The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
> I never felt lied to by the government. Perhaps the general populace
> do, but then I hear things that they don't.
Such as?
>
> I never felt lied to by the government. Perhaps the general populace
> do, but then I hear things that they don't.
Such as?
You just hear things in the forces.
A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy etc.
Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy etc.
Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
DId you sign the Official Secrets Act then?
I can't tell you :-P
I signed the secrets act once.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> You just hear things in the forces.
>
> A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy
> etc.
> Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
Yeah? Okay, fair enough. Cheers for addressing the question and having the honesty to say that the extra info you hear isn't carved in tablets of stone.
> You just hear things in the forces.
>
> A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy
> etc.
> Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
Yeah? Okay, fair enough. Cheers for addressing the question and having the honesty to say that the extra info you hear isn't carved in tablets of stone.
Hang on.
Bush announces inquiry. Into intelligence he used...
We must uncover all the lies etc.
Nice distancing there......
Bush announces inquiry. Into intelligence he used...
We must uncover all the lies etc.
Nice distancing there......
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.
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.
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.
Page: