chicot

Are you trying to replace your hero, Boomer, now that he's left?

Yes, it would have been a good place to start. The Palestinians would be better off if they'd taken the deal but the problem was that there was no way he could sell such a deal to his people.

I never actually disagreed with the characterisation of Arafat as a "thug", just stated that Sharon was one also. Given Sharon's history, I don't think that's such an unfair assessment.

There's some truth in that, though I would dispute the assertion that the Palestinians were offered 97% of what they were asking for. Maybe in terms of pure land area it was 97% but there was to be limitations placed on Palestinian statehood and how do you quantify Jerusalem? In addition, some West Bank settlements were to be retained by Israel though they proposed giving up other land by way of exchange (going on memory, the land offered contained a number of toxic waste dumps).

Actually, there's probably quite a few Jews who would agree with that assessment. Most Europeans, quite a few Americans, in fact probably most of the world's population.

There are plenty of people outside Hamas who regard Sharon as a thug.

I have no problem with that definition. However, going back to what was said the otherday, it is more than possible that at least some of those fighting the US army in Fallujah have played no part in attacks on civilians and therefore, by that definition, cannot be considered terrorists.

Sharon's also a thug.

Not really. Creationism doesn't solve that problem, just transfers it to a convenient father figure. You now have the problem of where did God come from?

A homophobe with George Michael as his avatar? A wiseguy.

If they exactly shared my views (unlikely), they wouldn't be teaching any sort of religion since I am an atheist.

Actually, my viewpoint is at least as much down to my leftist leanings (which would probably be considered extreme by US standards, less so outside America) as it is to specific things that have happened to my family and friends. I can't come out of the closet since I was never in it. I have already told you that my family had no connection to Saddam's regime and actually benefited financially from his downfall. If you choose not to believe me and instead hang on to your preconceived notions, then there is little point in continuing this as there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

I'd agree with that. I've never said that there are no terrorists in Iraq, just that not all the insurgents can be regarded as such. Incidentally, even Bush conceded this point in an interview he gave with a French journalist a few months back.

Not everything is related to money. Having more money is all well and good, but if you can't step out of your frontdoor for fear of being blown up, shot or kidnapped, it's not really going to do you that much good. I won't ask what "milquetoast" is

I'm not evading any of your questions. I just don't want to put an "all about Chicot" post on here. It's fair to say that I have some sympathy for the insurgents, although I certainly would not condone attacks on civilians, kidnappings, beheadings or the like. Yes my family was affected financially by the ousting of Saddam, but not in the way you seem to think. Many of my relatives are schoolteachers and received a substantial payrise from the interim government so it's fair to say that their standard of living increased as a result of the ousting of Saddam.

My views are just that, my views. I never claimed to know what was happening everywhere in Iraq. When I hear something from my relatives that I think is relevant to a discussion then I will mention it and I will usually state that that is where I got it from. As for the rest, I don't really want to put my life history on this board. I'll pm you when I get the chance. I'll warn you though that it's far more mundane than you seem to think - trading arms for money??

Dear me. Are you incapable of disagreeing with someone without getting personal? No, my family was not connected to Saddam in any way. No, neither me nor my family have funded any terrorists in Iraq. A democratic state in Iraq would be good, but I do not believe democracy can be imposed in this way and certainly not with all the cockups made in the immediate aftermath of the war. Of course I wouldn't prefer tyranny in England. You can think of me as a terrorist sympathizer if you want, it really doesn't bother me that much. Equally whether or not many on this board feel the same as you doesn't bother me either. The fact that my views bother you so much simply shows how much some Americans are cut off from the rest of the world. My views are by no means that remarkable whether in England, Europe or the rest of the World. Yes, I did know that the Bills won, strange though that may seem to you.

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly is your definition of the word "terrorist"?

I know journalists often risk their lives in search of a scoop but I can't see too many of them taking up this offer. Iraqi rebels invite journalists to "embed" in Fallujah

I think (though I'm by no means sure) that Fallujah largely escaped unscathed from both the first and second gulf wars, so the only damage it would have incurred would be from the aborted first attempt to capture it and from the bombardment of recent weeks. Other than that I don't really know much about the state of the city. Passed through it once or twice when I was a young infant - apparently in those days it was far smaller than it is now - blink and you'll miss it.

As soon as I saw it, I thought that their idea of a letter-writing campaign was remarkably stupid and ill-conceived. It was always likely to have the opposite effect to the desired one.

The things is these cities cannot be pacified. The US simply does not have enough men to garrison all the rebellious cities. Look at Samarra - the US bombarded it, killed a lot of civilians, probably a small amount of rebels, announced it was "pacified" and then a few weeks later the rebels regroup and things are more or less back to the way they were. Who knows if Zarqawi is even in Fallujah? If he isn't then demanding that they give him up is an impossible condition. As I understand it, the Fallujans were willing to allow Iraqi National Guard units to enter the city, but were adamant that there should be no US presence.

Good grief. This is starting to sound like paranoia. They're all out to get us - the French, the Germans, the UN, the Democrats ..... Maybe, just maybe, Annan recognises that the assault on Fallujah is going to make a bad situation far worse. How's Samarra looking now that it has been "pacified"? As the Iraqi President, Ghazi Al-Yawir, put it "attacking Fallujah is like shooting your horse in the head because there is a fly on it".

Dammit, you had my hopes up there for a minute. Still, the way most of the games have gone this season it's probably a blessing in disguise.

I think this actually was written just after the 2000 election (I remember seeing it a few years ago).