The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml ?type=politicsNews&storyID=4106493
Page:
unknown kernel wrote:
> But anyway, I do have a genuine question: what gives you
> (us/Bush/whatever) the right to decide that certain random Iraqis
> need to die to save other random Iraqis?
What gives you the right to decide the same, because inaction was causing the above? Inaction perpetuates the above, whereas action brings an eventual end to the above. Inaction brought 12 years of poorly implemented UN sanctions which harmed ordinary people and allowed the regime to gather wealth and rebuild a military whilst pursuing WMD and new weapons systems. Action ended that in little more than a month and began the rebuilding of the country. Post war Germany took years to rebuild and return to anything normal because it is not possible to rebuild a nation after it has suffered years of such regimes in a matter of a year.
As far as people needing to die, it is a badly framed question. Most certainly it was inevitable that, if they resisted, members of the Iraqi armed forces would not be killed. The Iraqi airforce, sensibly, confined itself to barracks and as a consequence the only airforce personnel killed were those manning anti-aircraft defences and intelligence centres/ammo dumps. I would defy you to find any literature which at any point mentions that Iraqi civilians needed to die.
Because you cannot.
The fact is I remember, at the very least, Light, Goatboy, Blank and unknown kernel, all stating at some point that the US would never ever catch Saddam.
> But anyway, I do have a genuine question: what gives you
> (us/Bush/whatever) the right to decide that certain random Iraqis
> need to die to save other random Iraqis?
What gives you the right to decide the same, because inaction was causing the above? Inaction perpetuates the above, whereas action brings an eventual end to the above. Inaction brought 12 years of poorly implemented UN sanctions which harmed ordinary people and allowed the regime to gather wealth and rebuild a military whilst pursuing WMD and new weapons systems. Action ended that in little more than a month and began the rebuilding of the country. Post war Germany took years to rebuild and return to anything normal because it is not possible to rebuild a nation after it has suffered years of such regimes in a matter of a year.
As far as people needing to die, it is a badly framed question. Most certainly it was inevitable that, if they resisted, members of the Iraqi armed forces would not be killed. The Iraqi airforce, sensibly, confined itself to barracks and as a consequence the only airforce personnel killed were those manning anti-aircraft defences and intelligence centres/ammo dumps. I would defy you to find any literature which at any point mentions that Iraqi civilians needed to die.
Because you cannot.
The fact is I remember, at the very least, Light, Goatboy, Blank and unknown kernel, all stating at some point that the US would never ever catch Saddam.
So, same old same old.
Light, saying someone is getting assraped most certainly breaks at least one of the new SR rules -
Do not post offensive material.
Light, saying someone is getting assraped most certainly breaks at least one of the new SR rules -
Do not post offensive material.
Yukikaze wrote:
> You see, the thing is that any time we ever hear
> the words of someone actually there, doing the fighting, they don't
> say anything like the normal people are against them, or everyone
> hates them, or that they think they should not be there. That's only
> coming from the people sat safely at home.
Well the Saddam supporters hate us, but there aren't that many of them.
The extremists hate us, but then they kill their own children if they don't measure up.
Some regular Iraqi's hate us. Some love us.
Vast amounts of them are just indifferent because as yet their lives are not noticably better. Although they do appreciate the fact that the chance of them being picked up in the middle of the night and being taken off to be tortured has gone down somewhat. When they all have running water and electricity they'll be glad that things changed. Just might take a while.
> You see, the thing is that any time we ever hear
> the words of someone actually there, doing the fighting, they don't
> say anything like the normal people are against them, or everyone
> hates them, or that they think they should not be there. That's only
> coming from the people sat safely at home.
Well the Saddam supporters hate us, but there aren't that many of them.
The extremists hate us, but then they kill their own children if they don't measure up.
Some regular Iraqi's hate us. Some love us.
Vast amounts of them are just indifferent because as yet their lives are not noticably better. Although they do appreciate the fact that the chance of them being picked up in the middle of the night and being taken off to be tortured has gone down somewhat. When they all have running water and electricity they'll be glad that things changed. Just might take a while.
Well well, look at that; Belldandy being evasive and trying to avoid addressing the original point (that one of Dubya's former aides levelled criticism's at him, and Bell failed entirely to address them). And what's this...Bell getting absolutely assraped when he tries to rely on unsupported conjecture that he clearly hasn't researched.
This IS 2004 isn't it? Only that looks exactly like 2003's routine.
This IS 2004 isn't it? Only that looks exactly like 2003's routine.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Strafio, predictably because every anti war person I have known does
> this when challenged to provide an alternative - cannot other than to
> make glib comments about people rising up.
I've posted this before but:
"Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam."
--One of your best mates, 1998.
But anyway, I do have a genuine question: what gives you (us/Bush/whatever) the right to decide that certain random Iraqis need to die to save other random Iraqis? (Forgetting for a moment that this wasn't why we went to war.)
> Strafio, predictably because every anti war person I have known does
> this when challenged to provide an alternative - cannot other than to
> make glib comments about people rising up.
I've posted this before but:
"Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam."
--One of your best mates, 1998.
But anyway, I do have a genuine question: what gives you (us/Bush/whatever) the right to decide that certain random Iraqis need to die to save other random Iraqis? (Forgetting for a moment that this wasn't why we went to war.)
*chuckles*
Last year called, they said can they have their arguments back please?
Last year called, they said can they have their arguments back please?
As opposed to those who sat at home and decided we could not go to war ws**th Iraq because s**t was okay is Saddam killed an average of around 50 000 of his own people a year? Now, no s*s**t, but there is no way in hell the war killed that many people. Strangely, for a country whose leader pleaded for sanctions to be lifted so foreign revenue could be generated for medical supplies, food etc , Saddam seems to have had no shortage of this needed US currency.
Strafio, predictably because every anti war person I have known does this when challenged to provide an alternative - cannot other than to make glib comments about people rising up. Ever tried that in a totals**tarian regime ws**thout the mils**tary on your side? Slaughter is what you get. Not some fancy peaceful uprising, slaughter. The Iraqis tried s**t in 1991 when they thought the US was going to help them (which s**t was prevented from doing so by the UN) and they were all slaughtered, along ws**th their entire families. Not just the men who took part, but all their families, in some cases kids as young as 2 were executed by Saddam's troops.
Now, Strafio, how the hell do you expect an uprising in Iraq when the mils**tary will follow orders like that eh?
You're using western logic outside the west. Sure, if Tony Blair were to make some insane order he'd be stopped, as would Bush (desps**te what some of you may thing), as would any democratic government which follows the principles of democracy.
As far as I know Strafio the last century was kind of lacking in piles of invasions, other than World War 2 of course, and World War 1, and the Falklands - all of which were halted by sheer mils**tary force, in Japan's case the ultimate force.
Strafio, predictably because every anti war person I have known does this when challenged to provide an alternative - cannot other than to make glib comments about people rising up. Ever tried that in a totals**tarian regime ws**thout the mils**tary on your side? Slaughter is what you get. Not some fancy peaceful uprising, slaughter. The Iraqis tried s**t in 1991 when they thought the US was going to help them (which s**t was prevented from doing so by the UN) and they were all slaughtered, along ws**th their entire families. Not just the men who took part, but all their families, in some cases kids as young as 2 were executed by Saddam's troops.
Now, Strafio, how the hell do you expect an uprising in Iraq when the mils**tary will follow orders like that eh?
You're using western logic outside the west. Sure, if Tony Blair were to make some insane order he'd be stopped, as would Bush (desps**te what some of you may thing), as would any democratic government which follows the principles of democracy.
As far as I know Strafio the last century was kind of lacking in piles of invasions, other than World War 2 of course, and World War 1, and the Falklands - all of which were halted by sheer mils**tary force, in Japan's case the ultimate force.
Yukikaze wrote:
> That's only coming from the people sat safely at home.
And funnily enough the people who started the war and decided that X amount of civilian deaths were a price worth paying for a 'free' Iraq were also sat safely at home.
> That's only coming from the people sat safely at home.
And funnily enough the people who started the war and decided that X amount of civilian deaths were a price worth paying for a 'free' Iraq were also sat safely at home.
If they'd put a fraction of the effort and finance of this war into disposing him through internal uprising, and paid proper attention to it instead of just making casual passing attempts, then it would've been a lot more successful.
GW just wanted to show everyone how big his guns were.
Out of all the invasions over the last century, very few have resulted in a stable change of leadership.
The rest either collapsed or became corrupt.
The main success stories of regine change is when the people have just had enough and over-thrown their government.
It's cheaper and more effective than going for a big invasion, which is only necessary when the country in question is a danger to the outside world.
GW just wanted to show everyone how big his guns were.
Out of all the invasions over the last century, very few have resulted in a stable change of leadership.
The rest either collapsed or became corrupt.
The main success stories of regine change is when the people have just had enough and over-thrown their government.
It's cheaper and more effective than going for a big invasion, which is only necessary when the country in question is a danger to the outside world.
Well Strafio, all I can say is that if you had a workable plan that removed Saddam without a need for a full military invasion, and that ensured none of his cronies just filled his place, and that removed the entire regime - not to mention bringing scores of war criminals to justice one way or another and ensuring that Iraq will never pursue WMD again, then you should really think about a career change y'know.
The last lot of people that the CIA sponsored to remove Saddam are, well, no one ever actually found them again. And the UN is currently nearing the half million mark of people killed by the regime for opposing it, not to mention those who live but were tortured and/or raped.
You don't get it.
You know why there is so much trouble still in Iraq? Because we are winning, and all those people whose power came from violence and weapons and terror are seeing it all slip away, and they'll do everything they can to stop that, because the stakes are a lot higher for them than they are for anyone else.
If peace succeeds they face prison, no future, or death.
Again, if you have a strategy for stopping this instantly you are in the wrong job. Our own troops have faired better in the south partly because of experiences from Northern Ireland, and look how long that took to sort out. You see, the thing is that any time we ever hear the words of someone actually there, doing the fighting, they don't say anything like the normal people are against them, or everyone hates them, or that they think they should not be there. That's only coming from the people sat safely at home.
The last lot of people that the CIA sponsored to remove Saddam are, well, no one ever actually found them again. And the UN is currently nearing the half million mark of people killed by the regime for opposing it, not to mention those who live but were tortured and/or raped.
You don't get it.
You know why there is so much trouble still in Iraq? Because we are winning, and all those people whose power came from violence and weapons and terror are seeing it all slip away, and they'll do everything they can to stop that, because the stakes are a lot higher for them than they are for anyone else.
If peace succeeds they face prison, no future, or death.
Again, if you have a strategy for stopping this instantly you are in the wrong job. Our own troops have faired better in the south partly because of experiences from Northern Ireland, and look how long that took to sort out. You see, the thing is that any time we ever hear the words of someone actually there, doing the fighting, they don't say anything like the normal people are against them, or everyone hates them, or that they think they should not be there. That's only coming from the people sat safely at home.
Page: