chicot

Cucumbers? That's no good. No wonder they're still getting pregnant. Someone needs to explain to them that they need to put them on something other than a cucumber for them to be effective

There's also an English label and what looks like Russian (though I'm not sure).

In that case, the US will never leave Iraq since the very fact of the occupation will continually generate violence.

Of course I will concede the point that there are many more friendly Iraqis than savage Iraqis. I have never argued otherwise. Logically, if there are some savage Iraqis then there can only be some friendly Iraqis. Not all Iraqis can be friendly unless they can be both friendly and savage at the same time. What I have said and still maintain is that most Iraqis want an end to the occupation. That is not the same thing as saying that most Iraqis are going around kidnapping and beheading people, not the same at all. It's entirely possible that this was a war for imperialist America and to rid the world of a ruthless thug. One does not exclude the other.

Strange. I would have thought such a discovery would be major story. Do you have a link?

All I have been saying is the majority of the resistance is homegrown and not the work of foreigners, as some seem to believe. Did you honestly believe otherwise? As for talking of "the savagery of the Iraqi people themselves", weren't these the same people that you described as the friendliest people you could hope to meet (or something similar)? Why are you incapable of dealing in anything but generalisations? Some Iraqis are savage, just as some are friendly. Same goes for Americans and most other nationalities. Whether or not Iraqis are more savage than other races is open to question. The conditions that prevail in Iraq are unlike those in most other countries. For one thing, prior to the invasion Saddam opened all the prisons in the country - there are now all sorts of people at liberty that needed to be locked up. How do you imagine the US would fare if it was under foreign occupation, had all it's criminals released into society and had everyone in it's armed forces summarily dismissed and replaced by raw recruits with little training and less equipment? My guess is it wouldn't be pretty.

Nice job of ignoring what I actually said and making things up to fit your argument. I said that it was not certain that ex-Baathists killed Margaret Hassan, even less certain that such an act was planned for three years ago. Clear now?

And this is relevant how?

I'm not saying he wouldn't do it because of moral scruples, rather that such an act is entirely counter-productive. Even compared to other kidnappings and murders in Iraq, the Margaret Hassan one is particularly horrible. She had lived in Iraq for 30 years, was married to an Iraqi and was herself a muslim. In addition, she had spent her life helping the Iraqi people and was opposed to sanctions and the war. There were demonstrations in Baghdad calling for her release. No one wants to claim responsibility for this, not even Zarqawi who has hardly been backwards in coming forwards to claim responsibility for other killings.

I somewhat doubt that Saddam's planning was so detailed as to specify that female aid workers were to be executed. Who knows who actually killed Margaret Hassan? (I presume that is who you are referring to). If the statement released is to be believed, even Zarqawi was in favour of her being released. It is something of an assumption to automatically believe she was murdered by ex-Baathists and even more of a leap of faith to assume that this sort of tactic was planned by Saddam three years of ago. Still, if it helps your argument, what the heck.

?? What are you trying to get at here? So Saddam set up insurgency cells to counter a possible invasion. So what. I think that would be fairly standard practice for anyone facing the possibility of an invasion from a vastly superior military power. Nowhere in that article does it suggest that these people were sent abroad to attack other countries. Are you somehow trying to suggest that the fact that these cells were set up to defend against a foreign invasion somehow justifies invading?! That would be a bizarre feat of logic. The following quote is interesting: "At a news conference in Baghdad, on Nov. 16, Al Naqib said the great majority of insurgency casualties in Fallujah were Iraqi nationals. He said only 24 foreigners were found dead among the more than 1,250 reported killed in 10 days of fighting in Fallujah." This is what I have been saying all along - the vast majority of the insurgents are Iraqi, not Syrian, Iranian etc... Forget the bs talked by the politicians, who constantly try to play up foreign involvement for their own purposes, when you check the actual statements by US commanders on the ground this is confirmed time and time again.

Don't be absurd. The vast majority of those fighting in Fallujah are Iraqi. The US have taken about a thousand prisoners and ,of those, only about two dozen are foreign.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of it not being out of the question that a man of his age, with his health problems, could die in the next four years from natural causes.

Is that baseball? I don't really follow it.

There's also BritBillsFan that I know of. I was just wondering who was actually staying up to watch the game (it wont finish until about 4.30 am over here).

Channel 5 is showing the game live tonight. Who needs sleep?

? What am I missing here? Why is it brainless to believe that Cheney might die in the next four years? I wasn't aware that he was immortal.

Here's a link: Tamil Tigers Suicide bombings (thought muslims had the monopoly on that) and hacking women to death. Not exactly peaceful, these Hindus. Just because you "never hear of something" doesn't mean it isn't happening.

"Now I have a good question for you: There are probably more Hindus out there who are in a lot worse places than Arabs and Muslims and yet you never hear of a Hindu hijacking a plane or blowing up a bus." Not really the best example. Leaving aside massacres of muslims (obviously they started it) what about massacres of Sikhs in the '80s? Or research the history of the Tamil Tigers (Hindus) in Sri Lanka - maybe they haven't hijacked a plane or blown up a bus (though they may well have done so), but is massacring Buddhist priests really any better?

So you're not infallible after all

Dave is just a pseudonym, my true name is unpronounceable in your infidel tongue

Ethnic group is determined by genetics not election. Regardless of what other Arabs think of Allawi, the fact remains that he is an Arab and when you denigrate all Arabs you denigrate him and others like him that you believe stand for freedom.

Thank you.

And what does the "One less Arab" part mean - that the world is a better place when an Arab, any Arab dies? Would you think the world would be a better place if Allawi were to drop dead? Last time I checked he was an Arab too.

No one is arguing that point. Obviously if you are shot at, you shoot back.