The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So Blair warns that he "feel(s) so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live"
Mortal danger?
Really...hmmm...that sounds suspiciously like the RICIN-DEATH ATTACK!!!!! warnings in the initial anti-war stirrings before we invaded.
And it sounds vaguely familiar to the "TANKS AT UR AIRPORT TO KILL ARABS!!!!!!" horsecrap when public demonstrations reached the largest recorded turnout in British history.
And it echoes his "immediate danger" speech given to the public (on the BBC, ironically) shortly before we bombed the living christ out of towns.
So you'll forgive me if I cast a look at the public mood and calls for publications of the Attorney General's advice on the legality of war before I nod, accept Blair's rhetoric and barricade myself indoors being wary of anybody not white and British.
Some other points of his speech that made me realise just how shiny and offensive I find our odious leader:
"I know a large part of the public want to move on. Rightly they say the Government should concentrate on the issues that elected us in 1997: the economy, jobs, living standards, health, education, crime. "
Really? What large part is that Blair? The part that sign petitions and protested at the war? Or the silent part that...well...nope, I've yet to see a "I supported the war" demo from anybody or a "Hey, let's just forget it and move on can't we?" statement from any group except politicians desperate to distract our attentions with threats of Johnny Muslim wanting to kill us.
And here's the statement that, for me, highlighted the contempt and sheer hypocrisy our our government:
"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe).
This may be the law, but should it be?"
Doesn't matter whether it should or shouldn't be, fact remains?
IT IS.
You can't just pick and choose which laws you want to obey. Yet Blair seems to think he can, based on moral grounds.
Don't make me puke Blair, you lying insincere bully.
If you're so concerned about "just" laws?
Stop selling arms to East Timoor to use in the brutal oppression of it's people...oh...exactly the same as in Iraq.
Stop helping to keep Burma under dictatorship regime and stop supplying them with arms.
Stop ignoring those countries where it serves your political and financial purpose to assist in the rape, murder and genocide of civilians.
-----------
Say what you want, this is all my opinion based on how I feel.
How *you* feel doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me.
Mortal danger?
Really...hmmm...that sounds suspiciously like the RICIN-DEATH ATTACK!!!!! warnings in the initial anti-war stirrings before we invaded.
And it sounds vaguely familiar to the "TANKS AT UR AIRPORT TO KILL ARABS!!!!!!" horsecrap when public demonstrations reached the largest recorded turnout in British history.
And it echoes his "immediate danger" speech given to the public (on the BBC, ironically) shortly before we bombed the living christ out of towns.
So you'll forgive me if I cast a look at the public mood and calls for publications of the Attorney General's advice on the legality of war before I nod, accept Blair's rhetoric and barricade myself indoors being wary of anybody not white and British.
Some other points of his speech that made me realise just how shiny and offensive I find our odious leader:
"I know a large part of the public want to move on. Rightly they say the Government should concentrate on the issues that elected us in 1997: the economy, jobs, living standards, health, education, crime. "
Really? What large part is that Blair? The part that sign petitions and protested at the war? Or the silent part that...well...nope, I've yet to see a "I supported the war" demo from anybody or a "Hey, let's just forget it and move on can't we?" statement from any group except politicians desperate to distract our attentions with threats of Johnny Muslim wanting to kill us.
And here's the statement that, for me, highlighted the contempt and sheer hypocrisy our our government:
"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe).
This may be the law, but should it be?"
Doesn't matter whether it should or shouldn't be, fact remains?
IT IS.
You can't just pick and choose which laws you want to obey. Yet Blair seems to think he can, based on moral grounds.
Don't make me puke Blair, you lying insincere bully.
If you're so concerned about "just" laws?
Stop selling arms to East Timoor to use in the brutal oppression of it's people...oh...exactly the same as in Iraq.
Stop helping to keep Burma under dictatorship regime and stop supplying them with arms.
Stop ignoring those countries where it serves your political and financial purpose to assist in the rape, murder and genocide of civilians.
-----------
Say what you want, this is all my opinion based on how I feel.
How *you* feel doesn't mean a goddamn thing to me.
Page:
Okay, maybe that was a badly worded question. Iraq may have posed a threat, but not a particularly direct one. For all their claims of '45 minutes' and whatnot, I doubt any of the politicians truly believed Saddam was about to fire missiles or anything else at the UK. Because frankly a direct attack on us, the Americans, or pretty much any of Western Europe would have essentially been suicide. A direct attack would result in the surefire invasion of Iraq.
The threat of these weapons had been there for years, all that had changed according to Blair was that now the West had witnessed 9/11 there was a strong case for pre-emption. And you mentioned that it has been proven Iraq helped fund terrorists, but the same can be said for the West (USA training and funding Al Queda?) Also, I'm sure there are many more dictatorships funding terrorism, so (as with many of the reasons given for the war on Iraq) why single out Iraq? If you're trying to stop terrorists why not go for the terrorists themselves? As you've said about rogue states with weapons, cut off their supply from one source and they'll simply find another, surely the same applies here? I doubt Saddam was the only person funding the terrorism you mentioned, and I doubt that terrorism has ended just because Saddam has been overthrown.
Anyway I'll end my ramblings for now...
The threat of these weapons had been there for years, all that had changed according to Blair was that now the West had witnessed 9/11 there was a strong case for pre-emption. And you mentioned that it has been proven Iraq helped fund terrorists, but the same can be said for the West (USA training and funding Al Queda?) Also, I'm sure there are many more dictatorships funding terrorism, so (as with many of the reasons given for the war on Iraq) why single out Iraq? If you're trying to stop terrorists why not go for the terrorists themselves? As you've said about rogue states with weapons, cut off their supply from one source and they'll simply find another, surely the same applies here? I doubt Saddam was the only person funding the terrorism you mentioned, and I doubt that terrorism has ended just because Saddam has been overthrown.
Anyway I'll end my ramblings for now...
How was Iraq a threat?
You really need to ask that?
Since the fall of Saddam the Iraq Weapons Survery Group has uncovered everything to do with WMD and weapons programs except the actual weapons themselves. The testing and manufacturing equipment, evidence of knowledge to create, machinery and facilities to produce - the whole lot.
You really do not believe that letting this kind of regime, which has already invaded a neighbout twice, which has used WMD on civilians, has - and this much is proven - deceived the world and the UN about the nature of it's weapons program and military for 12 years -, harboured and - though admiteddly this is not 100% proven - worked with terrorists and at the very least - proven - financed Palestinian terrorism - and which a poses a threat to 25% of the world's oil reserves and more, is not a good thing?
That did not pose a threat to British interests? Or are you one of those people who thinks no where poses a threat to us until it's our turn for a terrorist attack?
Sure you can argue you don't care about oil but in this reality the world's oil reserves must be secured for the good of all nations, because like it or not without it our society comes to an abrupt halt.
You really need to ask that?
Since the fall of Saddam the Iraq Weapons Survery Group has uncovered everything to do with WMD and weapons programs except the actual weapons themselves. The testing and manufacturing equipment, evidence of knowledge to create, machinery and facilities to produce - the whole lot.
You really do not believe that letting this kind of regime, which has already invaded a neighbout twice, which has used WMD on civilians, has - and this much is proven - deceived the world and the UN about the nature of it's weapons program and military for 12 years -, harboured and - though admiteddly this is not 100% proven - worked with terrorists and at the very least - proven - financed Palestinian terrorism - and which a poses a threat to 25% of the world's oil reserves and more, is not a good thing?
That did not pose a threat to British interests? Or are you one of those people who thinks no where poses a threat to us until it's our turn for a terrorist attack?
Sure you can argue you don't care about oil but in this reality the world's oil reserves must be secured for the good of all nations, because like it or not without it our society comes to an abrupt halt.
Belldandy wrote:
> But, by your own admission Duck, the states Still have
> weapons.
>
> The 9/11 hijackers used the deadly weapon known as the box
> cutter to take control of airliners.
Well, allegedly.
Just kidding :^)
Yeah, they still have weapons. But the weaker those weapons are the better.
One of those hijacking attempts was foiled. Putting aside the issues of getting them onto the plane for a moment, if the hijackers had been armed with guns they'd have had a better chance of getting away with it.
It may not stop the killing, it may not bring down the regimes by itself, but restricting rogue states' arsenals has to be a positive thing.
> But, by your own admission Duck, the states Still have
> weapons.
>
> The 9/11 hijackers used the deadly weapon known as the box
> cutter to take control of airliners.
Well, allegedly.
Just kidding :^)
Yeah, they still have weapons. But the weaker those weapons are the better.
One of those hijacking attempts was foiled. Putting aside the issues of getting them onto the plane for a moment, if the hijackers had been armed with guns they'd have had a better chance of getting away with it.
It may not stop the killing, it may not bring down the regimes by itself, but restricting rogue states' arsenals has to be a positive thing.
What exactly was the threat from Iraq to us may I ask...? As far as I'm aware we've seen no WMDs as we were promised before the war.
And my problem with the war was that Blair kept changing what the war was about.
First WMDs. Then when we can find no evidence of them, it's about breach of international law. Then when we realise there are countried in breach of many more international laws than Iraq, it's about the humanitarian issue. Ie. we cannot leave these poor Iraqis under this brutal regime. Yeah, good one, you mean that one we supported a few years back? And the one that is just as brutal as a bunch of other dictatorships all around the world.
Frankly the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
And Bell, when you say about the arms dealings and how regimes will just find another supplier, sure, that may be true, but then we become a tool of that regime, and if, like you suggest, we then try to overthrow that brutal regime, not only do they have our weapons, we end up looking like stupid hypocrites for supplying them, and lose any credibility.
And my problem with the war was that Blair kept changing what the war was about.
First WMDs. Then when we can find no evidence of them, it's about breach of international law. Then when we realise there are countried in breach of many more international laws than Iraq, it's about the humanitarian issue. Ie. we cannot leave these poor Iraqis under this brutal regime. Yeah, good one, you mean that one we supported a few years back? And the one that is just as brutal as a bunch of other dictatorships all around the world.
Frankly the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
And Bell, when you say about the arms dealings and how regimes will just find another supplier, sure, that may be true, but then we become a tool of that regime, and if, like you suggest, we then try to overthrow that brutal regime, not only do they have our weapons, we end up looking like stupid hypocrites for supplying them, and lose any credibility.
But, by your own admission Duck, the states Still have weapons.
The 9/11 hijackers used the deadly weapon known as the box cutter to take control of airliners. Explosives can be made from simple ingredients. You don't need an AK47 to torture people or murder them.
Removing the weapons changes little about the nature of the regimes - if you want to change what actually happens to people in countries then you change the regime.
The 9/11 hijackers used the deadly weapon known as the box cutter to take control of airliners. Explosives can be made from simple ingredients. You don't need an AK47 to torture people or murder them.
Removing the weapons changes little about the nature of the regimes - if you want to change what actually happens to people in countries then you change the regime.
Goatboy wrote:
> html tags are tricky for us middle-aged smoking commies.
Oh, so it's;
"MIDDLE AGED COMMIE SMOKERZ!!!111" now, is it?
Aha.
> html tags are tricky for us middle-aged smoking commies.
Oh, so it's;
"MIDDLE AGED COMMIE SMOKERZ!!!111" now, is it?
Aha.
Belldandy wrote:
> But it's true. Unless you could stop all arms shipments then it makes
> little difference other than the models people end up getting. Even
> if you stop all arms shipments then it just leads to a homegrown,
> though less advanced, industry.
So one country stops, and the state concerned moves to a less favourable supplier (it must be less favourable, or they'd be getting their weapons there instead). Maybe not a big difference yet, but at least you don't have blood on your hands.
Then maybe other states follow suite. And there are fewer and fewer options, giving worse and worse supplies.
And you said it yourself, if we could stop all arms shipments (all shipments from countries with the most advanced weapons would do), the state would be forced onto second rate weapons.
Since we were all so concerned Saddam might have WMDs, I think we'd have been rather happier if he just had old-model rifles!
(I know, if there were any, not all of those came from the west, but the principle is that we'd rather he had crap weapons than good ones.)
> Naivete? Surely you can level the same accusation at your self? You
> want governments to act when there is no poltical capital to act - no
> one will win an election or support by going after Burma - how naive
> is that? I wouldn't say I always support most governments, but I
> think I'm mostly realistic in what is, and could be, possible.
If a government pledged to stop selling arms to tyrants it probably would win a fair few votes actually.
> But it's true. Unless you could stop all arms shipments then it makes
> little difference other than the models people end up getting. Even
> if you stop all arms shipments then it just leads to a homegrown,
> though less advanced, industry.
So one country stops, and the state concerned moves to a less favourable supplier (it must be less favourable, or they'd be getting their weapons there instead). Maybe not a big difference yet, but at least you don't have blood on your hands.
Then maybe other states follow suite. And there are fewer and fewer options, giving worse and worse supplies.
And you said it yourself, if we could stop all arms shipments (all shipments from countries with the most advanced weapons would do), the state would be forced onto second rate weapons.
Since we were all so concerned Saddam might have WMDs, I think we'd have been rather happier if he just had old-model rifles!
(I know, if there were any, not all of those came from the west, but the principle is that we'd rather he had crap weapons than good ones.)
> Naivete? Surely you can level the same accusation at your self? You
> want governments to act when there is no poltical capital to act - no
> one will win an election or support by going after Burma - how naive
> is that? I wouldn't say I always support most governments, but I
> think I'm mostly realistic in what is, and could be, possible.
If a government pledged to stop selling arms to tyrants it probably would win a fair few votes actually.
Goatboy wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> You want change? Change the regime.
> --------
>
> *sigh*
> This is why I've stopped trying, pretty much, to discuss politics
> with you Bell.
> You simply do not read what people write.
That (what you quote above) was a general comment and not just aimed at you personally y'know?
> I haven't said I want change.
> I said I want Britain to stop selling arms to dictatorships, then
> wage war because those dictatorships have arms.
> Do you see?
Yep, but surely stopping selling arms to them, and waging war on them if they won't disist from their actions, is change?
> Forget it, you're too eager to defend government - any government -
> in any choice they make.
> I don't know whether that's naivete or stupidity.
Naivete? Surely you can level the same accusation at your self? You want governments to act when there is no poltical capital to act - no one will win an election or support by going after Burma - how naive is that? I wouldn't say I always support most governments, but I think I'm mostly realistic in what is, and could be, possible.
> Belldandy wrote:
> You want change? Change the regime.
> --------
>
> *sigh*
> This is why I've stopped trying, pretty much, to discuss politics
> with you Bell.
> You simply do not read what people write.
That (what you quote above) was a general comment and not just aimed at you personally y'know?
> I haven't said I want change.
> I said I want Britain to stop selling arms to dictatorships, then
> wage war because those dictatorships have arms.
> Do you see?
Yep, but surely stopping selling arms to them, and waging war on them if they won't disist from their actions, is change?
> Forget it, you're too eager to defend government - any government -
> in any choice they make.
> I don't know whether that's naivete or stupidity.
Naivete? Surely you can level the same accusation at your self? You want governments to act when there is no poltical capital to act - no one will win an election or support by going after Burma - how naive is that? I wouldn't say I always support most governments, but I think I'm mostly realistic in what is, and could be, possible.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Okay, so we stop seling arms etc to these places. Odds are they have
> a
> new supplier before the day is out because there are plenty out
> there
> - legal and illegal.
>
> This is exactly the argument used by drug dealers. Nice intellectual
> company you're keeping.
But it's true. Unless you could stop all arms shipments then it makes little difference other than the models people end up getting. Even if you stop all arms shipments then it just leads to a homegrown, though less advanced, industry. It doesn't make it right but it is true. How do you know what arguments drug dealers use? Can't say as I'd know any myself... With drugs there is more options - kill the demand and/or kill the supply. We - as in the western intelligence agencies - know where the drugs are grown - given the will and the forces it is perfectly possible to massively damage, possibly beyond repair, the international drugs trade. Such action would of course be breaching numerous international laws such as "thou shalt not drop precision guided bombs onto drug dealers mansions" and "thou shalt not use incendiaries to torch fields of drugs in other nations".
With weapons you can't really remove the demand in any way other than changing the regimes in those places.
> In what way was Iraq a direct threat? It's missiles couldn't reach
> us. It had never attacked us. It had a military already blown to
> little pieces by the first Gulf war.
Really? Who the hell were coalition forces fighting for 21 days then eh? Whose air force sat around in it's barracks? I'd check your facts out....the Republican guard, during 1991, largely sat out the war in Baghdad's under ground bunkers, plus it's a conscript military - rather easy to replenish...
> Belldandy wrote:
> Okay, so we stop seling arms etc to these places. Odds are they have
> a
> new supplier before the day is out because there are plenty out
> there
> - legal and illegal.
>
> This is exactly the argument used by drug dealers. Nice intellectual
> company you're keeping.
But it's true. Unless you could stop all arms shipments then it makes little difference other than the models people end up getting. Even if you stop all arms shipments then it just leads to a homegrown, though less advanced, industry. It doesn't make it right but it is true. How do you know what arguments drug dealers use? Can't say as I'd know any myself... With drugs there is more options - kill the demand and/or kill the supply. We - as in the western intelligence agencies - know where the drugs are grown - given the will and the forces it is perfectly possible to massively damage, possibly beyond repair, the international drugs trade. Such action would of course be breaching numerous international laws such as "thou shalt not drop precision guided bombs onto drug dealers mansions" and "thou shalt not use incendiaries to torch fields of drugs in other nations".
With weapons you can't really remove the demand in any way other than changing the regimes in those places.
> In what way was Iraq a direct threat? It's missiles couldn't reach
> us. It had never attacked us. It had a military already blown to
> little pieces by the first Gulf war.
Really? Who the hell were coalition forces fighting for 21 days then eh? Whose air force sat around in it's barracks? I'd check your facts out....the Republican guard, during 1991, largely sat out the war in Baghdad's under ground bunkers, plus it's a conscript military - rather easy to replenish...
Belldandy wrote:
> You want change? Change the regime.
--------
*sigh*
This is why I've stopped trying, pretty much, to discuss politics with you Bell.
You simply do not read what people write.
I haven't said I want change.
I said I want Britain to stop selling arms to dictatorships, then wage war because those dictatorships have arms.
Do you see?
I said in an ideal world, nobody would sell or buy weapons but that's just fairyland stuff.
What I want is for our government to stop willingly supporting, funding, training, arming and assisting murderous dictatorships for as long as it serves political/business interests only.
Blair cannot clasp his hands together and zealously talk of liberation, egality and suchlike, when at the same time in places like Burma, Indonesia, East Timoor, Nepal etc there is brutal, murderous regime dictatorships that exist because of help from us and other European countries.
Forget it, you're too eager to defend government - any government - in any choice they make.
I don't know whether that's naivete or stupidity.
> You want change? Change the regime.
--------
*sigh*
This is why I've stopped trying, pretty much, to discuss politics with you Bell.
You simply do not read what people write.
I haven't said I want change.
I said I want Britain to stop selling arms to dictatorships, then wage war because those dictatorships have arms.
Do you see?
I said in an ideal world, nobody would sell or buy weapons but that's just fairyland stuff.
What I want is for our government to stop willingly supporting, funding, training, arming and assisting murderous dictatorships for as long as it serves political/business interests only.
Blair cannot clasp his hands together and zealously talk of liberation, egality and suchlike, when at the same time in places like Burma, Indonesia, East Timoor, Nepal etc there is brutal, murderous regime dictatorships that exist because of help from us and other European countries.
Forget it, you're too eager to defend government - any government - in any choice they make.
I don't know whether that's naivete or stupidity.
Page: