4 years on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

Iraq is liberated? :confused:

---

Not yet, but the removal of Saddam was necessary to at least attempt liberating Iraq.

Getting rid of Saddam in itself, I think goes some way to justifying the war.

There should be no doubt about Saddams mentality. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population. Was he a danger to the world? I believe it is fair to assume he was!

Is the world a better place without Saddam? I think it is. Western publics would not have forgiven their political leaders if Saddam had been left in power and had then come to hold the world to ransom with horrific weapons.

And as has been pointed out, there have been 1000's of deaths in Iraq, but Tony Blair hasn't sent his troops out to kill. A lot of these deaths are caused by Iraqians, and the terrorists there. Once again, I think we are in a situation where we seem to forget who the bad guys are, and blame the people trying to do the right thing, and liberate Iraq, and fight terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

Liberating Iraq, and getting rid of Saddam, and yes, ridding the man capable of using weapons of mass destruction :)

---

there's about 10 other "leaders" who are capable of using WMD.

Would have been better for the CIA not to have championed Saddam in the 1950s, and for the west to have not armed Saddam in the 1980s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

Not yet, but the removal of Saddam was necessary to at least attempt liberating Iraq.

Getting rid of Saddam in itself, I think goes some way to justifying the war.

There should be no doubt about Saddams mentality. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population. Was he a danger to the world? I believe it is fair to assume he was!

Is the world a better place without Saddam? I think it is. Western publics would not have forgiven their political leaders if Saddam had been left in power and had then come to hold the world to ransom with horrific weapons.

And as has been pointed out, there have been 1000's of deaths in Iraq, but Tony Blair hasn't sent his troops out to kill. A lot of these deaths are caused by Iraqians, and the terrorists there. Once again, I think we are in a situation where we seem to forget who the bad guys are, and blame the people trying to do the right thing, and liberate Iraq, and fight terror.

---

you dont make any sense.....

who gave saddam the means and the know how to do all the things he did...the US UK and germans etc....

Iraq is worse off now than when Saddam was in power...

the biggest threat to peace in the world is blair and bush....

now i dont support this but, the guys who are attacking the brits and the US forces are defending their country as WE ARE THE invaders of the country, not the liberators and how can the US government say they want to spread democracy when the US is actually a REPUBLIC?????????????????

there is a big difference between a republic and a democracy, run country

also this is a war which bush wanted because he is a fooking mad man wanting more oil

IT MAKES ME SO MAD WHEN PEOPLE SAY THIS WAR WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO....THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS HAVE DIED FOR NOTHING AND IRAQIS AND HOW CAN WE THE WESTERN WORLD CALL OUR SELVES CIVILISED WHEN WE DO THINGS LIKE THIS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quattroporte

What, but forhget th African nations where civilians are still being killed in their thousands after 20years??? Why isn't that a hot topic?

---

because the Brits and US governments dont see anything worth having in africa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RALLY TEAM GB

you dont make any sense.....

who gave saddam the means and the know how to do all the things he did...the US UK and germans etc....

Iraq is worse off now than when Saddam was in power...

the biggest threat to peace in the world is blair and bush....

now i dont support this but, the guys who are attacking the brits and the US forces are defending their country as WE ARE THE invaders of the country, not the liberators and how can the US government say they want to spread democracy when the US is actually a REPUBLIC?????????????????

also this is a war which bush wanted because he is a fooking mad man wanting more oil

IT MAKES ME SO MAD WHEN PEOPLE SAY THIS WAR WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO....THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS HAVE DIED FOR NOTHING AND IRAQIS AND HOW CAN WE THE WESTERN WORLD CALL OUR SELVES CIVILISED WHEN WE DO THINGS LIKE THIS

---

I'm sorry, but Saddam was the man who committed these 'crimes'. Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech? :rolleyes:

And Britain and America aren't the people doing the majority of the killing, not even close. It's mainly the terrorists.

Saddam dead is better. I'll say it again. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population.

How anyone can say the world was better off with this man ruling a country is beyond me.

please not that i am no peace freak or what not, but it just fooks me off when people say that the war in iraq is a good thing.......

all those families either british, american or iraqi loosing family and friends for what.......nothing

thats my rant over with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RALLY TEAM GB

...all those families either british, american or iraqi loosing family and friends for what.......nothing...

---

...for oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

I'm sorry, but Saddam was the man who committed these 'crimes'. Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech? :rolleyes:

And Britain and America aren't the people doing the majority of the killing, not even close. It's mainly the terrorists.

Saddam dead is better. I'll say it again. He fought a protracted war with Iran, costing at least a million lives, he has gassed his own Kurdish population, he has persecuted the marsh Arabs, invaded and occupied Kuwait and he had launched missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia. He shown he had been willing to defy the world order and to terrorise and starve his own people to continue his weapons programme. He had diverted $3bn in the last year of power alone for that very purpose: money that could have gone to feed his own population.

How anyone can say the world was better off with this man ruling a country is beyond me.

---

you have misunderstood me my friend

the brits and the americans aided saddam in the iran war...we GAVE HIM THE WEAPONS AND THE MEANS to gas and kill the kurds.....

also because isreal is just as bad as the US government..think they can do what they want willy nilly

Iraq was invaded by the madman Bush who along with the jewish think tank in washington thought that they could do it for the sack of a bit of extra cash and alot of other things

Iraq WAS A SAFER PLACE THEN AS THERE WAS NO ROADSIDE BOMBS AND NO HUGE CIVIL WAR GOING ON AND IS WORSE OFF NOW BY THE ACTIONS OF THE INVASION.....

yes saddam wasa evil man, but bush is as bad if not worse than him...bush is a killer just like saddam was

and how much money has bush spent on this war, when he could give the american population free health car and feed the homeless eh????

Originally Posted by raphael123
Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech?



i dont think you want me to get into this one..i may upset you even further

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

I'm sorry, but Saddam was the man who committed these 'crimes'. Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech? :rolleyes: .

---

The gun-shop owner & the US govt thought that it was perfectly OK for Cho Song Ho to own a gun.

What does anyone need a gun for these days? You can't protect yourself against NSA/FBI/CIA spying with guns. :)

[quote="SOD"]The gun-shop owner & the US govt thought that it was perfectly OK for Cho Song Ho to own a gun.

lets thank the NRA shall we..

then you have a large percentage of people in the US who support the war in Iraq are the people who support the death penalty. yet for some odd reason are against abortions...contradiction at the highest level lol

and no i am not anti american,,just the ones who support Bush and his mad man thinking

"lets block stem cell research....yet put more money towards killing more of our troops and iraqis so we can have more money when i leave office as my daddy told me to"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RALLY TEAM GB

Originally Posted by raphael123
Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech?



i dont think you want me to get into this one..i may upset you even further

---

You haven't upset me, it seems like your the one who's upset here :(

Feel free to tell me what you think, you tease :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RALLY TEAM GB

please not that i am no peace freak or what not, but it just fooks me off when people say that the war in iraq is a good thing.......

all those families either british, american or iraqi loosing family and friends for what.......nothing

thats my rant over with

---

I'm sure the millions of iranians who died, and all their family members weren't exactly jumping with joy when the world was letting Saddam get away with it. Or the Kurdish population happy to see America invade Iraq, promise to help then, and then walk out...or the marsh arabs.

And I hardly think that America's poverty problems can be compared to that of Iraq. Sorry, but no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

I'm sure the millions of iranians who died, and all their family members weren't exactly jumping with joy when the world was letting Saddam get away with it. Or the Kurdish population happy to see America invade Iraq, promise to help then, and then walk out...or the marsh arabs.

---

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOD

Would have been better for the CIA not to have championed Saddam in the 1950s, and for the west to have not armed Saddam in the 1980s.

---

Yet is there any sign of the USA realising that such short-termist support for your enemies' enemies at one time can very easily come back to haunt you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Yet is there any sign of the USA realising that such short-termist support for your enemies' enemies at one time can very easily come back to haunt you?

---

Not likely. In Iraq they only had enemies. Shiites who were an enemy of Saddam now want to be friends with Iran who is an enemy of the US who was an enemy of Saddam who was an enemy of Iran. Well, maybe they were friends with the Kurds who were enemies with Turkey who is a friend of the US. Confused? You won't be after this episode of Soap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

---

You're doing it again. Just because you made a mistake in the first place, doesn't mean two wrongs make it right.

Can't people make a mistake, and try not to do it again, without the whole 'well you should have done this to start with..' like with the Harry being accepted into the army.

You can't change the past BDunnell, yet you always drag it back up. That can't be changed. We've got to look to the future (after we've learned from our mistakes - which in both cases I'm sure have been).

The leaders involved in 91 got critizised for leaving them with Saddam in power, this time, when they don't, and they carry out what they planned, they get critizised. It's a lose lose situation, so you may as well lose :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

You're doing it again. Just because you made a mistake in the first place, doesn't mean two wrongs make it right.

Can't people make a mistake, and try not to do it again, without the whole 'well you should have done this to start with..' like with the Harry being accepted into the army.

You can't change the past BDunnell, yet you always drag it back up. That can't be changed. We've got to look to the future (after we've learned from our mistakes - which in both cases I'm sure have been).

The leaders involved in 91 got critizised for leaving them with Saddam in power, this time, when they don't, and they carry out what they planned, they get critizised. It's a lose lose situation, so you may as well lose :dozey:

---

If everyone took your view, there would never be any Government inquiries into anything, no matter how serious, no scrutiny of important events after they happen, and no blame attached to wrongdoing because the important thing is to 'look ahead'. This is Tony Blair's line every time his Government gets into trouble — just draw a veil over it, because it will soon go away. Well, sometimes it won't. There would also be no historical record other than the official version, because, according to your view, there's no need to rake up the past. Sometimes, I think there is a very real need to do so.

As for what happened in 1991, you have to ask yourself why the Coalition then didn't take the opportunity to remove Saddam when they certainly had their chances. Except you won't ask yourself that, because it was in the past. I think it's rather important given what is happening now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

---

If you look at the history of actions in the UN involving Iraq, the vast majority of human rights issues related resolutions came at the hands of the US and UK, who I might add were also the ones who used physical means to protect people within Iraq by way of the no fly zones.

To claim that those people who on a number of occasions were subject to hostile acts while supporting the no fly zones somehow didn't care about human rights isn't a very accurate statement. And to claim that the administrations of those countries didn't care shows total disregard for the fact that they funded that protection.


The western powers did create Saddam, and I'll be the first to admit that. Those same people were for the most part wanting to rid Iraq of him in the Gulf War, but the political influence of the European nations had a large part in not desiring to do so. I'm sure both would have done things differently if they knew what the end result would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If you look at the history of actions in the UN involving Iraq, the vast majority of human rights issues related resolutions came at the hands of the US and UK, who I might add were also the ones who used physical means to protect people within Iraq by way of the no fly zones.

To claim that those people who on a number of occasions were subject to hostile acts while supporting the no fly zones somehow didn't care about human rights isn't a very accurate statement. And to claim that the administrations of those countries didn't care shows total disregard for the fact that they funded that protection.

---

This is true, but I suppose I am talking about those individuals in power now in the USA. If the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush really had genuine convictions about such things, they should have spoken out then, as many others did. I can't recall whether Tony Blair did speak in favour of taking action in about 1992-93.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

If everyone took your view, there would never be any Government inquiries into anything, no matter how serious, no scrutiny of important events after they happen, and no blame attached to wrongdoing because the important thing is to 'look ahead'. This is Tony Blair's line every time his Government gets into trouble — just draw a veil over it, because it will soon go away. Well, sometimes it won't. There would also be no historical record other than the official version, because, according to your view, there's no need to rake up the past. Sometimes, I think there is a very real need to do so.

As for what happened in 1991, you have to ask yourself why the Coalition then didn't take the opportunity to remove Saddam when they certainly had their chances. Except you won't ask yourself that, because it was in the past. I think it's rather important given what is happening now.

---

That's not what I'm saying at all!
I'm not saying there shouldn't be an inquiry into any wrong doings or mistake at all. I think I've actually said we should learn from our mistakes. In most cases, there is an inquiry, and we do learn from these mistakes.

I'm just stating your attitude of 'well, they should have done it years ago' or 'well they shouldn't have let him in the army in the first place' doesn't help things at all. You have to accept mistakes were made, as they can't be changed, and make sure you've learnt from them, and then make the best possible decision now, without making another mistake!

How on earth going back to decisions made years ago, wrongly or rightly, is going to help things NOW is beyond me. Everyone knows we should have removed Saddam in 91, so saying now, in 2007 'well we should have done it in 91' isn't going do much to help is it?

It's the attitude, when discussing what we should do in Iraq now, people scream 'we shouldn't be there in the first place' I find annoying- how on earth is that going to be helpful? We need to look to the future, rather than look back at descisions made 20yrs.

But that doesn't mean I don't think we should learn from our mistakes, I think we SHOULD do. But I don't think, when making a decision now, we should just say 'we should have done it right 20yrs ago'. That's not helpful, and doesn't solve anything.

raphael123

tell you what..if you are so behind bush and this war and all the other idiots who support it, why dont you go to iraq and do your bit for the war?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This is true, but I suppose I am talking about those individuals in power now in the USA. If the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush really had genuine convictions about such things, they should have spoken out then, as many others did. I can't recall whether Tony Blair did speak in favour of taking action in about 1992-93.

---

Most of the post Gulf War resolutions addressed the humanitarian issue, including 1441. Some have available transcripts of discussion comments at the UN website. Since most if not all come from the UN representatives, it's not always a direct insight as to the government leaders but it should be a fairly accurate representation of that governments desires and concerns.

I personally don't think any world leader disregarded the human issue, it's just that they differ in the approach to solving it. Similar to the issue in Darfur today, there is no easy solution that all of the world would support. I know for quite some time they even avoided the use of the term genocide when speaking of Darfur.

Many of Bush's public addresses voiced the concerns for the people of Iraq, as I'm sure did leaders of other countries.

the speeches which bush made, did not voice his concern for the people of iraq...he couldnt give a rats arse bout them...aslong as he gets his blood stained hands on the oil he dont care

anyone who supports him is as bad as he is

Rally Team, you just keep on spouting off your crap, you have no cogent argument I see. It is really simple on why polticians lie and obscure what they do, because trolls like yourself are so cynical, and so bloody obnoxious about how things work in this world, you cant handle the truth.

The truth was, Blair and Bush THOUGHT Saddam was a threat. This was based on reports from the CIA ( George Tenet is trying to point fingers now, but that is only because Iraq is so unpopular. Weasels always change the truth to make themselves look good ), SDECE in France, Military Intelligence in the UK and yes, even the UN thought Saddam had weapons. Now we can debate all day about how stupid all these intelligence agencies are, but the point is it is a difficult job to find out what is going on in any dictatorship that is in this part of the world. Saddam had the weapons to gas the Kurd's, and use on Iran in his wars with them, so spare me the BS about how he NEVER had them. I heard that one too.

We live in a world where 20 Al Quaida terrorists flew 4 planes into the World Trade Center. America wanted revenge, but they also wanted to change the culture of the Arab world. Was this foolish? Maybe naive, it is never foolish for wanting a chaotic and often violent part of the world to treat human beings with decency. Is this part of the world floating with oil? Ya, it is, but the thing is, America has spent a lot more fighting this war than they have gotten back in oil, which is, NIL. NOTHING. NADA. America don't get the oil from this part of the world really. I bet those of you in the UK might know where it is going, go look at your cars. It is the contient of Europe that gets the lion's share of this oil. Yet I don't see many people in Europe having any appreication for that.

So now the Americans mainly are the targets in Iraq for a stupid war that maybe they should have stayed away from, but all the intelligence in the world was saying there was a threat. Saddam was NOT shy about funding terrorism in the past, and while there are no real concrete evidence that Saddam was talking to Al Quaida, we all know how poor intelliegence is in this part of the world don't we? So Bushie got a little naive and invaded with the help of Blair. Did I think it was a good idea? No, because as we have seen, fixing Iraq after the war was always my concern, but I also knew that Saddam would hook up with someone to hurt someone. He was killing over 20000 people a year in his regime, so it wasn't exactly a tea party living in his country. The Shiites and Kurds were not crying when they saw him run off believe me. Where was all your righteous indingnation for those dead? Where is all your concern for those living in Iran under another tyranny that will punish women by death for adultry? How about punishing women for not wearing veils and holding hands with their husband? Where is your violently angry posts about that? Hypocrite, this is an anti Bush/Blair fest, we cant talk about HUMAN RIGHTS????

The real problem with those who object to this war is they ignore the fact that the war WAS LEGAL (under the terms of the UN resolutions to end the first Gulf War, the final option for NOT obeying them was a continuation of the invasion of the FIRST Gulf War), they ignore the fact that American oil companies and America itself are NOT making money off of this. The oil prices going up is making money for the oil companies, but this is more to do with the price fixing that occurs when the OPEC nations adjust their production to keep the supplies at a level where THEY make money. THis happens anyhow, oil or no oil, and the Russians trying to flood the market with oil is part of this contraction on part of the OPEC nations as well. To make simplistic and stupid statements that many of you make, is to ignore the fact that the world is a complicated place, it is run by flawed but often earnest men and women, and the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Iraq is a mess, yes, but yelling about how bad George W Bush is, and how stupid Tony Blair was for following him ( Blair followed him because all the intelligence he was shown obviously scared the hell out of him ) is just pointless, and stupid. Iraq is NOT the basketcase many of you think it is, but it is a small area around Baghdad where most of the problems are now occurring. Many of the terrorists in the area are Al Quaida now, and if they want to fight the US and the UK over there, it is better than in Kent or Maryland now isn't it? That is what is happening now. So rather than pointing fingers about how sad this is going on for over 4 years, why don't you opponents of this war say what you would do now to fix things? Pulling out is just telling the Arab world we don't have the guts to stand behind our princples of human rights and democracy. Nice thing to do, encourage a bunch of dictators that you are afraid of a fight. That sort of thinking was around in 1938, and we all know how THAT turned out.

No, you can yell and scream how stupid war is, I won't disagree.
You can complain that Bush is an idiot, I will say maybe, but he is gone in 18 months too.
You can complain how stupid Blair is, well, I must say I disagree, but I don't always like him either.
You can state how you are worried about the Iraqi people, I say you are full of crap, because you were not likely as mad about things there before Saddam was removed.

Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The truth was, Blair and Bush THOUGHT Saddam was a threat. This was based on reports from the CIA ( George Tenet is trying to point fingers now, but that is only because Iraq is so unpopular. Weasels always change the truth to make themselves look good ), SDECE in France, Military Intelligence in the UK and yes, even the UN thought Saddam had weapons. Now we can debate all day about how stupid all these intelligence agencies are, but the point is it is a difficult job to find out what is going on in any dictatorship that is in this part of the world.

---

The UN inspectors managed perfectly well, as it turned out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

---

Sorry, but your level of self-righteous anger is doing your argument down, in my book at least. While I agree that the post to which your rant responds is a very simplistic view of the situation, and not one that I hope I would put across, calling those of us who oppose the war 'leftist fools', 'hypocrites' and 'childish', and accusing us of having 'wee minds' does your cause no good at all in my eyes. If you want to be called names back, so be it.

"Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO."


fixed version:

Just have an argument. It likely hurts their wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just oil companies.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that extra bottom line and many more are still willing to keep doing it (lucky them). Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RALLY TEAM GB

the speeches which bush made, did not voice his concern for the people of iraq...he couldnt give a rats arse bout them...aslong as he gets his blood stained hands on the oil he dont care

anyone who supports him is as bad as he is

---

You should attempt dealing in facts. They can be found on the internet at times, and often are hidden in books as well.

The Bush speeches, and the actions of the US during the entire post Gulf War period, supported increased humanitarian aid to Iraq. Both the US and UK pushed the Oil For Food Program, which did just this, even though they had to tolerate illegal oil trade and price fixing to allow the aid to happen.

If you look at facts, you will also find that the majority of the price fixing kickbacks to Saddam also came primarily from the countries that opposed the war. It was their greed for oil that funded Saddams illicit trade, not the greed of the US or UK.




BDunnel,

For the record, I don't think your view is one of the simplistic closed minded ones. I can't speak for Mark in Oshawa, but I felt his comment was aimed at those without any valid points of fact, rather than the people like yourself engaging in actual fact based discussion.