chicot

Yep, as far as I'm concerned, Zidane is up there with Maradona and Pele. He was unbelievable against Brazil.

Problem is that the US wants the Sunnis to be more involved, not less. A shiite-dominated Iraq which is a strong ally of Iran's is definitely not what the US wants.

There are still dozens of attacks daily on foreign troops. Just because the media has got bored with reporting it, don't assume that it is no longer happening.

Not to me, but, as the monkey points out, it will be perceived as such by many.

If the US left tomorrow, some insurgents probably would put down their weapons. Of course, many (maybe most) would carry on fighting to try to bring down the government, but I fail to see what that proves. It is entirely possible for the insurgents to be fighting both to drive out the US and to bring down the government, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if you regard the occupation as illegitimate then then it's not entirely illogical to regard the current government as illegitimate also, even though it was elected, since it was established during the occupation. I understand what you're saying - that the insurgency is made up, to a large degree, of Sunni muslims and that Sunni-Shiite tensions are what is causing the violence. That is true, to a certain degree. However, you cannot ignore the fact that the Sunni community has good reason to resent the occupation, since de-Baathification, as well as the wholesale dismissal of the army, caused many of them to lose their jobs. Heavy-handed US tactics in the early days of the occupation also caused deep resentment in the Sunni provinces (something that the US admitted and did try to change). These things have little to do with Sunni-Shiite tensions but everything to do with the occupation.

Aragones is a nutcase. He was asked about the Henry incident before the match with France and his reply was bizarre: " I have black, Gypsy and Japanese friends, including one whose job is to determine the sex of poultry." ???!!! Aragones

Reread my original reply in this thread. I never said any such thing. The original post is making the usual mistake of assuming that the entire insurgency in Iraq is to do with militant muslims wanting to take over the world. I was pointing out that a substantial part of the insurgency (and I used the word "many" not "most") was made up of secular Baathists and Iraqi nationalists who have very different motivations from those of Al-Qaeda. And yes, a major motivation is the removal of foreign forces from Iraq which is why talks with insurgent groups (which are happening all the time) usually break down on the issue of a definite timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, whether they are negotiating with the Iraqi goverment or the US.

Know for a fact that every single insurgent group operating in Iraq is responsible for "bombing the hell out of woman and children in restaurants, schools and markets"? No? Thought not. The idea that everyone doing the fighting in Iraq is quite happy to commit atrocities may be good for propaganda purposes, but that doesn't make it the truth.

As a striker, Shevchenko can't do much without decent service, which he wasn't getting yesterday. Even so, he hit the crossbar with one effort in the first half and was narrowly wide with another in the second half, the ball being struck so early that the keeper didn't even see it.

And that never happens in the NFL?

Good! The Swiss deserved to lose. They were so negative they completely killed that game.

Can't think of the game(s) in which they occurred but I'm pretty sure players have been yellow-carded for it. I agree that refs should come down harder on this - some of the diving in the Portugal-Holland game was ridiculous.

By the time he jumps over him or runs around him, another defender or the goalkeeper could have closed him down. Blocking someone's path to goal without actually playing the ball is obstruction and is a foul. Was it a debatable decision? Probably, but on the other hand the sending-off was extremely dubious. No way was that worthy of a straight red.

They'll be playing Portugal next. I would expect Portugal to win it but for the fact that their playmaker, Deco, misses that game through suspension. Could make a big difference. The refereeing in the Portugal-Holland game was appalling. Completely ruined what was turning into a great game.

I'll refrain from commenting on the dodgy history lesson since it is not relevant. And invading and occupying a sovereign muslim nation which had not attacked the US is somehow supposed to strengthen the Reformation and weaken the Inquisition? Dream on. Problem being that there has been numerous intelligence reports that have stated that the Iraq war is acting as a major recruitment tool for the Jihad movements. It's all well and good, all this stuff about fighting them over there blah blah blah ... but if, in the process, you are creating more terrorists than you are killing, then it's something of a futile exercise. To say nothing of the fact that many of those doing the fighting in Iraq (Baathists and Iraqi nationalists for example) have little to do with the Jihadi movement and are fighting to get the US to get the hell out of their country. Ah, so the Iran-Iraq war was a bad thing, was it? Funny how it wasn't at the time, when Iraq was being encouraged by the US (and the gulf states), as a counterbalance to Iranian influence. Now, all of a sudden, those dead Iranians matter. It's also interesting how, not once, in this (long) essay does the author mention the 50,000 - 100,000 Iraqis who have died since the invasion, not even with the usual excuse that Saddam would have killed more. It seems Iraqi deaths don't count, unless of course they happened in Saddam's time, in which case they most certainly do. Here we have it. Forget all the nonsense about the US leaving when the Iraqis want them to (yesterday, in all probability) the intention is to create "an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed". Most of the rest of the world gave up on colonialism a while back. It seems that the US having missed out on a lot of that, is trying to make up for lost time. Why the hell does anyone need a "million tons of weapons"? How many tons of weapons does the US have? How about Britain? France? Or (whisper it) Israel, who actually does possess WMD's. Oh I forgot, Israel isn't a threat to anyone. They don't invade other countries or illegally occupy them Yes, that's right. The real problem in Iraq is that the US isn't killing enough Iraqis Even many of the main cheerleaders for the war would concede that the planning for post-war Iraq was shambolic. There are umpteen things that could have been done that would have, in all probability, made Iraq far more stable than it is today. The guerilla war didn't just materialize out of thin air, it was given manpower (the wholesale dismissal of the Iraqi army) and weapons (military bases were left unsecured for weeks, if not months, and were looted) by the incompetence of the post-war administration. Under the Geneva Convention, occupying powers are legally obliged to provide security in the country they are occupying. According to the good lawyer, it was never the intention of the US to live up to it's obligations under International law. Nice. You want freedom for Iraqis? Fine, give it to them. Let them answer one of the most pressing issues facing Iraq today. Hold a referendum on whether the foreign troops stay or go. Again no mention of Iraqi deaths after Saddam was deposed, which the author has either never heard about ("we don't do bodycounts") or has conveniently forgotten.

Saddam certainly is a liar and more besides. However, I don't think that technicality rather than an existing threat of actual, functional WMD's (which was what was sold to the the US public, the Senate, the British public, the British parliament, the world, etc ...) is worth the tens of thousands of lives lost or the billions of dollars wasted on this act of utter folly.

Strange. I thought he was being tried by an Iraqi court. My mistake

ok...so you are saying they do have WMD's but these don't count? 712221[/snapback] Pre-1991 weapons would no longer be usable now, so all this means is that Iraq once had WMD's, which everybody already knew.

? England will go out to the first good team they face. They have played poorly so far and struggled against the mighty football nations of Trinidad and Paraguay. As for their forwards, it would be nice if Sven actually remembered to bring some! Of the four (!) they actually included in the squad, 2 (Owen and Rooney) had major injury worries, 1 (Crouch) is not a natural goalscorer and Walcott is only 17 and has not played a single minute of premiership football. With Owen now out of the tournament due to injury, that's leaves them woefully short of options up front.

I lost count of how many majors Norman threw away. All the natural talent in the world, but his mental strength let him down. If he had the ability to hold it together like Faldo, for instance, I think his tally of majors would have been in double figures rather than just 2.

Close family or extended? What if he was to have young children? Should they be put to death for something their father has done? And why limit it to Al-Zarqawi? Shouldn't other mass murderers get the same? Perhaps Timothy McVeigh's entire family should be killed. How about the Washington snipers?

My apologies. I had assummed that the fact that the story that this thread was based on, was proved to be complete bs was somehow relevant. My mistake. Carry on as before

That is tragic news. Though I never met him in person, from exchanged PMs I knew him to be a decent and caring person. He will be missed. RIP.

The National Post has now retracted the story: Sorry ...

or Bush Bad!