"I am beginning to wonder why you care so much about these 500 prisoners while Islamists and Arab nationalists kill hundreds of thousands in Sudan and elsewhere."

I care about the rule of law, and do not find it acceptable that democratic nations should have one rule for its own citizens and other rules for non-citizens. Guantanemo is simply a recruiting tool for more Jihadists since it plays to their propaganda.

"WE already know left-wing opinions."

I am not left wing. I am a disillusioned one nation British Tory. Iraq cannot be considered a left/right issue.

The war in Iraq was not the decision of the UK, it was the decision of Bush. Blair was part of his gang but the UK did not want this war which is why I say unilaterally. I.e. Blair simply joined the neo-con clique.

Then it still was not Unilateral.  Whomever makes the decision is irrelevant.  Unilateral means "on your own" and it was not on our own.  So say what you mean and quit throwing around the talking points of your master for it is clear you - A: have no idea what they mean, and B: Cant think for yourself.

I care about the rule of law, and do not find it acceptable that democratic nations should have one rule for its own citizens and other rules for non-citizens.

I am a no American citizen. Yet I am somehow not in Guantanamo. Is it perhaps possible that the distinction is between lawful combatants and normal people on the one side and terrorist scum on the other?

But I must say, I agree with you. Guantanamo Bay should be closed as a prison. The prisoners should be sent to one of the countries who do not go against the UN (and are thus "democratic") and do not start wars against fascist regimes. Egypt would be a good place.

They execute Islamists.

P.S.: I'll keep this new definition of "democratic" I got from you. It's really cute and very useful for my dictionary. One apparently defends one's reputation for democracy by following the UN rather than one's voters. Very good.

"Which of my liberties where abandoned here?"

It is happening in all western countries now, draconian laws which make nobody safer and simply give the state more powers to act in secret and detain without charge. Take for example the 90 day rule Blair is attempting to push through here, although it only got a majority of 1 in the commons yesterday.

"Yes, because Bush is the only person in America (or the world) who makes decisions." Away from planet 'God Bless America' we know that is bullshit.

Then why did you make the statement?  You are arguing with yourself.  He was being sarcastic of your simplistic response.

"eputation for democracy by following the UN rather than one's voters."

Oh yeah, because we all know how popular Iraq was! Fool.

"I am a no American citizen. Yet I am somehow not in Guantanamo."

I have to say with kind of logic you are one of the weakest debaters I have ever come across.

Oh yeah, because we all know how popular Iraq was! Fool.

American voters said attack. The UN said do not attack. George Bush followed his voters, not the UN. Andrew.

P.S.: Ukraine is also a good example of a country where weapons inspections worked. That's because their government, presumably the one you argue was like Saddam's regime, did not interfere with the inspectors.

Oh yeah, because we all know how popular Iraq was! Fool.

I have to say with kind of logic you are one of the weakest debaters I have ever come across.

Actually, I was going to say that of you since you are the one resorting to name calling, which means you have lost the debate.

Leauki is no man's fool.  Which is why he is not a sheeple.

PCS, if you are a British Tory you must know Alan B'Stard!

Do you?

Anyway,

I have to say with kind of logic you are one of the weakest debaters I have ever come across.

With kind of logic, indeed. It was you who established the theory that the distinction the US made was one of citizens and non-citizens, whereas I argue, and I still believe I am right, that the disctinction is one between two other groups.

"if you are a British Tory you must know Alan B'Stard!"

Of course, but I feel it was a rather unfair potrayal by Rik Mayll of some well love Conservative ministers.

"and I still believe I am right"

Ah, a fanatic.

Actually, I was going to say that of you since you are the one resorting to name calling, which means you have lost the debate.

Name calling? I thought he just signed his statement.

Leauki is no man's fool. Which is why he is not a sheeple.

How strong can one's debate skills be if they include name calling?

"if you are a British Tory you must know Alan B'Stard!" Of course, but I feel it was a rather unfair potrayal by Rik Mayll of some well love Conservative ministers.

That is a matter of opinion.

"and I still believe I am right" Ah, a fanatic.

Indeed. I do not change my mind just because somebody calls me names. That makes me a fanatic, I suppose.

(Another word to add to my dictionary.)

Name calling? I thought he just signed his statement.

Oops!  My mistake!