The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yukikaze wrote:
> I'm not bothered about arguing this topic here because it is a waste
> of time when people are making their own facts. E.g Strafio and his
> "they botched it up" when all the evidence is to the
> contrary,
It is?
Then why are there so many riots and attacks from these "liberated" people.
It's not just Saddam followers either.
Ordinary people are getting pretty distressed over this take-over.
It's the most anti-logistical way to free the people from military rule.
So either Bush and Blair are stupid, simple minded cretins, who think that the only way to topple a government is to pummel the entire country, or liberating the people of Iraq was pretty low down in their list of priorities.
> I'm not bothered about arguing this topic here because it is a waste
> of time when people are making their own facts. E.g Strafio and his
> "they botched it up" when all the evidence is to the
> contrary,
It is?
Then why are there so many riots and attacks from these "liberated" people.
It's not just Saddam followers either.
Ordinary people are getting pretty distressed over this take-over.
It's the most anti-logistical way to free the people from military rule.
So either Bush and Blair are stupid, simple minded cretins, who think that the only way to topple a government is to pummel the entire country, or liberating the people of Iraq was pretty low down in their list of priorities.
Like the parody:
'I see", said the blind man to the deaf man.
'I see", said the blind man to the deaf man.
Well what did you think the HA HA was for eh? The new link ridicules most of the supposed sensational claims in the first, and the rest - the idea that the US has always planned to whack the Iraqi regime - is sheer common sense. I'll bet that down in the Pentagion basement there is even a plan to attack us.
I'm not bothered about arguing this topic here because it is a waste of time when people are making their own facts. E.g Strafio and his "they botched it up" when all the evidence is to the contrary, Sheepy and his "they flew the 9/11 planes" - find me a source for that and I'll be surprised , Gaddafi and his "predicted 9/11" - strangely if you were to use that kind of evidence as a predictor then there should have been a massive attack on or around Christmas day in the US, which there was not... do I need to carry on.
Fair enough Light, you as a rule do not go to that level, but it doesn't stop others and that kind of makes it all pointless really.
Back to that book it's also worth noting that it's not actually written by the guy but written for him.
I'm not bothered about arguing this topic here because it is a waste of time when people are making their own facts. E.g Strafio and his "they botched it up" when all the evidence is to the contrary, Sheepy and his "they flew the 9/11 planes" - find me a source for that and I'll be surprised , Gaddafi and his "predicted 9/11" - strangely if you were to use that kind of evidence as a predictor then there should have been a massive attack on or around Christmas day in the US, which there was not... do I need to carry on.
Fair enough Light, you as a rule do not go to that level, but it doesn't stop others and that kind of makes it all pointless really.
Back to that book it's also worth noting that it's not actually written by the guy but written for him.
Yukikaze wrote:
> Heh, read it again...
Ok....
Right, done that. And it doesn't, not anywhere, say that he's taken back his major criticisms of Bush. All he's done is criticise the Democrats who tried to imply that this meant Dubya had planned the war even before 9/11.
So, back to the original question that you avoided; can you confirm or deny this is the case? I'm not sure why you're being so evasive on this one. After all, the last time I called you on evasiveness, you scweamed and ran away. I would have thought you'd learn from your mistakes.
> Heh, read it again...
Ok....
Right, done that. And it doesn't, not anywhere, say that he's taken back his major criticisms of Bush. All he's done is criticise the Democrats who tried to imply that this meant Dubya had planned the war even before 9/11.
So, back to the original question that you avoided; can you confirm or deny this is the case? I'm not sure why you're being so evasive on this one. After all, the last time I called you on evasiveness, you scweamed and ran away. I would have thought you'd learn from your mistakes.
He doesn't take it back Bell.
He just says that we shouldn't be surprised by it and it's the way we should expect things, the US looking out for threats to annihilate before the thread annihilate them.
Which is fair enough because if a country is endangering us then we're in trouble.
The gripe with got with GW is that he and his gang MADE UP all the threats.
They were always linking Hussain with 9/11 and saying that there were DEFINATELY nuclear weapons without a doubt.
All of these proved false.
Now their only excuse was the liberation of Iraqi people.
But if that was their aim then they've botched it up, leaving half the country in anarky.
Also, it was the most expensive and impractical way of going about it, because EVERYONE who knew anything about the subject said that the best way to free Iraq would be to support the people into leading their own revolution, as that's the way it's ALWAYS worked best in history.
When they went to invade Iraq, the people they were helping was an after-thought.
He just says that we shouldn't be surprised by it and it's the way we should expect things, the US looking out for threats to annihilate before the thread annihilate them.
Which is fair enough because if a country is endangering us then we're in trouble.
The gripe with got with GW is that he and his gang MADE UP all the threats.
They were always linking Hussain with 9/11 and saying that there were DEFINATELY nuclear weapons without a doubt.
All of these proved false.
Now their only excuse was the liberation of Iraqi people.
But if that was their aim then they've botched it up, leaving half the country in anarky.
Also, it was the most expensive and impractical way of going about it, because EVERYONE who knew anything about the subject said that the best way to free Iraq would be to support the people into leading their own revolution, as that's the way it's ALWAYS worked best in history.
When they went to invade Iraq, the people they were helping was an after-thought.
Heh, read it again...
Okay, so let's get this completely straight; you're willing to believe this man unconditionally when he's making a point that defends an aspect of Dubya's regime (in this case, that the US's plans for Iraq formed part of any nations reasonable contigency planning), yet when it comes to the bulk of what he said (That Dubya is utterly clueless), then you'll try and draw vague parallels with Michael Moore (who's stuff you have never read or seen) and do your best to slate him without actually producing any facts in rebuttal?
Can you just confirm or deny that that is the case?
Can you just confirm or deny that that is the case?
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html
HA HA *Insert Nelson voice*
HA HA *Insert Nelson voice*
Uh-oh.
I can see how this could fit in with the theory that the US administration had intelligence predicting 9/11, and let it happen (as opposed to didn't take it seriously).
Of course, we're well into the realm of speculation there...
I can see how this could fit in with the theory that the US administration had intelligence predicting 9/11, and let it happen (as opposed to didn't take it seriously).
Of course, we're well into the realm of speculation there...
Yukikaze wrote:
> Plus it's a bit of an insult to blind people really. But hey the
> "former" person has a book to sell, like many ex
> politicians, at least this way he gets the Moore crowd interested,
> and in election year too...
Anything to offer other than semi-snide put downs? Some actual facts in rebuttal of the accusations perhaps?
> Plus it's a bit of an insult to blind people really. But hey the
> "former" person has a book to sell, like many ex
> politicians, at least this way he gets the Moore crowd interested,
> and in election year too...
Anything to offer other than semi-snide put downs? Some actual facts in rebuttal of the accusations perhaps?
Page: