Do you agree with Hitchens' on the Iraq War?

[Audley Strange]

No, it's accurate.

No its not. Which other rogue nations did you tackle? Which other State sponsors of terror? Saudia Arabia? Yes? How did that go? Syria? Yeah? Successful? The public pretext of this war was that Saddam was almost ready to attack your nation not that he needed deposed. What was the crap they spouted "The smoking gun being a mushroom cloud?" I must have heard that out of the mouths of Bush Rice and various pundits dozens of times. So the public story was different from the private one. They used the The War on Terror (not terrorism note) to promote it because it was convenient to do so in a country still reeling from a bitch slap. The debate was never about saving the Iraqi's it was about getting to him before he did a Bin Laden.

DESPITE NO EVIDENCE.

0, as far as I know. Why in the world would that matter? The Brits are on the IRA watch. The global war is a big job, gotta divide tasks. Also, it's not about "fairness." I mean, we're not doing studies to make sure Guantanamo is populated by a proportionate cross section of scumbags from every race, color, creed and religion. It's pretty much a "take them as they come" operation.

Because they are North American citizens funding terrorists. Pretty fucking close to home eh? Closer than the IRA are and in your jurisdiction. Would seem a breeze, they're not shy, why haven't they gone down in this War on Terror? I suggest to you it's because its not a war on terror. Afghanistan might have been a war to root out terrorists. Iraq was not, despite it being sold to the public by politicians that way. This was an error that had terrible ramifications.

Well, that's what we did. Well, we deposed him. Instead of shooting him unarmed in cold blood when he was captured, though, we did the horrible thing of arresting him, and handing him over for trial. Fuck, I didn't know, Audley, that this idea of busting into rooms and putting bullets in unarmed people, and sending drones to kill terrorist "suspects" was the new "ethics." Who knew that it was better to kill them than to capture them? I'll make a note of that for future reference.

Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist suspect, he was a leader of an independent foreign nation. State actors should be considered different than criminals. I have no problem with the assassinations of leaders who invade countries.

You should, then, be quite pleased that Saddams entire regime of criminals and despots was taken down, one-by-one, many of which were killed. That should be in line with your suggested course of action.

Indeed.

Saddam had to go, yes. The opportunity though was taken rashly,

It was only agonized over and argued about for a year before the March 2003 invasion, and before that, we only agonized over it and tried to avoid it for 12 years after we ousted the guy from Kuwait. Rash? Not hardly. It was the most publicly pondered over and debated war in American history.
[/quote]

I don't think it was agonised over by anyone but Cheney to be honest, who saw it as a lost opportunity to make big bucks in the 90's. Certainly there was a lot of talk, but until Bush Jnr got into power and the regime started its movement against him, I think most countries and agencies and think tanks were suggesting he was pretty well contained.

The war has been a success.

So the plan was to piss off the international community, leave the country in a fucking mess, with it's people resenting you, millions of them displaced, refugees, or being in fear of their lives as collaborators, blown up by Islamic Lunatics, out of work, with regular brown and blackouts. Was it successful financially perhaps? Did that trillion dollars spent in funding U.S. contractors and mercenaries along with your own troops benefit the U.S. economy somehow? There are only two successes I can see. They got rid of Saddam and Obama can use it for his bid to be re-elected.

Well, they haven't. They've assisted in the war on terrorism globally. Initially, other tinpot dictators like Qadaffi came clean. Note who he came clean to, my friend. Did he go to the UN and disclose his stocks of weapons and nuclear programs? Nope! He came, hat in hand, to the US and the UK. I wonder why that is?

He saw the opportunity to sell some oil rather than have his country torn apart for it? (I'm not saying we went into either Afghanistan or Iraq because of oil, but they've have to have been idiots not to have an eye towards fuel security) Guess what happened to that? He became a client and his people rose up against him because America is hated (and us with them) because of the Iraq war.

If you want to know whether the war was a success or not, go ask someone who does not have a vested interest in it being one, like those affected by it.

[Audley Strange]

No the way to be popular and have no one wanting to attack you is to not walk around the worl with your dick out pissing in people's windows

We generally don't piss in people's windows unless they piss in ours first, or threaten to launch nuclear, biological, chemical or terrorist attacks against us.

Fuck popularity. I don't care if the US is popular with terrorists and their sycophants, or with tyrants and despots. I want them to FEAR us and what we can and will do to them if they fuck with us or our interests abroad.

Fight back? You're all over the place, was it a revenge mission or a humanitarian mission? Which is it?

We don't do "revenge" missions, we do public sanitation missions by taking out the garbage of the world for those pussies and cowards who haven't the balls to do so themselves.

Good for you, that's the spirit. None of this namby pamby foreign policy success. Your attitude here is, I think, one that people around the world think is a central tenet to your Regimes' ideology. Whether its right or not, you've exemplified it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it's accurate.

No its not. Which other rogue nations did you tackle? Which other State sponsors of terror? Saudia Arabia? Yes? How did that go? Syria? Yeah? Successful? The public pretext of this war was that Saddam was almost ready to attack your nation not that he needed deposed. What was the crap they spouted "The smoking gun being a mushroom cloud?" I must have heard that out of the mouths of Bush Rice and various pundits dozens of times. So the public story was different from the private one. They used the The War on Terror (not terrorism note) to promote it because it was convenient to do so in a country still reeling from a bitch slap. The debate was never about saving the Iraqi's it was about getting to him before he did a Bin Laden.

DESPITE NO EVIDENCE.

No, it was a very public change in overall policy. The US policy changed to one of addressing the issue globally. It was announced very early on after 9/11 that the war would be decades long, and it would entail many casualties on the part of Americans, and there would be losses, gains, setbacks and advances. The war would be fought militarily, diplomatically, via law enforcement, and via economics.

The idea of the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud came from the notion of "connecting the dots" and failing to do so. It was a recognition of the fundamental change that had occurred in the world - we had become a world that was not very far away from a rogue nation or a terrorist organization obtaining the ability to use nuclear or other catastrophic weapons (whereas previously, only a few, relatively stable, nations had that ability before). It is a legitimate concern.

Militarily, under Bush we took down Hussein's regime and the Taliban, that's two. Since then there have been military efforts in many different countries in the war on terrorism, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and other countries. Military, police and intelligence agencies around the worlds have killed and captured many terrorist leaders. Via international sanctions and other measures we have attempted to take action against Iran and Syria. Military action was taken in Qadaffi's Libya, and he was taken down (prior thereto, he coughed up his nuke program to the US and UK as a direct result of the American military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq).

0, as far as I know. Why in the world would that matter? The Brits are on the IRA watch. The global war is a big job, gotta divide tasks. Also, it's not about "fairness." I mean, we're not doing studies to make sure Guantanamo is populated by a proportionate cross section of scumbags from every race, color, creed and religion. It's pretty much a "take them as they come" operation.

Because they are North American citizens funding terrorists. Pretty fucking close to home eh? Closer than the IRA are and in your jurisdiction. Would seem a breeze, they're not shy, why haven't they gone down in this War on Terror? I suggest to you it's because its not a war on terror. Afghanistan might have been a war to root out terrorists. Iraq was not, despite it being sold to the public by politicians that way. This was an error that had terrible ramifications.

If they are committing a crime, then I'm sure they'd be prosecuted. The US Department of Justice took action against them in 1980 or 81.

I'm not aware of anything illegal they've done in the last 10 years. What is it that you're claiming?

Well, that's what we did. Well, we deposed him. Instead of shooting him unarmed in cold blood when he was captured, though, we did the horrible thing of arresting him, and handing him over for trial. Fuck, I didn't know, Audley, that this idea of busting into rooms and putting bullets in unarmed people, and sending drones to kill terrorist "suspects" was the new "ethics." Who knew that it was better to kill them than to capture them? I'll make a note of that for future reference.

Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist suspect, he was a leader of an independent foreign nation. State actors should be considered different than criminals. I have no problem with the assassinations of leaders who invade countries.

Even more reason to not just kill him. It's against the law to target foreign political leaders for assassination.

You should, then, be quite pleased that Saddams entire regime of criminals and despots was taken down, one-by-one, many of which were killed. That should be in line with your suggested course of action.

Indeed.

Good. That wouldn't have happened without the invasion.

Saddam had to go, yes. The opportunity though was taken rashly,

It was only agonized over and argued about for a year before the March 2003 invasion, and before that, we only agonized over it and tried to avoid it for 12 years after we ousted the guy from Kuwait. Rash? Not hardly. It was the most publicly pondered over and debated war in American history.

I don't think it was agonised over by anyone but Cheney to be honest, who saw it as a lost opportunity to make big bucks in the 90's. Certainly there was a lot of talk, but until Bush Jnr got into power and the regime started its movement against him, I think most countries and agencies and think tanks were suggesting he was pretty well contained.[/quote]

Sure, most OTHER countries - those who weren't doing the work - were just fine with it. The US and UK could "contain" them, and the other countries could flout the UN oil-for-food program and use it to line their pockets. Of course those other countries were content with that situation.

In 1998, thought the US policy of regime change was announced in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Bill Clinton.

The war has been a success.

So the plan was to piss off the international community, leave the country in a fucking mess, with it's people resenting you, millions of them displaced, refugees, or being in fear of their lives as collaborators, blown up by Islamic Lunatics, out of work, with regular brown and blackouts. Was it successful financially perhaps? Did that trillion dollars spent in funding U.S. contractors and mercenaries along with your own troops benefit the U.S. economy somehow? There are only two successes I can see. They got rid of Saddam and Obama can use it for his bid to be re-elected.

Well, they haven't. They've assisted in the war on terrorism globally. Initially, other tinpot dictators like Qadaffi came clean. Note who he came clean to, my friend. Did he go to the UN and disclose his stocks of weapons and nuclear programs? Nope! He came, hat in hand, to the US and the UK. I wonder why that is?

He saw the opportunity to sell some oil rather than have his country torn apart for it? (I'm not saying we went into either Afghanistan or Iraq because of oil, but they've have to have been idiots not to have an eye towards fuel security) Guess what happened to that? He became a client and his people rose up against him because America is hated (and us with them) because of the Iraq war.

LOL - Libya became a client of the US? We didn't buy oil from Libya, and we hated Libya, and Libya hated us. What a laugh. Suddenly, the reason the people rose up in Libya was because Qadaffi became a client of the US? That's flippin' hilarious.

If you want to know whether the war was a success or not, go ask someone who does not have a vested interest in it being one, like those affected by it.

Looks like things are looking up in Iraq. That's one.

[Drewish]

So after reading through things freshly, I am willing to say that the humanitarian case of ending Saddam's state sponsored killings was part of the case made to justify war with Iraq. Whether that case alone justified the act (as the case based on WMDs was grounded on flawed info) is another point. Clearly many of you are arguing from a utilitarian perspective of whether more lives have been lost or saved due to the war. Speaking personally, I don't really care about the lives of these strangers and am more concerned with the effects of the war on myself and my country, which I see as a financial (see debt funded) burden.

[Audley Strange]

No, it was a very public change in overall policy. The US policy changed to one of addressing the issue globally. It was announced very early on after 9/11 that the war would be decades long, and it would entail many casualties on the part of Americans, and there would be losses, gains, setbacks and advances. The war would be fought militarily, diplomatically, via law enforcement, and via economics.

Yes I recall that arrogance.

The idea of the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud came from the notion of "connecting the dots" and failing to do so. It was a recognition of the fundamental change that had occurred in the world - we had become a world that was not very far away from a rogue nation or a terrorist organization obtaining the ability to use nuclear or other catastrophic weapons (whereas previously, only a few, relatively stable, nations had that ability before). It is a legitimate concern.

I disagree, it's "Schroedinger's terrorist" writ large. There was not a fundamental change that had occurred in the world. There might have been a fundamental change to the structure of the Twin Towers and the pentagon which lead to a fundamental change in the foreign policy of the Bush administration, but nothing novel or radical happened until the war on terror fundamentally changed the attitude of the sycophants of the powerful as they changed the concept from charging criminal activity to considering criminals "terrorists" and "enemy combatants." The only thing that changed was the political outlook of the Western nations which began to think torture and pre-emptive attacks and invasion still gave them some moral high ground.

Militarily, under Bush we took down Hussein's regime and the Taliban, that's two.

No it's one. You did not take down the Taliban. You might have crippled Al-Qaeda's ability to train troops in Afghanistan (though even that is still debatable) but you did nothing to the Taliban.

Since then there have been military efforts in many different countries in the war on terrorism, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and other countries. Military, police and intelligence agencies around the worlds have killed and captured many terrorist leaders. Via international sanctions and other measures we have attempted to take action against Iran and Syria. Military action was taken in Qadaffi's Libya, and he was taken down (prior thereto, he coughed up his nuke program to the US and UK as a direct result of the American military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Pre-crime again.

If they are committing a crime, then I'm sure they'd be prosecuted. The US Department of Justice took action against them in 1980 or 81.

I'm not aware of anything illegal they've done in the last 10 years. What is it that you're claiming?

I'm claiming that they funded and gave support to terrorist organisations. Still neither had Saddam Hussein eh?

Even more reason to not just kill him. It's against the law to target foreign political leaders for assassination.

More's the pity, rather one dead politician than 100,000 dead citizens but that's just me. Still I'm unconvinced that the U.S. or even the U.K. regime have ever worried about such laws.

I don't think it was agonised over by anyone but Cheney to be honest, who saw it as a lost opportunity to make big bucks in the 90's. Certainly there was a lot of talk, but until Bush Jnr got into power and the regime started its movement against him, I think most countries and agencies and think tanks were suggesting he was pretty well contained.

Sure, most OTHER countries - those who weren't doing the work - were just fine with it. The US and UK could "contain" them, and the other countries could flout the UN oil-for-food program and use it to line their pockets. Of course those other countries were content with that situation.

In 1998, thought the US policy of regime change was announced in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Bill Clinton.

I'm sure I could find many other acts signed that were never acted upon.

The war has been a success.

So the plan was to piss off the international community, leave the country in a fucking mess, with it's people resenting you, millions of them displaced, refugees, or being in fear of their lives as collaborators, blown up by Islamic Lunatics, out of work, with regular brown and blackouts. Was it successful financially perhaps? Did that trillion dollars spent in funding U.S. contractors and mercenaries along with your own troops benefit the U.S. economy somehow? There are only two successes I can see. They got rid of Saddam and Obama can use it for his bid to be re-elected.

Well, they haven't. They've assisted in the war on terrorism globally. Initially, other tinpot dictators like Qadaffi came clean. Note who he came clean to, my friend. Did he go to the UN and disclose his stocks of weapons and nuclear programs? Nope! He came, hat in hand, to the US and the UK. I wonder why that is?

£$£$£$


He saw the opportunity to sell some oil rather than have his country torn apart for it? (I'm not saying we went into either Afghanistan or Iraq because of oil, but they've have to have been idiots not to have an eye towards fuel security) Guess what happened to that? He became a client and his people rose up against him because America is hated (and us with them) because of the Iraq war.

LOL - Libya became a client of the US? We didn't buy oil from Libya, and we hated Libya, and Libya hated us. What a laugh. Suddenly, the reason the people rose up in Libya was because Qadaffi became a client of the US? That's flippin' hilarious.

You deny that American diplomats were involved in negotiating deals with Gadaffi's people for favourable terms for U.S. and U.K. oil companies? You don't think this was made public? I know your news sources can often be restrictive in the U.S. when it comes to criticising "american interests" but it was widely reported.

If you want to know whether the war was a success or not, go ask someone who does not have a vested interest in it being one, like those affected by it.

Looks like things are looking up in Iraq. That's one.[/quote]

Should I show you a picture of the twisted babies, children with no legs, men with lines of bullet wounds down their back? Weeping women holding the corpses of their children? How about all the cars shot out, the victims left inside for days rotting? Showing me some staged picture does not convince me. I've no idea if those youngsters even knew what they were standing in front of. Hearing Iraqi's saying "it's worse that its ever been", that "Saddam had to be removed, but not this way".

It seems your sources are whitewashing the actuality of the disaster.

[Seth]

What do I think? I think that America's actions in no way "set in motion" anything of the sort. We took out Saddam, the Muslims took that opportunity to oppress Christians, so it is they who "set in motion" those events.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, it was a very public change in overall policy. The US policy changed to one of addressing the issue globally. It was announced very early on after 9/11 that the war would be decades long, and it would entail many casualties on the part of Americans, and there would be losses, gains, setbacks and advances. The war would be fought militarily, diplomatically, via law enforcement, and via economics.

Yes I recall that arrogance.

It's not arrogance. It's a recognition of an extant existential battle.

The idea of the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud came from the notion of "connecting the dots" and failing to do so. It was a recognition of the fundamental change that had occurred in the world - we had become a world that was not very far away from a rogue nation or a terrorist organization obtaining the ability to use nuclear or other catastrophic weapons (whereas previously, only a few, relatively stable, nations had that ability before). It is a legitimate concern.

I disagree, it's "Schroedinger's terrorist" writ large. There was not a fundamental change that had occurred in the world. There might have been a fundamental change to the structure of the Twin Towers and the pentagon which lead to a fundamental change in the foreign policy of the Bush administration, but nothing novel or radical happened until the war on terror fundamentally changed the attitude of the sycophants of the powerful as they changed the concept from charging criminal activity to considering criminals "terrorists" and "enemy combatants." The only thing that changed was the political outlook of the Western nations which began to think torture and pre-emptive attacks and invasion still gave them some moral high ground.

The fundamental change did not occur by virtue of the planes hitting the towers, etc. The fundamental change had occurred, and 9/11/01 was a wake up call to acknowledge reality.

Militarily, under Bush we took down Hussein's regime and the Taliban, that's two.

No it's one. You did not take down the Taliban. You might have crippled Al-Qaeda's ability to train troops in Afghanistan (though even that is still debatable) but you did nothing to the Taliban.

Nothing except kill most of the Taliban that were around in 2001. There are new folks around now, and they aren't in charge of Afghanistan.

Since then there have been military efforts in many different countries in the war on terrorism, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and other countries. Military, police and intelligence agencies around the worlds have killed and captured many terrorist leaders. Via international sanctions and other measures we have attempted to take action against Iran and Syria. Military action was taken in Qadaffi's Libya, and he was taken down (prior thereto, he coughed up his nuke program to the US and UK as a direct result of the American military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Pre-crime again.

What do you mean, "precrime?" If I understand you correctly, I would say, "good." That would be "connecting the dots." Waiting until another "crime" like 9/11/01 would be a gross dereliction of duty.

If they are committing a crime, then I'm sure they'd be prosecuted. The US Department of Justice took action against them in 1980 or 81.

I'm not aware of anything illegal they've done in the last 10 years. What is it that you're claiming?

Nothing. I'm trying to figure out why you would bring them up in the first place. If they haven't done anything even illegal in the last 10 years (post 9/11/01), then what should the US have done to them and why?

I'm claiming that they funded and gave support to terrorist organisations. Still neither had Saddam Hussein eh?

Actually, he did. But, Hussein was part of the "rogue state" element.

Even more reason to not just kill him. It's against the law to target foreign political leaders for assassination.

More's the pity, rather one dead politician than 100,000 dead citizens but that's just me. Still I'm unconvinced that the U.S. or even the U.K. regime have ever worried about such laws.

Well, it would have been easy to put a bullet in his head when he was in that hole. Didn't happen, though.

I don't think it was agonised over by anyone but Cheney to be honest, who saw it as a lost opportunity to make big bucks in the 90's. Certainly there was a lot of talk, but until Bush Jnr got into power and the regime started its movement against him, I think most countries and agencies and think tanks were suggesting he was pretty well contained.

Sure, most OTHER countries - those who weren't doing the work - were just fine with it. The US and UK could "contain" them, and the other countries could flout the UN oil-for-food program and use it to line their pockets. Of course those other countries were content with that situation.

In 1998, thought the US policy of regime change was announced in the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by President Bill Clinton.

I'm sure I could find many other acts signed that were never acted upon.

It was acted upon. But, feel free to find them. I don't think you can.

The war has been a success.

So the plan was to piss off the international community, leave the country in a fucking mess, with it's people resenting you, millions of them displaced, refugees, or being in fear of their lives as collaborators, blown up by Islamic Lunatics, out of work, with regular brown and blackouts. Was it successful financially perhaps? Did that trillion dollars spent in funding U.S. contractors and mercenaries along with your own troops benefit the U.S. economy somehow? There are only two successes I can see. They got rid of Saddam and Obama can use it for his bid to be re-elected.

Well, they haven't. They've assisted in the war on terrorism globally. Initially, other tinpot dictators like Qadaffi came clean. Note who he came clean to, my friend. Did he go to the UN and disclose his stocks of weapons and nuclear programs? Nope! He came, hat in hand, to the US and the UK. I wonder why that is?

£$£$£$


He saw the opportunity to sell some oil rather than have his country torn apart for it? (I'm not saying we went into either Afghanistan or Iraq because of oil, but they've have to have been idiots not to have an eye towards fuel security) Guess what happened to that? He became a client and his people rose up against him because America is hated (and us with them) because of the Iraq war.

LOL - Libya became a client of the US? We didn't buy oil from Libya, and we hated Libya, and Libya hated us. What a laugh. Suddenly, the reason the people rose up in Libya was because Qadaffi became a client of the US? That's flippin' hilarious.

You deny that American diplomats were involved in negotiating deals with Gadaffi's people for favourable terms for U.S. and U.K. oil companies? You don't think this was made public? I know your news sources can often be restrictive in the U.S. when it comes to criticising "american interests" but it was widely reported.

Our news sources are certainly not as restrictive as yours. And, we have access to all of yours, in addition to ours.

Your allegation was not that negotiations occurred over oil. Your allegation was that Qadaffi became a "client state."

If you want to know whether the war was a success or not, go ask someone who does not have a vested interest in it being one, like those affected by it.

Looks like things are looking up in Iraq. That's one.

Should I show you a picture of the twisted babies, children with no legs, men with lines of bullet wounds down their back? Weeping women holding the corpses of their children? How about all the cars shot out, the victims left inside for days rotting? Showing me some staged picture does not convince me. I've no idea if those youngsters even knew what they were standing in front of. Hearing Iraqi's saying "it's worse that its ever been", that "Saddam had to be removed, but not this way".

It seems your sources are whitewashing the actuality of the disaster.[/quote]

Yes, post your pictures.

And, I'll be glad to look at your sources -- link them or name them, please.

[Audley Strange]

Here are two reports about birth defects and deformities.

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635642/

As late as June this year reports were still coming in of a huge increase in deformity and infant mortality.

Success?

I'll save the forum from the pictures. You want to see some “google” Fallujah's Children and then I'm sure you'll dismiss it.

Some recent varied opinions of Iraqis rather than foreign politicians about the state of their country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16117874

Success?

List of those killed on 10th of December.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Success?

and just to show that we can all post propaganda...



Success!!!

[JimC]

Yet another reason why Libya =/= Iraq: we never "went into" Libya. We helped with an air campaign. Massive difference, especially in terms of public relations. And it was a campaign with far greater international support than Iraq, including support from the Arab League.

To say that there was greater reason to go into Iraq than Libya is just silly, and I still think it's an opinion made with partisan blinders on. What had begun in Libya was happening whether NATO and others got involved or not. Nothing was happening in Iraq in 2003; without an invasion, the status quo would've been the same in 2004. Considering that this status quo had not been presenting a problem for us for twelve years prior, there's no reason why it couldn't have stayed so longer. There was no crisis, no casus belli other than the Bush administration's own paranoia over Saddam.

And, btw, the US wasn't getting squat in terms of oil from Libya. Oil was actually a factor (like humanitarianism or spreading democracy, a minor driver) for Iraq. As long as we're taling about minor drivers for why Iraq happened, I recall certain officials saying much of the war could be paid for with Iraqi oil...

[Clinton Huxley]

See yet more people have been explosively disassembled in Baghdad today. That civil war is hotting up nicely.

[JimC]

See yet more people have been explosively disassembled in Baghdad today. That civil war is hotting up nicely.

I think the argument is over slight variations in imaginary friends...

[Clinton Huxley]

See yet more people have been explosively disassembled in Baghdad today. That civil war is hotting up nicely.

I think the argument is over slight variations in imaginary friends...

Aye, that's the usual excuse.

[JimC]

See yet more people have been explosively disassembled in Baghdad today. That civil war is hotting up nicely.

I think the argument is over slight variations in imaginary friends...

Aye, that's the usual excuse.

My imaginary friend is Bacchus, who doesn't give a fuck about anything as long as you drink enough...

He's a little pissed of with Islam, though...

[Clinton Huxley]

See yet more people have been explosively disassembled in Baghdad today. That civil war is hotting up nicely.

I think the argument is over slight variations in imaginary friends...

Aye, that's the usual excuse.

My imaginary friend is Bacchus, who doesn't give a fuck about anything as long as you drink enough...

He's a little pissed of with Islam, though...

I hope you have sacrificed to your God this day