chicot

I agree with VABills (would never happen on the ppp board ) on the subject on Labradors - they are great family dogs and almost totally reliable. As he says, they're not really the best guard dogs (though they can certainly bark loud enough). Boxers are great dogs - good guard dogs but also very good family dogs and reliable with children.

Is there no such thing as a catflap in the US? Besides, don't you have to clean up after it if your dog fouls the pavement? Very dignified

It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure that it's a major factor. I very much doubt that the "new" Iraqi army has the capability to take on the insurgents and is, in any case, heavily infiltrated. Of course, they could ask the US to do the job for them, but it's unlikely that they'd want one of their first actions to be giving the ok to Fallujah style assaults. Also, the likeliest candidate for prime minister Jaafari (I can't believe that Chalabi would get the nod, though I'm amazed that he's got this far) is very much a pragmatist, who was strongly opposed to the assault on Fallujah, while he was in the interim government. There is a certain amount of common ground between the US and Baathist elements of the resistance in that neither of them are likely to want a Shiite-dominated Islamic government, strongly allied to Iran. Increased Sunni participation in the next election would make that less likely and this may have something to do with this dialogue.

Interesting. Was bound to happen sooner or later. Talking with the enemy

Great choice, though I'm suprised to see it on an American football message board. I didn't think they were that well known in the US. I'd add Tom McRae's self-titled debut album to the list - it's pretty obscure but well worth a listen.

Ok, I stand corrected, but how much did he do in playoff games? If the knock against Flutie was that he couldn't win playoff games, I think you need to examine RJ's record in playoff games for a valid comparison.

You'll have a hard time trying to argue that RJ had much, or even anything at all, to do with that Superbowl win.

Bizarre. You really couldn't make this sort of stuff up. outrage over penguin sex test

True. My guess is they'd only go in for such a doomsday option if they were convinced they were facing the end, in which case thoughts of survival may give way to the desire to do as much damage as possible.

Accuracy probably isn't that much of an issue with Japan being one of the most densely populated nations on the planet. I would imagine that a nuke landing just about anywhere would do a considerable amount of damage.

I'm not so sure about that. Haven't they been firing missiles over Japan just to demonstrate that they do indeed have that capability?

And what was the problem with Venezuela's elections, other than the fact that they elected a leftist politician? It seems that some Americans view of "freedom and democracy" should be appended with "as long as we like who you elect". It is absolutely absurd that so many newspapers in the "Land of the Free" were so jubilant over an elected president being deposed in a military takeover (during the failed 2002 coup attempt). Is this support for democracy?

? He would have been better off watching football - he was watching rugby.

I am not sure that the Bills actually had much of a chance in the first Dallas SB either, though they looked good in the second one until Thurman fumbled.

I'm not sure that I'm even an expat in the strictest sense of the word, since I was born in Britain. Besides I probably would have voted for the Communists

No, I didn't vote. I replied before - you must have missed the reply.

The UN is the "most corrupt entity on the planet"? You don't think that's a bit over the top?

And I suppose that US companies have no interest whatsoever in investing in Iraq's oil fields? The fact is that, unless you were present in French ministerial meetings prior to the Iraq war, you simply do not know for sure what their opposition was based on. Was it based at least in part on their own self-interest? Almost certainly, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that they thought it was a pretty bad idea nonetheless. It is actually possible for actions to be based on more than just one motivation. In any event, you have told us many times that you were opposed to the war so the most you can really blame the French for is making the right decision for the wrong reasons.

Hang on a minute. If I understand you rightly, you're actually saying you objected to the Vietnam war? And yet, in a previous post, you said "What we learned from the Vietnam experience was that tens of thousands of American kids were killed simply because of the Anti-War movement. As General Giap, the commanding officer of the North Vietnamese forces explained in his memoirs, his side was preparing their surrender terms at the time the Anti-War movement became highly publicized by the Main Stream Media and Giap and co. strategically decided to hold out and see if these would change American resolve to finish a job which was for all intents and purposes completed. The rest is history, and the tens of thousands of lives lost to those in the U.S. " So would you have objected or wouldn't you? And if you did object wouldn't you then be responsible for the "tens of thousands of American kids killed because of the Anti-War movement"? You can't have it both ways.

No. My earlier post in this thread explains why not.

I could be wrong on this, but I seem to remember that France were not alone on this. I think Spain also refused to allow the US jets entry into their airspace.

Nope If I was going to vote, it would have been in Manchester. Although I am eligible to vote because my father is Iraqi, to be honest, I don't really think it is right that I have equal rights with someone in Iraq who has to live with these decisions when I do not. Whatever France's reason for opposing sanctions, the fact remains that they did oppose them and therefore blaming them for the effects of the sanctions seems pretty illogical, which is my original point. As for Saddam being friends with fundamentalists, I'm not as sure as you seem to be that this question has been clearly answered. I've lost track of the number of congressional reports, intelligence reports etc that concluded a) that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and b) had no working relationship with Al-Qaeda. Even if he did invite militants into the country to help fight against a US invasion (which is what I presume you are referring to), this is a far cry from sending them out to countries to commit acts of terrorism, which would probably be most people's concern. I think that the US would have had a very hard time indeed selling the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was inviting fundamentalists into Iraq to defend against a possible invasion.

I take it you are referring to the Iraqis that died under the UN sanctions? It seems pretty bizarre to pin that one on France when I think it's pretty clear that they were in favour of lifting sanctions while the US was always dead against it, regime change being their bottom line.

no

"Rookies do not win superbowls." That's true but, at this stage of his career, neither will Drew Bledsoe. I really can't see the Bills making it to the superbowl, let alone winning it, with Bledsoe at the helm. You just know that at some crucial moment in a playoff game he's going to do something daft that, while it may not completely lose the game, will certainly be a major contribution to a defeat. At least Losman has the potential to improve with time. Can anyone really say the same about Bledsoe at this stage of his career?