Happy Face

A touching tribute. RIP

The death rate is vastly increased because of Al Quaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq. Saddam cooperated with Al Quaeda in the weeks before the invasion, allowing Zaarqawi to gain a foothold in the country and instigate a civil war. Why make the Stalin comparison? It makes no sense. Criticism of Stalin wasn't allowed for a while after WW2 because of his role in defeating Hitler. It would also have been fucking impossible to take Stalin on. The battle in Iraq was always going to be fixing a society that had been raped by decades of totalitarian rule. That process will ultimately take decades. I think Leazes assumes that there'll be no resistance when we invade a third middle eastern country. I think I heard somewhere before that we'd be welcomed as liberators. The Stalin comparison makes no sense at all. Intentionally so, in light of Leazes comparisons between Gaddafi and Hussein and his apparent view that we're obligated to depose all the nasty pasties in the world rather than have a cup of tea and a chat.

Has the number of civilian deaths dropped since Saddam was deposed? I don't know, It hasn't. It's gone up a great deal... Civilian deaths have gone up a reported 50% on pre-invasion numbers. In Falluja 150% over pre-invasion rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey..._War_casualties I'll not try to imagine an alternative reality, but the realituy is that Iraq is in a worse situation now than it was before....our forces (and those of the US) are in a worse situation...as are our finances. The fact Saddam was a bad man and is best brought to justice needs to be weighed against that overall cost. By all accounts that Stalin fella wasn't very nice...but we didn't try to topple him when he posed us no danger and it wasn't in our interests.....Churchill had a cup of tea with him. I'd love to see the libyan uprising succeed and would facillitate that in whatever way we can without breaking international law ourselves.

Has the number of civilian deaths dropped since Saddam was deposed?

Because he's a twat? Ok, just strikes me as odd. As I said, I don't know nowt about twitter. Being a twat isn't a Twitter thing LM. People tend to act the twat a lot less on there...because whoever you abuse can just block you. He acts like a twat on twitter because people can block you, but he's nice as ninepence and talking like a 10 year old on here and if you don't like him you can block him on here too ? Oh well, it doesn't really matter does it, if he wants to be a real bellend we could have directed him to skunkers or NO Blocking people on here doesn't really work tbh. You end up choosing to read most the posts you block because threads make no sense otherwise. On Twitter when you block someone, they can't even follow you, so they disappear completely. If he's offending anyone, that's what they're free to do, so I don't buy the outrage that Twitter don't ban people...they leave the choice with the user to ban who they want to. I agree, you'd think he'd be a nicer chap on twitter, but he seems to have schizophrenic tendencies.

Because he's a twat? Ok, just strikes me as odd. As I said, I don't know nowt about twitter. Being a twat isn't a Twitter thing LM. People tend to act the twat a lot less on there...because whoever you abuse can just block you.

Doesn't it say more about trust in governance and aid delivery than it does about any inate cumpulsion towards disorder.

Irene being his mam.

I'm not sending anybody anywhere you don't seem to realise they are volunteers and know what can happen when they sign the dotted line. Of course, you'll be the first to complain if innocent civilians are killed....what did Gaddafi say when you invited him in for a cuppa to tell him what a bad lad he is and try to persuade him to give up peacefully ? I think that was you mate... You idealistic loony lefty liberal do-gooder. EDIT: reminds me of Brass-eye btw... "You've gotta kill some people, anyway. You can't kill everybody, 'cause you wouldn't have anybody left to respect if you did" no, I said its unavoidable. Unlike those who think war is like a computer game, or are happy to see Gaddafi remain in power, like they thought we should have allowed Saddam to remain in power..... Big difference between deliberate and unavoidable. Anyway, that was for Rob. Yeah...you want to "deliberately" send our soldiers to die, and to jeopardise the lives of innocent civilians, rather than live with the "unavoidable" bloodspill of a dictator we propped up for decades. FWIW, I find it very odd that the US are sitting idly by seemingly hoping for Gaddafi to retain power...or to replace him with another military puppet in order to maintain the status quo. Shouldn't this be their moment of vindication? Didn't Bush insist that the sweep of democracy across the middle east was the goal of invading Afghanistan/Iraq? To allow the opportunity to slip, rather than pushing for UN sanctions seems to be rank hypocrisy. Actually it's not odd...it's the same old story. so is that the reason for allowing Gaddafi to continue, like Saddam ? Or do you think such actions as sending in military need to be sanctioned or "legalised" by the UN ? I was just childishly lampooning your position that it'll be unavoidable that we kill innocent civilians (including our own) when we go in to stop Gaddafi killing innocent civilians. I do think any invasion of another country should be sanctioned by the majority though, rather than satisfying the interersts of a minority. Wasn't that what Churchill wanted and Roosevelt wanted when they came up with the UN, and wrote into the charter "that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples" That shouldn't be ignored should it? Unless you want Korea or Iran justifying an attack on the US because the US tortures it's own innocent civilians.

Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. That was piss take of leazes liberal views. I'd have thought you'd realise that, being a card yourself.

Eels tickets go on sale on friday

Aaw bless. You hang on my every word don't you. Not really kid, it's just apparent that there is no substance behind anything you say. This can quickly be exposed by asking you straightforward questions, to which you will not respond, like with my questions to you about the U.S.'s reaction post 9/11. Your views appear to be either laughable and redundant, or none-existent, as evinced by your inability to muster any answers to the queries above. The insults aren't intended to be serious, you should be able to detect the irony with my constant use of the same terms, such as 'lugubrious'. I was just on the way home from work pal. If you're hanging on for responses in other threads that have slipped my radar just point me towards them. I can't promise substance though, only sincerity. You lexiconically stunted mong. You eventually responded to the 9/11 questions after I badgered you, like a hungry rodent chewing at your sphincter. Your response was similar to this one 'I don't know enoughhh wahhhwahhhwahhhh peace and love mannnn' ad infinitum. It's only fair, if you're willing to criticize policies, that you state your own position on the matter; that's the only reason I asked. I criticised a no fly zone?

Aaw bless. You hang on my every word don't you. Not really kid, it's just apparent that there is no substance behind anything you say. This can quickly be exposed by asking you straightforward questions, to which you will not respond, like with my questions to you about the U.S.'s reaction post 9/11. Your views appear to be either laughable and redundant, or none-existent, as evinced by your inability to muster any answers to the queries above. The insults aren't intended to be serious, you should be able to detect the irony with my constant use of the same terms, such as 'lugubrious'. I was just on the way home from work pal. If you're hanging on for responses in other threads that have slipped my radar just point me towards them. I can't promise substance though, only sincerity. You lexiconically stunted mong.

I don't know enough to make the decision. Would it be efffective? Isn't Gaddafi taking back the country on the ground rather than in the air anyway? How about a trade boycoutt? No I don't think it's any sort of vindication...or it would have been embraced as such, despite what you suggest about Obama turning his back on Bush policy which he blatantly hasn't.

Aaw bless. You hang on my every word don't you.

Shame Obama waited until this exact moment to deviate in any way from Bush's path for the middle east

I'm not sending anybody anywhere you don't seem to realise they are volunteers and know what can happen when they sign the dotted line. Of course, you'll be the first to complain if innocent civilians are killed....what did Gaddafi say when you invited him in for a cuppa to tell him what a bad lad he is and try to persuade him to give up peacefully ? I think that was you mate... You idealistic loony lefty liberal do-gooder. EDIT: reminds me of Brass-eye btw... "You've gotta kill some people, anyway. You can't kill everybody, 'cause you wouldn't have anybody left to respect if you did" no, I said its unavoidable. Unlike those who think war is like a computer game, or are happy to see Gaddafi remain in power, like they thought we should have allowed Saddam to remain in power..... Big difference between deliberate and unavoidable. Anyway, that was for Rob. Yeah...you want to "deliberately" send our soldiers to die, and to jeopardise the lives of innocent civilians, rather than live with the "unavoidable" bloodspill of a dictator we propped up for decades. FWIW, I find it very odd that the US are sitting idly by seemingly hoping for Gaddafi to retain power...or to replace him with another military puppet in order to maintain the status quo. Shouldn't this be their moment of vindication? Didn't Bush insist that the sweep of democracy across the middle east was the goal of invading Afghanistan/Iraq? To allow the opportunity to slip, rather than pushing for UN sanctions seems to be rank hypocrisy. Actually it's not odd...it's the same old story.

Portugal's a fairly good model for renewable energy too... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal Isn't that preferable/safer? It's an impressive reversal of the numbers.

Piledriver! Quality from junior CT that like I wish I hadn't watched that. I know the scrote got what he deserved, but it didn't half look like it hurt. This is why I've never watched the serbian snuff videos in that other thread.

I'm not sending anybody anywhere you don't seem to realise they are volunteers and know what can happen when they sign the dotted line. Of course, you'll be the first to complain if innocent civilians are killed....what did Gaddafi say when you invited him in for a cuppa to tell him what a bad lad he is and try to persuade him to give up peacefully ? I think that was you mate... You idealistic loony lefty liberal do-gooder. EDIT: reminds me of Brass-eye btw... "You've gotta kill some people, anyway. You can't kill everybody, 'cause you wouldn't have anybody left to respect if you did"

nah - peopel will have to do without their cars for a few years that's all That would be pretty much the end of the world as we know it. It's be more than cars too - what about buses, planes etc. Unimaginable. We'll just have to get back on the horse. I'm alright, i've got an upstairs flat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/opinion/15tue3.html?_r=1 Seems some of the less right wing US media are slowly starting to realise the injustice being done here, after Crowley's damning comments about his what his boss is doing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zmccx 13 days left to watch Interesting show. I thought it spent a long time extolling the success stories of the intelligence agencies, before concluding in a short section that torture is unacceptable and doesn't make us any safer ultimately. Look forward to the next one.

Really should find some time to follow this horrible fucker and give him some of his own medicine.

Before my time. They were saying on a music podcast I listen to that there's been no mainstreaming of new musical movements in the past decade (which I think I agree with) following on from the previous 3 decades when you had Punk, Disco, Grunge and Hip Hop. Seemed to me theye missed out rave there. Perhaps it was a UK/European phenomenon (it was a US podcast) but loads of mainstream dance music now owes a debt to rave surely. Sorry If I'm repeating anyone. I've not read the thread.