So which country is next.

[HS Thomas]

Uncorroborated Al-Jazeera photos.

Confirmation is all you ask ?
The soldiers never looked directly at the camera lens so I doubt they knew they were being filmed. There was one woman who was repeatedly got at, shoved, threatened menacingly because she gave way to her terror in tears and wails. Those who cowered, trembling, face down didn't suffer as much. Men who were just children.
Let me see what confirmation I can find! There were also protests from America (not so much the shoving, threatening, hitting, but that it's time to start packing up ) so it's good to see Jason and Joe don't speak for all Americans.
regards

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Fifty years and millions more lives are not generally considered acceptable prices to pay just so we don't have to get our own hands dirty. - These are hardly givens.
A threat is only good if it's backed up with action. It seems the UN has long since forgotten this. "Last ditch" efforts had been made by Hussein on and off over the past twleve years. As the UN had proven quite toothless, and since he had assurances from those countries interested in keeping him in power, his interest was only to keep stringing the process along. It got to the point where we weren't about to let the UN make our threats an empty one. - The recently reported last-ditch efforts seemed quite substantial concessions from the Iraqi regime, assuming they were true. In any case, that they weren't followed up due to the momentum of impending war is worrying and a sign that the Bush admin was determined to remove Saddam and "damn the consequences".
I agree diplomacy is finite (as is military action), however in this case the reasoning behind the war was too flawed IMO. Too much of it was about strengthening the US abroad and too little on the terrorism issue. Even UK support was in part based on Blair thinking (rightly) that the US acting alone would be far more damaging to world politics and stability.
[Saddam] had received recent weapons and technology from France, Germany, and Russia. He was continuing to move his oil through Syria and Turkey. . . And while Hussein may have been happy to remain in power, even under sanctions, for another twleve years, and while the European powers may have been happy with this situation as well, the Iraqi people were not overly thrilled with the situation. - Receiving weapons and shifting oil are problems that can be solved without resorting to war. The European players were not "happy" to keep Saddam in power either. For all the talk of France, Germany and Russia profiting from the status quo, France and Germany had far more to lose by opposing the war - in US trade. As for Iraqi debts for weapons purchased from France, well these were written off years ago (although US and Europe are all guilty of arming Iraq). Their opposition to war had nothing to do with supporting Saddam and terror or with being weak.
Any large buildings come tumbling down in the center of London lately? I didn't think so. - I don't know what you're getting at. America experienced 9/11 so the rest of the world should just mind their own business? Or that now Saddam has been toppled we can all sleep a little safer in our beds?
Richard: That implies that succesive US Administrations are better at keeping their promises.
Jason: Yep. - Really? An Iraqi/Kurdish uprising came and went unsupported. Afghanistan reconstruction efforts seem lacklustre to say the least, sidelined even, unless you live in the Kabul. However, other countries lack of involvement in Afghanistan is certainly a cause for concern, well shameful actually, as is lack of material international support in Iraq. I didn't support an invasion but believe now its happened the whole world should be behind the reconstruction... err but anyway, governments and promises, pretty weak relationship generally.
The continued deception shown by the Iraqis was clearly in violation of the mandate, yet the weak inspector's refused outright to declare the Iraqis in violation, even though they clearly were. - If they had found anything, they would have declared Iraq to be in violation. Yes they lacked support, but the threat of war was yielding results. When the Army find all those WMD buried in the sand (and probably as useless as those jets) then I suppose you can claim the inspectors were doing nothing worthwhile.
Your statement that [Bush] lacks faith in US intelligence however isn't backed up by anything though. - The CIA said invading Iraq would be counter productive. Bush et al tried very hard to find and use data that supported their political will.
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
They would have provided a good meals on wheels service.
Only if the Marines were retreating!

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I just reviewed who was saying what, and there's really nothing new here, just more of the same people saying the same thing. Keep up the good fight, Jason, I don't know how you find the energy.
deja-vu?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I mean, I can just picture the American soldiers sitting around saying, "Wait, don't tie up little Halla until the Al-Jazeera guy is done loading his camera!" Some people will believe anything...

"Wait, little crowd, let CNN put their camera on. OK , Sound recording, lights, camera, action... now pull down the statue."

Though I believe that US soldiers cant do that[mentioned by HS Thomas] and anyway its a war, talking about civilian casualties or anything is useless.

[Joe Pluta]

The soldiers never looked directly at the camera lens so I doubt they knew they were being filmed.
(LAUGHING!) Did you look at the "shocking series of photos" that were actually on the Al-Jazeera site? Click here. Tell me these guys wouldn't have known they were being filmed. Heck, they put the little girl right in front of the camera. Nice camera technique!
Anyway, go ahead, find some confirmation from some third party source. I'll be waiting.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

"Wait, little crowd, let CNN put their camera on.
(LAUGHING MORE!) You consider waiting for friendly cameras to film a good event like toppling a statue of the deposed dictator to be the same as waiting for hostile photographers to photograph tying up women and children? RK, say it ain't so! I give you credit for more intelligence than that! But hey, if that's what you believe, then you are definitely one of the people they shot those pictures for.
Ah, thank you, folks. I haven't heard such absurdity since Monty Python was in its prime. You want to convince a reasonable mind, you'll have to do a little better than this, though.
Joe

[HS Thomas]

Think the French might want their Statue of Liberty back ?
Politics has lost great oratory. No politician seems to know what the

they are talking about. Everyone shuts off as soon as they open their mouths because it's expected to be lies, lies and more lies.

I guess there will be few million Britons who'll be glad to see GBW photographed with the Queen. (If Americans are ignoring us he'd pass that opportunity and snub the old dear). Not that the Brits go scott free when it comes to mud slinging. Their behaviour in Saudi is generally to be criticised - that of a buffoon making off with most of the spoils - and isn't seen to be in Saudi interests. Biographies of TE Lawrence who helped liberate the Saudis from Turks should be a must read here. Though even in his time he was appalled at the way the British manipulated to get at the oil. Not that the Saudis are blameless as they have become/ are becoming a fundamentalist totalitarian state.( to keep their own oil ? )
Developing alternative fuels is a good strategy long term but not at the risk of plunging the world into economic recession from which it may never recover. But there's a way to sharing and our political mommas seem to be losing sight of that. Or economist fathers have disowned their own children.

Jason's and Joe's are only views that hold American interests. All Americans don't necessarily hold all J & J views.

regards
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: Except for those Al-Jazeera photos. It was too funny. I mean, I can just picture the American soldiers sitting around saying, "Wait, don't tie up little Halla until the Al-Jazeera guy is done loading his camera!" Some people will believe anything...
Not sure what you refer to, but if you are going to clam that occupation is a honey jar, you will lose your argument, I am afraid...
There:

Mohannad al-Kaabi was risking his life to build the kind of Iraqi democracy that President Bush has called for.
He was in danger of assassination by Saddam bitter-enders. But, in fact, he was shot dead on Monday by a U.S. soldier in Baghdad. This disaster must be studied by U.S. planners to make sure nothing like it happens again.

On the same Sunday that Iraqi guerrillas shot down a Chinook helicopter, killing 16 U.S. soldiers, a less publicized battle was fought, and arguably lost, in the trash-strewn streets of the rough and tumble town of Abu Ghraib, 15 miles west of Baghdad.
A bus was set afire by tracer rounds from an American machine gun after someone threw a hand grenade at a U.S. Humvee. An hour later, dozens of men and teenage boys gathered less than 100 yards away, many of them shouting angrily as they described what they said was indiscriminate fire from the Americans.
Suddenly, an American armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle roared forward and smashed into the bus. The crowd scattered into a narrow alley full of market stalls. Then the Bradley ran over a truck, crushing one side beneath its tracks, and clattered away.
"You see how they behave, and they call us terrorists?" shouted Khassan Naim, a 32-year-old shopkeeper. "You see how they treat us? As long as they are here, and until we have an Iraqi government and are free again, we will continue to fight them."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7246703.htm

This is NOT to say that American troops are all savages. If you think *this* is your opponent's point, you are committing a straw man fallacy.

[Joe Pluta]

Jason's and Joe's are only views that hold American interests. All Americans don't necessarily hold all J & J views.
Yeah, but I know a lot more of them hold our views than yours, HS. If you don't believe me, come on down to a fire station around here, or a sports club or a bowling alley or a shopping mall. I'll say my opinion, you say yours. We'll see who gets the better reception. And for a little fun, why not try it at a cop bar on a Friday night?
My point? I don't think you would have the nerve to say this stuff if it weren't for the anonymity of the net, whereas I'm proud to be associated with my opinion. I don't know exactly what that means, but it's an interesting point. Anyway, I've been up all night writing an article, and I have to get some sleep. Good night everyone, and thanks for a hilarious thread.
You silly people!
Joe

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
(LAUGHING MORE!) You consider waiting for friendly cameras to film a good event like toppling a statue of the deposed dictator to be the same as waiting for hostile photographers to photograph tying up women and children?

Oh man .. when it comes to us it becomes pain.
When US media can say upsurge 20yr old story and decides to punish for a crime which was done long back through MEDIA.. then whats wrong it the picture of US soldier hitting a woman or child.
First of all I dont think US soldiers would do that and second even if they do it then I will support them. They are in WAR, not like us sitting in our home discussing war.
And in war its not soldiers only who die.
AW I have not seen the link you have provided as the speed is too slow.

[Joe Pluta]

Not sure what you refer to, but if you are going to clam that occupation is a honey jar, you will lose your argument, I am afraid...
STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN!
Map, I never said anything like this, so in fact YOU are using a straw man fallacy! All I said was that the specific photographs from the Al-Jazeera web site do not pass the common sense test. If the soldiers were burtal enough to tie up women and children, they would be very unlikely to let photographers film the event. That's all I said, and I am not going to get sucked into some side discussion about honey pots...
Goodnight!
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

RK, I'm sure you're saying something, but dude, I must be tired, because I can't even understand your grammar!
Gotta get to bed... RIGHT NOW!
Joe

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
RK, I'm sure you're saying something, but dude, I must be tired, because I can't even understand your grammar!
Gotta get to bed... RIGHT NOW!
Joe

Can you tell me which part you could not understand so that when you get up I edit it for you to read.

[Joe Pluta]

This part is the part I'm having the most trouble with:
Oh man .. when it comes to us it becomes pain.
When US media can say upsurge 20yr old story and decides to punish for a crime which was done long back through MEDIA.. then whats wrong it the picture of US soldier hitting a woman or child.

I'm not sure what it means, nor what it has to do with my comment that friendly forces filming a statue falling down is far different than hostile journalists photographing the tying up of women and children.
And now I can go to bed. My European client is done with questions, and I can get some sleep. Look forward to your comments, Ravish. I've been enjoying them so far!
Joe

[HS Thomas]

Joe, only if you come here first and speak in front of an Anti War Protest demo.

I have been to the US and spoken my mind as to how little businesses were being manipulated by the Big Ones "pass the crap along until we've got the suckers by their ... - it wasn't at street folksy places though. I might be tempted to try that. I think I might enjoy that more as long as they leave their arms at the door.I'm not quite clued up on American psyche.
I have also spoken my mind against small businesses that manipulate medium ones. It seems the system only works if everyone in business is manipulating and being manipulated. But would I think nothing of buying a few paintings / art crafts from some kid on the roadside in some Third World and selling it in the West a 1000 times the price ? I probably would have thought nothing of it before but now, the scales don't work that way for me and a lot of other people.....
Getting back to the point and cutting a longish story short :
While disarming and lecturing a North African mugger armed with a broken beer bottle, at Victoria Station on the rights and wrongs of his action, and reducing him to tears, the police came on the scene. And suddenly I became the perperator, or it seemed that way.
The mugger was taken to one Police Station, I to another. As I sensed the change in mood let me just say I had the uncommon good sense to file a very LONG report (5 pages) which the policeman had to write out by hand. This was the time of IRA bombing in London. I never heard from those police again and have since been very wary of taking matters in my own hand. Probably it would have been better to be mugged to near death than have to deal with the long arm of the force. They've actually been much better since the IRA situation has been defused somewhat. Thank you whoever was responsible.

Similar experience in Kenya and just because I am a British citizen.

No problems with the local traffic cops though. They fine me I pay up , sometimes I appeal. And share a joke or two. It just depends on which part of the force you are dealing with.

If you don't believe me, come on down to a fire station around here, or a sports club or a bowling alley or a shopping mall. I'll say my opinion, you say yours. We'll see who gets the better reception. And for a little fun, why not try it at a cop bar on a Friday night?

Traffic cops ? I can handle them !
Joe, better still after the war, maybe you would like to speak to the US Army and congratulate them on a job well done. Is 10 years too long a wait ?
regards
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
This part is the part I'm having the most trouble with:
Oh man .. when it comes to us it becomes pain.
When US media can say upsurge 20yr old story and decides to punish for a crime which was done long back through MEDIA.. then whats wrong it the picture of US soldier hitting a woman or child.
I'm not sure what it means, nor what it has to do with my comment that friendly forces filming a statue falling down is far different than hostile journalists photographing the tying up of women and children.

Let us first call them journalist only.
Actually it has to do with Media war.
US media propagated Saddam's true/false stories and now they are propagating true/false stories.
I hope now you will find a relation between forces filming a statue falling down and journalists photographing the tying up of women and children.
But problem is that they have very few audience or they have the audience which matters to them and might be small for us but very large for them.
Look forward to your comments, Ravish. I've been enjoying them so far!
Seriously its always nice to hear read you
BTW we were talking about next war ??
Which I am sure will not be there.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Did you look at the "shocking series of photos" that were actually on the Al-Jazeera site? Click here.

Just saw the pics..
I wish they are true and I am 101% agree with Major David.

I can't second guess what has happened here without knowing all the facts but US forces operating in Iraq have to use the appropriate level of restraint to the mission.
"US soldiers will use minimum forces wherever possible,"

Who says it is wrong to tie a woman's hand.
and above all we dont know the story, we are just seeing the pics.. why they are doing this??
They wont tie hand for the sake of fun.
These women might be trying to kill them .. . who knows ?
They should say thanks that women were not killed for attacking on these soldiers.

[Paul Stevens]

Same old song and dance.

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: Map, I never said anything like this, so in fact YOU are using a straw man fallacy!
Ok, Ok, sorry for jumping on you instead of trying to understand what you said. I was grumpy because I missed you!

[Jason Menard]

Get through the Iraqi debacle.
Your compassion for the Iraqi people is touching.
Why is he visiting Britain,then ? I'd say the AWP have everything to do with it.
The anti-War protesters for the most part are misguided and uninformed. Here's a newsflash for the protesters: we already went into Iraq. As this is the case, what are they protesting? What do they hope to gain? Would they like us to now pull out? I don't think they have a clue what they want (or a plain clue for that matter).
The fact that in the Lloyds case there were warnings which were acted on and few people were killed does make it less trivial also.

In the case of the World Trade Centre there were warnings that it was a target, but those weren't acted on at all, I believe. Who trivialised things there ?
So you are aware of some warning that on 9/11/01 a bunch terrorists were going to hijack four planes and fly them into various buildings? Professionals realize that there is a difference between specific warnings and general warnings. The US no doubt gets countless general warnings everyday of some possible terrorist target. Without specific information, there is generally little that can be done. Monday morning quaterbacking is a nice pastime though.

[Jason Menard]

JM: if Europe were remotely interested in tackling terrorism, they would put a halt to their support of Arafat and Palestinian terrorists.
RH: Yeah, Europeans positively thrive on terror :roll:
Are you saying that Europe does not support Arafat and Palestinian terrorists? The Israelis certainly don't see it that way. I'm even more than happy to limit the discussion to support for Palestinian terrorism for the time being.
The fate of the Palestinians is effectively in US control since the US is the only nation capable of curbing Israel's excesses.
You mean things like walking into pizza parlors and blowing up children's birthday parties? Or visciously murdering children playing hooky from school? Or maybe you were talking about bursting into homes and gunning down children cowering under the bed. Oh wait a minute, those aren't IDF tactics, are they.

[Jason Menard]

JP: Oh my gosh. Uncorroborated Al-Jazeera photos.
I had a look at those photos in the article you linked to. Even if they are real, I didn't see anything particularly wrong there. If the pictures are legit (and they do look curiously staged), securing the civilians is extremely prudent, not only for the soldier's safety but for their own safety as well. Once the civilians are secured they are less of a threat and bad things are less likely to happen if one were to make any sudden movements that could in any way be deemed as potentially hostile.
Women and children have been used to attack US soldiers in Vietnam and Somalia, to name just a couple of recent conflicts. It doesn't require an adult male to pull a trigger or set off a grenade. The actions shown in the pictures from Joe's link are not only prudent, they also show a concern for the civilians safety.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
There were also protests from America (not so much the shoving, threatening, hitting, but that it's time to start packing up ) so it's good to see Jason and Joe don't speak for all Americans.

Yeah, mostly from the same sort of people who think that Michael Moore is anything other than a joke. Let me assure you though that the majority of the US supports Bush and his actions in Iraq.
I will note though that it is very reassuring that HS and Richard don't speak for all British people.

[Jason Menard]

RH: These are hardly givens.
They weren't givens, but they were what happened up to that point. Was there any indication that things were going to change?
Even UK support was in part based on Blair thinking (rightly) that the US acting alone would be far more damaging to world politics and stability.
On a side note, are you aware that it was Tony Blair who convinced Bill Clinton to send troops to Kosovo?
For all the talk of France, Germany and Russia profiting from the status quo, France and Germany had far more to lose by opposing the war - in US trade.
Not at all. They calculated that damage to our relations could be minimized and that we wouldn't be willing let relations sour to the point where it became unprofitable for us. So yes, worst case they had more to lose, but nobody believed that the worst case was a serious possibility. They thought they could have their cake and eat it to, strengthening their political positions in the process.
As for Iraqi debts for weapons purchased from France, well these were written off years ago (although US and Europe are all guilty of arming Iraq). Their opposition to war had nothing to do with supporting Saddam and terror or with being weak.
Their opposition had to do with a) supporting Saddam, and b) opposing the US in order to strengthen their own positions and to try to control US policy. When I speak of weapons and technology though, I'm speaking of things more recently, while sanctions were supposedly in effect.
Or that now Saddam has been toppled we can all sleep a little safer in our beds?
There ya go.
An Iraqi/Kurdish uprising came and went unsupported.
We never promised them support. That said, immediately following the first Gulf war, we did carve out a safe zone in northern Iraq and provided the Kurds a great deal of protection, allowing them to flourish independantly of Saddam since 1991.
If they had found anything, they would have declared Iraq to be in violation.
I'm not sure that they would have. They certainly found something in Iran and refused to make an issue out of it. That being said, deceoption and non-cooperation was sufficient to be declared in violation of the UNSC resolutions. They were both deceptive and non-cooperative, yet Blix and El-Barradei went out of their way to avoid putting it in those terms.
The CIA said invading Iraq would be counter productive.
According to what? I don't think any of us here have the security clearance and access to actually know what was said to whom and when. I've read numerous conflicting reports in the press, and I refuse to simply pick the particular article that supports the way I want things to be. Aside from that, how on earth can you trust anything that somebody privy to this intelligence, somebody who has sworn to protect such information at all costs, would leak to the news media?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
(If Americans are ignoring us he'd pass that opportunity and snub the old dear).

Nah, most Americans think pretty highly of the British for the most part. There's hope for you at least.
Here's something to think about. If Tony Blair were making a state visit to the US, there wouldn't be even close to the same level of security risks, the thought of Al-Qaeda terrorists having a go at him would be remote indeed, and we would act civilly and respectful towards him regardless of what we felt about him (as we did during visits of Soviet leaders). Yep, we Yanks are a savage uncivilized lot.
All Americans don't necessarily hold all J & J views.
As I stated before, I am also aware that all Britons don't necessarily hold your views as well (about half if the polls are to be believed), however the majority of Americans do have similar views on Bush and Iraq as Joe and I do (again, if you believe the polls).

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Are you saying that Europe does not support Arafat and Palestinian terrorists? The Israelis certainly don't see it that way. - Don't put words into my mouth. The existence of a Palestinian authority is crucial to a two state solution and the EU fund the Palestinian Authority (for institution building etc), that's not the same as sponsoring terrorists. Yes, I'm aware of accusations that EU money has found its way to terrorists. That means greater controls are needed on the funding, not withdrawing support for Palestine. How would that help the Palestinians?
... Oh wait a minute, those aren't IDF tactics, are they. - Well not all Palestinians would agree with that, although the IDF would use tanks and bulldozers instead. Actually I meant that by vetoing all UN resolutions that criticise Israel the US have effectively left themselves the only ones that can save Palestine. However there are too many Israeli interests in the US for the US to be able to "police" the situation in an even-handed manner, that's what I'm getting at.
... are you aware that it was Tony Blair who convinced Bill Clinton to send troops to Kosovo? - So? I guess he thought the situation was so critical in Kosovo that Nato involvement was necessary. Iraq wasn't Blair's idea. Once it was made clear to the world that Bush wanted to topple Saddam, Blair was all for a UN backed Iraq invasion (along with other countries) and then for the US not going in alone.
[France and Germany's] opposition had to do with a) supporting Saddam, and b) opposing the US in order to strengthen their own positions. - For a), I don't see it, really, it makes no sense apart from maybe preferring regional stability over war and to continue to pursue more peaceful routes. Maybe they were listening to fake CIA advise! As for b), well rings true of any nation. The US invaded Iraq to strengthen its position. If Germany opposed war because Schr�der thought it would get him re-elected, Bush invaded because that's what Americans (as you keep pointing out) wanted.
I don't think any of us here have the security clearance ... I've read numerous conflicting reports in the press, ... how on earth can you trust anything that somebody privy to this intelligence ... would leak to the news media? - You mean you didn't get the memo?! Never trust a whistle-blower or a leak? If that were the case we'd all be alot more blind to divisions and conflicts within the institutions that are supposed act in our name. I saw all those conflicting reports/articles too. I also saw a consistent use of material by the Bush administration that supported their actions and not necessarily the situation.
[ November 17, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I will note though that it is very reassuring that HS and Richard don't speak for all British people.

The Scotsman never speaks for Britain as a whole. 41% of Labour supporters usually means a very small minority of a very tight-fisted community. Like maybe, 50.
I must say Richard is holding his own really well. Must come from living next to a ready-to-be-unleashed nuke.
regards

[HS Thomas]

Now that Bush's arrival is imminent ,(14,000 soldiers deployed to ensure security) our news tells us that to be Anti-American on the streets is hypocritical when the sub-text is bigger than the headlines of Iraq news.
Meaning that the rebuilding of Iraq is progressing really well and most Iraqis are happier now than they were under Saddam. GWB is to be shown an Exclusively American corner of the Palace (something like 10 banqueting-sized rooms I imagine) started since Buffalo Bill brought his Wild West Show to Queen Victoria.
British entrepreneurs are looking to America to not be afraid to start new things and to fail.
Hmmm.I think British entrepreneurs and the average tourists may have some reservations of preneuring and touring abroad for a long while yet...
Some preneur and touring to be done at home.

I've still to find some material on the US soldiers shoving/hitting Iraqi women and children. Anyone watched BBC news on Sunday night immediately after Charles II : The Power and the Passion ? A very good drama - watch the clips.

regards
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Al Newman]

"Here's something to think about. If Tony Blair were making a state visit to the US, there wouldn't be even close to the same level of security risks, the thought of Al-Qaeda terrorists having a go at him would be remote indeed, and we would act civilly and respectful towards him regardless of what we felt about him (as we did during visits of Soviet leaders). Yep, we Yanks are a savage uncivilized lot."
Yes, it's pretty amazing. All the opinion polls which outdo themselves in the phrasing of just how subhuman the 'British Public' believes W to be....
My question is Who cares?!!! What the British public thinks of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Kennedy, or Michael Howard certainly has an impact on the real world. What it thinks of Putin, Chirac, Bush, or the leadership of China does not. The only possible purpose of these polls is to give insult. Which they do very well. Thanks, Beeb.
BTW, the only other US President in memory to attract a similar level of vocal disfavor from the British 'chattering classes' of his time was Abraham Lincoln. Otherwise known as 'The Baboon'. President Lincoln is remembered in history. His opponents are - not......

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

I must say Richard is holding his own really well.

I disagree... seems to me he's coming off as a whiner with nothing else to do but yap, yap, yap... no substance... But hey, that's just me :-) I could be wrong..
Eleison
(greedy young american Imperialist)
ps. still waiting for the free Iraqi booty... and while the soldiers are at it, I would like to request 12, brown eyed virgins please. In reqards to the oil -- don't the US army control the oil fields?? Hey what's the holdup? Just ship the f*cker out....

[Mapraputa Is]

I disagree... seems to me he's coming off as a whiner with nothing else to do but yap, yap, yap... no substance... But hey, that's just me :-) I could be wrong..
Yeah, everybody see what they want to see...
"no substance" -- you mean he doesn't call his opponents "whiners"?
--------------------
"I couldn't ask you to miss my point more cleanly." - Michael Ernest
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Joe Pluta]

"no substance" -- you mean he doesn't call his opponents "whiners"?
No, Map, he just blindly posts uncorroborated reports from Al-Jazeera.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

To let your "opponents" speak for themselves is not quite my idea of blindness.
But are you sure it was Richard who posted these photos? I just checked and seems that it was HS Thomas who started this conversation "We are getting some grainy footage of soldiers getting tough and hitting women and children" and I couldn't find any links to Al-Jazeera besides one in your own post. I could miss something, however, if so then point me to it...
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[HS Thomas]

No one has mentioned Russia as a possible next on the list.
Earth Spirit wrote as far back as Mar 2003.
""Quite simply, Bush and his corporate cabal are determined that the U.S. will get the last of the world's oil. When crops, electricity and transportation start to fail in the rest of the world, followed by a descent into famine, mass starvation and social savagery within the next 10-20 years due to the growing energy shortage, Bush's cabal will make sure that the U.S. and (perhaps) a few chosen (i.e., white) allies like Britain remain standing."
Somewhere I read that the Matrix trilogy was really about Dystopia. And other films like Logans Run, Zardoz, Bladerunner , Brazil, AI, The Minority Report, Metropolis, the Terminator trilogy.
It was John Mill who coined the term in 1868, though the idea existed long before then.
"It is perhaps, too complimentary to call them Utopians, they ought rather to be called Dys-topians. What is commony called Utopian is something too good to be practicable; but what they appear to favour is too bad to be practicable."
The first great dystopian was St John the Divine.
regards
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Joe Pluta]

But are you sure it was Richard who posted these photos?
You're right, Map. HS chatted about the pictures. Then he praised Richard. I guess Poor Richard just got tarred with the same brush .
Anywho, it's all silliness. The whole issue of "big, bad American soldiers" is laughable in the face of the atrocities committed by the Iraqis themselves, both before and now after the Hussein regime.
Joe

[HS Thomas]

You should have seen the first post I noticed from Richard.
The lad's growing up. IMHO he has overtaken others when constructing a good argument.

The whole issue of "big, bad American soldiers" is laughable in the face of the atrocities committed by the Iraqis themselves, both before and now after the Hussein regime

Someone has even suggested that Anti War Protesters in Europe get treated the same way that the Iraqis did under Saddam in the hope that, that will show them.

regards

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Someone has even suggested that Anti War Protesters in Europe get treated the same way that the Iraqis did under Saddam in the hope that, that will show them.

You mean they Haven't?!!! I thought there was surely a good reason why they have such a hate on for W, and that would explain it!
Guess I'll have to remain mystified for a while longer.....
[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[Mapraputa Is]

I just got another quine for my collection:
"has no substance" has no substance
So far my collection had only one item
"sucks" sucks
which I wrote after having been explained the meaning of "sucks" expression.
Historical note: probably the most popular quine is
"is a sentence fragment" is a sentence fragment

[Jason Menard]

Regarding the confused people planning on protesting in London... It occurs to me that you can boil it down to the fact that what it is they are protesting against is the removal of one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century. Such humanitarians.
On a similar note, I was watching the news last night and an American commentator was speaking with a member of the British media. They were having a discussion about the UN and Iraq and the American said something along the lines of "The US felt that Iraq was a threat to its national security. Do you actually believe the US should cede authority for its national security to the UN?", and the Brit promptly answered "Yes, I do". It's hard to believe that there are actually people who think along those lines.