Walsingham

5.7 Million? What? I know that's only in American money, but that has to be at least fifteen guineas in proper money.

Ditto. You want we should only help countries with feth all? Does this mean that my doctor only helps me because he gets paid? You don't think he could maybe be working under more than one motivation? We've been through this before (Gorgon and I discussed it), and I'll say again that if you look at historical records of how the US executive makes decisions on the scale of an invasion you are talking about having to satisfy many separate 'players': Treasury, Pentagon, White House, fund raisers etc etc. The idea that you could go to war only for cash is as bizarre as the notion that you could go to war only for good will. Incidentally, I've been doing some background reading. 1) Saddam may have had trouble with Al Qaeda in the past, but his connections with Palestinian and Hamas terrorism was well established. There are public records of his officials having videotaped ceremonies congratulating the families of suicide bombers, and giving them cash. There are also suggestions that he tolerated the existence of training camps, although there were far more convenient locations for these in Lebanon and Syria. I do not think the US Chimp-in-Chief would have had much success grasping any distinction between the two types of Arab terrorist. Hence his rather baffling insistence that Saddam was backing Al Qaeda at the time. Saddam's priority at all times was power, glory, and his own survival. He could and did shift positions quite fluidly. It is therefore not inconceivable that he could have - if still in power - come to support Al Qaeda as a means of retaining his status as strong man, and 'leader of all Arabs' (his fondest ambition). While Al Qaeda was certainly a threat to him, insofaras it threatened the United States it woudl always be regarded with a hopeful eye. 2) The notion that Iraqi WMDs coud have gone to Syria is entirely plausible. Syria has always had a byzantine intelligence appartus, as befits any first class authoritarian regime. It also has a demonstrably porous border with Iraq, as evidenced by the history of smuggling in both directions, but particularly the trade in counter-embargo oil. Hundreds of thousands of barrels were being passed across this border every day under Saddam. This provide ample cover for any movement. Concealing Iraqi WMDs in the country would be acheived by the simple expedient of putting them amongst existing Syrian WMDs. The Syrians already being in possession of both materiel and delivery mechanisms. ~ I am therefore more convinced than ever that it is far easier to account for the way WMD did exist and were then moved than that they unaccountably vanished. Finally, it's nice to see some new faces. I guess it wasn't so completely daft to raise the issue.

Bad parenting. Which is exactly why this all started in the first place. Kids these days are retarded, they don't understand things like consequences and what is hugely retarded idea. So you've NEVER had a party go 'awry'? I submit that anyone who answered yes is not having sufficiently good parties.

Nothing like partaking in the violation of someone's privacy to set you up for the day? if they violated their own privacy to pump a business for money I'd watch. On the subject of hirings, From what I can tell the hirings take place with minimal backround checks. And generally the employer will try to do everything he can to save money (excons and illegals) I used to work at a cash register with a vietnamese gang member who was convicted of armed Robbery. I don't think it was done with law suits in mind. Have I misunderstood? My question would be whether you would regard a bank employee who steals your cash from your accounts to be a problem for just you or for the bank.

Nothing like partaking in the violation of someone's privacy to set you up for the day?

Well, exactly. I've never understood Myspace. The only people you'd want to know the stuff you put on there know it already!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/6551589.stm Let this be a lesson to you young pups. If you do plan any kind of large party ensure you have on hand, or quick access to, some way of ejecting persons who are out of order. When I was at uni we used to keep a special stash of 'certain' ingredients that when burned would produce this highly unpleasant smoke.

I can't tell if the shivering I'm experiencing is revulsion or startlement. Maybe they were aiming for Borat, and just got plain crud. Racial humour is like fugu fish. It has to be prepared and served by a master. Not by minimum wage yobs in the basement at Fox's lair.

You realise you could have had a quiet word with a journalist about this? That's just revolting. As for the employee liability, the wole way a company works is that you are accountable for your employees' behaviour while on the job. This is why you have a code of conduct. The flip side, as we kind of see above is where the phone and gas companies hire crack-addled parolees to do your housework. Then deny its anything to do with them if your stuff goes astray. This is one more reason why selection of personnel is the unassailable primary thing you should look at in any organisation.

Capsaicin on the loo roll.

Just out of interest do you ever get the urge to see things in colour?

Ah vodka. *happy sigh* I trust it's nice and cold.

What a remarkably bloodthirsty chap you are. 1. You do realise that your proposal would mean killing a lot of guys in Afghanistan who were at best footsoldiers in a game they had even less say in than understanding. 2. On whose say so do you accept that Al Qaeda and the Talibs were behind 9/11? 3. 100% certainties don't exist in my sock drawer, let alone in international espionage.

I swear fallout 2 did highlight them. Or am I thinking of Fallout Tactics?

Strikes me as being a prime target for kidnapping. Assuming anyone wouldpay for his release. I don't know why the mob are so louche these days.

Steve, I've never met Gen. Dannat so I hesitate to pass judgement on his cahracter. But his comments, as reported appear indicative of a certain short-sightedness. Any precipitate withdrawal or handover during unrest will be interpreted by Islamofascism worldwide as a victory just as the withdrawal by the Soviets from Afghanistan was. It will be a shot in the arm for their morale, and signal to all regimes currently opposed to Islamofascism that the West hasn't the guts to stand by them. I don't think we are given enough credence to teh consequences of that event. Our existing demostrated lack of will has precipitated a rise in the number and scope of attacks in Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Egypt to name only a few. What I would hope the general was talking about was the fact that a long term presence in Iraq is unwise. I would not disagree in the least. I do not, however, agree with you that the two things (immediate withdrawal and long term phase out a la the Balkans) are the same thing. Sand, can you tell me where you got this notion that the people want the US and UK out immediately? I'll grant you there are mass protests, but the Iraqi prime-minister - elected in internationally approved democratic elections - keeps saying that we shoudl leave when he says so, not a moment before. As for the WMD debate I'm rather tired and even bored of it. The lines are so well drawen in that debate we need hardly go over them again, but just to recap: No WMD: Where are they then? A: They could be hidden in Syria. WMD: What happened to the thousands of tonnes of WMD noted by inspectors in the early nineties? Also, what were all those scientists skilled in chemical and biological warfare doing all those years? A: Probably tipped into the sands of the desert.

As an aside, someone just threw an egg at me on the way back from the pub.

You know, I be thinking the king of thoughts Walsh wants you to proffer are more easily found in My Name Is Earl, than Saint Augie's brain addles. My original subheading was 'Karma is a funny thing'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6541131.stm The Beeb doesn't say so in as many words but this is surely a case of comeuppance too late. However, I thought it might be nice to have something we can ALL agree on. The man seems to have been utterly without any human merit. Thoughts?

Ah, the epitome of human empathy and a determination to stand up for the weak and oppressed, wherever they may be. Thomas Jefferson would be proud! Sir, on a day like this Thomas Jefferson would be drunk. And I for one intend to follow his example.

I do want to see Obs do 40k.

Judging by the drama queen you usually are, that probably means your TV remote ran out of batteries or something. I just laughed coke out my nose.

I could quote Kipling on the need for risk takers, but frankly it's all down to monoamine oxidase. Low levels are associated with risk taking behaviour.

By 'with a clue', I assume you mean the editorial writers sitting thousands of miles away in a chair, rather than the soldiers coming back. Steve, I thought you and I agreed that the incident was misrepresented, even if we disagree on the war itself. I could have sowrn that is what you expressed last time I brought this up. *shrugs* In respose t your point as to teh roots of the betrayal, I agree that insufficient work was done on a reconstruction plan. However, I also think there was a serious underestimation of the potential for ethnic clashes. However, I disagree that you have to be an idiot to have not noticed that the result would be so serious. I for one didn't expect the Iranians to manipualte the Iraqi Shias so cynically, or anticipated that disbanding the army would occur so soon, pushing thousands of trained Sunnis into unemployment. I guess my main aspiration is to ask whether we ought not to set aside our differences, and try to make things work in Iraq, not for the Coalition, but for the damned Iraqis. We could also kee pin mind the way we have failed to follow through on our humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan. A country so denuded by war and despotism when we went in that you'd have been lucky to find a good solid building to pull over, let alone any statues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/3502633.stm I hadn't realised that this was going to be the anniversary of the day when that big Saddam statue fell live on TV. I was enthused enough to take the day off work, and settle in with the best wine I could find to watch the USMC roll into the city. Frankly I wasn't expecting it to be as bloodless as it was, with the marines rattling up to the international hotel seemingly oblivious to the danger of RPGs. Fortunately none were injured although they did come under 'sniper' fire briefly from the luxury apartments nearby (used by the Republican Guards and others). The World news chose to show only the images of the marines taking down the statue with a crane. But watching for a couple of hours on the BBC I saw a different 'off message' story, where marines politely and eloquently explained to reporters that they were content to let the Iraqis, who had gathered despite the fighting, and shots fired on them, take it down themselves. Events conspired to take on a curious metaphorical quality as the Iraqis tried with their bare hands, shoes, and sticks to take down this heavily reinforced effigy of Saddam. After I guess half an hour the marines bowed to pressure from the crowd and gave them one of their sledgehammers. This was weilded with incandescent fury by a sequence of men, but it was stilll taking ages, and might have taken days. Then, as Rageh Omar, the BBC's man on the ground was interviewing a man in the crowd, the marines drove one of their special engineer vehicles up, and with the assistance of the crowd got a steel cable around the statue. It was all very much a joint effort, with the yanks only stepping in when the crowd demanded it. Enter the unfortunate marine who scampered up the crane and put a US flag on the head of the statue. This was greeted with immediate disapproval by the other marines and the crowd, but the damage was done. World news agencies liked this image far more, and that is what hit the pages rather than the more repesentative image of collaboration, and certainly of Iraqi insistence. The moment went down as triumphalism, rather than a microcosm of the larger struggle by the Iraqi people against oppression. A struggle that was only resolved when the Coalition completed almost effortlessly with their men and machines what the Iraqi people wanted but couldn't achieve on their own. Looking back on this moment I recall thinking "Why in the name of mercy didn't we do this ten years ago? Was it to _prevent_ this that a hundred thousand people marched on London?" I also wonder if we have not allowed a perfectly reasonable dislike of GWB to obscure our betrayal of the that day of hope.