Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Well at least you are not suffering from the delusion that the war was started over WMDs or links with Al Queda.In truth, I am not aware of why the war was started, but I suspect that it was at least in part to stabilise the Iraqi oil industry. I have yet to think of another logical explanation, though that is no reason to suggest that no other exists. However, it has been my observation that wars are generally fought for selfish reasons.What about US and British terrorism that has resulted in casualities that are orders of magnitude higher than those attributed to the Islamic extremists.Well, sir, the ineptitude of the commanders of that conflict is regrettable, but ultimately the region is of absolutely no strategic value, so I suspect that the dissolution of the Taliban government was the primary reason for the war.I do not approve of our coalition forces' tactics, but then the United States military has always favoured "Shock & Awe", and they pay little heed to who is killed during the process. Consider the end of the second world war, for example. It is patent, when one understands something of Japanese culture, that a cessation of hostilities was feasible, but in a shocking act of cowardice, it was preferred to devastate two major cities and neutralise some 200,000 people, most of whom were civilians. It may be distasteful to you and I, but I try to remember that war is war.Well i can't disagree with that.Who could? I am particularly amused by the vocation of his wife.Wow, behind the veneer of being a respectful articulate debator lies the truth i.e. that you are an elitist bigotFirst, I am a respectful debator, but when dealing with scum like kinda (and I suggest you view his profile to understand why I use this word), I feel no obligation to remain so. Second, while "it is a truth universally acknowledged" that there is always a bigger fish, I do like to think that my proficiency with English is tolerable at least.Third, I am an elitist and I do not and never will apologise for that. Finally, I am something of a bigot, but in my experience almost everybody is, so I plead the human condition. I especially like the "ungrateful" jibeI'm glad. I too think it's a little strange when somebody is inducted from poverty into a nation by the grace of its denizens, is nourished by her wealth, educated by her schools, sheltered by her bosom, and then consistently insults and despises everything to do with it.truly amazing given the history between the UK and India.I'm not particularly interested in discussing this with you, because you are not a good historian and you never will be, for the simple reason that you judge every past act with a set of modern values, and always see the conqueror as the wrongdoer. In my experience, things are always a little more complicated than that. Again my friend saying a person is scumI call kinda scum because he has suggested that I am a a homosexual on numerous occasions, has insulted my country in terms too rude to be repeated here, has used foul language against me in almost every single argument he has ever written and has even, when I used my own face as a profile image, called me ugly. Now, I care nothing for the opinion of an Indian on whether I look good or not, any more that I would trust my own opinion on the beauty of a Masai tribeswoman, but it is patent that he despises me, and I have every intention of returning the favour.In future I shall thank you to consider your accusations a little more thoroughly. the roylas are just people held up on a pedestal by some archaic (and frankly stupid) traditionIn my experience, tradition is rarely wholly stupid. am i scum also?No, sir, you simply have the tiresome habit of being self-righteous.