questions asked?
>
> Well, there are other links not from the US Gov. And this is just a
> branch of the US Gov, it is a little paranoid to think that every
> branch of the US Gov is corrupt and full of lies.
Well, is it not a little naive to think that, as they've lied to us about something like starting an unprovoked war on another country, they wouldn't lie about the state of that country now that they occupy it?
>
> But, just look at the links, and take them at face value, don't just
> assume their lies. There are also photo's there, they may prove a
> little.
Well, why don't you look at news reports and take THEM at face value? How come if something negative is said then you cry out "Negative bias", yet these positive facts are something to be taken at face value and just believed outright?
Look, I'm not arguing that I've deliberately taken an excessively "Coalition are bad, no matter what" stance. But I've done so to highlight your own view of "Coalition are good, no matter what". Surely you can see through this thread that you're being just as blinkered and paranoid as you accuse the anti-war bunch of being? I mean, in one breath you say that you're okay with a government lying in order to get an unjustified war, yet with the next you're claiming that the government should be trusted because...well, just because.
Light wrote:
> Heh. Nah, I don't think it's quite that bad. What I do see however is
> the steady stream of deaths. Kinda hard to put a spin on that.
No one is trying to put a spin on that, i was just saying thats what the news focuses on. Not just covers, but focuses on. They, for want of a better word, ignore the positive in Iraq.
> Maybe I'm being slow today, but I have no idea what you're driving
> at. Most of the infrastructure is okay? What, apart from the fact
> that most of it isn't!? Skarra, most of the roads, the water, and the
> electricity supply was still damaged from the 1st Gulf war. Are you
> honestly trying to say it's generally okay?
Yes, check out the US Gov links.
> Yes, none of which changes one very simple fact; we've been there for
> months now, and not ONE WMD has been found. Where in Iraq could they
> hide them? There have been people looking for 'em for years (if we
> include the UN inspections) and literally nothing has been found.
>
> The line about "potentially, vx gas" is a nice piece of
> propaganda. Who says 'potentially'? Why...is it the US and UK
> governments who still have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of WMD?
> Yes, I believe it is.
>
> Again, I'll put it in it's most straightforward terms; we went to war
> after being told Saddam had WMD. He did not. What else is there to
> debate?
I'm very prowd of that 'potential' line. Perhaps if anybody from New Labour is reading, i'm looking for part-time work.
> He MUST have seen it? And why is that? If the evidence was so good as
> to start a war, can it have just been 'mistaken'? And if so, how?
> It's a pretty big decision to have made on the back of something that
> was so poorly researched it was 'mistaken'. Maybe it was mistaken in
> the same way as the 10 year old phd thesis that the US put out as
> evidence?
Hindsight is great for spoting that information may have been flawed, but how was Tony Blair to know it could have been wrong. The only sources he had were Iraq, and you couldn't really take what they said as Gospel could you. I mean Mohamid Al Sahaf(Comical Ali) proves that. The UN, and they'd been wrong in the past. And Western Inteligence, and, although they'd been wrong in the past, they have proven to be quite a compitent force. So if the intel said Iraq had WMD, was he to ignore that intel?
> What has Tony Blair got out of it? For starters, a very good
> bargaining position when it comes to any trade negotiations with the
> US. And since Wolfowitz has stopped any companies from non-coalition
> countries bidding for contracts in Iraq, he's gotten British Business
> rather a lot of blood money too.
Looking at Tony Blair in the way i do, i don't think he'd be low enough to sent British Troops to fight, just for contracts, even if you believe that of George W.
> Polls are unreliable; I say that cos a Gallup poll said 74% of people
> said they don't want the coalition there. But 60% said they did.
> Odd...
>
> Anyway, as I said I would utterly disagree with your notion that the
> majority want the troops there. I suspect very strongly that they do
> not want ANYONE there and to be left to there own devices.
I could be wrong, but i thought i said, most don't want troops there, but recognise they are doing good.
> 1000? A very precise figure. How did they come to that?
Not sure, heard it somewhere.
> On Fox News eh? That well known bastion of independant reporting that
> gave a balanced account of the whole war? Okay; how come you're
> saying 70% of Baghdad say that, yet in the next sentence you say that
> it was only one old lady on the most biased and pro-war news network
> that there is?
Actually, as i said, the woman was just talking about reconstruction, she wasn't actually part of Fox News, so she isn't as biased as you may think, but, true, polls can be unreliable. Just as Iraqs election, when 99.9% of the people said they wanted Saddam in charge.
> Could it be that it's mainly negative because a lot of it is? You're
> saying they delivered new 'stuff'. What stuff exactly? And how much?
> Was this to just one school or to more than one?
No, some of it is, i recognise that, but as i said, they don't just cover the negative, they focus on it, and effectivly ignore the good, as is shown in the links.
> Sweet. Thanks for those. However, as they're all from the US Govt Aid
> agency, they're not exactly going to show anything other than good
> are they? They're governmental propaganda. Tell me, as the US
> government have already lied about this war (lies that, according to
> you, we should just let drop), why on earth should they be trusted
> not to lie after the war?
Well, there are other links not from the US Gov. And this is just a branch of the US Gov, it is a little paranoid to think that every branch of the US Gov is corrupt and full of lies.
But, just look at the links, and take them at face value, don't just assume their lies. There are also photo's there, they may prove a little.
> Heh. Nah, I don't think it's quite that bad. What I do see however is
> the steady stream of deaths. Kinda hard to put a spin on that.
No one is trying to put a spin on that, i was just saying thats what the news focuses on. Not just covers, but focuses on. They, for want of a better word, ignore the positive in Iraq.
> Maybe I'm being slow today, but I have no idea what you're driving
> at. Most of the infrastructure is okay? What, apart from the fact
> that most of it isn't!? Skarra, most of the roads, the water, and the
> electricity supply was still damaged from the 1st Gulf war. Are you
> honestly trying to say it's generally okay?
Yes, check out the US Gov links.
> Yes, none of which changes one very simple fact; we've been there for
> months now, and not ONE WMD has been found. Where in Iraq could they
> hide them? There have been people looking for 'em for years (if we
> include the UN inspections) and literally nothing has been found.
>
> The line about "potentially, vx gas" is a nice piece of
> propaganda. Who says 'potentially'? Why...is it the US and UK
> governments who still have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of WMD?
> Yes, I believe it is.
>
> Again, I'll put it in it's most straightforward terms; we went to war
> after being told Saddam had WMD. He did not. What else is there to
> debate?
I'm very prowd of that 'potential' line. Perhaps if anybody from New Labour is reading, i'm looking for part-time work.
> He MUST have seen it? And why is that? If the evidence was so good as
> to start a war, can it have just been 'mistaken'? And if so, how?
> It's a pretty big decision to have made on the back of something that
> was so poorly researched it was 'mistaken'. Maybe it was mistaken in
> the same way as the 10 year old phd thesis that the US put out as
> evidence?
Hindsight is great for spoting that information may have been flawed, but how was Tony Blair to know it could have been wrong. The only sources he had were Iraq, and you couldn't really take what they said as Gospel could you. I mean Mohamid Al Sahaf(Comical Ali) proves that. The UN, and they'd been wrong in the past. And Western Inteligence, and, although they'd been wrong in the past, they have proven to be quite a compitent force. So if the intel said Iraq had WMD, was he to ignore that intel?
> What has Tony Blair got out of it? For starters, a very good
> bargaining position when it comes to any trade negotiations with the
> US. And since Wolfowitz has stopped any companies from non-coalition
> countries bidding for contracts in Iraq, he's gotten British Business
> rather a lot of blood money too.
Looking at Tony Blair in the way i do, i don't think he'd be low enough to sent British Troops to fight, just for contracts, even if you believe that of George W.
> Polls are unreliable; I say that cos a Gallup poll said 74% of people
> said they don't want the coalition there. But 60% said they did.
> Odd...
>
> Anyway, as I said I would utterly disagree with your notion that the
> majority want the troops there. I suspect very strongly that they do
> not want ANYONE there and to be left to there own devices.
I could be wrong, but i thought i said, most don't want troops there, but recognise they are doing good.
> 1000? A very precise figure. How did they come to that?
Not sure, heard it somewhere.
> On Fox News eh? That well known bastion of independant reporting that
> gave a balanced account of the whole war? Okay; how come you're
> saying 70% of Baghdad say that, yet in the next sentence you say that
> it was only one old lady on the most biased and pro-war news network
> that there is?
Actually, as i said, the woman was just talking about reconstruction, she wasn't actually part of Fox News, so she isn't as biased as you may think, but, true, polls can be unreliable. Just as Iraqs election, when 99.9% of the people said they wanted Saddam in charge.
> Could it be that it's mainly negative because a lot of it is? You're
> saying they delivered new 'stuff'. What stuff exactly? And how much?
> Was this to just one school or to more than one?
No, some of it is, i recognise that, but as i said, they don't just cover the negative, they focus on it, and effectivly ignore the good, as is shown in the links.
> Sweet. Thanks for those. However, as they're all from the US Govt Aid
> agency, they're not exactly going to show anything other than good
> are they? They're governmental propaganda. Tell me, as the US
> government have already lied about this war (lies that, according to
> you, we should just let drop), why on earth should they be trusted
> not to lie after the war?
Well, there are other links not from the US Gov. And this is just a branch of the US Gov, it is a little paranoid to think that every branch of the US Gov is corrupt and full of lies.
But, just look at the links, and take them at face value, don't just assume their lies. There are also photo's there, they may prove a little.
Page: