Saddam is purging Kirkuk at this very moment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Besides there are problems with this "Armed populace = freedom" stupidity.
How many of the armed citizens would oppose the goverment if it tried to "force despotism" on the nation? How many of them would actualy support the goverment in their effort? How many would be simply too ignorant of what is going on or too afraid to do anything? Actualy what are the odds that there would ever even be an organized armed insurrection at all?

It's that very lack of knowledge, that very uncertainty, except in the opposite direct than you intend, which also keeps a potential dictator from ever testing his designs in an armed Democracy.

[Colonel Olrik]

Duchess, that's the old "we have weapons, therefore we are freer" idiotic line of reasoning.

While a hundred years ago a strong militia would fare good against an army, as the technological gap between the two was small and the combat strategies were manbased, now it's ludicrous. I'd like to see your militia go against tanks, aircrafts and the US military in general. It's hardly a fight. Most people don't guard stingers and Abrahams in a hidden stocking place.

If the average Hungarian had had a rifle when the Soviets came in to suppress their revolt, would the Soviet Union have succeeded? I don't think so. It was hard enough without them - But the SU triumphed in the end. Add in an armed populace, instead of the disarmed one under a totalitarian dictatorship? Hungary would have eaten the Soviet Army, corps after corps.

I guess that then the soviets would employ heavier methods, civil war would follow, and Hungar would turn into another Afeghanistan, with thousands death and the country in ruins. Instead, they had a few more years of dictatorship, and are now free and heading to join the E.U. Going to war against an invading superpower is hardly rewarding. If Saddam was sane he would choose exile and deliver the country intact.

The reason for the equality is that an Army and the various police forces have - at best - a few million men, while half the population of the USA is armed, most with multiple firearms. And it would be worse than the Soviet invasion of Hungary, because the USA, of course, is the USA's own resource base. Your supply wouldn't be coming from a secure outside area but from the combat zone, open to sabotage. .

That's supposing the entire armed population would be fighting on the same side. That's not going to happen, or the government wouldn't be in power in the first place. In a dictatorship, there's always support among a certain group of the population. Look at Venezuela, look at the old Chile. While some will oppose, others will support the government.

And once the aircraft and tanks arrive, those militia numbers will be quickly reduced. Most american don't own weaponry good enough to take them down, and would not want to see their houses reduced to rubble, Israeli style.

Even if the majority of the populace would never fight, the threat of it happening restrains a potential dictator from acting.

Actually, I tend to think that the U.S safeguards are the population who elects the government, and are wealthy and informed enough not to elect a dictator (usually, that happens in time of crisis) and its sytem of power countermeasures.

McCarthy's hunts didn't come to anything, and even if some of the security ideas of this current phase are extreme, others are necessary, and many of the extreme ones have been withdrawn. All in all, the USA is more free today than in the 50s, even with the Patriot Act. Hardly indicative of a society heading towards fascism.

McCarthy's hunts bordered the line, there were plenty of illegal arrests and persecutions, and yet those militias remained silent. I agree Bush is yet to succeed in implementing the kind of measures some of his staff obviously desire.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I guess that then the soviets would employ heavier methods, civil war would follow, and Hungar would turn into another Afeghanistan, with thousands death and the country in ruins. Instead, they had a few more years of dictatorship, and are now free and heading to join the E.U. Going to war against an invading superpower is hardly rewarding. If Saddam was sane he would choose exile and deliver the country intact.

What Saddam is doing makes perfect sense for an Oriental Despot. Exile is not an option for Saddam Hussein - His country is his life.

McCarthy's hunts bordered the line, there were plenty of illegal arrests and persecutions, and yet those militias remained silent. I agree Bush is yet to succeed in implementing the kind of measures some of his staff obviously desire.

McCarthy didn't hunt anyone, Olrik. He named a single name - George C. Marshall's - and got damn near laughed off the Senate floor when he did, after he had been spreading a lot of innuendo and finally got his bluff called. He wasn't even on HUAC.

HUAC, OTOH, was a legitimate House Committee which followed established laws in its investigations against Communists in the USA. Any blacklisting that happened occured due to overzealous conservative directors in Hollywood wanting to help out.

The entire affair has been blown out of proportion by the Hollywood Left, which wants to imagine that it actually suffered, which is just an insult to people who really have suffered from repression.

[Crown]

Aparantely Marina has never heard of Ghandi.

EDIT: My apologies, I mispelled your name

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Aparantely Marina has never heard of Ghandi.

EDIT: My apologies, I mispelled your name

Ghandi was working against a representative democracy. Had he been trying the same stunt against, say, Imperial Japan, you would have just seen a lot of dead Indians. Likewise, I suspect peaceful action on the part of the Palestinians would have succeeded a long time ago, for the same reason.

[Crown]

Aparantely Marina has never heard of Ghandi.

EDIT: My apologies, I mispelled your name

Ghandi was working against a representative democracy. Had he been trying the same stunt against, say, Imperial Japan, you would have just seen a lot of dead Indians. Likewise, I suspect peaceful action on the part of the Palestinians would have succeeded a long time ago, for the same reason.

Since when did any of the European countries (read EU) fall under the Imperial Japan catagory?

[Dahak]

But it sure beats doing nothing. Especially if you know that your city is a highly potential target (oil and such...)

He can't defend Kirkuk realistically with his current forces. He shouldn't be trying to defend anything further north than Tikrit, where the tribal ties will give him a viable northern line to his defences. Then he can concentrate most of his Guard forces - his army is so useless it should be divided up regionally and posted to static defence, as there's some remote chance units might fight to defend their own regions of the country - in the south.

Alternatively, considering that Turkey isn't onboard, he can launch an offensive against Kuwait and try to drive us into the sea. If I was Saddam I'd do it, supported by my full WMD arsenal and a flanking manoeuvre through the KSA. I'd rely on public opinion to prevent a WMD counterattack and Arab solidarity in the repressed subjects of Saudi Arabia to prevent the Saudis from entering the war when I violate their territory - Likewise, on French and German vascillation at the Security Council to limit the airstrikes to the current ROE and prevent attacks on my ground forces as they build up in the south. (It's purely a defensive measure against the buildup of the Crusader forces, after all.)

There would be many things that can go wrong with that strategy, of course, but it's not exactly any less realistic than thinking a fight in the cities will somehow drive us off. The main problem is that not even the Republican Guards may be motivated enough to attack into Kuwait. Another and more realistic possibility (against coalition air power) would be a simple spoiling attack with artillery only using chemical and biological weaponry, and some Saddam Fedayeen light troops. Anything to disrupt the landing operations.

I could say exactly the same thing about you. I have all the freedom in the world. I can work where I want, travel where I want, buy what I want. But in a European definition of a state, said state has the duty to protect it's citizens from harm, like prohibiting fire arms, et al.
And I have never ever felt the slightest urge or need to own a fire arm...

That you do, makes me pity you a bit...

And I pity you for being at the mercy of your State, which could do whatever it wanted to you because the citizenry of your State does not have the power to match your government's power! So indeed there is quite a difference in how we look at things. But you must at least acknowledge that my philosophy is hardly deviant within my own country - It might not be elaborated upon as I do, but the persistance of the Second Amendment, popularity of firearms, and distrust of the government indicates that the basic precepts are grasped and agreed with by the average American.

My country certainly can't do anything it wanted to. There are laws to prevent it. And every citizen has the right to oppose the Government if it should try to work against our constitution or democracy (the so-called Freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung FDGO). So I don't see your problem.
But I do see that the huge gap between American and European understanding of what a state is supposed to be.

YOu do happen to know Swiss? I do.
They are so not like Americans...
As was discussed maybe zillions of times before, as a Swiss you do have to own a fire arm (as the Swiss are highly territiorial, slightly xenophobe people always fearful someone wants to invade their little country), but only after you've gone through the mandatory military service.
That is a completely different premise...

But it results in the same thing - Freedom. Isn't that what I just said? You don't have to copy American, you just to have sufficient power in the hands of the citizenry that it negates the ability of the government establish despotism with its own power. The Swiss system does that, as does the American system. They're quite different but they both work.

Incidently, all males in the USA between the ages 17-45 are members of the militia, along with all female members of the military/national guard - That's a legal definition outlined in our laws explicitly, not just some ideal NRA fanatics spout.

The Swiss don't need weapons. It is just one of their many freakish peculiarities. The populace of Switzerland has the total political control, far above anything you have in the USA. Only normal common sense of the Swiss prevented them so far from anything funny to come out of their legislation...

[Colonel Olrik]

But it results in the same thing - Freedom. Isn't that what I just said? You don't have to copy American, you just to have sufficient power in the hands of the citizenry that it negates the ability of the government establish despotism with its own power. The Swiss system does that, as does the American system. They're quite different but they both work.

Incidently, all males in the USA between the ages 17-45 are members of the militia, along with all female members of the military/national guard - That's a legal definition outlined in our laws explicitly, not just some ideal NRA fanatics spout.

The Swiss don't need weapons. It is just one of their many freakish peculiarities. The populace of Switzerland has the total political control, far above anything you have in the USA. Only normal common sense of the Swiss prevented them so far from anything funny to come out of their legislation...

The swiss are the state. The government doesn't rule, they produce referends. Switzerland is, as far as my knowlege goes, the only direct democracy in the western world. If it went nuts, then the population would be already nuts.

They don't really need guns for defense, Duchess. They are surrounded by the E.U, hardly a conflituous neighbour, and one that, if gone belicist, would destroy them by sheer power. They may think that Hitler didn't invade them by fear, but that's a delusion. Hitler just found more use to them as neutral than part of the third reich.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since when did any of the European countries (read EU) fall under the Imperial Japan catagory?

In the modern day? Only in terms of theoretical government capability. I'm saying there's nothing restraining them from ending up that bad. There is in the USA - And Switzerland, of course.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The swiss are the state. The government doesn't rule, they produce referends. Switzerland is, as far as my knowlege goes, the only direct democracy in the western world. If it went nuts, then the population would be already nuts.

They don't really need guns for defense, Duchess. They are surrounded by the E.U, hardly a conflituous neighbour, and one that, if gone belicist, would destroy them by sheer power. They may think that Hitler didn't invade them by fear, but that's a delusion. Hitler just found more use to them as neutral than part of the third reich.

You - and Hitler moreso - would pay a brutal price for exterminating (which is effectively what it would take) the Swiss in their mountain fastness.

[Colonel Olrik]

You - and Hitler moreso - would pay a brutal price for exterminating (which is effectively what it would take) the Swiss in their mountain fastness.

That is true. They would just have to deal with a total embargo, which would have the effect of closing them to the world. There'd be no escape.

[Oberleutnant]

I guess that then the soviets would employ heavier methods, civil war would follow, and Hungar would turn into another Afeghanistan, with thousands death and the country in ruins. Instead, they had a few more years of dictatorship, and are now free and heading to join the E.U. Going to war against an invading superpower is hardly rewarding.

The history knows a few exceptions of this rule, but I doubt in Hungary's case things would have taken a better way if they had resisted more heavily.

I don't agree with what Duchess says, but I'd really like to hear her opinion of the conscript armed forces that many European nations use. Do you think that they are also a "threat" to a demcratic nation like an unarmed population?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The history knows a few exceptions of this rule, but I doubt in Hungary's case things would have taken a better way if they had resisted more heavily.

I don't agree with what Duchess says, but I'd really like to hear her opinion of the conscript armed forces that many European nations use in this matter. Do you think that they are a threat to a demcratic nation like an unarmed population?

No - They're probably the last things keeping your countries even marginally democratic, because a conscript army might just refuse to obey orders from the government to suppress the citizenry, depending on the circumstance (Of course, it may obey them, too). Ironically, the British professional army makes Britain - our ally in the war on terror - less democratic than Germany or France. It's not really surprising, though. Democracies are more likely to fight each other than autocracies against democracies. I'm actually very wary of the USA's large standing professional army. I would prefer that we had a very small professional army that served as a core for a volunteer army in wartime. Unfortunately we don't have that option anymore, which makes an armed citizenry all the more vital.

I was, I confessing, generalizing a bit - But we're talking about vast social changes. Professional armies (effectively mercenary armies) are very bad for freedom, conscript armies are good for them. When you add in that modifier you might conceivably convince me that a fair number of European countries are still democratic. *grins*

[Dahak]

The history knows a few exceptions of this rule, but I doubt in Hungary's case things would have taken a better way if they had resisted more heavily.

I don't agree with what Duchess says, but I'd really like to hear her opinion of the conscript armed forces that many European nations use in this matter. Do you think that they are a threat to a demcratic nation like an unarmed population?

No - They're probably the last things keeping your countries even marginally democratic, because a conscript army might just refuse to obey orders from the government to suppress the citizenry, depending on the circumstance (Of course, it may obey them, too). Ironically, the British professional army makes Britain - our ally in the war on terror - less democratic than Germany or France. It's not really surprising, though. Democracies are more likely to fight each other than autocracies against democracies. I'm actually very wary of the USA's large standing professional army. I would prefer that we had a very small professional army that served as a core for a volunteer army in wartime. Unfortunately we don't have that option anymore, which makes an armed citizenry all the more vital.

I was, I confessing, generalizing a bit - But we're talking about vast social changes. Professional armies (effectively mercenary armies) are very bad for freedom, conscript armies are good for them. When you add in that modifier you might conceivably convince me that a fair number of European countries are still democratic. *grins*

There are plans to convert the German army into a professional army. Mostly because the numbers of conscripts drop each year due to a lack of volunteering conscripts (most young man refuse military service and choose cilvil service instead).

[MKSheppard]

I was, I confessing, generalizing a bit - But we're talking about vast social changes. Professional armies (effectively mercenary armies) are very bad for freedom, conscript armies are good for them.

Tell that to the poor bastards in Korea who got their asses handed to
them in the first few weeks of the war.

THAT was when we decided we couldn't rely on sheer luck to save our
asses in warfare, and moved to a large professional army prepared
for war 24x7x365

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There are plans to convert the German army into a professional army. Mostly because the numbers of conscripts drop each year due to a lack of volunteering conscripts (most young man refuse military service and choose cilvil service instead).

That's a sign of severe societal malaise, and once your army is professional, it will march to the drum of its paymaster - And thus be rather unreliable.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Tell that to the poor bastards in Korea who got their asses handed to
them in the first few weeks of the war.

THAT was when we decided we couldn't rely on sheer luck to save our
asses in warfare, and moved to a large professional army prepared
for war 24x7x365

You obviously wouldn't care if some general decided to offer all of his soldiers bonuses to march on Washington D.C. and seize the government.

[MKSheppard]

You obviously wouldn't care if some general decided to offer all of his soldiers bonuses to march on Washington D.C. and seize the government.

AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHHAHA












Thanks for making my day and proving you've gone completly
off your rocker.

[Next of Kin]

Circumstances change...I see nothing wrong with the USA taking a position it didn't previously take - It's simply able to do so now. Hypocrisy is part of human nature, and on the level of the nation State is a high art and science. Isn't it nice that the end result of it in this case will be that some people are helped? Isn't that all we can really hope for? Anything else is unrealistic considering human nature.

You see nothing wrong with a nation taking a hyprocritical position!?! Are you saying the ends justify the means?

Why is it perfectly acceptable for the U.S. decide to right know that they shall intervene on behalf of all the citizen of Iraq that live under tyrannical rule of Hussein? The U.S. could just as easily stopped Saddam from killing his kurdish population. Your smokescreen that the U.S. just couldn't do that at that moment in time is ridiculous.

Spare me your feel good rant that the result of this policy of hyprocrisy is somehow beneficial for mankind. Why didn't the U.S. pull into Rwanda and stop the ethnic cleansing that was going on there?

[Dahak]

There are plans to convert the German army into a professional army. Mostly because the numbers of conscripts drop each year due to a lack of volunteering conscripts (most young man refuse military service and choose cilvil service instead).

That's a sign of severe societal malaise, and once your army is professional, it will march to the drum of its paymaster - And thus be rather unreliable.

That's a sign that most young men in Germany don't see a valid point in joining the army. As it is, the army is seen mostly as a rallying group for social misfits, rascists, and Neo-nazis.

And most young men fail to see the importance of an army in our modern European world.

And since our armed forces are always reducing their numbers, the "Wahrgerechtigkeit" (roughly the equitableness to join military service) is not given any more. Yet it is demanded that a given percentage of each birth year has to join the military service. As it is now, more men choose to go into civil service rather than the military.
And they pay less than in the civil service.

[Axis Kast]

Whether or not you agree with me, I see clear intent by Hussein to subvert UNMOVIC inspections, a failure to declare all prohibited arms, a failure to comply by international decree, and a desire to continue proliferation.

So I misquoted an article. Oh my! I still insist that if al-Qaeda is picking up Palestinian recruits, Iraqi money and training might be involved.

"Proving a negative?" You claim I cannot provide evidence that Hussein will attack. You cannot provide evidence that he will not.

[Vympel]

Whether or not you agree with me, I see clear intent by Hussein to subvert UNMOVIC inspections, a failure to declare all prohibited arms, a failure to comply by international decree, and a desire to continue proliferation.

So I misquoted an article. Oh my! I still insist that if al-Qaeda is picking up Palestinian recruits, Iraqi money and training might be involved.

Misquote my ass. You made up evidence. You also contradicted yourself in your tortured reasoning that Saddam would attack Israel, and threw so many red herrings around and tried to shift the goalposts it was mind-boggling.

I also don't give a shit what you insist, because you don't have any fucking evidence.

"Proving a negative?" ... You cannot provide evidence that he will not.

And that's called proving a negative, you stupid fuckwit. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the party asserting the existence of a positive. It is not up to the party that hears the wild-fantasies of the jingoist to disprove every flight of fancy you come up with.

[Axis Kast]

I misquoted an article. I misread and assumed that the man had had training in Iraq. Oh no! I'm branded for life! Help! Vympel hates me!

Hussein will become involved with an attack Israel in the future. Of this I am certain. He is now free to make jumps of logic - similar to those made during the Gulf War - by which he can convince himself an attack on Israel will gain Iraq (even if it plays a subtle, supporting role) support across the Arab world. We will make these assumptions under the full expectation that Europe will shield him from American ire.

How am I supposed to put evidence in your hands that isn't circumstantial when dealing with situations that haven't developed yet?

The burden of proof is on both. You are suggesting that the man will not act in any way agressive. That's as much a leap as my own assertions.

[Colonel Olrik]

Hussein will become involved with an attack Israel in the future. Of this I am certain. He is now free to make jumps of logic - similar to those made during the Gulf War - by which he can convince himself an attack on Israel will gain Iraq (even if it plays a subtle, supporting role) support across the Arab world. We will make these assumptions under the full expectation that Europe will shield him from American ire.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Any attack on Israel of Saddam's part or responsability would result in Iraq dying in nuclear hellfire provoked by the Israeli forces. It's their fucking policy, and all countries in the region know it.

And if you think the E.U (since you persist in calling France the entire E.U) would back up Saddam against the U.S if he misbehaves and attacks any other country, you're a fucking moron.

[Axis Kast]

Read the post, Olrik.

First of all, Iraq is apt to make the assumption that its current unpunished support for Palestinian liberation could safely extend to the large-scale brokering of information and resources related to a specific, focused attack involving biological or chemical agents.

He is bouyed by the fact that he anticipates even after any attack, the West will stay Israel's hand. He similarly takes faith in the fact that any assault by Israel on Iraq will begin a war sure to provoke the "Zionist entity's" annihilation by surrounding Arab states - and from within. This is coupled with a rising fear that American assassination - especially if we back down now - is going to come.

At the last, Hussein will make a final leap of logic: Europe will shield Iraq - as a business partner - from any direct ire of the United States.

I didn't say that I agreed with Hussein's reasoning, but I'm certainly afraid of it.