The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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, I have actually heard or that from my grandfather funnily enough. I just thought to myself; some things never change.
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> You should probably request your superior officer never to let you be
> on duty during feminist rallies.
Why? I'd charm the hairy old birds. I'd recommend they go and see the doctor if their menopause is getting to them so much that they feel the need to start rallying.
> You should probably request your superior officer never to let you be
> on duty during feminist rallies.
Why? I'd charm the hairy old birds. I'd recommend they go and see the doctor if their menopause is getting to them so much that they feel the need to start rallying.
Emperor Xerxes wrote:
> I must admit, the sheer buffoonery of America in regards to friendly
> fire incidents, from every war from World War II to Gulf War II,
> never fails to amaze me.
In WW2 there was a saying:
When the British flew over, the Germans ducked.
When the Germans flew over, the British ducked.
When the Americans flew over, everybody ducked.
> I must admit, the sheer buffoonery of America in regards to friendly
> fire incidents, from every war from World War II to Gulf War II,
> never fails to amaze me.
In WW2 there was a saying:
When the British flew over, the Germans ducked.
When the Germans flew over, the British ducked.
When the Americans flew over, everybody ducked.
Decoy Octopus wrote:
> America's war was with Japan, they CHOSE to help europe. Our country
> does not have to join America in every single war.
Well we don't though, for example we refused to help in the Vietnam War.
> America's war was with Japan, they CHOSE to help europe. Our country
> does not have to join America in every single war.
Well we don't though, for example we refused to help in the Vietnam War.
English_Bloke wrote:
> Not if you're female.
You should probably request your superior officer never to let you be on duty during feminist rallies.
> Not if you're female.
You should probably request your superior officer never to let you be on duty during feminist rallies.
Decoy Octopus wrote:
> The War in Iraq is Americas problem our boys should be brought back
> leave America there to sort the problem out.
I think the US forces would be left well and truly up the creek in the British forces pulled out, as it would leave a large void.
> yes was there too many friendly fire incidents?
The Government(US/UK) has been investing large amounts into preventing Blue on Blue. It's just a shame they havn't came up with a solution yet.
> yes were the reasons for the war unfounded (WMD)?
Well, the Government saw Intel pointing to Iraq having WMD. Its only via hindsight that they know for a fact this Intel may be wrong.
> Yes (SO-FAR, WMD
> could still be found) in reality has this war made the world a safer
> place? No, almost daily we are told about the terrorist threat and of
> suicide bombings.
Well, i think that the defenition people give to WMD is far to narrow. Personally, i think the Republical Guard and ten's of thousands of AK'S was just as dangerous as and C or B weapon.
> The War in Iraq is Americas problem our boys should be brought back
> leave America there to sort the problem out.
I think the US forces would be left well and truly up the creek in the British forces pulled out, as it would leave a large void.
> yes was there too many friendly fire incidents?
The Government(US/UK) has been investing large amounts into preventing Blue on Blue. It's just a shame they havn't came up with a solution yet.
> yes were the reasons for the war unfounded (WMD)?
Well, the Government saw Intel pointing to Iraq having WMD. Its only via hindsight that they know for a fact this Intel may be wrong.
> Yes (SO-FAR, WMD
> could still be found) in reality has this war made the world a safer
> place? No, almost daily we are told about the terrorist threat and of
> suicide bombings.
Well, i think that the defenition people give to WMD is far to narrow. Personally, i think the Republical Guard and ten's of thousands of AK'S was just as dangerous as and C or B weapon.
Belldandy wrote:
> Say what you like about the American military but in terms of
> equipment and supply they have it pretty much flawless - all their
> personnel are equipped with body armour and their Humvee vehicles
> take far more punishment than the jeeps we use. In an urban
> environment I would of thought the enclosed Humvee was far better
> than our jeeps are.
To be fair, the difference between the US HMMWV and the British Defenders is the purpose they were designed for. The HMMWV was designed to be at the front-line in a large scale conflice. It was, in effect to be an APC. Where as, the Defender was to be used, primarily as mobility for peace-keeping duties, where a Defender is more than capable in providing support for such actions. There's also the cost, its much cheaper to buy a Land Rover, than a 'Hummer'.
> Say what you like about the American military but in terms of
> equipment and supply they have it pretty much flawless - all their
> personnel are equipped with body armour and their Humvee vehicles
> take far more punishment than the jeeps we use. In an urban
> environment I would of thought the enclosed Humvee was far better
> than our jeeps are.
To be fair, the difference between the US HMMWV and the British Defenders is the purpose they were designed for. The HMMWV was designed to be at the front-line in a large scale conflice. It was, in effect to be an APC. Where as, the Defender was to be used, primarily as mobility for peace-keeping duties, where a Defender is more than capable in providing support for such actions. There's also the cost, its much cheaper to buy a Land Rover, than a 'Hummer'.
English_Bloke wrote:
> It is not America’s job to police the world. I am sure that they will
> stick their nose in somewhere that it is not wanted and start
> something that will end existence as we know it.
As others have said, if not America, who??? The UN, well, i think the former Yugoslavia is a big example of their failure. And no other country has the military to enforce a united will on, say, a rogue state. I think that NATO can do a good job, when it's allowed to.
Also, Bloke, you criticise the US for sticking their nose in, well, just take a minute to think what the world might be like if they didn't over the years.
> It is not America’s job to police the world. I am sure that they will
> stick their nose in somewhere that it is not wanted and start
> something that will end existence as we know it.
As others have said, if not America, who??? The UN, well, i think the former Yugoslavia is a big example of their failure. And no other country has the military to enforce a united will on, say, a rogue state. I think that NATO can do a good job, when it's allowed to.
Also, Bloke, you criticise the US for sticking their nose in, well, just take a minute to think what the world might be like if they didn't over the years.
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
> 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
Not if you're female.
Page: