The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
> Maybe it is a little optimistic, thats why elections will be held.
With luck, yeah they will. And at the moment, it looks like the Shi'a clerics will win. And so, no more freedom for Iraq.
>
> Light, i get the feeling that you see things in Iraq in the most
> negative way possible. It seems you think the entire place is one big
> fire fight, with US troops gunning down and Iraqi's they see acting
> strangly, and this is not the case.
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.
>
> The repairs you talk of, well, just the other day, i saw a cable guy
> fixing the cable for my street, but i know the rest of the country
> still had cable. Just because someone damages a pipe line in Tikrit,
> doesn't mean its the same in Basra. Most of the infastructure is ok,
> apart from when it breaks down, but that happens here too, or when it
> is sabotaged.
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?
>
> You are certain Iraq didn't have WMD, yet they had months before the
> war to hide/move the WMD anywhere. In the months before the war, the
> UN guys in Iraq found stuff like dual production centres still being
> made, one day making shoes, the next, potentially, VX gas.
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?
>
> And whatever you think the US reasons for war were, what has Tony
> Blair got out of it? He must have seen compelling evidence of Iraqs
> WMD programs, if the inteligence was wrong, that's one thing, but he
> wasn't lying to us.
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?
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.
>
> Yes, the protests do have more that 1000 people, and they don't all
> want the co-alition out, just last week i saw people wanting higher
> wages. But not the majority of people want the troops out. A poll in
> Bagdad said up to 70% said they prefer Iraq with the co-alition and i
> said the 1000 is the number of people believed to be attacking the
> co-alition. Also, note, now people are allowed to walk down the
> street and say, 'the co-alition, arn't they fools', right or wrong,
> freedom of speech has been brought to Iraq, thus the protests.
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.
1000? A very precise figure. How did they come to that?
>
> Perhaps in Tikrit, as most of these are Saddam loyalists, but in
> Bagdad, as i said, a recent poll by an aid organisation sais that 70%
> of the people recognise the good the co-alition does. If you want to
> know where i heard that, it was an interview with a lady from an aid
> group just south of Bagdad on Fox News.
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?
>
> Perhaps during the war it was fair, but now, it's only negative.
> Example, when was the last time you heard about improvements in
> schools, hospitals etc... And these are happening, because a friends
> brother is over there now, and just a couple of months ago, he spoke
> in a letter of delivering new stuff to a school.
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?
>
> Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals
> reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no
> support for them.
>
> Here are a number of links showing positive aspects in Iraq:
>
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/education.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/econgov.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
>
> Take a look, because they show that a lot of good has come from this
> war, and although there is still, bad, it isn't all like that.
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?
>
> Maybe it is a little optimistic, thats why elections will be held.
With luck, yeah they will. And at the moment, it looks like the Shi'a clerics will win. And so, no more freedom for Iraq.
>
> Light, i get the feeling that you see things in Iraq in the most
> negative way possible. It seems you think the entire place is one big
> fire fight, with US troops gunning down and Iraqi's they see acting
> strangly, and this is not the case.
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.
>
> The repairs you talk of, well, just the other day, i saw a cable guy
> fixing the cable for my street, but i know the rest of the country
> still had cable. Just because someone damages a pipe line in Tikrit,
> doesn't mean its the same in Basra. Most of the infastructure is ok,
> apart from when it breaks down, but that happens here too, or when it
> is sabotaged.
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?
>
> You are certain Iraq didn't have WMD, yet they had months before the
> war to hide/move the WMD anywhere. In the months before the war, the
> UN guys in Iraq found stuff like dual production centres still being
> made, one day making shoes, the next, potentially, VX gas.
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?
>
> And whatever you think the US reasons for war were, what has Tony
> Blair got out of it? He must have seen compelling evidence of Iraqs
> WMD programs, if the inteligence was wrong, that's one thing, but he
> wasn't lying to us.
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?
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.
>
> Yes, the protests do have more that 1000 people, and they don't all
> want the co-alition out, just last week i saw people wanting higher
> wages. But not the majority of people want the troops out. A poll in
> Bagdad said up to 70% said they prefer Iraq with the co-alition and i
> said the 1000 is the number of people believed to be attacking the
> co-alition. Also, note, now people are allowed to walk down the
> street and say, 'the co-alition, arn't they fools', right or wrong,
> freedom of speech has been brought to Iraq, thus the protests.
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.
1000? A very precise figure. How did they come to that?
>
> Perhaps in Tikrit, as most of these are Saddam loyalists, but in
> Bagdad, as i said, a recent poll by an aid organisation sais that 70%
> of the people recognise the good the co-alition does. If you want to
> know where i heard that, it was an interview with a lady from an aid
> group just south of Bagdad on Fox News.
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?
>
> Perhaps during the war it was fair, but now, it's only negative.
> Example, when was the last time you heard about improvements in
> schools, hospitals etc... And these are happening, because a friends
> brother is over there now, and just a couple of months ago, he spoke
> in a letter of delivering new stuff to a school.
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?
>
> Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals
> reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no
> support for them.
>
> Here are a number of links showing positive aspects in Iraq:
>
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/education.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/econgov.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html
> http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
>
> Take a look, because they show that a lot of good has come from this
> war, and although there is still, bad, it isn't all like that.
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?
Mind you, it seemed like a clever strategy to make iraq forces even weaker.
Disarm now!
(iraq disarms)
Now die!
Disarm now!
(iraq disarms)
Now die!
Skarra, if it was JUST about liberating the country, then everyone who has any expertise on the matter has said that the best way would be to help the Iraqi people overturn their own government.
The ONLY excuse the US/UK had for spending billions on a full on war and blowing Iraq to pieces was that Saddam was a threat to us.
And they lied to us in pretending that he was.
Over here in the UK we were blitzed with the "weapons of mass destruction could wipe us all out within 45 minutes!!!" and supposedly, we didn't even get a fraction of the propaganda running riot through the US media.
Now the "threat" has been proved to be a load of bull, it seems that the people responsible are clutching to the last excuse of liberating the Iraqi people when if that had been the objective, they went about the clumsiest, most innefficient way of going about it.
The ONLY excuse the US/UK had for spending billions on a full on war and blowing Iraq to pieces was that Saddam was a threat to us.
And they lied to us in pretending that he was.
Over here in the UK we were blitzed with the "weapons of mass destruction could wipe us all out within 45 minutes!!!" and supposedly, we didn't even get a fraction of the propaganda running riot through the US media.
Now the "threat" has been proved to be a load of bull, it seems that the people responsible are clutching to the last excuse of liberating the Iraqi people when if that had been the objective, they went about the clumsiest, most innefficient way of going about it.
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).
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).
And theres the anti war protestors asking for the war to be stopped. Well i don't see what they are complaining for. The war did stop because we won!!!
Okay, bad joke.
Okay, bad joke.
Some more links for you Light:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24182.htm
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/27247.htm
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/22184.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24182.htm
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/27247.htm
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/22184.htm
Light wrote:
> I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming
> that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the
> clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather
> presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted
> for their free-spirited attitude.
Maybe it is a little optimistic, thats why elections will be held.
> Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the
> wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
> More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the
> infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food,
> water, power...
Light, i get the feeling that you see things in Iraq in the most negative way possible. It seems you think the entire place is one big fire fight, with US troops gunning down and Iraqi's they see acting strangly, and this is not the case.
The repairs you talk of, well, just the other day, i saw a cable guy fixing the cable for my street, but i know the rest of the country still had cable. Just because someone damages a pipe line in Tikrit, doesn't mean its the same in Basra. Most of the infastructure is ok, apart from when it breaks down, but that happens here too, or when it is sabotaged.
> Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things
> in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your
> government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as
> some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in
> celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as
> you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how
> many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the
> suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't
> matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather
> hollow.
You are certain Iraq didn't have WMD, yet they had months before the war to hide/move the WMD anywhere. In the months before the war, the UN guys in Iraq found stuff like dual production centres still being made, one day making shoes, the next, potentially, VX gas.
And whatever you think the US reasons for war were, what has Tony Blair got out of it? He must have seen compelling evidence of Iraqs WMD programs, if the inteligence was wrong, that's one thing, but he wasn't lying to us.
> Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in
> all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to
> our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise
> that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the
> coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000
> involved.
Yes, the protests do have more that 1000 people, and they don't all want the co-alition out, just last week i saw people wanting higher wages. But not the majority of people want the troops out. A poll in Bagdad said up to 70% said they prefer Iraq with the co-alition and i said the 1000 is the number of people believed to be attacking the co-alition. Also, note, now people are allowed to walk down the street and say, 'the co-alition, arn't they fools', right or wrong, freedom of speech has been brought to Iraq, thus the protests.
> Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I
> suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the
> coalition out of their country.
Perhaps in Tikrit, as most of these are Saddam loyalists, but in Bagdad, as i said, a recent poll by an aid organisation sais that 70% of the people recognise the good the co-alition does. If you want to know where i heard that, it was an interview with a lady from an aid group just south of Bagdad on Fox News.
> The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be
> the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board
> good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting
> what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war?
> Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure
> the government would.
Perhaps during the war it was fair, but now, it's only negative. Example, when was the last time you heard about improvements in schools, hospitals etc... And these are happening, because a friends brother is over there now, and just a couple of months ago, he spoke in a letter of delivering new stuff to a school.
> Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals
> reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no
> support for them.
Here are a number of links showing positive aspects in Iraq:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/education.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/econgov.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
Take a look, because they show that a lot of good has come from this war, and although there is still, bad, it isn't all like that.
> I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming
> that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the
> clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather
> presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted
> for their free-spirited attitude.
Maybe it is a little optimistic, thats why elections will be held.
> Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the
> wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
> More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the
> infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food,
> water, power...
Light, i get the feeling that you see things in Iraq in the most negative way possible. It seems you think the entire place is one big fire fight, with US troops gunning down and Iraqi's they see acting strangly, and this is not the case.
The repairs you talk of, well, just the other day, i saw a cable guy fixing the cable for my street, but i know the rest of the country still had cable. Just because someone damages a pipe line in Tikrit, doesn't mean its the same in Basra. Most of the infastructure is ok, apart from when it breaks down, but that happens here too, or when it is sabotaged.
> Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things
> in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your
> government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as
> some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in
> celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as
> you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how
> many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the
> suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't
> matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather
> hollow.
You are certain Iraq didn't have WMD, yet they had months before the war to hide/move the WMD anywhere. In the months before the war, the UN guys in Iraq found stuff like dual production centres still being made, one day making shoes, the next, potentially, VX gas.
And whatever you think the US reasons for war were, what has Tony Blair got out of it? He must have seen compelling evidence of Iraqs WMD programs, if the inteligence was wrong, that's one thing, but he wasn't lying to us.
> Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in
> all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to
> our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise
> that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the
> coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000
> involved.
Yes, the protests do have more that 1000 people, and they don't all want the co-alition out, just last week i saw people wanting higher wages. But not the majority of people want the troops out. A poll in Bagdad said up to 70% said they prefer Iraq with the co-alition and i said the 1000 is the number of people believed to be attacking the co-alition. Also, note, now people are allowed to walk down the street and say, 'the co-alition, arn't they fools', right or wrong, freedom of speech has been brought to Iraq, thus the protests.
> Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I
> suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the
> coalition out of their country.
Perhaps in Tikrit, as most of these are Saddam loyalists, but in Bagdad, as i said, a recent poll by an aid organisation sais that 70% of the people recognise the good the co-alition does. If you want to know where i heard that, it was an interview with a lady from an aid group just south of Bagdad on Fox News.
> The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be
> the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board
> good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting
> what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war?
> Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure
> the government would.
Perhaps during the war it was fair, but now, it's only negative. Example, when was the last time you heard about improvements in schools, hospitals etc... And these are happening, because a friends brother is over there now, and just a couple of months ago, he spoke in a letter of delivering new stuff to a school.
> Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals
> reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no
> support for them.
Here are a number of links showing positive aspects in Iraq:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/education.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/photogallery/
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/econgov.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/watsan.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/electricity.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
Take a look, because they show that a lot of good has come from this war, and although there is still, bad, it isn't all like that.
Skarra wrote:
> Light, Iraq is free. In a few months, the people will take over, when
> the infastructure they need is all in place.
I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted for their free-spirited attitude.
>
> A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the
> markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now
> more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many,
> many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used
> as ammo-dumps etc...
Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food, water, power...
>
> Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the
> situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the
> examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things
> in Iraq now.
Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather hollow.
>
> The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small
> number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls
> in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the
> co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in
> their country.
Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000 involved.
Who is saying this in Basra? Where do you get that info from? I ask cos I was listening to a Radio 4 special on Iraq some months ago. One man summed up the mood of the people of (I think) Baghdad; "If the Prophet Mohammed himself invaded my country, I would fight him. This is my land. Saddam has almost destroyed it, and I won't let the Americans finish the job".
Finally, how come you're so wilfully blind to the fact that the people benefitting most from this war are the rich industrialists of the US and UK? You don't seem to want to acknowledge that the US government (which, as I keep reminding you, said it wouldn't go to war if it was purely for the Iraqi people. So why DID they go to war?) is only there for the money, and balls to the people.
>
> And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now,
> or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on
> the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like
> the things i said, and more.
Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the coalition out of their country.
>
> I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good.
> However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to
> read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war? Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure the government would.
Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no support for them.
> Light, Iraq is free. In a few months, the people will take over, when
> the infastructure they need is all in place.
I had no idea that you could see into the future; you're assuming that the handover of power and subsequent rule by (most likely) the clergy will be free and fair. Don't you think that's rather presumptuous? Especially when the Shi'a clergy aren't really noted for their free-spirited attitude.
>
> A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the
> markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now
> more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many,
> many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used
> as ammo-dumps etc...
Yes, and now they can be killed by coalition troops for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's much more preferable.
More food and water? Really? Cos the way I read it, most of the infrastructure is being repaired. So there's actually less food, water, power...
>
> Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the
> situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the
> examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things
> in Iraq now.
Mm, yes the examples that you give seem to ignore the many bad things in Iraq right now. Oh, and you're also happy to be lied to by your government so that a few people can get even richer, just so long as some photogenic brown people get to do a televised dance in celebration, eh? I don't mean to doubt your humanitarianism, but as you're happy for the US and UK to continue to support god-knows how many despotic regimes, and for as long as you're happy to ignore the suffering in those other nations, your matra of "The lies don't matter, Iraq is free" is, as well as being innaccurate, rather hollow.
>
> The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small
> number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls
> in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the
> co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in
> their country.
Erm...that small number of people; did they multiply themselves in all of those lovely protests against the Americans (which, thanks to our free press, we rarely hear about as they might make us realise that Iraq is not really a grateful nation; in general, they want the coalition out). Cos those protests had considerably more than 1000 involved.
Who is saying this in Basra? Where do you get that info from? I ask cos I was listening to a Radio 4 special on Iraq some months ago. One man summed up the mood of the people of (I think) Baghdad; "If the Prophet Mohammed himself invaded my country, I would fight him. This is my land. Saddam has almost destroyed it, and I won't let the Americans finish the job".
Finally, how come you're so wilfully blind to the fact that the people benefitting most from this war are the rich industrialists of the US and UK? You don't seem to want to acknowledge that the US government (which, as I keep reminding you, said it wouldn't go to war if it was purely for the Iraqi people. So why DID they go to war?) is only there for the money, and balls to the people.
>
> And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now,
> or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on
> the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like
> the things i said, and more.
Okay; ask an Iraqi in Tikrit as well, and maybe one in Baghdad? I suspect you'll find a lot of people saying that they simply want the coalition out of their country.
>
> I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good.
> However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to
> read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
The media? Oh come on; don't talk such blinkered toss. This would be the media, with it's embedded reporters, who gave across the board good reports about the war? And when there is a hint of reporting what ACTUALLY happens, then they're slated as being anti-war? Jesus...would you prefer a news blackout on the killings? I'm sure the government would.
Tell you what; find me some reports of the schools and hospitals reopening. So far you've said a lot of things with little or no support for them.
War is much more than an expression of jealousy, it's an expression of a primitive culture with backward intelligence. Stupid humans. I don't want to be one.
Light, Iraq is free. In a few months, the people will take over, when the infastructure they need is all in place.
A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many, many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used as ammo-dumps etc...
Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things in Iraq now.
The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in their country.
And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now, or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like the things i said, and more.
I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good. However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
A few months ago the people were able to sell religious DVD's in the markets, something they were killed for under Saddam, there is now more food, water and power than there was under Saddam, plus many, many more good things happening, such as schools no longer being used as ammo-dumps etc...
Despite the focus the media gives to the negative aspects of the situation in Iraq, it is better than it was under Saddam, and the examples i have given here are just some, there are many good things in Iraq now.
The co-alition troops only really come under attack from a small number of people, reported to be numbering less than 1000. And polls in the Capital, and in Basra say most of the people don't wan't the co-alition troops there, but realise they are doing some good in their country.
And i'll bet if you ask an Iraqi in Basra, 'Which do you prefer, now, or a year ago?' They'd say Post War Iraq, because the focus lies on the bad, such as the attacks, the news rarely mentions the good, like the things i said, and more.
I accept their is bad, but this should be over shadowed by the good. However, the media don't do this, after all, what do people want to read about, attacks on US troops, or schools reopening?
Page: