chicot

"Did you know that Christians in Muslim countries are not even allowed to pray or wear a small cross? If they do, they are thrown in prison and tortured. Do Muslims see this as oppression? Of course not, Christians have no rights. Christians are barely considered human, unlike Jews, whom Muslims consider to be monkeys." This sort of blanket assertion just shows your ignorance. Yes, Christians are persecuted in some muslim countries but to imply that wearing a small cross in say, Turkey or Tunisia for instance (both "muslim countries"), would get you "thrown in prison and tortured" is just ridiculous.

No, because he has more potential than Holcomb and the only way to find out whether he is going to live up to that potential is to play him. Rookie quarterbacks are almost always worse than the veteran alternative at first (and Losman isn't that far off being a rookie in terms of playing time) but sometimes you have to sacrifice the short term for the long term. It's not as if the Bills were going to come anywhere near the playoffs this year even with Holcomb starting, so the logical thing to do would be to play Losman and actually see whether he was the right option at quarterback.

The USSR may have had more oil in absolute terms but I think I'm correct in saying that, in terms of oil per head of population, Venezuela has many times the oil wealth that the USSR had, since it's population is much smaller (25 million to about 200 million).

"The primary difference between South & North America, is that North America has democratized its economy, while the ruling class still holds the economic keys in the banana republics." And therein lies the problem. Economic growth is all well and good but if it doesn't result in alleviating the poverty of most of the population but instead goes straight into the pocket of the elite, can you blame the have-nots for seeking an alternative? Say what you like about Chavez but the fact is that he is investing massively in social programs. People who have never had access to healthcare are now getting treated and people who have never received an education are now learning to read and write. Now, you might be able to convince these people that these are bad things and that they should just be content to live in poverty while the rich get richer, and that somewhere down the track, maybe in 10 or 20 years, some of the wealth might trickle down to them. Myself, I think it would be a hard sell. As for the exit of private investment from Latin America, look what happened with the renegotiation of the oil contracts in Venezuela. Yes, the oil companies whined that they would no longer get a free ride, but in the end, Chevron, BP, Shell and Total all signed new contracts rather than risking losing the oil contracts altogether. Only ExxonMobil is holding out and I wouldn't be too suprised if they caved in the end.

You could just as easily give as many examples of unrestricted capitalist regimes that have been a bane to the common man. The Scandinavian model of socialism has hardly been a disaster for their countries. I agree with you in that I do not believe that hardcore communism is a practical option. However, I do believe that some form of social redistribution of wealth is necessary in societies where inequalities are so entrenched, such as Bolivia and Venezuela.

And if they are communists, so what? Do you think poverty stricken peasants care overmuch about what label is applied to their government. I suspect they have more immediate issues to worry about. Why shouldn't the natural resources of Venezuela or Bolivia be used to benefit their populations rather than a tiny elite or multinational companies?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, perhaps you were being sarcastic? Democracy is alive and well in South America. Perhaps it may not be producing the kind of results that the US would like, but it is democratic none the less.

I think that the phrase "full-scale invasion" implies that some sort of ground invasion will actually take place.

Are you completely insane? Iran is many times the size of Iraq, both in terms of population and land-area. Where on earth would the US get the manpower for a "full-scale invasion", seeing as it is stretched by the occupation of Iraq as it is? Still, they could always introduce conscription and then you'd get to find out first-hand what it is you so casually advocate.

This may have been changed but the law used to be that any child born of an Iraqi father was considered an Iraqi citizen, regardless of where the mother was from or what country the child was born in.

What alternate method do you suggest for gauging Iraqi public opinion? The casting of runes? Sacrificing a chicken and reading it's entrails?

LINK • 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

? You're probably thinking of the Sun. The Daily Mirror is owned by Mirror Group, which I'm pretty certain has no connection to Murdoch.

Hey, the "Posh and the Dwarf" story was a classic None of the above changes the fact that the leaked document does actually exist and the government was sufficiently concerned about it to issue a gag order. Doesn't make the story true, but they didn't pull this out of thin air either.

That's a fairly novel interpretation of "freedom of the press" - if we don't like what you say, we're going to bomb you.

I cant believe that even this US administration is insane enough to consider bombing Al-Jazeera in Qatar (a country friendly to the US). On the other hand, there must be something juicy in the leaked document for the gag order to be issued. In the past few years, there have been umpteen leaked documents relating to the Iraq war and I think this is the first time the Official Secrets Act has been used in this way.

If the adminstration is too damned stupid to be capable of explaining their own policy, why should a policy devised by them be any less stupid?

If a civil war is inevitable, come what may, then surely it's better to get out now rather than later.

Even then, I'm not sure I'd be happy with him completely restructuring my household and then insisting on staying indefinitely. To dispense with the analogy though, I'm sure you know, just as I do, that they're not there just to rebuild. They're also there to further the strategic interests of the US. As the shade of BiB implied, to ensure Iraq becomes an ally against Iran and Syria.

Say your friend from Toledo dropped by to help fix your bathroom without you asking and then stayed for 3 years and your bathroom still wasn't fixed. If you then told him that you'd prefer to do it yourself and you'd like them to leave soon or at least say when they were going, it would be slightly odd if he then beat you up, told you that he'd fix it whether you liked it or not, and refused to say when he'd leave.

There's a certain amount of truth in that, although I believe they do have some legitimate grievances.

It would be pretty difficult to describe Saudi Arabia as a democracy yet Saudis were among those responsible for 9/11, which while not exactly being a suicide bombing, was certainly a suicide mission. As far as acting up in Saddam's time goes, there were coup attempts, assassination attempts on Saddam and Uday, uprisings in the north and south, etc ... Still no suicide bombings though. I think you're misreading the mood in the Arab world. Many Arabs see the current Iraqi government as a US puppet and consider the elections as irrelevant since they believe that the important decisions will be made in Washington not Baghdad. I think a more likely feeling in the "Arab Street" is anger at the invasion and occupation and wondering when, if ever, the US is going to leave.

What sort of effect on terrorist recruitment do you think the continuing occupation of Iraq has? I don't think I can recall a single instance of an Iraqi suicide bomber prior to the US invasion. Now, not only are they blowing themselves up in Baghdad and Baqubah but they are also being exported to Jordan.

"Better question for anyone in favor of immediate or announced removal of US forces: Why wouldn't the terrorists view that as a victory? Wouldn't this embolden them in the future by making the US a "paper tiger" like we were after Somalia? It's basically the only victory they can possibly achieve." ? Who cares whether or not the terrorists view something as a "victory"? Do you think they're going to attack the US any less if they are not "emboldened"? The criteria for whether to follow a course of action or not should be the likely consequences of that action and not what goes on in the head of a fanatic. People like Zarqawi's group will continue to attack the west until they are captured or killed regardless of whether they are emboldened or not.

The problem I have with this sort of argument is the assumption that Iraq can ever be stable while being occupied by foreign troops. Where is the evidence for this? The levels of violence are getting worse, not better and the same goes for sectarian tensions between the different communities. Iraq cannot be stable while the occupation continues because the presence of these troops is in itself a major destabilising influence. What emerges in Iraq out of all this is not going to take shape until it is left to the Iraqis by themselves to determine what this will be. All the occupation is doing is putting off that day and all the time more and more people are dying. The establishment of a definite timetable for withdrawal will do the following: 1) It will force the eternally dithering Iraqi government to actually start making some decisions. They will know that they will have to come to some sort of arrangement with the insurgents (excluding Zarqawi and his fanatics who will have to be killed/captured) because they know that otherwise they face the very real prospect of civil war. At the moment, the US presence acts as a security blanket for them and they can dither endlessly and get away with not making any real decisions. 2) Iraqi nationalists that are fighting to end the occupation will think again. Is it really worth them risking their lives if the US is leaving in 6 months anyway? This will also drive a further wedge between Zarqawi fanatics and Iraqi nationalists. The continual refusal of the US to give some sort of timetable for withdrawal only fuels the idea that the US never really intends to leave and plans permanent bases in Iraq (this is a very commonly held viewpoint in the Arab world). It's also worth remembering that, in theory at least, this is not a call that is the US's to make. It has said that it will leave if asked by the Iraqi government. The shia alliance that holds most of the seats in parliament had as one of it's major policies the establishment of a clear timetable for withdrawal. This was mysteriously forgotten once they gained power. Even so, 30-40% of the members of parliament voted in favour of setting a definite timetable for the troops withdrawal. With increased Sunni participation in the forthcoming elections this may well become a majority in the new parliament.