The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
President Bush
Page:
Now Iraq is under US control Bush has started something with palastine, well something like that. its on the news anyway. When is this man going to stop!
Forest Fan wrote:
> Because I choose to look places for information I want.
You mean you chose the places that agree with what you already thought?
Well ,we already knew that from your evolutionary arguments! ;-)
> Because I choose to look places for information I want.
You mean you chose the places that agree with what you already thought?
Well ,we already knew that from your evolutionary arguments! ;-)
Strafio wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> No improvement in Iraq?
>
> I know it ain't perfect, but didn't 70% or so of Iraqi's say they
> prefer Iraq now to how it was 2 years ago???
>
> From what I heard, that preference was almost purely down to hope in
> the long run. The situation now in Iraq is a LOT more dangerous for
> most civilians than when Saddam was in power.
>
> But at the end of the day, the crisées now will gradually blow
> over while Saddam was a more permanent threat.
>
> They're far from impressed with the way the allied forces have
> handled this "liberation".
I suspect there will be a bad phase when lots more civilians attack US soldiers but then it the civilians will realise that life is better off now Saddam is gone.
What do you think? Is there going to be small civil war where the civilians kill all the US soldiers?
> Skarra wrote:
> No improvement in Iraq?
>
> I know it ain't perfect, but didn't 70% or so of Iraqi's say they
> prefer Iraq now to how it was 2 years ago???
>
> From what I heard, that preference was almost purely down to hope in
> the long run. The situation now in Iraq is a LOT more dangerous for
> most civilians than when Saddam was in power.
>
> But at the end of the day, the crisées now will gradually blow
> over while Saddam was a more permanent threat.
>
> They're far from impressed with the way the allied forces have
> handled this "liberation".
I suspect there will be a bad phase when lots more civilians attack US soldiers but then it the civilians will realise that life is better off now Saddam is gone.
What do you think? Is there going to be small civil war where the civilians kill all the US soldiers?
Straight after a war its bound the streets are bound to be unsettled but hopefully give it time and Iraq economy and peace will improve. USA and Uk was responsible for ruining Iraq it should be the USA's responsibility to put the country back on track.What do you think?
One thing remains i am not going to vote for Blair in the next election
One thing remains i am not going to vote for Blair in the next election
Skarra wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> We are not really told balanced facts.
>
> So why don't you look elsewhere, people like myself, and Light and
> others do so? The news isn't our only source of informaton.
Because I choose to look places for information I want.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> We are not really told balanced facts.
>
> So why don't you look elsewhere, people like myself, and Light and
> others do so? The news isn't our only source of informaton.
Because I choose to look places for information I want.
Skarra wrote:
> No improvement in Iraq?
>
> I know it ain't perfect, but didn't 70% or so of Iraqi's say they
> prefer Iraq now to how it was 2 years ago???
From what I heard, that preference was almost purely down to hope in the long run. The situation now in Iraq is a LOT more dangerous for most civilians than when Saddam was in power.
But at the end of the day, the crisées now will gradually blow over while Saddam was a more permanent threat.
They're far from impressed with the way the allied forces have handled this "liberation".
> No improvement in Iraq?
>
> I know it ain't perfect, but didn't 70% or so of Iraqi's say they
> prefer Iraq now to how it was 2 years ago???
From what I heard, that preference was almost purely down to hope in the long run. The situation now in Iraq is a LOT more dangerous for most civilians than when Saddam was in power.
But at the end of the day, the crisées now will gradually blow over while Saddam was a more permanent threat.
They're far from impressed with the way the allied forces have handled this "liberation".
It all started in september 11. Wasn't USA trying to get Binladen?
2113 wrote:
> Usa accused Saddam of hiding missiles so when Usa invaded Iraq they
> found no missiles so this isn't as just war?
Wasn't the USA's primary reason for the war Iraqi supposed links with terrorism, and regime change. At least Blair tried to 'legitimise' it with the WMD thing.
> Usa accused Saddam of hiding missiles so when Usa invaded Iraq they
> found no missiles so this isn't as just war?
Wasn't the USA's primary reason for the war Iraqi supposed links with terrorism, and regime change. At least Blair tried to 'legitimise' it with the WMD thing.
Forest Fan wrote:
> We are not really told balanced facts.
So why don't you look elsewhere, people like myself, and Light and others do so? The news isn't our only source of informaton.
> We are not really told balanced facts.
So why don't you look elsewhere, people like myself, and Light and others do so? The news isn't our only source of informaton.
2113 wrote:
> Was it right to take control of Iraq?
Would it be right to leave it in the hands of Saddam?
> Was it right to take control of Iraq?
Would it be right to leave it in the hands of Saddam?
Page: