I want there to be a British Empire again. We so rawked when we had that.

I basically agree with everything Neph just said. And i'm that if the Iraqi people had a choice of whether some of them died in a war that's basically liberated them or stayed "safe" under Saddam Hussein, Mr. Psychopath of the year, they'd've quickly been in support for Bush being all trigger happy.

And as i've said, the ends justify the means. I think that the next country Bush and Blair should kick the shizzle out of is North Korea...and then maybe more countries will do a Syria and be all "Hey, we want peace too. Erm. Yeh...don't invade us!"

Dino, i can't believe you see things in black and white, some things aren't that simple.

War = primitive.

Nuff said.

Even though i don't believe this argument, i'll say it anyway, to prove my point, ahem...

Yes, if only we had you in power when WWII started! Then i'm sure we'd all be fluent in German etc. etc.

Jacob, stfu and go sit in the corner, and think about what you did.

I never said they were "perfectly normal", I said they weren't all necessarily clinically mentally ill. It's not "normal" to find a child sexually attractive just as it's not "normal" to find animals alluring, but there's still plenty of people that find animals attractive - just look at the "furry" community, it's more full of badly-drawn porn than any fandom I have yet to come across, save perhaps manga/anime.

Besides, before you can say a person is "normal" you have to define it. There's probably parts about you that people wouldn't define as "normal". A lot of people would say mutilating one's body isn't "normal". A lot of people would say for a woman not to shave her legs isn't normal. To have nine children isn't normal. Normal is only normal so long as society defines it that way. To be fair, I agree that they're probably not as "normal" as the rest of society, but to just slap on a label of "mentally ill" does the rest of the mentally ill an injustice. After all, depression is a mental illness - would you say they're not "normal"?

*Checks another sign of the Appocolypse off his clipboard.*

:P

Thanks, man. :D

Good god, I thought I was the only one who noticed that...

I've seen waaaayyy too many halfassed badly done ink and colour pencil drawings of lycans screwing elves for my own good. It never gets any less worrying seeing a sexual scene that looks like it has been drawn by a 10 year old.

Furries give me the creeps. Like you said it's almost as stupid as manga/anime...

I am really disappointed, you are smarter then this Jacob. Yes, it's true that Iraq could become a wonderful place to live, that being said, it could also turn to shit. You cannot deny that the war was handled with complete and utter incompetence. These people need to be held accountable for their reckless actions, before they are rewarded more power then they have already obtained. It's not that difficult to believe that people are a little pissed over this demagoguery. Oil is the reason the U.S. attacked Iraq, us American's love our money. Saudi Arabians were in those planes that hit the World Trade Center, not Iraqis, yet our relations with them have never been stronger. This is a friendship based on oil. You're starting to sound like paramiteabe, so you might want to tone it down.

Actually, the US does little to no oil buisness with Iraq in the first place. I'm asuming this is spawned by the fact that we go out of our way to protect the oil fields, right? Let me ask you a question...is their any known oil in Afganistan. No. Last time I checked, they have no oil. Yet, they need to make ends meet. What do they do? Poppy plantations. Now look at Iraq. It has oil. Most of the Middle Eastern countries are boarderline 3rd world countries. But lucky Iraq, as well as some others, have oil to bring them some much needed cash. Oh wait...would it be better if we nuked all their oil feilds and left them economically screwed?

If we protect their oil fields, it's because we are trying to insure their future economic prosperity.

'You cannot deny that the war was handled with complete and utter incompetence.'

I totally agree that it could've been handled far better, but that said, i'm sure the Iraqi's appreciate the fact that they will not have their entire family wiped out (by means of being put in a woodchipper) for expressing a negative view of Saddam.

When the Holocaust anniversary came around, loads of people were whinging about how "We must remember. We can't let this happen again" yet when we make an attempt to stop something that looks like it could lead to another Holocaust, we suddenly jump back on our statement and scream "Not in our name!"

Sure, Hussein may not've been as bad as Himmler or as cooky as Mengele, but if he got some WMD's he would've been a naughty boy. So i'm quite glad that Mr Blair pounded him anally before he got protection for himself. Yes.

Obviously it is still too early for the international oil firms to make money off the oil, but in the next few decades, the US and UK will be making deals worth hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions.

Afganistan was bombed to destroy the Taliban. It's only logical that we attack the people involved with 9/11, hence the administration's attempt to link Iraq with this country.

You bet it does, Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. I would say that makes it somewhat special, wouldn't you?

Of course not, I'm not falling for that one.

I wish we were that nice, but why Iraq? Why not Iran? Why not North Korea? Let's face it, people are greedy bastards.

Ooohh...we'll be getting trillions and trillons of pounds!! Wheeee!!

Do you think that this stupid war on terror would go on if Britain got a different PM?
Do you think it would go on if the US got a new President?

It most certainly would. No doubt about it. None at all. The PM (and Political party) is completely irrelevant on this point.

Sorry, dunno if you were trying to say it wouldn't, or if it would, because I havn't been following the thread.

Well, both opposition leaders were against the Iraq war. What would Bush do? Pressure them? Declare war on us?

The Iraq War is largely independant of the war on terror, and only The Liberal Democrats opposed the Iraq War. The Tories were for it to this day.

Esus I hate to say it to you but you really are full of shit.

Bush himself said that the Iraq war is important to the war on terror. In fact, the Iraq war's justification was in the war on terror. The whole idea was to remove weapons which in the hands of a "terrorist" like Saddam, were a "very real threat", that turned out to be as real as Dennis the Menace.

The fact is that any person who is educated on the reality of the situation will know that there is no "organised terror network". Britain isn't at a heightened risk of terrorism so much as it is in a heightened climate of fear.

The sooner the propagators of this terrorism bullshit are out of the picture, the sooner we can get on with some REAL political goals, like making the countries that we live in WORK properly so that people who live in poverty actually stand a chance of getting out of it.

Who knows? all three countries (Iraq, Iran, N Korea) support terrorism. Do we have to do it in order? Besides, I do believe that Saddam has a worse track-record for terrorism than the current leaders of the other two places do, but I could be wrong about that. Oh well.

Probably. Kerry said he would continue the war (Albeit differently, though).

Iraq is a cluster**** wrapped around a hellhole. It's never going to get better. Just check the news ever 2 or 3 days (don't let it consume you) and you'll see what I mean. The last few weeks have been some of the most bloody and farcical of the entire war. Chalabi MINISTER OF OIL? 90 civilians killed, breaking 1600 in American casualties, nearing 1800 coalition dead. It's insane. I'm having a hard time imagining how anyone could screw something up this badly. The good news? Bush and his fellow "Christian" fascists are getting crushed in the polls, Bush has got one of the lowest second term popular ratings in the past 2 CENTURIES. This could easily set up a 2 term Democratic presidency.

Out of intrigue, what would all you anti-war supporters have done instead to get rid of Saddam? If anything? Or would you just ignore the fact he's a c*nt and made his people's lives Hell.

'It's never going to get better'

And if it doesn't, we'll flatten the whole country and build a prettyful rainforest where it once was. And have prettyful animals and prettyful smelling flowers. Yes.

Arrest him. Wait until he is in a position where he can be easily arrested, and cuff the guy. At the end of the day, that's what the war in Iraq came to... arresting a head of state. Right? There are easier ways of doing that than just going to war with the whole country.

Yeh, but saying that, he did have loads of look-a-likes. Plus, i don't think his bodyguards would've just stood idly by.

Plus, there's no fun explosions or red streets when there's just an arrest.

Yes, the war is farrrr more fun!

Are you even allowed to lure a foreign leader into your country before arresting him?
If we did, the Iraqis certainly wouldn't have took it lying down.

I'd just like to say that the fact that Bush had 80% of the military's support in the last election says something. One of my good friends was sent out to Iraq, and he's come back as strong a Bush supporter as ever.

Also, I've heard rumors that the some of the Media is not giving the, "entire war," adequate coverage, but that's more based in rumors than in fact, I think.

Well yes, but you'd have to have a certain mindset to join the army anyway.

Actually I saw a documentary a while back about some organisation that 'cures' fundamentalist religious homosexuals. I have no idea how it works and, quite frankly, I don't want to know. I should point out that the subjects involved volunteered - it wasn't forced on anyone - and they seemed quite thankful afterwards.

No, because the oppositions know that things would only get worse if they left. During the last Australian election a survey of Labour voters said that, while few of them supported the war in the first place, most think that leaving now would be a bad idea. This despite the leader of the Labour party promising to bring aussie troops back before christmas.

He has look-a-likes but the US intelligence knew which one was which. Why else do you think none of them were killed or arrested during the war?

Also, while it's true that the bodygaurds would probably attempt to stop the arrest, a few well placed bullets would soon sort that out.

Jacob, this war was illegal from the beginning, violating international laws prohibiting regime change. "Reasons" for going to war have either been discarded or mutated so I've really got no clue why the U.S. is throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars and lives on it. To stop WMDs. Because Saddam was a prick. To spread democracy. Every new ass-covering "reason" is more silly, shameless, and self-serving than the last reason. Secondly, the line of reasoning "Saddam was evil" is horsecrap. Where were we when the shit in Rwanda broke? Did we stop the killings in the Ivory Coast? Have we tried to stop the insanity and bloodshed in Sudan? No,no,no. What, I must have missed the bulletin that said Iraqis lives were worth more than the lives of others. But judging by the casualty figures for civilians I think its pretty clear that the Administration doesn't really care about life. Hey, call me crazy, but for a guy who proclaims to be against the "Culture of Death" Bush sure starts alot of violence and does a lot of saber-rattling.

'Actually I saw a documentary a while back about some organisation that 'cures' fundamentalist religious homosexuals'

I've heard about them, though i honestly think they're just shoving people further in the closet than doing anything really kosher, as it were.

They recently did a survey thing that discovered that Fagoots can tell another Fagoot by his phermones and smell and shtuffs, and that they can tell when another guy is a Muffy.

Gaydar at it's best. Beeyotch.

'this war was illegal from the beginning'

It was actually legal. Saddam was breaking constitutions, regardless of the reasons we were told we were going to war.

'Where were we when the shit in Rwanda broke? Did we stop the killings in the Ivory Coast? Have we tried to stop the insanity and bloodshed in Sudan?'

I totally agree. But at least it's one less c*nt in the world. And i'd happily support the US and UK kicking the asses of all the other wanker countries.

'But judging by the casualty figures for civilians I think its pretty clear that the Administration doesn't really care about life.'

Give a bothered? In the long run they've saved far more lives.

'Also, while it's true that the bodygaurds would probably attempt to stop the arrest, a few well placed bullets would soon sort that out.'

But then you'd have people saying "OH MY GOD!! YOU KILLED HIS BODYGUARDS!! THEY WERE PROBABLY ONLY DOING THEIR JOBS THROUGH FEAR!!" and even if you injured them, they'd probably get killed by some Saddam-fanatic for doing a poor job.

Meh. I'm tired.

Bwa ha ha. I think you may be mistaken. Unless your source says something VERY different from mine.

The article in the local newspaper said that a study had shown that the smell of testosterone triggered a subconscious reaction in the sexual part of the brains of gay men and heterosexual women, but not in straight men. That doesn't mean one gay guy can tell if another guy is gay.

But the idea made me chuckle. :p

I doubt that. If they were doing their jobs through fear, then they wouldn't be doing it through support for Saddam, therefore they would not be inclined to attack anyone if Saddam was being arrested - in fact, they may even assist the arrest.

If there are no American or British forces standing around in Iraq, and instead just a bunch of troops come in to arrest Saddam and fly him to the US, then nobody will have any enemies to shoot at. This means less lives, less cost, less warfare, and an improved public image of America. With Saddam out of the picture, his supporters and enemies will be left to squabble among themselves. A little careful planning and money from the US and a new Iraqi government could be set up there.

But of course that's not the "american way" is it. If you're American then you're not doing something right if you don't barge in, blow stuff up, drive around in big tanks, and generally break things. Oh well.