The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Come on Bell. Justify the war that was started by a man who has no clue why he went to war (by his own admission).
Page:
All you said Skarra was about the Humvee/Defender thing, I was just explinaing to him that I had tried to reply to three people about three different things in one previous post, hence the mistake.
Belldandy wrote:
> Decoy Octopus wrote:
> I didnt say this at all
>
> Quite right, it was Very Metal who said that so my apologies, I was
> trying to reply to you, him and Skarra all in one post.
Me, what did i say? My only posts on this thread for three pages have been about the difference between the 'Hummer' and the Land Rover Defender.
> Decoy Octopus wrote:
> I didnt say this at all
>
> Quite right, it was Very Metal who said that so my apologies, I was
> trying to reply to you, him and Skarra all in one post.
Me, what did i say? My only posts on this thread for three pages have been about the difference between the 'Hummer' and the Land Rover Defender.
Decoy Octopus wrote:
> I didnt say this at all
Quite right, it was Very Metal who said that so my apologies, I was trying to reply to you, him and Skarra all in one post.
> I didnt say this at all
Quite right, it was Very Metal who said that so my apologies, I was trying to reply to you, him and Skarra all in one post.
Blank wrote:
> If the intelligence was dodgy it still lies with Bush, as he should
> not have gone to war on intelligence that had the remotest chance of
> being wrong. It really is as simple as that.
He should have watched 24 Season 2, now that's what you call a President.
> If the intelligence was dodgy it still lies with Bush, as he should
> not have gone to war on intelligence that had the remotest chance of
> being wrong. It really is as simple as that.
He should have watched 24 Season 2, now that's what you call a President.
Belldandy wrote:
> Then you say America sat back for 2 years and did nothing. Ever
> consider that maybe the Americans thought it a little stupid that
> Europe had sat back whilst Jews in Germany were herded into ghettos,
> that Europe had turned back ships full of Jews, that European
> intelligence people received numerous reports and information that
> showed Germany was readying itself for war? Europe say back and
> watched until it was too late.
I didnt say this at all
In my opinion the war in Iraq, which this topic is about, not WWII and I admit I digressed, was going to happen whether Britain was involved or not.
It seems to me, and this is my opinion before you go spouting your mouth of about whether these are the facts or not, Bush wanted to be remembered as a war hero or a warrior president. He wanted a scalp in revenge of what happened in 9/11, and used saddams very weak links to Al-Qaeda to justify this, he also said we should go to war to protect the world from his WMD, of which UN found no trace. The intelligence Britain had was 12 years out of date and allegedley found on the internet. And we are being proved right about saddam having no Weapons of Mass destruction.
I do not belive the Idea that the war was about Oil america could get oil from elsewhere.
Personally I think Bush wanted to be remembered in history as the man who brought down Saddam Hussein.
Like I said Just my opinion.
> Then you say America sat back for 2 years and did nothing. Ever
> consider that maybe the Americans thought it a little stupid that
> Europe had sat back whilst Jews in Germany were herded into ghettos,
> that Europe had turned back ships full of Jews, that European
> intelligence people received numerous reports and information that
> showed Germany was readying itself for war? Europe say back and
> watched until it was too late.
I didnt say this at all
In my opinion the war in Iraq, which this topic is about, not WWII and I admit I digressed, was going to happen whether Britain was involved or not.
It seems to me, and this is my opinion before you go spouting your mouth of about whether these are the facts or not, Bush wanted to be remembered as a war hero or a warrior president. He wanted a scalp in revenge of what happened in 9/11, and used saddams very weak links to Al-Qaeda to justify this, he also said we should go to war to protect the world from his WMD, of which UN found no trace. The intelligence Britain had was 12 years out of date and allegedley found on the internet. And we are being proved right about saddam having no Weapons of Mass destruction.
I do not belive the Idea that the war was about Oil america could get oil from elsewhere.
Personally I think Bush wanted to be remembered in history as the man who brought down Saddam Hussein.
Like I said Just my opinion.
Light wrote:
> Well, that's an opinion I respect though disagree with; a war that
> costs a politician his job means that he personally lost that war.
Yep, but it becomes irrelevant for the most part because poltical parties are largely polarised. For the considerable future all you will get in the UK and USA are Labour/Conservative governments and Democrat/Republican governments respectively. The overall policies of anyone affilliated with either are roughly the same bar a few differences. For instance, if Blair went then Brown would step in until an election. Would there be any difference?
I'll admit that recently I've become perplexed by some of Senator Kerry's speeches in the run up to the Democrats deciding who they're going to put up against Bush. His ideas sound okay but whether he could actually implement them is another thing.
> Would you not agree that, while nations continue to do this, the war
> on terror is a pointless affair? How can one stop terrorism when one
> sanctions it for ones own ends? After all, the Iraq war is seen as
> being a just one by the overwhelming minority of people. Would you
> not agree that this sense of injustice simply fans the flames of
> extremist hatred toward America?
Yes and no. No in the sense that the actual physical actions of the war on terror are not pointless because they are removing and preventing terrorists and terrorism which would have occured. I am 95% certain that over Christmas something was prevented because there were just too many coincidences, and I'd guess that right now agencies on both sides of the Atlantic are looking for several cells of Al Qaeda who are trying to hit commercial air liners in some form. At the very least I'd say it is good odds that the cells of terrorists exist.
Yes, in a sense that the actions taken only inflame certain groups even more than before, and in the sense that despite victory after victory there is no end in sight and freedoms continue to be eroded. The problem is that short of the entire human race being wiped out you cannot ever actually end terrorism. Whilst the gesture was probably well intentioned I think it should have been defined more clearly.
> The motives of the other nations? Billions of dollars of aid. I have
> to say that I find this point rather like trying to say that it's not
> Ian Huntley's fault he killed those girls cos you have to question
> their motives for going into his house to begin with.
Not really the same thing though is it? I mean, if you are a leader of a nation and America wants your support for a war then there is little chance that you as a leader do not know what this entails. America's motives were pretty clear - get Saddam out dead or alive along with his regime. Unlike Huntley who hid his own motives whilst feigning others.
> Well, that's an opinion I respect though disagree with; a war that
> costs a politician his job means that he personally lost that war.
Yep, but it becomes irrelevant for the most part because poltical parties are largely polarised. For the considerable future all you will get in the UK and USA are Labour/Conservative governments and Democrat/Republican governments respectively. The overall policies of anyone affilliated with either are roughly the same bar a few differences. For instance, if Blair went then Brown would step in until an election. Would there be any difference?
I'll admit that recently I've become perplexed by some of Senator Kerry's speeches in the run up to the Democrats deciding who they're going to put up against Bush. His ideas sound okay but whether he could actually implement them is another thing.
> Would you not agree that, while nations continue to do this, the war
> on terror is a pointless affair? How can one stop terrorism when one
> sanctions it for ones own ends? After all, the Iraq war is seen as
> being a just one by the overwhelming minority of people. Would you
> not agree that this sense of injustice simply fans the flames of
> extremist hatred toward America?
Yes and no. No in the sense that the actual physical actions of the war on terror are not pointless because they are removing and preventing terrorists and terrorism which would have occured. I am 95% certain that over Christmas something was prevented because there were just too many coincidences, and I'd guess that right now agencies on both sides of the Atlantic are looking for several cells of Al Qaeda who are trying to hit commercial air liners in some form. At the very least I'd say it is good odds that the cells of terrorists exist.
Yes, in a sense that the actions taken only inflame certain groups even more than before, and in the sense that despite victory after victory there is no end in sight and freedoms continue to be eroded. The problem is that short of the entire human race being wiped out you cannot ever actually end terrorism. Whilst the gesture was probably well intentioned I think it should have been defined more clearly.
> The motives of the other nations? Billions of dollars of aid. I have
> to say that I find this point rather like trying to say that it's not
> Ian Huntley's fault he killed those girls cos you have to question
> their motives for going into his house to begin with.
Not really the same thing though is it? I mean, if you are a leader of a nation and America wants your support for a war then there is little chance that you as a leader do not know what this entails. America's motives were pretty clear - get Saddam out dead or alive along with his regime. Unlike Huntley who hid his own motives whilst feigning others.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> No. I'm saying that in fighting a war on terror we are becoming too
> similar to the enemy we fight, bit by bit. By doing so we are winning
> the actual conflict but losing in many other ways. You're right to
> say we are giving up freedom to protect it because that is what has
> happened and it has gone largely unchallenged.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. It hasn't gone unchallenged however; most of the protests you dismiss as 'hopeless' addressed many of these issues (homeland security in america, Blunkett's increasingly draconian laws here).
>
> Potentially, but home grown issues are more likely to effect his
> chances. Even so it becomes irrelevant because the war happened
> regardless. Even if he lost the next election and every single person
> in the country voted against him and wrote "because of
> Iraq" on the ballot (thought technically I think this would make
> it uncountable) it would not matter because the war happened.
Well, that's an opinion I respect though disagree with; a war that costs a politician his job means that he personally lost that war.
>
> Yes it has, as other nations have done in other situations. That is
> not to say that it excuses it, simply that it is no worse but no
> better than others who done likewise even if the cause was seen by
> some to be just.
Would you not agree that, while nations continue to do this, the war on terror is a pointless affair? How can one stop terrorism when one sanctions it for ones own ends? After all, the Iraq war is seen as being a just one by the overwhelming minority of people. Would you not agree that this sense of injustice simply fans the flames of extremist hatred toward America?
> I'd also question the motives of the nations who
> allowed themselves to be seduced into it when they didn't want to be
> part of it, because ultimately if they signed on as part of it the
> reason they became part of it is irrelevant.
The motives of the other nations? Billions of dollars of aid. I have to say that I find this point rather like trying to say that it's not Ian Huntley's fault he killed those girls cos you have to question their motives for going into his house to begin with.
Once more, thank you for clarifying and responding without recourse to evasiveness on these issues.
>
> No. I'm saying that in fighting a war on terror we are becoming too
> similar to the enemy we fight, bit by bit. By doing so we are winning
> the actual conflict but losing in many other ways. You're right to
> say we are giving up freedom to protect it because that is what has
> happened and it has gone largely unchallenged.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. It hasn't gone unchallenged however; most of the protests you dismiss as 'hopeless' addressed many of these issues (homeland security in america, Blunkett's increasingly draconian laws here).
>
> Potentially, but home grown issues are more likely to effect his
> chances. Even so it becomes irrelevant because the war happened
> regardless. Even if he lost the next election and every single person
> in the country voted against him and wrote "because of
> Iraq" on the ballot (thought technically I think this would make
> it uncountable) it would not matter because the war happened.
Well, that's an opinion I respect though disagree with; a war that costs a politician his job means that he personally lost that war.
>
> Yes it has, as other nations have done in other situations. That is
> not to say that it excuses it, simply that it is no worse but no
> better than others who done likewise even if the cause was seen by
> some to be just.
Would you not agree that, while nations continue to do this, the war on terror is a pointless affair? How can one stop terrorism when one sanctions it for ones own ends? After all, the Iraq war is seen as being a just one by the overwhelming minority of people. Would you not agree that this sense of injustice simply fans the flames of extremist hatred toward America?
> I'd also question the motives of the nations who
> allowed themselves to be seduced into it when they didn't want to be
> part of it, because ultimately if they signed on as part of it the
> reason they became part of it is irrelevant.
The motives of the other nations? Billions of dollars of aid. I have to say that I find this point rather like trying to say that it's not Ian Huntley's fault he killed those girls cos you have to question their motives for going into his house to begin with.
Once more, thank you for clarifying and responding without recourse to evasiveness on these issues.
Light wrote:
> So you're saying we need to become more like the enemy in order to
> win? To give up freedom to protect it?
No. I'm saying that in fighting a war on terror we are becoming too similar to the enemy we fight, bit by bit. By doing so we are winning the actual conflict but losing in many other ways. You're right to say we are giving up freedom to protect it because that is what has happened and it has gone largely unchallenged.
> Yes people protest and some do object, but ultimately it matters
> little. You had a million + people march against the war in Iraq yet
> when it came to a vote in parliament most MPs supported the war.
>
> Yet you're saying that you think Blair may well lose the next
> election. Don't you think that the opposition to war is one of the
> reasons?
Potentially, but home grown issues are more likely to effect his chances. Even so it becomes irrelevant because the war happened regardless. Even if he lost the next election and every single person in the country voted against him and wrote "because of Iraq" on the ballot (thought technically I think this would make it uncountable) it would not matter because the war happened.
> I do, and yes it is alarming. But then, the US have bribed, bullied,
> and cajoled so many nations to support it, have they not?
Yes it has, as other nations have done in other situations. That is not to say that it excuses it, simply that it is no worse but no better than others who done likewise even if the cause was seen by some to be just. I'd also question the motives of the nations who allowed themselves to be seduced into it when they didn't want to be part of it, because ultimately if they signed on as part of it the reason they became part of it is irrelevant.
> So you're saying we need to become more like the enemy in order to
> win? To give up freedom to protect it?
No. I'm saying that in fighting a war on terror we are becoming too similar to the enemy we fight, bit by bit. By doing so we are winning the actual conflict but losing in many other ways. You're right to say we are giving up freedom to protect it because that is what has happened and it has gone largely unchallenged.
> Yes people protest and some do object, but ultimately it matters
> little. You had a million + people march against the war in Iraq yet
> when it came to a vote in parliament most MPs supported the war.
>
> Yet you're saying that you think Blair may well lose the next
> election. Don't you think that the opposition to war is one of the
> reasons?
Potentially, but home grown issues are more likely to effect his chances. Even so it becomes irrelevant because the war happened regardless. Even if he lost the next election and every single person in the country voted against him and wrote "because of Iraq" on the ballot (thought technically I think this would make it uncountable) it would not matter because the war happened.
> I do, and yes it is alarming. But then, the US have bribed, bullied,
> and cajoled so many nations to support it, have they not?
Yes it has, as other nations have done in other situations. That is not to say that it excuses it, simply that it is no worse but no better than others who done likewise even if the cause was seen by some to be just. I'd also question the motives of the nations who allowed themselves to be seduced into it when they didn't want to be part of it, because ultimately if they signed on as part of it the reason they became part of it is irrelevant.
Belldandy wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy
> ourselves.
>
> Light wrote:
> Let's see if I've got this right; we're questioning the actions of
> the west, and you're saying that's a bad thing? Could you confirm
> I've got that right?
>
> No you haven't.
>
> What I am saying is that since 9/11 the actions taken by the west,
> the changes of law and to society, what our governments will now do,
> and suchlike, means that what distinguishes us from the
> "enemy" is increasingly narrow and partly reliant on
> western morality to even justify it. Whatsmore it is all mostly
> accepted without question.
So you're saying we need to become more like the enemy in order to win? To give up freedom to protect it?
>
> Yes people protest and some do object, but ultimately it matters
> little. You had a million + people march against the war in Iraq yet
> when it came to a vote in parliament most MPs supported the war.
>
Yet you're saying that you think Blair may well lose the next election. Don't you think that the opposition to war is one of the reasons?
> If you take the view that the war in Iraq was illegal, then the fact
> that no other nation has done anything other than make mild
> diplomatic statements is alarming. I want to go into more detail but
> unfortuately I have to go now so I'll maybe continue later.
I do, and yes it is alarming. But then, the US have bribed, bullied, and cajoled so many nations to support it, have they not?
Again, thanks for actually giving a response rather than an evasion, though I would be grateful for a response to the other points raised.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy
> ourselves.
>
> Light wrote:
> Let's see if I've got this right; we're questioning the actions of
> the west, and you're saying that's a bad thing? Could you confirm
> I've got that right?
>
> No you haven't.
>
> What I am saying is that since 9/11 the actions taken by the west,
> the changes of law and to society, what our governments will now do,
> and suchlike, means that what distinguishes us from the
> "enemy" is increasingly narrow and partly reliant on
> western morality to even justify it. Whatsmore it is all mostly
> accepted without question.
So you're saying we need to become more like the enemy in order to win? To give up freedom to protect it?
>
> Yes people protest and some do object, but ultimately it matters
> little. You had a million + people march against the war in Iraq yet
> when it came to a vote in parliament most MPs supported the war.
>
Yet you're saying that you think Blair may well lose the next election. Don't you think that the opposition to war is one of the reasons?
> If you take the view that the war in Iraq was illegal, then the fact
> that no other nation has done anything other than make mild
> diplomatic statements is alarming. I want to go into more detail but
> unfortuately I have to go now so I'll maybe continue later.
I do, and yes it is alarming. But then, the US have bribed, bullied, and cajoled so many nations to support it, have they not?
Again, thanks for actually giving a response rather than an evasion, though I would be grateful for a response to the other points raised.
Belldandy wrote:
> Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy
> ourselves.
Light wrote:
> Let's see if I've got this right; we're questioning the actions of
> the west, and you're saying that's a bad thing? Could you confirm
> I've got that right?
No you haven't.
What I am saying is that since 9/11 the actions taken by the west, the changes of law and to society, what our governments will now do, and suchlike, means that what distinguishes us from the "enemy" is increasingly narrow and partly reliant on western morality to even justify it. Whatsmore it is all mostly accepted without question.
Yes people protest and some do object, but ultimately it matters little. You had a million + people march against the war in Iraq yet when it came to a vote in parliament most MPs supported the war.
If you take the view that the war in Iraq was illegal, then the fact that no other nation has done anything other than make mild diplomatic statements is alarming. I want to go into more detail but unfortuately I have to go now so I'll maybe continue later.
> Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy
> ourselves.
Light wrote:
> Let's see if I've got this right; we're questioning the actions of
> the west, and you're saying that's a bad thing? Could you confirm
> I've got that right?
No you haven't.
What I am saying is that since 9/11 the actions taken by the west, the changes of law and to society, what our governments will now do, and suchlike, means that what distinguishes us from the "enemy" is increasingly narrow and partly reliant on western morality to even justify it. Whatsmore it is all mostly accepted without question.
Yes people protest and some do object, but ultimately it matters little. You had a million + people march against the war in Iraq yet when it came to a vote in parliament most MPs supported the war.
If you take the view that the war in Iraq was illegal, then the fact that no other nation has done anything other than make mild diplomatic statements is alarming. I want to go into more detail but unfortuately I have to go now so I'll maybe continue later.
Page: