chicot

Reading comprehension is not a strength of yours, is it? Allow me to break it down for you: He said: "I can't even think of a single time where there was a problem with a dog "doing their business" in the bars or restaurants." That means that there was never any dog shiit in the restaurants and hence no smell of dog shiit while he was eating, so your point was completely irrelevant.

Venus is not a great comparison, but then neither is Mars (which was given as the original "control group"). There are so many other differences between our two nearest neighbours and the Earth that I don't think you can really draw many conclusions about the Earth from comparisons with either.

I have an alternative "control group" for you - it's called Venus, and it's a damn sight closer to the earth in terms of mass, size and composition than Mars is. The conditions on Venus are pretty much accepted to be the result of a runaway greenhouse effect and they're not exactly pleasant.

Yeah, Copenhagen is great. Went for a few days in October.

Copenhagen is pretty good - Danish babes! (Actually there's probably quite a few Swedish ones too since Malmo is now connected to Copenhagen by a bridge and residents of Malmo tend to go to Copenhagen for the nightlife).

The point is that the hecklers should not have been present in the first place. I don't give a damn about Saddam. He was an evil dictator who got what he deserved. However, the way it was done - convicted by a kangaroo court in a trial that was quite obviously a sham and then executed while being heckled does nothing for Shiite-Sunni relations in Iraq. Shiite-Sunni violence in Iraq is bad enough without adding fuel to the fire, which is exactly what this has done. The manner of Saddam's execution is quite likely to increase tensions leading to the deaths of many more people, who (unlike Saddam) do not deserve to die and that is what concerns me.

I would have thought it was blatantly bloody obvious why "they don't care to make a fuss about it". The people that murdered Daniel Pearl are terrorists - they are answerable to no one and don't give a damn about western opinion. To protest against them is a completely futile act. By contrast, the "government" of Iraq is heavily influenced by the US (some would say propped up by it). It is not a great start when they invite along sectarian hecklers to Saddam's execution and then have someone's head fall off in the next one. And no, the excuse that Saddam was worse (he was) is not valid - the whole point is that this Iraqi government is supposed to be different and not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Did they? They certainly gave Al-Qaeda a base to operate from, but they didn't provide them with a doomsday weapon. Is it known for certain that the Taliban actually knew that Al-Qaeda were planning 9/11?

Right. They're going to spend all this time, money and effort to make a bomb, only to supply it to "the highest bidding terrorist group". Someone who they have only minimal control over and who could bring down massive retaliation on their heads if it could be traced back to them.

"Now, what would be the reason for developing neuclear weapons if you were not intending to use them?" ?! Ever heard of nuclear deterrence? Why do Britain, France, Russia, China etc... have nuclear weapons? None of those nations have actually used them. In Iran's immediate neighbourhood you have India, Pakistan and Israel, all of them nuclear powers. The development of atomic weapons by one side often leads the other side to develop them to redress the balance e.g. the USSR responding to the US, Pakistan responding to India. Anyone who thinks that the development of a large nuclear arsenal by Israel would not lead to a response by it's enemies has not studied history.

Do you honestly believe shiite Iran is going to help radical Sunni terrorists such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Ahmedinijad is not in charge of Iran, the mullahs are. Look beyond the rhetoric (mainly for domestic consumption) and you'll find that Iran's actions are usually quite pragmatic. When was the last time Iran attempted to invade another nation? There is little evidence that they are suicidal.

"Gun-shy"?! Are you completely insane? Following a roadside bombing, common policy is for US soldiers to open fire in all directions, killing anyone in the immediate vicinity. If you'd ever talked to any Iraqis, they'd tell you exactly that. Even US commanders have admitted that heavy-handed actions in the early days of the occupation had a lot to do with the rise of the Sunni insurgency. And yet, for some reason, there are still people like you who believe the answer is more force

It's not just about who gets the oil, it's also about which companies get to develop the oilfields, as RI Bills Fan's link makes clear.

I would say that invading other countries in order to steal their resources is pretty "uncivilized", but what the hell do I know?

Don't you think you're prejudging the issue somewhat with your "Are the Democrats really this desperate" statement? You admit that you know very little about him or his policies and yet you state that the Democrats must be desperate to be considering him.

"Whining"?! Heaven forbid that people should criticize a war based on false premises that destroyed a country and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people

Some do, some don't. I very much doubt that the leadership of Iran is ready to sacrifice the whole country for a futile attack on Israel.

Bah. Iran launching a nuclear strike on Israel would result in Iran being virtually wiped by the Israeli counterstrike. Even if Iran does manage to scrape together a bomb or two it would still be next to nothing compared to what Israel has. Attacking Israel would be suicide.

As far as I'm concerned, BlueFire nailed it with the answer to your first point so there's not much point in me repeating what he said. I am however a bit curious as to your choice of examples of nations that are "getting away with it". China I can see, but India?

I think the difference is the disparity in power between the US and the rest of the nations of the world. Other nations may like to behave like the US (and probably would if they could) but simply do not have the power to do so. When the US goes wrong it has the potential to go wrong in a very big way with real consequences for the rest of the world (i.e. Iraq). Whereas, if for example, Luxembourg acts in it's own self interests, it's unlikely to affect many nations beyond it's neighbours.

Brilliant reply If someone is claiming that this or that book is accurate I think it's entirely legitimate to ask exactly how they can make that claim. Unless you have some other source of information that you know is accurate you haven't got much of a chance of deciding which book is accurate and which is not.

How exactly are you judging that their version is "reasonably accurate"?

Is it impossible that those security council members opposed to military action were so because of the kickbacks and because it was a completely half-baked idea? Also, if all of those opposed did so only because they were getting kickbacks from "Saddy", is it completely out of the question that at least a part of the reason why the US invaded Iraq was because they felt left out and thought they could get a large slice of the action in the "new" Iraq? Or is it your opinion that all other countries act in their own economic self-interest, whereas the US is above all that sort of thing?

Did it deserve such a response because of the content or simply because he has no military experience?