Walsingham

No offence, Junai. But you're not just insane because you're a conspiracy theorist. You've got some crazy Robert Shea time travelling **** going on.

That would be the Welsh.

And the one on the fire hydrant?

You've got a flamer, don't you? Crack on.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet. But I really don't know how this is a waste of money, if we can get something other than a basket case regime outcome. If we only see a few dictatorships fall every generation then it won't be long before humanity as a whole may be liberated. And I call that ****ing awesome. That liberation will certainly bring challenges, but ALL successes bring new challenges. As an aside, I note that Gaddafi has been referring to the rebels as 'rats'. Which may have been an unfortunate choice of simile. Historically speaking.

Sounds like things are buzzing. Good stuff!

People want chuckles when things are going badly. And we are royally in the poop. I say make something about banking. And saving a giant turtle from a princess.

Paranoia detected You're equipment needs some adjustment. You are detecting pity.

Sitting in the sunshine doing some research and singing along to Old Crow Medicine Show.

LoF, real conspiracy theorists don't believe EVERY conspiracy theory. Little tip there.

My boy, at 35, you'll be glad she did.

My kingdom for a frying pan.

OK. You had me right until your last paragraph. I accept that there are groups with a greater or lesser emphasis on fighting (as you suggest) the Coalition, the Iraqi government, each other, other ethnic groups and so on. What I don't accept is your thoroughly flawed argument that targetting Coalition forces makes any civilian casualties collateral damage. Collateral damage is what happens when you are subject to rigorous and thorough training, discipline and oversight to make sure that you do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. It's not what happens when you attack a patrol with a huge bomb in a crowded market. Even if you don't see any evidence for the above, just consider the dynamics. As representatives of the governing 'authority' ANY civilian deaths and general destruction actively undermines the mission of nation building, and critically wounds trust. There is therefore a payoff for insurgents/terrorists to provoke/cause civilian casualties, and a definite disincentive for the Coalition to do so. With genuine respect for your obvious interest in the groups that have been conducting terror attacks in Iraq, I think you need to dedicate a little time to understanding the way at least the British Army fights under the rule of law. I presume you can choose your own books to do this with, but if you want some pointers I'd be happy to make some suggestions.

It isn't childish at all, it's that simple. After the war in Iraq just another conflict for resources led by the modern age powers on the pretext of human rights, freedom, beacon of democracy and all other one dimensional bull**** they sell to the public so they can put their conscience at ease that everything is transparent, clean and justifiable. And if you see it otherwise please put an effort in it and care to explain to me how and why it is different. I am inclined to do so. but I haevn't time today. Perhaps in a another thread, next week? Same bat channel? ~~ Drowsy, your line of reasoning doesn't hold together for me. yes, it's US saying THEY are the bad guys. But in so far as 'bad' is a useful term at all surely we are entitled to say this? Unless the confusion is arising from your apparent affection for authoritarian states ruling by violence.

It's not on your rcent posts list on your profile, and I'm not wasting time on the search function. Can you link it?

Things not to say to important people: "as a matter of fact, my office smells like a koala bear's armpit."

Drowsy: 1) I was so boggled, I had to double check I was thinking of Syria. you know, Assad? Killed 2,200 putting down his 'arab spring'? Statements by US, Britain, heavy sanctions? Ringing any bells? Still think they're the model for the mideast? 2) Strategically the US desparately needs the EU to begin pulling its weight militarily. Particularly Germany, who have freeloaded on fears of German military strength since the war. 3) Neither Milo or Saddam were anything like good guys. And having spent a few minutes reading about Allende I can't say I like the sound of him much either. And Gaddafi was sending literally boatloads of weapons to the IRA in the 1970s, long before the Americans bombed him. 4) I'm not trying to say we should just smash and grab people's energy. But trying to operate a foreign policy that doesn't prioirtise energy is not just naive, it would be utterly unsustainable. ~~ Do nothing and hope for better from his sons may have been a pragmatic option. But are you honestly saying it's morally defensible? You seem awfully keen on morals, hence my asking...

Drowsy: A) Damned if we do. Damned if we don't. Can't accept dictators because that shows we only care about oil. Can't get rid of dictators because that shows we only care about oil. Do you see? If France did inspire a revolution then isn't that kind of what France is supposed to do? B) Gaddafi maintained his control precisely by having a very small military. He was scared of what we saw happening in Egypt, where the military is kingmaker. I guess he thought he could buy off a popular uprising, and police down more tightly controlled coups. As always it comes back to the simplest question. What do YOU think should have been done?

Love this story: Excerpt...

1) In fact, intervention went lightning fast - less than one month after Q had started bombing towns; things were rushed when it looked like he would indeed succeed in using his airforce and armor to crush the rebels in Benghazi. I wouldn't exactly call depleting the ordnance stocks of some coalition members "understrength bombing", either.2) We both know that allied special forces are operating on Libyan soil... the question is only the depth of their involvement. 3) Sure... decapitation of his forces and insta-airstrikes on anything heavier than a technical. The difference in the amount of heavy weapons controlled by each side was one of the biggest problems in the early days of the war, remember? That has somehow ceased to be a problem... So how about we all stop with the bollocks, old boy? Gently, yet forcefully put! 1) Your point does not contradict mine. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was observing that a month's delay is inconsistent with something we are supposed to have started. And if we had planned it, precipitately mothballing our only carrier just beforehand would strain even the Ministry of Defence's legendary stupidity. 2) I don't see what special needs would be up to, besides training and observing. Reconnaissance? And tell who? You can't inform a command structure which doesn't know what it's own troops are doing. Spearheading attacks? Hardly what they're for, and it would have generated a lot of casualties. 3) Removing Gaddafi's heavier weapons has been important. But if he'd had the preponderance in ordinary troops a popular mandate would have implied, then he'd not be sulking under whatever the gaudy flapping mentalist has for a reichschancellery. ~~ Drowsy: 1. I despise the EU's increasing muscle flexing as dictatorship by stealth. But utilising means other than talking endlessly is only common sense. We've said just about everything nasty you can to Syria, and it's achieved precisely **** all. 2. The US need not have worried, since the EU atomised as Germany and Italy scuttled in diametrically opposed directions to Britain and France. 3. I don't know anything about Sarozy's domestic position 4. You call it 'leaders who defy Western control'. I call it removing leaders who sponsored attacks on Britain for as long as I've been alive. I call it NOT playing along with Gaddafi so we can just pay for the oil on the cheap. Which you would no doubt condemn us for doing just as much. 5. Oil matters. Energy security matters. Not just to industry, but to farms and ultimately stops us starving. It is the lifeblood of our world. A state, any state, cannot surrender its energy or its surrenders entire.

Drowsy, with proverbial respect, that's complete arse. 1) NATO intervention happened late, and hasn't constituted more than some understrength bombing runs. 2) Fighting on the ground has been by locals 3) Success - and I have to eat some humble pie for predicting this would never happen - has come about through decapitation of Gaddafi's forces in targeted strikes. And for the love of all that is good and holy can we PLEASE stop this sophomoronic "it's the oil, stupid" one dimensional bull****? Of course oil is involved, but it's facile and childish to say 'oil' and say that explains each and every dynamic. Put some effort in, FFS.

I want some of what you're smoking. It sounds awesome.

I finally had an email from BT 'apologising' for my poor service and decision to leave them. They asked if we could discuss my remaining a customer ...then told me that if I left I would be charged ?24 for leaving my contract early.

I recognize the sentiment. Its echoed in Mein Kampf. Oh good grief.

Very interesting piece, digging through the court data, and actually making some sober 'academic' points. LINK. Example: