The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Skarra wrote:
> When the British flew over, the Germans ducked.
> When the Germans flew over, the British ducked.
> When the Americans flew over, everybody ducked.
I think that shows why we should be a minion of the US.
Basically we are a more socially progressive nation than the US in the sense of Crime/Welfare and education.
Iraq will boost the economy of most third world countries under the rule of the US/UK!
> When the British flew over, the Germans ducked.
> When the Germans flew over, the British ducked.
> When the Americans flew over, everybody ducked.
I think that shows why we should be a minion of the US.
Basically we are a more socially progressive nation than the US in the sense of Crime/Welfare and education.
Iraq will boost the economy of most third world countries under the rule of the US/UK!
Icarus wrote:
> Nooo! Imagine a world with no royal family.
I like you sarcasm :D
> Nooo! Imagine a world with no royal family.
I like you sarcasm :D
I've been sat on the fence on one issue for a long time - was the war worth it, if it had only been waged for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
I've been waiting to see what happens to them before I decide either way, but although I don't think I've seen enough to convince me on that count yet, I think I'm pro-this-war anyway.
Bush always had regime change as one of his 3 main reasons for going in.
I guess that isn't quite a full explaination - regime change because you don't like the guy? Because you want to free the Iraqi people from him? Because he has WMDs and links to Al-Queda? Because by changing the regime you can be a 'big-time' president and reserve a place on Rushmore?
So, doesn't exactly answer the question 'why?', but it's still better than only focusing on wmds.
But there is the scary possibility I now agree with Bush :^)
Nevertheless, I'll still be pished off over, in my opinion, the dodgy grounds for going in. Agreeing with the cause doesn't prevent me disagreeing with the justifications, or being a tad miffed about being (maybe) lied to and cheated (again, IMO, of course).
Ho hum.
I've been waiting to see what happens to them before I decide either way, but although I don't think I've seen enough to convince me on that count yet, I think I'm pro-this-war anyway.
Bush always had regime change as one of his 3 main reasons for going in.
I guess that isn't quite a full explaination - regime change because you don't like the guy? Because you want to free the Iraqi people from him? Because he has WMDs and links to Al-Queda? Because by changing the regime you can be a 'big-time' president and reserve a place on Rushmore?
So, doesn't exactly answer the question 'why?', but it's still better than only focusing on wmds.
But there is the scary possibility I now agree with Bush :^)
Nevertheless, I'll still be pished off over, in my opinion, the dodgy grounds for going in. Agreeing with the cause doesn't prevent me disagreeing with the justifications, or being a tad miffed about being (maybe) lied to and cheated (again, IMO, of course).
Ho hum.
The war was, nay, will be worth it if you consider what happens to the Iraqi people in the long run.
An oppressive dictator has now been removed. And that is a good thing. I would definitely support Bush if he wanted to the same again, but in Britain this time.
In Iraq the people have not yet benefitted greatly as there are still a lot of extremists and Saddam loyalists around. The attacks on the Allied forces may still be continuing, but at the same time, law and order is very gradually being returned. It may take a few years, but if a democracy can be set up in Iraq, people get their basic rights, running water and electricity, then they will have benenfitted.
But no-one ever doubted that things COULD be better without Saddam. It is just the time factor.
But was the war justified in its AIMS? The aims apparently were to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction. And none have been found.
But WMD programs did exist. Whilst I don't know if any will ever be found, I think there were some stocks of chemical and/or biological weapons held by Saddam until his removal. However as not every Iraqi army officer was a grade A nutter, I think they were hidden and never used to prevent utter hatred of the Iraqi people by the Allied nations populace.
The removal of Saddam was one of the reasons for war, although it might never have been stated as that to the public. Removal of foreign heads of state is never a big vote winner.
This war was always going to happen. Britain and America have had unfinished business with Iraq ever since the Gulf War, this is it being finished now. It was only ever delayed throughout Clinton's terms. But it always was going to happen. We were never happy with leaving Iraq with Saddam in power. Almost like we had not done our job. You don't invade a country then leave it like you found it.
Certainly most of the guys, especially those who had first hand experience of the first Gulf War, were pro removal of Saddam.
I never felt lied to by the government. Perhaps the general populace do, but then I hear things that they don't. Besides, it is what I do. When we sign up, we know that there is always going to be opposition to war. We also know that it isn't for us to question our superiors, at least in their actual orders. Their motives, intelligence and the worth of missions, yes we can and do question. But our orders are not optional. We know that, we don't complain.
At the end of the day, as long as we get in, do a good job, get out and manage to make the world a better place in the process we are happy. And so far, we are slowly getting there.
An oppressive dictator has now been removed. And that is a good thing. I would definitely support Bush if he wanted to the same again, but in Britain this time.
In Iraq the people have not yet benefitted greatly as there are still a lot of extremists and Saddam loyalists around. The attacks on the Allied forces may still be continuing, but at the same time, law and order is very gradually being returned. It may take a few years, but if a democracy can be set up in Iraq, people get their basic rights, running water and electricity, then they will have benenfitted.
But no-one ever doubted that things COULD be better without Saddam. It is just the time factor.
But was the war justified in its AIMS? The aims apparently were to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction. And none have been found.
But WMD programs did exist. Whilst I don't know if any will ever be found, I think there were some stocks of chemical and/or biological weapons held by Saddam until his removal. However as not every Iraqi army officer was a grade A nutter, I think they were hidden and never used to prevent utter hatred of the Iraqi people by the Allied nations populace.
The removal of Saddam was one of the reasons for war, although it might never have been stated as that to the public. Removal of foreign heads of state is never a big vote winner.
This war was always going to happen. Britain and America have had unfinished business with Iraq ever since the Gulf War, this is it being finished now. It was only ever delayed throughout Clinton's terms. But it always was going to happen. We were never happy with leaving Iraq with Saddam in power. Almost like we had not done our job. You don't invade a country then leave it like you found it.
Certainly most of the guys, especially those who had first hand experience of the first Gulf War, were pro removal of Saddam.
I never felt lied to by the government. Perhaps the general populace do, but then I hear things that they don't. Besides, it is what I do. When we sign up, we know that there is always going to be opposition to war. We also know that it isn't for us to question our superiors, at least in their actual orders. Their motives, intelligence and the worth of missions, yes we can and do question. But our orders are not optional. We know that, we don't complain.
At the end of the day, as long as we get in, do a good job, get out and manage to make the world a better place in the process we are happy. And so far, we are slowly getting there.
Belldandy wrote:
> Decoy Octopus wrote:
> The War in Iraq is Americas problem our boys should be brought back
> leave America there to sort the problem out.
>
> Really? Because 60 years ago this year tens of thousands of Americans
> put their lives on the line, and died by the score, to help liberate
> Europe.
double edged sword.
on one hand, you could argue that america as a whole (or at least a vast majority) sat back and watched while countless people perished, only becoming involved when the fight came to them, so yeah, they put lives on the line... 4 years too late.
BUT, there were also a large number of americans who came to england and joined our armed forces from the beginning.
you have to respect that.
> Decoy Octopus wrote:
> The War in Iraq is Americas problem our boys should be brought back
> leave America there to sort the problem out.
>
> Really? Because 60 years ago this year tens of thousands of Americans
> put their lives on the line, and died by the score, to help liberate
> Europe.
double edged sword.
on one hand, you could argue that america as a whole (or at least a vast majority) sat back and watched while countless people perished, only becoming involved when the fight came to them, so yeah, they put lives on the line... 4 years too late.
BUT, there were also a large number of americans who came to england and joined our armed forces from the beginning.
you have to respect that.
It was only 2 years late. And the USA did cut off trading relations with Germany before that as well.
Decoy Octopus wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Erm, do the words "road" and "map" mean
> anything?
>
> Directional aids?
>
> America has been trying this for ages it has already fallen to pieces
> once and the likelihood is that unless Israel gives land to the
> Palestinians (which it won't) the problem will never be resolved
So hang on...first you complain America is doing nothing about situations like that between Israel and the Palestinians, then when I point out they are you say it is a waste of time...talk about contradictory.
Plus you will find that Roosevelt aided us in WWII in many ways before America entered the war officially. American made equipment played a crucial part in Operation Torch - effectively kicking the Nazis out of Africa, and more importantly providing the first real victory for the allies. America also did not "choose" to help Europe. Japan attacked and declared war (in that order ahem) and Germany declared war days later on America.
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.
Skarra - From what I have seen the British forces seem to use open topped land rover vehicles, not the Defender in any kind of enclosed variant. Several times our people have had to make trips between bases in standard civilian vehicles and have, not surprisingly, been shot to bits or barely made it.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Erm, do the words "road" and "map" mean
> anything?
>
> Directional aids?
>
> America has been trying this for ages it has already fallen to pieces
> once and the likelihood is that unless Israel gives land to the
> Palestinians (which it won't) the problem will never be resolved
So hang on...first you complain America is doing nothing about situations like that between Israel and the Palestinians, then when I point out they are you say it is a waste of time...talk about contradictory.
Plus you will find that Roosevelt aided us in WWII in many ways before America entered the war officially. American made equipment played a crucial part in Operation Torch - effectively kicking the Nazis out of Africa, and more importantly providing the first real victory for the allies. America also did not "choose" to help Europe. Japan attacked and declared war (in that order ahem) and Germany declared war days later on America.
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.
Skarra - From what I have seen the British forces seem to use open topped land rover vehicles, not the Defender in any kind of enclosed variant. Several times our people have had to make trips between bases in standard civilian vehicles and have, not surprisingly, been shot to bits or barely made it.
Belldandy wrote:
> Skarra - From what I have seen the British forces seem to use open
> topped land rover vehicles, not the Defender in any kind of enclosed
> variant. Several times our people have had to make trips between
> bases in standard civilian vehicles and have, not surprisingly, been
> shot to bits or barely made it.
I know. I was only stating that they were designed for a different purpose, Peacekeeping.
> Skarra - From what I have seen the British forces seem to use open
> topped land rover vehicles, not the Defender in any kind of enclosed
> variant. Several times our people have had to make trips between
> bases in standard civilian vehicles and have, not surprisingly, been
> shot to bits or barely made it.
I know. I was only stating that they were designed for a different purpose, Peacekeeping.
Yeah, it still seems strange to me that security personnel in Ireland still travel in armoured and enclosed vehicles yet most of our people in Iraq don't.
Belldandy wrote:
> Erm, we removed a regime that has killed, based on the number of
> bodies found so far, upwards of 1/2 million of it's own people in 12
> years and overseen the torture, false imprisonment and rape of
> million more.
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")
> 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....
, invaded neighbours twice,
So America mustn't have invaded Grenada, right?
> 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 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....
> 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.
> 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?
> which tortured allied POW's in 1991...
Heh. As opposed to the deaths by beating in Guantanamo Bay of POW's? Sorry...'illegal combatants'?
> do I have to
> continue? But hey, Iraq was no threat to you in the UK so why the
> hell should we care eh?
Heheheheh. Know what Bell? I agree with a lot of the reasons you've came out with. Were it not for your faked moral outrage at the end there, this would have been a half decent post from you. However, I'm intrigued to see if you can answer any of the questions I've raised in this post, or whether you'll simply avoid them.
>
> Sure, not the only regime like this in existence, but taking one down
> is a start and I'm pretty sure that the future will see others fall
> one way or the other.
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.
> Erm, we removed a regime that has killed, based on the number of
> bodies found so far, upwards of 1/2 million of it's own people in 12
> years and overseen the torture, false imprisonment and rape of
> million more.
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")
> 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....
, invaded neighbours twice,
So America mustn't have invaded Grenada, right?
> 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 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....
> 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.
> 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?
> which tortured allied POW's in 1991...
Heh. As opposed to the deaths by beating in Guantanamo Bay of POW's? Sorry...'illegal combatants'?
> do I have to
> continue? But hey, Iraq was no threat to you in the UK so why the
> hell should we care eh?
Heheheheh. Know what Bell? I agree with a lot of the reasons you've came out with. Were it not for your faked moral outrage at the end there, this would have been a half decent post from you. However, I'm intrigued to see if you can answer any of the questions I've raised in this post, or whether you'll simply avoid them.
>
> Sure, not the only regime like this in existence, but taking one down
> is a start and I'm pretty sure that the future will see others fall
> one way or the other.
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.
Page: