Sayonara

Since I'm fucking wankered, you're getting off easy. I think the main diifference wee have here is what we're brought up to belive in and the environment in which we are reared. We're seeing the same situation from different standpoints. Go go USA bombing action! And some other stuff, I'm drunk. Is thismore like it?

Rights do come with responsibilities, and you do have the right to security. What you don't have is the right to attack a sovereign nation - without provocation - against the regulations of the UN, of which you are a permanent member. Your analogy is flawed. Iraq have not 'shot and killed' you. This time I'm really going. First proper night out in ages, so hopefully will be a ball. I'll check in later but I might be a bit drunk so apologies in advance for any weirdness.

Yes they do. We may not like it, but to use one of your countryfolks' delightful phrases, "whatcha gonna do?" - well, bomb the crap out of their country in an illegal war I suppose. I am going out now for an evening of FUN (about time too) so you'll have to entertain yourself I'm afraid

Heh heh heh heh heh

Are you going to reveal your special source to us now? Last time I checked, iraq wasn't a UN member. They aren't obliged to follow UN demands due to this concept of which you may have heard - it's called "sovereignty". Again, just because we haven't seen traces or evidence of something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact is that we don't know. Further argument is pointless, and could go on ad infinitum if nothing is found.

a) The age thing is not disputable. Your claim is. b) If I can be arsed I will do it tomorrow then. c) Again, point missed. Because he had weapons, and has not provided proof that he destroyed them, we cannot simply conclude that he still has them. It's not possible to prove something does not exist, hence the need for weapons inspectors working in a reasonable time frame. If he did hand weapons to another party, and like you I think it's fairly likely some of that went on, then he doesn't have them does he? d) Yes, you're right. They have. The reason I don't count them in the "putting their money where their mouth is" category is because of the blatant political motives behind offering remote support. If you can't see those reasons, then that would seem to be a lacking in your understanding, not mine. e) No, they don't. f) Perhaps you think I'm naive, ignorant, a pinko commie, a tree hugger, whatever. I am employing a reasoned analysis of imformation that cannot be used to political advantage. By your own admission you are working on what the various available medias feed you. People can draw their own conclusions from that, I'm sure. The last bit: Since you are parroting dogma I don't see that you have an argument. I have actually considered leaving before, specifically when you started your campaign of Blike-bashing. But to be honest I don't have any problem with you at all apart from your tendency to behave like a bulldozer.

I take it this is when you aren't studying, sleeping, playing golf or doing whatever else it is teenagers do in Florida.Nobody else on here is bothering, because we don't care about the world we live in. In fact we have never watched the news (on account of it being so dull, and the Dukes of Hazard being on the other channel) or used the web and therefore don't even have any sort of recent historical context in which to view the current situation. If I can find two, ie - plurality, will you admit that that was incorrect, or just keep arguing? Nobody here has even attempted to prove that any WOMD were destroyed. What they are saying is that there is little compelling evidence they weren't destroyed, or existed at all, and that finding such evidence is almost impossible. So you're obviously taking care to read and understand all our posts, aren't you?Likewise nobody has claimed that Saddam has become a nice person. Not one forum member in this discussion is in any doubt as to what that man is capable of, so AGAIN a reminder - this is not the issue. Also, stop using WOMD as some sort of umbrella term, because it's not. Scud missiles are not WOMD, Anthrax is not a WOMD, mustard gas is not a WOMD. If Hussein has any WOMD at all it will be smallpox, and he'd be a very stupid man indeed to try and deploy it now. He might be sadistic but he's not a fool. I haven't presumed that at all.Unlike you I am capable of seeing the political savy in the behaviour and posturing of other countries. In this situation, where we are already at war, the onus is on the countries who say they support the war to put their money where their mouth is. So far only the UK, USA and Australia have done so. I'd like to know what I'm ignoring exactly, seeing as we seem to be discussing different situations entirely. For my part, and most of the other members in the thread, we are debating the moral justification behind the war. You seem to be talking about the physical neccesity.If you can't be bothered to read what people write before you reply to them I'm not going to recap it for you - afaik the thread does actually still exist, so I don't see why you can't re-read it. I did not claim to be smart, I said I was well-educated.My logical reasoning works just fine, as does my reading comprehension. You see things differently because you are arrogant enough to presume that everything you think is right, and therefore the problem must lie with me. Well news flash - if your argument was so flawless, you wouldn't feel the need to fall back on insults or belittle people so much. This is beginnning to get tiresome now. I don't want to be having this pointless argument with you, but you're being an absolute blockhead. Why do you think you're arguing with almost everybody in the Iraq threads? Do you think they all have inferior brain processes to you? Do you think you're the most qualified person here, or the one who has seen the most media coverage? Has it occured to you we might know things you don't? Have you never considered there might be even the smallest possibility you have got a key piece of information that is wrong? I stayed on this forum to get away from futile arguments with infallible teenagers who assume nobody older than them has ever picked up a book or studied past grade school. Don't make me regret it.

FYI I am an extremely well-educated person with an absolutely immense capacity to take information onboard and cross analyse it with past experience and knowledge. I am not some backwards yokel from the Styx. I work. I pay my taxes. I take a particular interest in where that money goes. I keenly observe both British and International politics. I have interests in geopolitical history, military strategy and information control. I am more than capable of reading between the lines in the oh-so-rousing war speeches that come from both of our Governments, just as I am quite capable of slicing the rubbish away from the anti-War dogma before attempting to take any of it in. I am not going to accept anything from Blair without evidence, just as I would expect evidence from anybody on here making important claims, and I demand the same from the president you people seem to deify as some kind of infallible fountain of purity. Let's be very clear here that America does have economic motives for this war. It's not difficult to cut through all the crap coming from the Oval Office and Number 10 that's designed to sway the sheep and see the real isues, and I can't believe that you are so adamant in your belief you are right that you are willing to ignore what's right in front of you. The fact is that your statements have been disproven many times in both the Iraq threads, but like your government you have simply disregarded those inconveniences. In fact, you seem to be parroting all of GWB's reasons for going to war and the 'facts' he is using to defend the decision - I had no idea you were so weak minded. Why don't you come down from your Ivory Tower and actually listen to what people are saying? I happen to know a few of the members involved in the Iraq discussions personally and I can tell you they are some of the smartest people I have ever met. Seeing you come back to their posts with some sweeping one-liner that has nothing to do with the issue is very disappointing, especially after they have given you links, information and a new perspective you may not necessarily have considered. If you continue to talk to people like they are stupid or act as if they have no access to any good information and should just listen to you, the invariably correct one, then you're going to start losing quality members fast. There's a reason why scholarly pursuits are called Academia, and you're beginning to demonstrate it quite well. Get some life experience and worldly wisdom (note: worldly, not USAly) behind you, and do not presume to talk down to me unless you can back it up.

Well, you know, you can never have enough nukes.

Jesus Christ. I'll let you know when Opera Braille Edition gets released. In the meantime I am off to bed, nn.

I said valid points, IE the ones that were relevant to the discussion, not the ones that came as part of the soapbox speech package. It appears to me (and this is not a criticism as such, more of an observation) that you are so busy defending your own opinion that you aren't that interested in why the rest of us come to the conclusions we have. If you read the threads as one long conversation you'll see that most of us actually modify our positions as new or more accurate information becomes available. I'm fairly shocked that you don't.

I am not a pacifist. I have already stated plainly that the war is necessary, and the that the issue I have is with the way it is being conducted and the motives behind it. Dismissing my perfectly valid points by tarring me with the simple-minded hippy brush is not going to work. In all the Iraq threads you have side-stepped or ignored valid points and arguments you cannot answer, so think about the stability of your own conclusions before you try to undermine the ones I have arrived at.

"What I'm most interested in is retention of products in the wish list between browser sessions, and the existence of a 10-digit reference number on the shopping cart page." I want to know how 'security and privacy settings resilient' it is. The browsers it's been tested in was just for information. But if you have time, Lynx, Links, Phoenix and TT would be nice

Thanks for your help guys, it's really appreciated * * sarcasm

This still leaves massive scope for intelligent species though. Yay.

Right, so 3000 people die in 9/11 attack, more than half of whom were non-US citizens, and in response to this attack from an organisation who aren't bound to any one country, the US decides to invade Iraq and kill a few thousand people, just about the time most governments would be getting impatient waiting for their oil-for-food agreement to come out of its suspension period. Suddenly I see your point of view, I am converted. We shall solve our problems by killing people. Let none stand in our way!

Some of these questions can still be discussed I feel.

He means Rahul. There were 3 identical posts - I snipped out 2 of them.

...should you choose to accept it (which you do), is to go to http://www.ishiphop.com and check it in all the browsers you have installed. What I'm most interested in is retention of products in the wish list between browser sessions, and the existence of a 10-digit reference number on the shopping cart page. Bear in mind sessions and cookies cannot be shared between different browsers. I have tested it in IE, NS, Opera and Mozilla and LuTze has tested in Konqueror, but I found a load of entries in the wish list table that had no reference numbers so something may be off slightly.... Ta peeps

It doesn't seem to be stopping you now. "What changed?", you should be asking. That must be from the special intel reports I heard you get Again, NO, that is not the case. I am not in the habit of summarily dismissing anything without consideration of the facts at hand. Obviously peace IS the best solution - however, this does NOT mean sitting doing nothing and hoping that everything turns out okay. It means looking for a third option, trying more creative diplomatic approaches, anything other than wading in like Rambo and flattening a couple of cities. Which brings us back to the point of the thread, conveniently. We all KNOW that this action is more or less necessary. What you fail to understand is we are trying to establish how it might be justified morally. The simple fact alone that it is necessary is NOT ENOUGH. Incidentally, Saddam Hussein does not appear to be a madman. He appears to be ruthless, cunning and power hungry.

I could say things like "If the USA has no other motive than dealing with a dangerous regime that threatens its neighbours, why has it taken the administration so long to act, and why is the administration using such flimsy excuses as the spectre of Al-Qaeda in order to justify its actions", but based on the fact that you haven't even taken such points into consideration in any way during this thread I'm just not going to bother.

It's plainly obvious the invasion will begin within the first hour of the deadline expiring.

No we won't. Regardless the outcome of the coming conflict in Iraq, there is no way that you would interpret any media coverage in the US in terms of "man, the ungrateful Iraqis we liberated from tyranny really hate us". All it will take is one picture of some smiling orphan on TV and BAM, you've "won" the "argument" and all of the Middle East love America. I thought talking to Adam was like butting a brick wall until this thread started.