The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well we had "Gulf 2:The Distraction" and, as per the norm with sequels, it was uninspired, a retread of the 1st one and an awful lot of noise from critics about why did they even bother?
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
Page:
Well we had "Gulf 2:The Distraction" and, as per the norm with sequels, it was uninspired, a retread of the 1st one and an awful lot of noise from critics about why did they even bother?
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
The characters were pretty much the same, just different actors doing passable imitations (with the exception of what appeared to be Nick Nolte playing Saddam "Evil Hitler" Hussein).
And what was achieved?
The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not forget that.
We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected leader.
And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and altered.
And satellite photos.
And no UN resolution.
And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey, Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis! Tyrant!".
Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that Blair went onto television to warn us against.
Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991 right up until we started the invasion.
Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his usefullness.
Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are still utterly unable to locate.
Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by Rumsfeld and Hoon.
But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason to go in?
Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring "simulated victims" out of train stations.
Where have the tanks gone that patrolled Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion?
Where are the chemical labs we were shown satellite pics of?
Where are the WOMD?
There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
We had the Hutton Inquiry. About the naming of a man who apparently committed suicide.
We had the deliberate smear attempts by government labelling him a "Walter Mitty" type.
But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we were told would kill us in our beds?"
It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has been found.
Keep us stupid with Alistair Campbell & Blair squabbling with Gilligan & The BBC about "sexing up" dossiers (already admitted to be mostly fabrication by The White House, much to Blair's...well...nothing, nobody cared) and we wont ask where are the reasons for the invasion.
Don't bother looking on the news. You either have the BBC screaming about integrity or Blair smiling oily and throwing all manner of dust in your eyes.
Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled anti-personnel vehicles).
And why will you not?
For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or the genocide in Burma.
Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres, brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
You are spoonfed exactly what you are allowed to know, and for the most part meekly accept and allow yourself to get bogged down in details about "who said 45 mins?" and "Did Blair authorise Kelly's name being leaked?", instead of asking how it was allowed to happen in the 1st place with falsified evidence, blatant lies, misinformation, decades of sanctioned-murder by Hussein etc.
You should not be watching bloody Eastenders and voting for "I'm a Jungle in your Living Room", you should be marching down Whitehall. You should be demanding the elected representative for your interests and rights act with honour instead of blithely condemning people to death in wars thousands of miles away, and having the temerity to lie right in your face and get away with it.
We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't like you so you can't have any cake".
Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!" at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War 2.
The rest have been business-led exercises in masturbatory financial gains.
So ask yourself where are these WOMD? Why have we not found them?
The anti-war arguments have remained exactly the same as last year, whilst the hawks have continually shifted the reasons and gains.
That speaks for itself.
*nods*
I agree.
Especially with that point you made about the Eskimos.
*cough*
Especially with that point you made about the Eskimos.
*cough*
Goatboy wrote:
> And what was achieved?
> The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we
> only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and
> decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup
> assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those
> nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
If that's so, why didn't 'Stormin Norman' have orders to carry on North in 1991?
> Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not
> forget that.
> We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and
> clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected
> leader.
> And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
> Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and
> altered.
> And satellite photos.
It wasn't all based on that paper, and David Kay has said that the intel did suggest WMD.
> And no UN resolution.
1441. I quote:
"...Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)..."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
> And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
Al Samoud 2 SRBM Missiles found. Again, i quote from an UNMOVIC report:
"In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction."
> And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey,
> Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and
> had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
> Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis!
> Tyrant!".
> Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased
> credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to
> kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
Alright, we train a soldier, give him a rifle. Then, he, for some reason, murders a fellow troop with that weapon. Do we say, its not his fault, we gave him the weapon, lets do nothing? No. Just because we did nothin' in 1988, does not mean we should have done nothing now.
> But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that
> Blair went onto television to warn us against.
> Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991
> right up until we started the invasion.
Again, Al Samoud 2.
> Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend
> billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and
> threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his
> usefullness.
> Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing
> cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are
> still utterly unable to locate.
> Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by
> Rumsfeld and Hoon.
As Rumsfeld said, Saddam hid in a hole for 9 months. A number of times, US troops had looked directly at that hole, and seen nothing. That hole was big enough to hold enough enough C and B weapons to kill thousand's of people. Iraq had months to hide and WMD, and David Kay said he found evidence of WMD programes. It was only through a clumsy Sgt that that hole was found. If a hole with C and B weapons is deep in the desert, it would be dam hard to find.
> But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
> We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
> Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in
> place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
Remember Germany. It took a long time to sort a Government out there too, but they'd only suffered Hitler for 15 years. Iraq had Saddam for 25. It will take a long time, however Saddam was removed from power, by us, or if the Iraqis had done it alone, the situation would be the same, perhaps even worse.
> So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason
> to go in?
Al Samoud 2. The WMD programmes David Kay talked about.
> Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about
> with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and
> shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news
> footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring
> "simulated victims" out of train stations.
I believe that was preperation for a terrorist attack, not just about Iraq. But lets not forget the influence the tabloids, and media in general had.
> There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but
> basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers
> from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
Are you saying that every allied soldier in Iraq is pilleging and plundering Iraq??? If so, i'd like to see some form of evidence.
> But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we
> were told would kill us in our beds?"
> It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has
> been found.
Er, two Parliamentry investigations, not to mention, the Butler report is it? I may be wrong, but either way, there are investigations on going.
> Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The
> Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because
> those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before
> Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media
> sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense
> of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
What, are the Sun,Times and Fox the only media outlets???
> The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force
> sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas
> and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
What about C4? There as anti-Blair, anti-Iraqwar as you can get.
> For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the
> genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied
> by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled
> anti-personnel vehicles).
> And why will you not?
> For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or
> the genocide in Burma.
> Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his
> satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to
> jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres,
> brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
And whats stopping the Independant, or ITV? I'll tell you what, viewers and readers. Few people actually care about that type of stuff, thats why there not covered.
> We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how
> corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
> Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings
> between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't
> like you so you can't have any cake".
Thats trivialising international politics just a bit.
> Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
> We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of
> committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq
> War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of
> miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting
> the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The
> Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Hey, they had weeks of negotiations. They were in the wrong, and futher more, were unwilling to surrender, they had plenty of oppertunity to pull out. The Belgrano, along with Aircraft Carriers to the North posed a huge military threat to San Corlos shipping. The commander of Conqueror knew this, and although the Belgrano was outside the combat zone, it was then, or let it tear up the BFT. And don't forget, those 368 lives lost, convinced the Argentinian fleet to turn back, and remain in port. It was like the 1945 Nukes, it cost lives, but probably saved even more.
> Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!"
> at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
It wasn't 1,200, it was 368. Plus, the British public probably thought about the Belgrano in the same way they thought about the Bismark.
> We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War
> 2.
No, Bulkans. Helping stop ethnic clensing, late, i know, but still a good cause.
Somalia, didn't work out, but a good cause.
Panama, Grenada. The first Gulf War. Parts of the Korean war, you know safe guarding South Korean soverigty.
> And what was achieved?
> The downfall of "Evil Tyrant" Hussein? Yep. Oh, except we
> only wanted the downfall because he got ideas above his station and
> decided he quite liked running a country handed to him in a coup
> assisted by MI5 & The CIA after he helped to get rid of those
> nasty Iranians (we like them now) back in the 1950s.
If that's so, why didn't 'Stormin Norman' have orders to carry on North in 1991?
> Ah, and that wasn't the reason given for the invasion - let's not
> forget that.
> We were told Iraq possessed weapons that were "an immediate and
> clear threat". On national television by our illustrious elected
> leader.
> And we were shown dossiers by James Earl-Jones alike Colin Powell.
> Dossiers ripped from 11 yr old Uni thesis, with phrases changed and
> altered.
> And satellite photos.
It wasn't all based on that paper, and David Kay has said that the intel did suggest WMD.
> And no UN resolution.
1441. I quote:
"...Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)..."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
> And Weapons Inspectors saying "There is nothing there"
Al Samoud 2 SRBM Missiles found. Again, i quote from an UNMOVIC report:
"In February 2003, U.N. inspectors evaluated two versions of the Al Samoud 2 missile using four separate computer models. Both versions were found to exceed the range limit of 150 kilometers set by the U.N. Security Council. The lighter version of the Al Samoud 2 was estimated to have a range of 193 kilometers, while the heavier version would be capable of a 162 km range. Accordingly, it was requested that all Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads be delivered to the inspectors for destruction."
> And Rumsfeld admitting they never really thought there was but hey,
> Sept 11th and all that (except 9 of the hijackers were from Saudi and
> had no connections to Iraq/Hussein)
> Oh right, "He gassed his own people, he's evil. Nazis!
> Tyrant!".
> Yes he did. With our full consent and knowledge and an increased
> credit line during and after with which to purchase more weapons to
> kill his own people. (go check it out for yourself).
Alright, we train a soldier, give him a rifle. Then, he, for some reason, murders a fellow troop with that weapon. Do we say, its not his fault, we gave him the weapon, lets do nothing? No. Just because we did nothin' in 1988, does not mean we should have done nothing now.
> But those weapons eh? Those deadly, 45 minute capability weapons that
> Blair went onto television to warn us against.
> Those weapons that were never found before by inspections since 1991
> right up until we started the invasion.
Again, Al Samoud 2.
> Those weapons that were the *ONLY* reason given for having to spend
> billions of £ and $ to surpress a laughably ill-equipped and
> threadbare army, led by a puppet dictator who outlasted his
> usefullness.
> Those weapons that, despite having most of the "playing
> cards" people in captivity - including Hussein himself - we are
> still utterly unable to locate.
> Because they were never there in the first place, as admitted by
> Rumsfeld and Hoon.
As Rumsfeld said, Saddam hid in a hole for 9 months. A number of times, US troops had looked directly at that hole, and seen nothing. That hole was big enough to hold enough enough C and B weapons to kill thousand's of people. Iraq had months to hide and WMD, and David Kay said he found evidence of WMD programes. It was only through a clumsy Sgt that that hole was found. If a hole with C and B weapons is deep in the desert, it would be dam hard to find.
> But that doesn't matter, because we freed those eye-raqis right?
> We liberated those oppressed people who suffered under his regime.
> Still no form of government though, not even an interim rule in
> place. Basic, if any, power facilities.
Remember Germany. It took a long time to sort a Government out there too, but they'd only suffered Hitler for 15 years. Iraq had Saddam for 25. It will take a long time, however Saddam was removed from power, by us, or if the Iraqis had done it alone, the situation would be the same, perhaps even worse.
> So where are the weapons? Where are these things offered as a reason
> to go in?
Al Samoud 2. The WMD programmes David Kay talked about.
> Where have these terrorist attacks gone that we were warned about
> with screaming panic headlines about "RICIN!!!!" and
> shutting down central London and making sure lots and lots of news
> footage of gasmasked soldiers and police were shown carring
> "simulated victims" out of train stations.
I believe that was preperation for a terrorist attack, not just about Iraq. But lets not forget the influence the tabloids, and media in general had.
> There's sporadic guerilla fighting (no longer reported though), but
> basically there is nobody to stop huge gangs of punchdrunk soldiers
> from tearing up every single bush to peek underneath and check.
Are you saying that every allied soldier in Iraq is pilleging and plundering Iraq??? If so, i'd like to see some form of evidence.
> But nobody seems to simply ask "So where are these weapons we
> were told would kill us in our beds?"
> It's smoke and mirrors to distract you from the fact that nothing has
> been found.
Er, two Parliamentry investigations, not to mention, the Butler report is it? I may be wrong, but either way, there are investigations on going.
> Murdoch's strangle-hold ensures that if you watch Fox News, read The
> Sun or The Times? Then you'll get Blair-sanctioned cronyism, because
> those 2 are thick as thieves. A co-incidence that shortly before
> Blair announced the relaxation on monopoly ownership of media
> sectors, he and Cherie were guests flown to Australia (at the expense
> of Murdoch) to speak at a conference?
What, are the Sun,Times and Fox the only media outlets???
> The Media are complicit in not reporting the details, they force
> sanitised versions of events down your gullet in between soap operas
> and game shows where you can win fabulous prizes!!!
What about C4? There as anti-Blair, anti-Iraqwar as you can get.
> For example, Fox again, you will not see any reporting on the
> genocide in East Timor by the Indonesian army (using Hawks supplied
> by? Thaaaat's right, The UK - along with water-cannon enabled
> anti-personnel vehicles).
> And why will you not?
> For the same reason you will find no discussion of China in Tibet or
> the genocide in Burma.
> Because Murdoch is currently negotiating with the Far East to use his
> satellite channels and news programmes and he doesn't want to
> jepordise that by letting his puppets talk about massacres,
> brutality, murder and the desecration of places like East Timor.
And whats stopping the Independant, or ITV? I'll tell you what, viewers and readers. Few people actually care about that type of stuff, thats why there not covered.
> We should be burning the heavens down and protesting at just how
> corrupt, self-serving and vile our political system has become.
> Hundreds of thousands of people dead because of closed-door meetings
> between groups of people that play a deadly game of "I don't
> like you so you can't have any cake".
Thats trivialising international politics just a bit.
> Soldiers are willing to die for this country.
> We owe them a greater respect that to squander that level of
> committment over something as offensively false as the "Iraq
> War", just as we had no shame in sending troops thousands of
> miles away to fight in The Falklands, with Thatcher busy supporting
> the Argentinian Junta and unwilling to let them surrender, sinkin The
> Belgrano as it sailed away from conflict waters.
Hey, they had weeks of negotiations. They were in the wrong, and futher more, were unwilling to surrender, they had plenty of oppertunity to pull out. The Belgrano, along with Aircraft Carriers to the North posed a huge military threat to San Corlos shipping. The commander of Conqueror knew this, and although the Belgrano was outside the combat zone, it was then, or let it tear up the BFT. And don't forget, those 368 lives lost, convinced the Argentinian fleet to turn back, and remain in port. It was like the 1945 Nukes, it cost lives, but probably saved even more.
> Headline from Murdoch crony editor in The Mirror? "GOTCHA!"
> at the death of 1,200 Argentinian servicemen sailing away.
It wasn't 1,200, it was 368. Plus, the British public probably thought about the Belgrano in the same way they thought about the Bismark.
> We have not been involved in a "worthy" war since World War
> 2.
No, Bulkans. Helping stop ethnic clensing, late, i know, but still a good cause.
Somalia, didn't work out, but a good cause.
Panama, Grenada. The first Gulf War. Parts of the Korean war, you know safe guarding South Korean soverigty.
Save your typing fingers Skarra...
I just want to know where Saddam is. With Bush/Blair finally acknowledging there may be no WMDs... surely Saddam has something interesting to say about it?
I bet he's dead.
I bet he's dead.
Belldandy wrote:
> Save your typing fingers Skarra...
Hahahahaha.
> Save your typing fingers Skarra...
Hahahahaha.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Save your typing fingers Skarra...
>
> Hahahahaha.
No, the vast majority of Goatboy's post is inaccurate crap.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Save your typing fingers Skarra...
>
> Hahahahaha.
No, the vast majority of Goatboy's post is inaccurate crap.
I agree with Goaty. But what am I going to do about it?
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> I agree with Goaty. But what am I going to do about it?
Make a topic that starts with accurate reasons?
> I agree with Goaty. But what am I going to do about it?
Make a topic that starts with accurate reasons?
Page: