What did I learn from TIME today...?

[Eleas]

"What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that Washington never told a lie;
I learned that soldiers seldom die;
I learned that everybody's free,
And that's what the teacher said to me,
And that's what I learned in school today,
That's what I learned in school."

It's official. I have now chosen a side in the conflict. And, surprise surprise, it ain't the US. In this post I will discuss the reasons in a clear, concise fashion, though I daresay anyone who follows independent news would find themselves hard pressed to disagree. Especially TIME Europe, that fiercely independent not-at-all-US-sponsored magazine.

There is a famous story about the frog in the cooking pot. Goes something like this: in the first instance, you take a frog and place it in cold water. You heat this water up slowly. The frog stays inside. Eventually, the water'll be so hot, the frog dies from the heat. In the second instance, you throw the frog into boiling water. The frog immediately jumps out.

Up until today, the increase in temperature was tolerable. Then I read that fucking paper.

"What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that policemen are my friends,
I learned that justice never ends,
I learnt that mudderers die for their crimes
Even if we make mistakes some times,
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school."

Ah yes, what did I learn in TIME today, dear little reader of mine? I learned that Iraq isn't a legitimate country, it's Saddam's Regime of Terror. I learned that the only Tradegies that occur in this country - sorry, this Corrupt Regime - befall American soldiers. I learned that Saddam doesn't have co-workers, he has henchmen. I learned that the habits of a dictator's family is a very relevant topic when discussing a war. I learned that a sudden crippling attack upon a country is easily justified - just check to see if the population wears towels on their heads.
And that is what Shrubby told me today
That's what he wants me to think.

"What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned that war is not so bad,
I learned about the great ones we have had,
We fought in Germany and in France,
And some day I might get my chance,
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school."

The world has the right to be afraid. We now know, once again, what a superpower can do, when it controls everything and has all the cards. As any sovereign nation, let's not forget that annexation and subjugation are just a rhetorical slogan away.

Three things. Three things that make the US so very very dangerous. The first is power to take what they want, an easily understood principle. If the US wants to do something, they can just reach out and squash anyone in the way.
The second is indifference. The US doesn't, as a whole, care about the rest of the world. The life of an American is worth more than a thousand civilians from any other country. Europe, to the US, is a monolithic entity that has a single opinion on all matters.
The third is hypocrisy. Attacking another country is the worst crime imaginable - unless you happen to think said country is starting to entertain thoughts of building weapons equal to your own. Supplying terrorists is bad, unless it happened a few years ago. Concentration camps are abominations, and never happened in the US.
And that's what I didn't learn in TIME at all, as I've known it a long time.

"What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned our government must be strong,
It's always right and never wrong,
Our leaders are the finest men
And we elect 'em again and again,
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school."

And all that it reminds me of is a story a friend of mine told me some weeks ago. A swedish guy encounters a really obnoxious guy from the US while on a visit to Japan. They end up verbally assaulting each other, and finally the American, dazed and desperate for any victory, blurts out his compelling argument. "Hey, didn't we beat you guys in World War Two!?"

To which the Swede replies with the immortal words of The Dude.

"Well... you know... that's just, like, your opinon, man."

My opinions may be shallow. They may be one-sided. They might even (concievably but unlikely) remind some of you of American news reporting. I hope not. This is just my opinion, and I'm venting it here.

And that's all he wrote.

[InnerBrat]

Excellent post, man. Seriously well written.

[Pendragon]

Concentration camps are abominations, and never happened in the US.

Hmm, this reminds of the prisoners at the Guantanamo base, wich isnt in the US. So the people dont have the rights that they would have in the US, even though theyre prisoners of the US. Not prisoners of war though. Actually, it seems to be some confusion on what kind of prisoners they actually are.

Obviously, theyre all vile terrorists, otherwise they wouldnt be locked up.
But, then again, arent all men supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty?
Then again, theres probably no problem in proving them guilty.
Well that is if they ever went to court. Or someone actually pressed charges against them.
Evryone in the US has a right to a quick trial, a phonecall and some other basic stuff like not being able to be held for no particular reason.

Prisoners of War have other basic rights wich the folks over at the Guantanamo base haven't got. Since the US was never really at war with Afghanistan. It was a "police action", wich would explain why a shitload of people got locked and tried for their crimes. No wait, they havent been tried at all.

If I didnt have such a bonafide trust in the United States of Godblessed America's righteousness, I'd think that the US were keeping them off American territory and in some legal limbo between POW and felon so they can deny them basic human rights, since even their own laws wont let them hold them.

Now, If these men are terrorists, try them and punish them. But if they are denied basic human rights, what does that make the US?
Apparently, ANYONE can be arrested by US military and held on a military base without trial indefinetly. I dont know about you, but I find that kinda creepy.

You know what's even more creepy? The country thats doing this calls itself "The Land of the Free", "The Leader of the Free World" takes on the duty to arbitrarily hand out this "Freedom" wherever they see fit.

If a nation with crooked leaders is a crooked nation, then what kind of nation is the US, when its government violates not only international law, but it's own as well?

I'm actually starting to understand the NRA gun nuts. If I lived in a country who could incarcerate me and strip me of every single right I have, I'd want to be able to protect myself from the government to, or more likely I'd leave the damn country.

Honestly, Guantanamo is starting to look like Castle If.

[Durandal]

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether is it a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-Hermann Göering, Reich-Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials, 1946-46.

That's the the full quote of my signature. If it worked for the Third Reich, why can't it work for America?

[Durandal]

By the way, this should probably be in the Politics forum.

[Morat]

There is a famous story about the frog in the cooking pot. Goes something like this: in the first instance, you take a frog and place it in cold water. You heat this water up slowly. The frog stays inside. Eventually, the water'll be so hot, the frog dies from the heat. In the second instance, you throw the frog into boiling water. The frog immediately jumps out.

Nice anecdote. Its completely false of course, but you still get 10 points for effort.

[Durandal]

And, of course, you're just going to make statements as though they were facts, without bothering to support them with anything resembling argumentation.

You get zero points for effort and minus five for being a fucktard.

[Uther]

And, of course, you're just going to make statements as though they were facts, without bothering to support them with anything resembling argumentation.

You get zero points for effort and minus five for being a fucktard.

I might be wrong, but this quote could easily apply to the original post.

It's not nice to spew anecdotes, especially when they hurt my feelings (me being an American and all.)

[Durandal]

I might be wrong, but this quote could easily apply to the original post.

Then you might want to actually read the original post.

It's not nice to spew anecdotes, especially when they hurt my feelings (me being an American and all.)

I hope you're not being serious.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether is it a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-Hermann Göering, Reich-Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials, 1946-46.

That's the the full quote of my signature. If it worked for the Third Reich, why can't it work for America?

We don't have to speculate. It's already worked. I can barely count the number of times I've been called a hippie or liberal, or told I "don't support our troops" on this board since the war-talk started, and this board is supposed to be a haven for free-thinkers.

[Uther]

I might be wrong, but this quote could easily apply to the original post.

Then you might want to actually read the original post.

It's not nice to spew anecdotes, especially when they hurt my feelings (me being an American and all.)

I hope you're not being serious.

I'm serious. Let's see

The first is power to take what they want, an easily understood principle. If the US wants to do something, they can just reach out and squash anyone in the way.

As far as I'm aware, American military power, although enormous, has not yet become omnipotent. It takes months to move large forces into place, is immensely difficult without host countries (this Iraqi war would be impossible without allied support), and has no guarantee of success. The US could defeat any nation on earth, but not every nation. At this point, we'd be immensely strained even trying to handle a two front war.

The second is indifference. The US doesn't, as a whole, care about the rest of the world. The life of an American is worth more than a thousand civilians from any other country. Europe, to the US, is a monolithic entity that has a single opinion on all matters.

That's a gross generality, and I challenge you to prove the US "doesn't, as a whole, care about the rest of the world." Yes, the USA places more value on its own troops than on foreign civilians- but the enormous care we are currently taking in Iraq to avoid civilian casualties should demonstrate at least some level of "caring." Pains are taken to avoid every casuality, foreign or not. To say the US sees Europe as "monolithic" is also quite a significant generality I challenge you to prove.

I also note at least two anecdotes in the original post which, while cute, don't seem to prove anything.

[Soontir C'boath]

and this board is supposed to be a haven for free-thinkers.

You do realize that people like me that hangs around here aren't taking or having anything to do with this.
This place is a haven for free-thinkers BUT there will be those that oppose your views and BRING IT OUT. To think less of it is absurd.

Cyaround,
Jason

[Durandal]

We don't have to speculate. It's already worked. I can barely count the number of times I've been called a hippie or liberal, or told I "don't support our troops" on this board since the war-talk started, and this board is supposed to be a haven for free-thinkers.

Agreed, though this board hardly sees the worst of it. Anyone opposed to the war in the general populace is automatically labeled as a "peacenik" or a "hippie" by the fanatical and sometimes even more reasonable pro-war people.

As far as I'm aware, American military power, although enormous, has not yet become omnipotent. It takes months to move large forces into place, is immensely difficult without host countries (this Iraqi war would be impossible without allied support), and has no guarantee of success. The US could defeat any nation on earth, but not every nation. At this point, we'd be immensely strained even trying to handle a two front war.

That's nice, but what does it have to do with the fact that the US can single out any nation is chooses, invade and win, as long as we can come up with any kind of link to terrorism in that country? Did you miss the part in Bush's speech where he told the rest of the world that they were either with America or against us? People don't like being told that if they don't kiss our asses and fully cooperate with us, they'll be considered our enemies. Shrub has done nothing but exacerbate the "ugly American" stereotype that permeates Europe.

That's a gross generality, and I challenge you to prove the US "doesn't, as a whole, care about the rest of the world." Yes, the USA places more value on its own troops than on foreign civilians- but the enormous care we are currently taking in Iraq to avoid civilian casualties should demonstrate at least some level of "caring." Pains are taken to avoid every casuality, foreign or not. To say the US sees Europe as "monolithic" is also quite a significant generality I challenge you to prove.

The current administration doesn't give a flying fuck about Europe. That much has been demonstrated by Shrub's cowboy-like approach to foreign policy. I'll leave Björn to defend the rest of his statements.

[Morat]

And, of course, you're just going to make statements as though they were facts, without bothering to support them with anything resembling argumentation.

I'm sorry. I assumed that it was so obvious that a frog isn't going to sit around in water at lethal temperatures that I didn't think posting a source was needed. However, since you clearly know nothing about biology, here you go:

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.htm

[Eleas]

Excellent post, man. Seriously well written.

Thanks, man.

I'm sorry. I assumed that it was so obvious that a frog isn't going to sit around in water at lethal temperatures that I didn't think posting a source was needed. However, since you clearly know nothing about biology, here you go:

Thank you for successfully disproving the urban legend I used as an analogy to describe my emotional state. You really got me there, sport.

I might be wrong, but this quote could easily apply to the original post.

It's not nice to spew anecdotes, especially when they hurt my feelings (me being an American and all.)

Ohhh... telling anecdotes isn't nice? I suppose movies aren't allowed either then. Or writing books, or reading them. I'm sure the Government approves of your particular take on the Thought Police. Hey, what do you know, I even came up with a slogan: "Loose Lips Make You Look Like A Muslim - Don't Tell Any Stories At All"!

*happily ticks off another point on the "verified redneck stereotypes" chart*

As far as I'm aware, American military power, although enormous, has not yet become omnipotent. It takes months to move large forces into place, is immensely difficult without host countries (this Iraqi war would be impossible without allied support), and has no guarantee of success. The US could defeat any nation on earth, but not every nation. At this point, we'd be immensely strained even trying to handle a two front war.

Ah, the Boy Wonder returns. Punctual as clockwork and twice as predictable.

By the same token, if a lone bank robber carries an SMG, he isn't in control of the situation? I mean, if everyone rushed him at once, he'd be easy enough to... but waitaminute, why don't they?

Because he can kill the first people that try.

Here's a hint, oh idiot child. It begins with an N and ends in radioactive ashes. Of course, I didn't claim the US could take on a united world. Because, you know, like, they just wouldn't have to.

That's a gross generality, and I challenge you to prove the US "doesn't, as a whole, care about the rest of the world." Yes, the USA places more value on its own troops than on foreign civilians- but the enormous care we are currently taking in Iraq to avoid civilian casualties should demonstrate at least some level of "caring."

I see the concept of propaganda is lost upon you. The US is losing the propaganda war as it is. Civilian casualities would be absolutely fatal to the war effort regarding everything pertaining to the Iraqi population.

Pains are taken to avoid every casuality, foreign or not. To say the US sees Europe as "monolithic" is also quite a significant generality I challenge you to prove.

What? You want me to prove that a huge number of people claim that "Europe is ungrateful", when Europe is a fucking continent? You want me to prove that TIME Europe frequently refers to Europe as a counterpart to the US, without any further differentiation, while discussing political maneuvering? There was even an article on how the US and Europe are at odds, and it was pretty telling.

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip ... 01620.html

The US wants Europe to lay forth a unified position, despite the fact that Europe is a continent. That's about as meaningful as asking Mount Everest's fucking opinion.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/piper ... 05014.html

Again, the US wonders why Europe just doesn't state it's unified opinion.

I also note at least two anecdotes in the original post which, while cute, don't seem to prove anything.

That's right, you're the guy who thinks anecdotes are inherently bad. The anecdotes don't prove anything because they are descriptive in nature. They describe not my argument, but the thoughts behind it. I am somewhat puzzled as to how you're able to read and still unable to grasp this fact.

[Colonel Olrik]

That was excellent. I feel like making it an announcement titled "Cry for Sanity", in the politics forum.

[Queeb Salaron]

Hey, what do you know, I even came up with a slogan: "Loose Lips Make You Look Like A Muslim - Don't Tell Any Stories At All"!

That was the funniest goddamned thing I've read in weeks. Thank you for that.

...oh, the rest of it was good, too.

[Uther]

Ohhh... telling anecdotes isn't nice? I suppose movies aren't allowed either then. Or writing books, or reading them. I'm sure the Government approves of your particular take on the Thought Police. Hey, what do you know, I even came up with a slogan: "Loose Lips Make You Look Like A Muslim - Don't Tell Any Stories At All"!

*happily ticks off another point on the "verified redneck stereotypes" chart*

This is a logic forum, not a storytelling forum. I don't care how you choose to spice up your arguments or positions, but things like slogans and anecdotes should be used, at most, to supplement. I'm not sure exactly what your redneck remark is referring to.

Ah, the Boy Wonder returns. Punctual as clockwork and twice as predictable.

By the same token, if a lone bank robber carries an SMG, he isn't in control of the situation? I mean, if everyone rushed him at once, he'd be easy enough to... but waitaminute, why don't they?

Because he can kill the first people that try.

Here's a hint, oh idiot child. It begins with an N and ends in radioactive ashes. Of course, I didn't claim the US could take on a united world. Because, you know, like, they just wouldn't have to.

I wasn't really referring to world war here. Yes, the United has enormous political muscle, and an unprecedented ability to project power, but, again, it's hardly able to do "whatever" it wants without opposition- the support for this current war has and will continue to be shaky- do you honestly think Americans will continue to support it if we start taking casualties in the thousands? Your analogy is flawed-unless you're Saddam Hussein, as much as that robber flails his gun about, you can be sure he's not going to shoot you. Do you think the threat of American invasion actually clouds political negotions- excepting a few specific cases involving rather unpleasant regimes (North Korea, anyone?) this isn't really the case.

What? You want me to prove that a huge number of people claim that "Europe is ungrateful", when Europe is a fucking continent? You want me to prove that TIME Europe frequently refers to Europe as a counterpart to the US, without any further differentiation, while discussing political maneuvering? There was even an article on how the US and Europe are at odds, and it was pretty telling.

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip ... 01620.html

The US wants Europe to lay forth a unified position, despite the fact that Europe is a continent. That's about as meaningful as asking Mount Everest's fucking opinion.

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/piper ... 05014.html

Again, the US wonders why Europe just doesn't state it's unified opinion.

I see articles detailing disputes between the United States and the European Union. The EU is an organization that, regardless of actual power, does to some extent claim to "speak" for Europe. How does this prove Americans see Europe as monolithic?

I see the concept of propaganda is lost upon you. The US is losing the propaganda war as it is. Civilian casualities would be absolutely fatal to the war effort regarding everything pertaining to the Iraqi population.

I don't understand what you're trying to convey here- are you saying civilian casualties will cause the Iraqi people to hate the US invasion?

That's right, you're the guy who thinks anecdotes are inherently bad. The anecdotes don't prove anything because they are descriptive in nature. They describe not my argument, but the thoughts behind it. I am somewhat puzzled as to how you're able to read and still unable to grasp this fact.

I love anecdotes; they're often amusing. Yes, they describe your argument, very good. Again, though, your initial post seemed to be somewhat lacking in substance, that was my point.

[Morat]

Thank you for successfully disproving the urban legend I used as an analogy to describe my emotional state. You really got me there, sport.

I hope you didn't take my previous post wrong. My editorial comments were most certainly not directed at you. I was being quite honest in my initial post when I said that I liked the anecdote, and I doubt I would have bothered to question its veracity if I hadn't read about it previously.

I probably wouldn't have said anything, except for that urban legends are a pet peeve of mine.

[Darth Wong]

We don't have to speculate. It's already worked. I can barely count the number of times I've been called a hippie or liberal, or told I "don't support our troops" on this board since the war-talk started, and this board is supposed to be a haven for free-thinkers.

It still is; no one is censoring your opinion. Mind you, that also means no one's censoring THEIR opinions either, and you are perfectly free to flame them back as heartless warmongering jingoistic assholes if you like. You can always piss them off by simply declaring that they don't give a fuck about American soldiers and are sending them off to die for cheap oil. When they accuse you of exaggerating their position, just say "now you know how it feels"

[Joe]

For what it's worth, Arthur, I'm sorry for calling you a hippie a while back (in any case, I've been called a redneck by Enlightenment, so I know that being labeled is no fun).

[Ymir]

Funny you should mention 'unpleasant regimes'. You see, personally, i find the US the most unpleasant of all. Kim Jong-Il might be a rather twisted and patethic figure, but at least his regime only opresses its own people. Unlike USA, who have been playing lawyer, judge and executioner for the whole world since Vietnam or so. There might be many hipocratic lesser regimes in the world, but they are nothing compared to USA.

I can't really tell the difference between dictatorship and a 'democracy' based on a choice between ebola and the plague. But at least i would have prefered the plague. You bleed less that way...


This doesen't mean that i like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il, but they represent sovereign nations that neither the US or anyone else has a right to invade. What's next? The People's Republic China? That would set the world on fire, indeed...

- Ymir, at least, be humane

[Steve]

We don't have to speculate. It's already worked. I can barely count the number of times I've been called a hippie or liberal, or told I "don't support our troops" on this board since the war-talk started, and this board is supposed to be a haven for free-thinkers.

It still is; no one is censoring your opinion. Mind you, that also means no one's censoring THEIR opinions either, and you are perfectly free to flame them back as heartless warmongering jingoistic assholes if you like. You can always piss them off by simply declaring that they don't give a fuck about American soldiers and are sending them off to die for cheap oil. When they accuse you of exaggerating their position, just say "now you know how it feels"

Though I am in favor of removing Hussein by force and thus at least partially in favor of the war currently being fought, I cannot help but relate this passage from Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War" (Crawley Translation), which relates the Athenians voting on the famed Sicilian Expedition; the young and fiery Alcibiades argued hotly in favor of it while the older and more cautious Nicias tried to persuade the Athenians not to go through with the expedition, and when he couldn't do that, advised that a massive military force be sent with said expedition to ensure victory.

Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War", 6.24:

With this Nicias concluded, thinking that he should either put the Athenians off by the magnitude of the undertaking or, if obliged to sail on the expedition, would thus do so in the safest way possible.
The Athenians, however, far from having their enthuasiam for the voyage destroyed by the burdensomeness of the preparations, became more eager for it than ever; and just the contrary took place of what Nicias had thought, as it was held that he had given good advice, and that the expedition would be the safest in the world.
Everyone fell in love with the enterprise. The older men thought that they would either subdue the places against which they were to sail, or at all events, with so large a force, meet with no disaster; those in the prime of life felt a longing for foreign sights and spectacles, and had no doubt that they should come safe home again; while the idea of the common people and the soldiery was to earn wages at the moment, and make conquests that would supply a never-ending fund of pay for the future.
With this enthusiasm of the majority, the few that did not like it feared to appear unpatriotic by holding up their hands against it, and so kept quiet.

[Eleas]

This is a logic forum, not a storytelling forum. I don't care how you choose to spice up your arguments or positions, but things like slogans and anecdotes should be used, at most, to supplement.

Oh, shut the fuck up, you sniveling little neophyte. There is one person, and one person only, in this thread who has the authority to determine things like that. And guess what? I think Mike just might have a problem with you trying to usurp his authority here. After all, if you bothered to look at Mike's own posts (and indeed, his post in this thread follows the trend), he enhances his own posts by similar means. So I guess I want to know just how badly you want to educate the Webmaster of StarDestroyer.net on the use of his own forums.

I'm not sure exactly what your redneck remark is referring to.

Then let me remove all doubt. I am insulting you. This is a forum for "sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people", after all, and you seem hell-bent on representing the last category singlehandedly.

I wasn't really referring to world war here. Yes, the United has enormous political muscle, and an unprecedented ability to project power, but, again, it's hardly able to do "whatever" it wants without opposition- the support for this current war has and will continue to be shaky- do you honestly think Americans will continue to support it if we start taking casualties in the thousands?

No. When Americans die, the rest of the population will begin to sit up and take notice. "Hey! those towelheads are killing our good american boys!" This has nothing to do with the fact that they're going to win against any single country in the world.

Your analogy is flawed-unless you're Saddam Hussein, as much as that robber flails his gun about, you can be sure he's not going to shoot you.

That's right, he will not shoot you. Unless you rush him. Instead, he will take your money at will, which was the point of a simple analogy that I will now undoubtedly be forced to explain to you for seven more posts.

Do you think the threat of American invasion actually clouds political negotions- excepting a few specific cases involving rather unpleasant regimes (North Korea, anyone?) this isn't really the case.

No, because industrial, political or economical sanctions work smoother and faster. The US has many kinds of muscle. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that they are capable of invading.

I see articles detailing disputes between the United States and the European Union. The EU is an organization that, regardless of actual power, does to some extent claim to "speak" for Europe. How does this prove Americans see Europe as monolithic?

Look again. They were speaking for Europe, not the EU. There's a difference, because a number of countries in Europe are not, in fact, part of the EU. You do understand this, I hope?

I don't understand what you're trying to convey here- are you saying civilian casualties will cause the Iraqi people to hate the US invasion?

Isn't that obvious?

I love anecdotes; they're often amusing. Yes, they describe your argument, very good. Again, though, your initial post seemed to be somewhat lacking in substance, that was my point.

Nice one-eighty there. I was stating my position, nothing more. This is the Science, Logic and Morality forum. What I spoke of had nothing to do with Science. My arguments dealt with US actions and the morality of the conflict and surrounding politics. The fact that I used analogies for smoother transitions between points is, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. I would submit that the only reason for attacking them is lack of an actual flaw to address.

[Uther]

Oh, shut the fuck up, you sniveling little neophyte. There is one person, and one person only, in this thread who has the authority to determine things like that. And guess what? I think Mike just might have a problem with you trying to usurp his authority here. After all, if you bothered to look at Mike's own posts (and indeed, his post in this thread follows the trend), he enhances his own posts by similar means. So I guess I want to know just how badly you want to educate the Webmaster of StarDestroyer.net on the use of his own forums.

Your arguments just didn't strike me as logical. Of course I could be wrong, and of course Wong will tear me to bloody pieces whenever he desires. Until then, I'll ask you to prove your arguments.

Then let me remove all doubt. I am insulting you. This is a forum for "sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people", after all, and you seem hell-bent on representing the last category singlehandedly.

Ok.

No. When Americans die, the rest of the population will begin to sit up and take notice. "Hey! those towelheads are killing our good american boys!" This has nothing to do with the fact that they're going to win against any single country in the world.

Exactly- that's a huge limit on American military might. We simply cannot fight a war with heavy casualities without something like Pearl Harbor preceeding it. Even in Afghanistan, when the link to September 11 was fairly clear, there was a great deal of naysaying. It would have become much louder if we had actually suffered significant casualties.

That's right, he will not shoot you. Unless you rush him. Instead, he will take your money at will, which was the point of a simple analogy that I will now undoubtedly be forced to explain to you for seven more posts.

Well, to continue the analogy, rushing him would be what, invading the USA? Yes, if you invade the USA, you will be attacked. But it takes a lot to provoke a serious United States military response. Those unfortunate episodes of the Cold War notwithstanding- I'm not going to attempt to defend those, and hopefully that kind of cladestine operations will not continue.

Look again. They were speaking for Europe, not the EU. There's a difference, because a number of countries in Europe are not, in fact, part of the EU. You do understand this, I hope?

Of course. And it would be silly to think the EU speaks for all Europe, or even entirely for the people of the countries it does represent. But it hardly seems a fallacy on the part of Americans- I have a feeling I'm missing something, could you point out where in those articles the Americans make the fallacy of seeing Europe as a single entity?

Isn't that obvious?

Well, I wasn't sure if you were referring to the American view of Iraqi casualties- there is a very large (and vocal) segment of our population that so loathes civilian casualties that the prospect of such horror, alone, causes them to decry this war. Anyway, killing Iraqis won't endear us to those people, true- but massive aid in the form of food, medicine, supplies, etc. might. I honestly don't know how the Iraqis will ultimately react to the Coalition invasion- it's hard to judge while Saddam still holds power and uses his irregulars to crush pro-US sentiment. We'll simply have to see, but hopefully the enormous US restraint will mean something.

Nice one-eighty there. I was stating my position, nothing more. This is the Science, Logic and Morality forum. What I spoke of had nothing to do with Science. My arguments dealt with US actions and the morality of the conflict and surrounding politics. The fact that I used analogies for smoother transitions between points is, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. I would submit that the only reason for attacking them is lack of an actual flaw to address.

But in order to argue morality one, hopefully, will make use of logic. Your points aren't necessarily flawed of course, but I disagree with them strongly, and so will therefore attempt to tear them down; when I see you using analogies instead of proof, I'll call you on it.