The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Belldandy wrote:
> you can continue to engage in the style of debate that simply
> counterpoints any US action with those of others, or tracing the
> causes of world events back in history but ultimately that gets
> nowhere. Yep, we gave Saddam weapons, Russia gave Iran weapons,
> Israel breaks UN resolutions, China breaks UN resolutions and so
> forth. It gets nowhere because it is simply trying to excuse or
> justify one thing based on another thing.
Well, it gets us seeing just how uneven and blinkered your logic is. Someone other than the US does something bad, and you fake moral outrage whilst slithering up to the high ground. The US do it? Oh, there are a million and one justifications. Read back through this thread Bell; you crow about how the US got rid of a dictator, then you praise them for keeping the dictator of Uzbekhistan in place.
It does get somewhere Bell; it gets us seeing, in plain and simple terms, that you're an idiot who's supposed knowledge of international affairs is so underresearched, skewed and biased as to be worthless
>
> I mean, we gave Saddam weapons, Russia gave Iran weapons. Does it
> matter about Russia just because Iran was weakened by the war with
> Iraq and subsequently lost most of the Russian equipment anyway
> whilst Saddam saved most of his? Most of the North has given weapons
> to most of the South for wars by proxy because that was the accepted
> practice by both sides at that time. Both should have considered the
> consequences more, but both were equally to blame. Just because we
> gave Saddam weapons does NOT make it okay for him to use them as he
> did. Just because prisoners are mistreated by one nation does NOT
> make it okay for another nation to do likewise.
Yes, both should be equally to blame. So why have you thus far refused to condemn the US for their actions? Why, in fact, have you sought to defend and excuse them for post after post, before avoiding the topics endlessly when you can't respond to it?
>
> Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy
> ourselves.
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?
>
> Now, Light, you can continue if you wish with your "America did
> this" stlye but I believe it pointless.
Of course you do; it exposes just how little you actually know, and proves beyond any reasonable burdon of proof that you don't know what you're talking about. You're just parroting things you don't comprehend.
> You want to play that
> game then the same reasoning can be taken further. Hitler, for
> example, did very little that the Europeans had not done in Africa
> over a longer period of time.
Yup, absolutely right. What, d'you think I won't want to criticise Europe for the destruction their colonialism?
Jeez Bell....can't you see that I'm not taking sides in this? What I'm after is for people to look at this in as evenhanded a manner as possible, rather than cheerleading one side and demonising another. I mean, thank you for eventually trying to explain yourself, but again you're just mired in contradictions.
> you can continue to engage in the style of debate that simply
> counterpoints any US action with those of others, or tracing the
> causes of world events back in history but ultimately that gets
> nowhere. Yep, we gave Saddam weapons, Russia gave Iran weapons,
> Israel breaks UN resolutions, China breaks UN resolutions and so
> forth. It gets nowhere because it is simply trying to excuse or
> justify one thing based on another thing.
Well, it gets us seeing just how uneven and blinkered your logic is. Someone other than the US does something bad, and you fake moral outrage whilst slithering up to the high ground. The US do it? Oh, there are a million and one justifications. Read back through this thread Bell; you crow about how the US got rid of a dictator, then you praise them for keeping the dictator of Uzbekhistan in place.
It does get somewhere Bell; it gets us seeing, in plain and simple terms, that you're an idiot who's supposed knowledge of international affairs is so underresearched, skewed and biased as to be worthless
>
> I mean, we gave Saddam weapons, Russia gave Iran weapons. Does it
> matter about Russia just because Iran was weakened by the war with
> Iraq and subsequently lost most of the Russian equipment anyway
> whilst Saddam saved most of his? Most of the North has given weapons
> to most of the South for wars by proxy because that was the accepted
> practice by both sides at that time. Both should have considered the
> consequences more, but both were equally to blame. Just because we
> gave Saddam weapons does NOT make it okay for him to use them as he
> did. Just because prisoners are mistreated by one nation does NOT
> make it okay for another nation to do likewise.
Yes, both should be equally to blame. So why have you thus far refused to condemn the US for their actions? Why, in fact, have you sought to defend and excuse them for post after post, before avoiding the topics endlessly when you can't respond to it?
>
> Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy
> ourselves.
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?
>
> Now, Light, you can continue if you wish with your "America did
> this" stlye but I believe it pointless.
Of course you do; it exposes just how little you actually know, and proves beyond any reasonable burdon of proof that you don't know what you're talking about. You're just parroting things you don't comprehend.
> You want to play that
> game then the same reasoning can be taken further. Hitler, for
> example, did very little that the Europeans had not done in Africa
> over a longer period of time.
Yup, absolutely right. What, d'you think I won't want to criticise Europe for the destruction their colonialism?
Jeez Bell....can't you see that I'm not taking sides in this? What I'm after is for people to look at this in as evenhanded a manner as possible, rather than cheerleading one side and demonising another. I mean, thank you for eventually trying to explain yourself, but again you're just mired in contradictions.
you can continue to engage in the style of debate that simply counterpoints any US action with those of others, or tracing the causes of world events back in history but ultimately that gets nowhere. Yep, we gave Saddam weapons, Russia gave Iran weapons, Israel breaks UN resolutions, China breaks UN resolutions and so forth. It gets nowhere because it is simply trying to excuse or justify one thing based on another thing.
I mean, we gave Saddam weapons, Russia gave Iran weapons. Does it matter about Russia just because Iran was weakened by the war with Iraq and subsequently lost most of the Russian equipment anyway whilst Saddam saved most of his? Most of the North has given weapons to most of the South for wars by proxy because that was the accepted practice by both sides at that time. Both should have considered the consequences more, but both were equally to blame. Just because we gave Saddam weapons does NOT make it okay for him to use them as he did. Just because prisoners are mistreated by one nation does NOT make it okay for another nation to do likewise.
Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy ourselves.
Now, Light, you can continue if you wish with your "America did this" stlye but I believe it pointless. You want to play that game then the same reasoning can be taken further. Hitler, for example, did very little that the Europeans had not done in Africa over a longer period of time.
I mean, we gave Saddam weapons, Russia gave Iran weapons. Does it matter about Russia just because Iran was weakened by the war with Iraq and subsequently lost most of the Russian equipment anyway whilst Saddam saved most of his? Most of the North has given weapons to most of the South for wars by proxy because that was the accepted practice by both sides at that time. Both should have considered the consequences more, but both were equally to blame. Just because we gave Saddam weapons does NOT make it okay for him to use them as he did. Just because prisoners are mistreated by one nation does NOT make it okay for another nation to do likewise.
Part of the problem today is that we are becoming the enemy ourselves.
Now, Light, you can continue if you wish with your "America did this" stlye but I believe it pointless. You want to play that game then the same reasoning can be taken further. Hitler, for example, did very little that the Europeans had not done in Africa over a longer period of time.
Belldandy wrote:
> You still don't get it.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
My God Bell, that's it? That's your great put-down? Your rebuttal? And not only that, you have to use the words I used in my own post to express it? Bwah ha ha ha ha haaaa!
"You don't get it Bell, and here's why..."
'No! YOU don't get it!'
"You gonna tell me why I don't?"
'You don't get it!'
Cmon then Bell, humour me; what don't I get? After all, I've just accused you of basically being a fundamentalist zealot when it comes to the US. You haven't gone any way to rebutting that. Care to try? Or is this going to be yet another case of "Bell fills a thread with attempts to avoid the question, Light fills it with attempts to get the bullying little coward to answer a question he can't answer"? Your call dear boy.
> You still don't get it.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
My God Bell, that's it? That's your great put-down? Your rebuttal? And not only that, you have to use the words I used in my own post to express it? Bwah ha ha ha ha haaaa!
"You don't get it Bell, and here's why..."
'No! YOU don't get it!'
"You gonna tell me why I don't?"
'You don't get it!'
Cmon then Bell, humour me; what don't I get? After all, I've just accused you of basically being a fundamentalist zealot when it comes to the US. You haven't gone any way to rebutting that. Care to try? Or is this going to be yet another case of "Bell fills a thread with attempts to avoid the question, Light fills it with attempts to get the bullying little coward to answer a question he can't answer"? Your call dear boy.
You still don't get it.
You still don't see it do you Bell? I'm not 'countering' anything. I'm applying your logic about Iraq to your beloved US. And you refuse to accept it. All you can respond with is "What about Russia?!". Yeah, Russia behaved equally as contemptibly as the US. So why won't you criticise the US? Judging by this and other threads where you get abusive and evasive when pressed about the US, I can only assume it's your blind faith.
Bush may ask where intelligence came from but anything he knows about that person comes from the National Security director or the CIA director and he has to make decisions without the benefit of hindsight enjoyed by his critics. Even then ever since 9/11 the CIA and others have expanded whom they will recruit to gather intelligence or spy for them. Pre 9/11 the agencies were not allowed to recruit serious criminals or ex terrorists etc unless it was absolutely crucial, but post 9/11 the situation is so desperate that sources are being accepted from all over just to gater the intel that is needed.
The same applies to Blair. Every dossier of intelligence will have been compiled by MI6, Secret Service and other agencies. Sure, they'll show it to him and get an opinion but those answering his questions base their answers on the intelligence.
If the intelligence is false then you end up with circular reasoning which is impossible to get out of.
The same applies to Blair. Every dossier of intelligence will have been compiled by MI6, Secret Service and other agencies. Sure, they'll show it to him and get an opinion but those answering his questions base their answers on the intelligence.
If the intelligence is false then you end up with circular reasoning which is impossible to get out of.
So Bush never asked where the evidence came from...?
Sure, if the intelligence staff are giving him duff information they need to be sacked, because they aren't doing their job. But the point I was making was that it should never get to the point where a country is going to war with another, that's what the President is for. To me it seems like "Oh, he told me to!" from Bush. Maybe Bush Senior never asked him "And if intelligence told you to jump off a bridge, would you?"
I take your point, Belldandy, and it's a valid one. But to me it feels like Bush is trying to remove himself from all blame, and doubtless this will happen eventually. Because no enquiry will find him guilty/intelligence innocent or whatever. The only reason the thing has been set up is for someone to blame.
Sure, if the intelligence staff are giving him duff information they need to be sacked, because they aren't doing their job. But the point I was making was that it should never get to the point where a country is going to war with another, that's what the President is for. To me it seems like "Oh, he told me to!" from Bush. Maybe Bush Senior never asked him "And if intelligence told you to jump off a bridge, would you?"
I take your point, Belldandy, and it's a valid one. But to me it feels like Bush is trying to remove himself from all blame, and doubtless this will happen eventually. Because no enquiry will find him guilty/intelligence innocent or whatever. The only reason the thing has been set up is for someone to blame.
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.
Doesn't work like that. Generally the CIA gathers the info, CIA analysts synthesise and grade it on authenticity and reliability, it then gets passed to director of intelligence, up to Director of the CIA, who - when its to do with national security - will discuss it with the Joint Chiefs and the National Security director, who then make recommendations and present the information to the president, who then decides based on what he is shown what course of action to take.
Sure, he will ask about reliability, but the answer he gets comes from the opinion of a person who has read the intelligence from the CIA or where ever.
So, yep, the decision to go to war lies partly with Bush but the reasoning lies with intelligence.
> 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.
Doesn't work like that. Generally the CIA gathers the info, CIA analysts synthesise and grade it on authenticity and reliability, it then gets passed to director of intelligence, up to Director of the CIA, who - when its to do with national security - will discuss it with the Joint Chiefs and the National Security director, who then make recommendations and present the information to the president, who then decides based on what he is shown what course of action to take.
Sure, he will ask about reliability, but the answer he gets comes from the opinion of a person who has read the intelligence from the CIA or where ever.
So, yep, the decision to go to war lies partly with Bush but the reasoning lies with intelligence.
Light wrote:
> Yup. Care to answer just how Saddam got the weapons and stability of
> rule to do that? Perhaps you could also address just why, if regime
> change was the reason, Paul Wolfowitz (who was directly involved with
> planning the war) has gone on record as saying "regime change
> alone was not sufficient reason to start this war")
From the West. Let's not forget that Russia was doing likewise in the USSR. America also gave technology to Israel. We have given technology to America. Giving or selling technology to a country is based on that place at that time and during that era there was not enough thought about how such stuff would be used in the future because no one could conceptualise today's world. Wolfowitz is stating his opinion, which he is allowed to do. A lot depends on the context he said it.
> The same regime which killed scores of Kuwaiti's in
> 1990 and took 500 back to Iraq in 1991 who were never found, who
> massacred the Kurdish population with WMD
>
> ....with gas that was bought from us....
See above.
> , invaded neighbours twice,
>
> So America mustn't have invaded Grenada, right?
Er hang on. You criticise America for helping Saddam establish his rule, then you criticise America for stopping an illegal coup in Grenada. Don't forget the island governor requested help and that it was later proved that Cuba was sending tons of weapons and equipment to the island (though without Soviet complicity).
> caused an environmental disaster in the Gulf which was one of the
> worst of the century,
>
> As opposed to that nice Mr Bush who tried to force through a bill for
> drililng in Alaska, one of the outstanding area's of natural beauty
> in the world...
Which makes it okay? You don't counter a negative with another negative! Like anything, there are benefits and consequences of drilling in Alaska. A major benefit is less dependency on foreign imports. Sadly, unless there is a major change in patterns of energy consumption, we will eventually have to drill everywhere where there is thought to be oil.
> which pursued WMD and sought to hide that
> pursuance,
>
> Really? Cos y'know, North Korea do that and they seem to have gotten
> off scott free....
You mean "seem to" because you don't know what happened...if my memory serves me right North Korea approached the US for talks and a deal is currenly being thrashed out where North Korea ends pursuance of WMD in exchange for trade concessions and economic aid from the US and others. You see, military options are only the last resort.
> which claimed sanctions were strangling the country whilst
> the regime itself lived it up in palaces and banked billions of
> dollars,
>
> ...the majority of which came from US purchases of oil, purchases
> which only stopped in February 2003.
Really? Well if you remember, Iraq was allowed to sell oil to many nations provided the money went into social and welfare programs and not to the regime or military. In fact the whole thing was supposedly enforced and overseen by the United Nations...so who are you criticising or is this just another factathon?
> which was developing new missiles in contravention of UN
> resolutions,
>
> Hmm...and yet Israel is still in direct contravention of UN
> resolutions and they're left alone. In fact, Bell didn't you
> previously have nothing but contempt for the UN and try to deny that
> they should even be consulted?
So you counter a negative with another negative? Yep, Israel is in contravention of the UN, along with the Palestinian authority as well. Until both sides stop whacking each other with everything they have, or until someone is appointed director general of the UN and has some real balls, don't expect that to change any time soon
> which tortured allied POW's in 1991...
>
> Heh. As opposed to the deaths by beating in Guantanamo Bay of POW's?
> Sorry...'illegal combatants'?
So, yet again your only response is "well we did this so they do that"?? Strangely the US courts seem to agree they are illegal combatants and I think they are better lawyers than you. It's not right that any person held in captivity is unneccesarily hurt.
> Which ones? The one in Uzbekistan that is supported by the US and UK?
> Perhaps the Indonesian one that enjoys massive income from trade with
> the west? I suppose it could be China, with it's "Most Favoured
> Trading Nation" status with the US. It could even be Burma, a
> nation that arrests anyone who shows an interest in democracy.
What do you suggest? We need Uzbekistan and a load more former soviet republics onside for the war on terror to happen. It is pretty obvious they will not change by themselves and at least this way they are brought to the attention of more people. Would you even be naming the place if it was not for 9/11? I think not. China is most certainly not on par with the Iraqi regime. Yep, Human rights abuses by the bucketful but the country is changing and that change is for the better, and that change is tied to US trade. China now cannot realistically do much more than make loud noises because to lose US trade would cripple the economy. Burma, I can honestly say I have little idea of the situation there.
All I would say is that I think you need to make your mind up. You criticise Iraq and Grenada - both places where the West acted to remove regimes partly because of the regimes they were, yet you want action elsewhere. Iraq and Grenada are the exception rather than the rule - many many places have changes brought by far less - take Libya for example, complete end to WMD pursuance without a shot fired. North Korea also began this latest round of talks on its own initiative.
I still believe a more effective way to sort the world's problems would begin with scrapping the UN and replacing it with a new organisation - preferably with it's own equipment, airlift capability, units, intelligence gathering and suchlike, and a decision making body that cannot be crippled by one nation using a veto, but nor can it be one that allows manipulation to win votes or unfairly sanctions others.
> Yup. Care to answer just how Saddam got the weapons and stability of
> rule to do that? Perhaps you could also address just why, if regime
> change was the reason, Paul Wolfowitz (who was directly involved with
> planning the war) has gone on record as saying "regime change
> alone was not sufficient reason to start this war")
From the West. Let's not forget that Russia was doing likewise in the USSR. America also gave technology to Israel. We have given technology to America. Giving or selling technology to a country is based on that place at that time and during that era there was not enough thought about how such stuff would be used in the future because no one could conceptualise today's world. Wolfowitz is stating his opinion, which he is allowed to do. A lot depends on the context he said it.
> The same regime which killed scores of Kuwaiti's in
> 1990 and took 500 back to Iraq in 1991 who were never found, who
> massacred the Kurdish population with WMD
>
> ....with gas that was bought from us....
See above.
> , invaded neighbours twice,
>
> So America mustn't have invaded Grenada, right?
Er hang on. You criticise America for helping Saddam establish his rule, then you criticise America for stopping an illegal coup in Grenada. Don't forget the island governor requested help and that it was later proved that Cuba was sending tons of weapons and equipment to the island (though without Soviet complicity).
> caused an environmental disaster in the Gulf which was one of the
> worst of the century,
>
> As opposed to that nice Mr Bush who tried to force through a bill for
> drililng in Alaska, one of the outstanding area's of natural beauty
> in the world...
Which makes it okay? You don't counter a negative with another negative! Like anything, there are benefits and consequences of drilling in Alaska. A major benefit is less dependency on foreign imports. Sadly, unless there is a major change in patterns of energy consumption, we will eventually have to drill everywhere where there is thought to be oil.
> which pursued WMD and sought to hide that
> pursuance,
>
> Really? Cos y'know, North Korea do that and they seem to have gotten
> off scott free....
You mean "seem to" because you don't know what happened...if my memory serves me right North Korea approached the US for talks and a deal is currenly being thrashed out where North Korea ends pursuance of WMD in exchange for trade concessions and economic aid from the US and others. You see, military options are only the last resort.
> which claimed sanctions were strangling the country whilst
> the regime itself lived it up in palaces and banked billions of
> dollars,
>
> ...the majority of which came from US purchases of oil, purchases
> which only stopped in February 2003.
Really? Well if you remember, Iraq was allowed to sell oil to many nations provided the money went into social and welfare programs and not to the regime or military. In fact the whole thing was supposedly enforced and overseen by the United Nations...so who are you criticising or is this just another factathon?
> which was developing new missiles in contravention of UN
> resolutions,
>
> Hmm...and yet Israel is still in direct contravention of UN
> resolutions and they're left alone. In fact, Bell didn't you
> previously have nothing but contempt for the UN and try to deny that
> they should even be consulted?
So you counter a negative with another negative? Yep, Israel is in contravention of the UN, along with the Palestinian authority as well. Until both sides stop whacking each other with everything they have, or until someone is appointed director general of the UN and has some real balls, don't expect that to change any time soon
> which tortured allied POW's in 1991...
>
> Heh. As opposed to the deaths by beating in Guantanamo Bay of POW's?
> Sorry...'illegal combatants'?
So, yet again your only response is "well we did this so they do that"?? Strangely the US courts seem to agree they are illegal combatants and I think they are better lawyers than you. It's not right that any person held in captivity is unneccesarily hurt.
> Which ones? The one in Uzbekistan that is supported by the US and UK?
> Perhaps the Indonesian one that enjoys massive income from trade with
> the west? I suppose it could be China, with it's "Most Favoured
> Trading Nation" status with the US. It could even be Burma, a
> nation that arrests anyone who shows an interest in democracy.
What do you suggest? We need Uzbekistan and a load more former soviet republics onside for the war on terror to happen. It is pretty obvious they will not change by themselves and at least this way they are brought to the attention of more people. Would you even be naming the place if it was not for 9/11? I think not. China is most certainly not on par with the Iraqi regime. Yep, Human rights abuses by the bucketful but the country is changing and that change is for the better, and that change is tied to US trade. China now cannot realistically do much more than make loud noises because to lose US trade would cripple the economy. Burma, I can honestly say I have little idea of the situation there.
All I would say is that I think you need to make your mind up. You criticise Iraq and Grenada - both places where the West acted to remove regimes partly because of the regimes they were, yet you want action elsewhere. Iraq and Grenada are the exception rather than the rule - many many places have changes brought by far less - take Libya for example, complete end to WMD pursuance without a shot fired. North Korea also began this latest round of talks on its own initiative.
I still believe a more effective way to sort the world's problems would begin with scrapping the UN and replacing it with a new organisation - preferably with it's own equipment, airlift capability, units, intelligence gathering and suchlike, and a decision making body that cannot be crippled by one nation using a veto, but nor can it be one that allows manipulation to win votes or unfairly sanctions others.
So Bush moves the blame onto the intelligence, and starts an enquiry into it that will doubtless find the intelligence services guilty of everything and Bush guilty of nothing. Like Hutton, US style. Hell, the BBC will probably get half the blame.
But the thing is, Bush will still have a lot to answer for - although he'll never be made to answer it. Because president of the United States of America is not the post of a blind information processing system. It's the post of someone who makes decisions. You don't feed info into one side and expect the same response to come out of the other every time, it depends on the context and circumstances. Which is why nationwide elections are held to decide who gets this job (or should I say "used to be held"?).
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.
But the thing is, Bush will still have a lot to answer for - although he'll never be made to answer it. Because president of the United States of America is not the post of a blind information processing system. It's the post of someone who makes decisions. You don't feed info into one side and expect the same response to come out of the other every time, it depends on the context and circumstances. Which is why nationwide elections are held to decide who gets this job (or should I say "used to be held"?).
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.
Page: