What did I learn from TIME today...?

[Durandal]

Well, that's a relief, because that way I don't have to refer you to the prelude of the Iraqi invasion, where the US just ran over the opinions of the rest of the world, no matter what they were.

Then how do you explain all the diplomatic work that was being done
in the UN the last couple of months? If the US didn't give a shit about
world opinion, like you claim, we would have gone to war about 3 months ago.

Ah, you're referring to the red tape. Get real, Shep. Shrub was going to attack Iraq whether the world wanted him to or not.

[Dalton]

Wot be friends for, sucka?

Why, exploitation, of course. Isn't that right? Bonjour.

You little bitch.

You just never learn, do you, kid? Your "perogative" to flame is worth fuck all against Rob's PREROGATIVE, which is to ban. So get off his back, little monkey, before you by some incredible chance manage to annoy him.

Well, lock/split/edit maybe. Not ban

[RogueIce]

Well, lock/split/edit maybe. Not ban

Not yet, anyway. But soon, soon, when Wong least expects it...

Oh, did that slip out? Pardon me.

[MKSheppard]

Ah, you're referring to the red tape. Get real, Shep. Shrub was going to attack Iraq whether the world wanted him to or not.

Red tape? We gave Saddam a chance to leave Iraq, and be totally
protected from all future war crimes trials, etc etc, to prevent this war
from starting, and HE TURNED IT DOWN!

[Axis Kast]

Our "concerns" about Iraq are hardly justifiable.

From whose point of view? People who, despite some airline hijinx and a botched Olympics could never share our fear of attack by Saddam Hussein? Think about it. Europe’s experiences have been too different and their enemies too tangible to allow them fair comparisons. Neither Paris nor London will be hit with a weapon passed by Saddam to others. The United States very well might. Or could have been.

Initially, Shrub turned his attention there because he claimed that Iraq had terrorist connections.

For the umpteenth time, there is circumstantial evidence bearing out connections between Saddam Hussein and Palestinian terrorists. The man professes to offer money to the families of suicide bombers. Prior to 1991 when his country was more or less closed to direct infiltration, it was known that Iraq hosted Palestinian liberation fighters in training camps outside Baghdad. There is now a very real fear that thousands of young men fighting for HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and others will turn to al-Qaeda networks in order to continue their war on the West by taking it beyond the State of Israel. If even one of those young men carries into action knowledge, tools, or materiél presented willingly to him by an Iraqi agent, that’s reason enough to go after Hussein.

You should also keep in mind that the Sydney Morning Herald is now reporting on the fact that British marine commandos suspect al-Qaeda fighters are operating in tandem with the Iraqis, attempting to milk the conflict for their own purposes.

Then, he started bitching about how Iraq was defying UN resolutions, and yet Israel has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions, and we give them billions of dollars in military support every year.

Red herring. The subject is Iraq, not Israel. You’re not using this argument as anything more than an attempt to turn us away from the current situation in the Persian Gulf. There is nothing sincere – or realistic - about your suggestion.

Israel is currently in contravention of one binding United Nations Security Council resolution. Iraq is now in violation of seventeen. A competent approach first tackles the problem easiest dealt with. Iraq. A competent approach engages the issue only where there is a chance of success. Iraq. Or do you propose to send blue-helmets to Israel so you can watch the fireworks?

Now, we're going over there to free the Iraqi people, like that was our intent all along. Shrub used the mere accusation of terrorism connections to focus on Iraq, and then he started harping about weapons of mass destruction so everyone would forget that he never justified his initial concern over Iraq in the first place. Then he leapt off that basis over to the "free the Iraqi people" one because inspectors didn't find a whole lot of weapons of mass destruction, and found nothing that Saddam could possibly directly threaten the United States with.

Despite the absence of textual proof, there is more than enough speculation on which President George Bush can make a credible argument that Iraq nurses ties with terror.

Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction. Not even the wonderfully idealistic Hans Blix ever denied that charge. The question is where he will use them (we believe so) and whether he can credibly disarmed by a group of UNMOVIC inspectors, half of whose credentials don’t permit them to oversee the relevant procedures. Hell, Saddam Hussein himself personally green-lighted each member of the group. No American representatives from Scott Ritter’s former commission were present. What makes you think we should put our trust in the United Nations, a majority of whose members are obviously against he war no matter what we find? What makes you think we should put our trust in an organization that failed to preempt Kosovo, that failed to turn up anything in Israel when the time was still right, or that failed to locate a pair of massive boreholes drilled in the Kalahari Desert until it was far too late?

I don’t think you can argue against this simple fact: the Iraqi people – and the world - will, as a whole, be better off under a government that is not led by Saddam Hussein.

The rest of the world is upset because we’ve set their agenda since September 2001 and are now apparently brushing their opinion aside despite heated dissent. In this case? Too bad. They cannot accurately share our view of the situation. We’re talking about a man who could hit us and not them. It's one time unilateralism is acceptable.

[Durandal]

Our "concerns" about Iraq are hardly justifiable.

From whose point of view? People who, despite some airline hijinx and a botched Olympics could never share our fear of attack by Saddam Hussein? Think about it. Europe?s experiences have been too different and their enemies too tangible to allow them fair comparisons. Neither Paris nor London will be hit with a weapon passed by Saddam to others. The United States very well might. Or could have been.

And what evidence did we have that Saddam was distributing weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations? Oh, right. None.

For the umpteenth time, there is circumstantial evidence bearing out connections between Saddam Hussein and Palestinian terrorists. The man professes to offer money to the families of suicide bombers. Prior to 1991 when his country was more or less closed to direct infiltration, it was known that Iraq hosted Palestinian liberation fighters in training camps outside Baghdad. There is now a very real fear that thousands of young men fighting for HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and others will turn to al-Qaeda networks in order to continue their war on the West by taking it beyond the State of Israel. If even one of those young men carries into action knowledge, tools, or materiél presented willingly to him by an Iraqi agent, that?s reason enough to go after Hussein.

In other words, we have no direct evidence to assert a connection between Saddam and the terrorists, but we have a reason to think that he might be. I'm not seeing a solid case for this waste of resources yet.

You should also keep in mind that the Sydney Morning Herald is now reporting on the fact that British marine commandos suspect al-Qaeda fighters are operating in tandem with the Iraqis, attempting to milk the conflict for their own purposes.

False cause. They're fighting with the Iraqis because they want to kill American soldiers, which is no grounds for asserting our suspected connections to them. This should be obvious.

Red herring. The subject is Iraq, not Israel. You?re not using this argument as anything more than an attempt to turn us away from the current situation in the Persian Gulf. There is nothing sincere ? or realistic - about your suggestion.

It's called a double standard, and I was pointing out the inconsistency. In other words, the reason he gave is invalid because we've let other states slide by violating UN resolutions. Don't pretend that I'm trying to get this into an Israel debate. Israel has violated UN resolutions, and we've done nothing but support them. On the other hand, we attack Iraq for ignoring UN resolutions. That makes the reasoning invalid.

Israel is currently in contravention of one binding United Nations Security Council resolution. Iraq is now in violation of seventeen. A competent approach first tackles the problem easiest dealt with. Iraq. A competent approach engages the issue only where there is a chance of success. Iraq. Or do you propose to send blue-helmets to Israel so you can watch the fireworks?

So, you can violate just one UN resolution and the US will still give you billions of dollars per year, but if you violate any more than that, we'll attack? Don't be absurd. The decision to attack a nation for violating a UN resolution rests with the security council. For all I care, we can just let Israel and Palestine fight until one wipes out the other. I honestly don't give a shit, but we shouldn't be funneling billions of dollars to one side.

Despite the absence of textual proof, there is more than enough speculation on which President George Bush can make a credible argument that Iraq nurses ties with terror.

You mean the absence of any direct evidence.

Iraq does possess weapons of mass destruction. Not even the wonderfully idealistic Hans Blix ever denied that charge. The question is where he will use them (we believe so) and whether he can credibly disarmed by a group of UNMOVIC inspectors, half of whose credentials don?t permit them to oversee the relevant procedures. Hell, Saddam Hussein himself personally green-lighted each member of the group. No American representatives from Scott Ritter?s former commission were present. What makes you think we should put our trust in the United Nations, a majority of whose members are obviously against he war no matter what we find? What makes you think we should put our trust in an organization that failed to preempt Kosovo, that failed to turn up anything in Israel when the time was still right, or that failed to locate a pair of massive boreholes drilled in the Kalahari Desert until it was far too late?

Unfortunately, this doesn't address the issue that there has been no evidence presented that Saddam is a threat, directly or indirectly, to the United States. All you've done is appeal to consequence and fear.

I don?t think you can argue against this simple fact: the Iraqi people ? and the world - will, as a whole, be better off under a government that is not led by Saddam Hussein.

Of course not, but is this really the best time for it? Why now, when we're only succeeding in pissing the world off? Why now, when our economy is still in the shitter? I seriously don't see why this war is absolutely necessary at this exact moment. I'd like to see him deposed eventually, but right now, the international political climate isn't exactly conducive to this war, nor is our economy. There has been zero evidence brought forth that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that are a threat to us. They don't have the range, and we've seen nothing to implicate that he's giving them away to Al Qaeda. Not to mention that Bush has been so intent on going to war that he has yet to present a solid plan for restructuring Iraq's government. He simply hasn't thought the whole thing through. What happens afterward? We've been presented with an invoice for $75 billion for this war, and that doesn't include restructing costs for Iraq's government, nor have we heard any ideas on whether there is a maximum amount of time, money and resources we'll spend to restructure their government. We've just been told that we're going to do whatever it takes, whatever the cost. That's shitty planning.

The rest of the world is upset because we?ve set their agenda since September 2001 and are now apparently brushing their opinion aside despite heated dissent. In this case? Too bad. They cannot accurately share our view of the situation. We?re talking about a man who could hit us and not them. It's one time unilateralism is acceptable.

The rest of the world is upset because our president is telling them that he'll consider them enemies if they don't succumb to America's agenda. That is not "one-time" unilateralism. That is making unilateralism our foreign policy.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, you're referring to the red tape. Get real, Shep. Shrub was going to attack Iraq whether the world wanted him to or not.

Red tape? We gave Saddam a chance to leave Iraq, and be totally protected from all future war crimes trials, etc etc, to prevent this war from starting, and HE TURNED IT DOWN!

How does that change the fact that the US never gave a shit whether the UN approved the war? The fact that you started moving troops into the area BEFORE bothering to consult the UN is proof positive of that.

[Axis Kast]

And what evidence did we have that Saddam was distributing weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations? Oh, right. None.

We know he’s trained them and provided safe haven in the past. It’s a passable leap of logic to assume he might pass on intelligence or equipment (after the same fashion as Pakistan or North Korea). This is especially concerning given the fact that he might be tempted to support Palestinians in a large-scale terrorist action on Israel. Not only would he eliminate a hated enemy, but in his mind, he might waive the threats of discovery, assuming Arab goodwill and Franco-Russian indolence will spare him American wrath.

In other words, we have no direct evidence to assert a connection between Saddam and the terrorists, but we have a reason to think that he might be. I'm not seeing a solid case for this waste of resources yet.

In other words we have reports that al-Qaeda has joined Iraqi troops on the ground and that Saddam Hussein has in the past been responsible for the training and support of numerous terrorist factions.

False cause. They're fighting with the Iraqis because they want to kill American soldiers, which is no grounds for asserting our suspected connections to them. This should be obvious.

Why not? Are you suggesting to me that they couldn’t have “skimmed off the top” of Iraqi assets sent to the Palestinians? Are you suggesting that it would be impossible for them to have concluded a deal with certain more independent elements of al-Qaeda to cooperate in hitting American targets with weapons of mass destruction in the near future?

It's called a double standard, and I was pointing out the inconsistency. In other words, the reason he gave is invalid because we've let other states slide by violating UN resolutions. Don't pretend that I'm trying to get this into an Israel debate. Israel has violated UN resolutions, and we've done nothing but support them. On the other hand, we attack Iraq for ignoring UN resolutions. That makes the reasoning invalid.

No. It makes our position hypocritical. But that’s life. Remember. From our perspective – and that’s the only one that matters since we’re the ones who led the Coalition into Iraq along with the British -, Hussein is a far greater threat than Ariel Sharon. We have a vested interest in forcing Baghdad into compliance. Tel Aviv isn’t as pressing from our point of view.

So, you can violate just one UN resolution and the US will still give you billions of dollars per year, but if you violate any more than that, we'll attack? Don't be absurd. The decision to attack a nation for violating a UN resolution rests with the security council. For all I care, we can just let Israel and Palestine fight until one wipes out the other. I honestly don't give a shit, but we shouldn't be funneling billions of dollars to one side.

We attacked Iraq primarily as a result of their violation of the Gulf War cease-fire. See above for more discussion of Israel.

Of course not, but is this really the best time for it? Why now, when we're only succeeding in pissing the world off? Why now, when our economy is still in the shitter? I seriously don't see why this war is absolutely necessary at this exact moment. I'd like to see him deposed eventually, but right now, the international political climate isn't exactly conducive to this war, nor is our economy. There has been zero evidence brought forth that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction that are a threat to us. They don't have the range, and we've seen nothing to implicate that he's giving them away to Al Qaeda. Not to mention that Bush has been so intent on going to war that he has yet to present a solid plan for restructuring Iraq's government. He simply hasn't thought the whole thing through. What happens afterward? We've been presented with an invoice for $75 billion for this war, and that doesn't include restructing costs for Iraq's government, nor have we heard any ideas on whether there is a maximum amount of time, money and resources we'll spend to restructure their government. We've just been told that we're going to do whatever it takes, whatever the cost. That's shitty planning.

Because right now we can fulfill the objective before Hussein is in a position to copy fully the behavior of regimés like Kim Jong-Il’s. It’s why we call it “preemption.” Within twenty or thirty years, we might find ourselves facing another such battle somewhere else in the world. But by that time our influence will have declined relatively and the European Union, Chinese, and Russians come out more strongly for their own interests. Hell, we might be fighting a nation quite like Iraq even as the Russians and Chinese publicly ferry them anti-tank guided missiles and IR equipment. In the case of Hussein and the Ba’ath, it was the sooner the better.

We have a plan for a future government, I assure you. Most likely will be a federal structure based on the Yugoslav model. A largely figurehead government with which to conduct negotiations and three distinctly autonomous ethnic provinces, one Kurdish, the others Shiite are Sunni.

I agree that the Bush White House mangled their PR plan. If there is one thing this government can’t do it’s put a decent foot forward to the media. That does not mean this is a lost cause.

Not dangerous? If Hussein attacks Israel and kills thousands of people, we’re resigned to lead a similar attack anyway – and then it’s on Hussein’s timetable as opposed to our own.

The rest of the world is upset because our president is telling them that he'll consider them enemies if they don't succumb to America's agenda. That is not "one-time" unilateralism. That is making unilateralism our foreign policy.

No. Bush has said that he will consider them enemies of they don’t cooperate in stamping down on terrorism.

While I agree that the rest of the world resents Bush’s brusque approach, it’s not exactly something we can avoid. Perhaps it’s better left unsaid, but we’d be practicing the same policy whether or not he was in power.

I fervently believe that military preemption – and therefore, for the most part, unilateralism – will end after Iraq.

How does that change the fact that the US never gave a shit whether the UN approved the war? The fact that you started moving troops into the area BEFORE bothering to consult the UN is proof positive of that.

The United Nations wanted our men in place. Hell, the Franco-German proposal stipulated that American troops should remain to provide “a compelling force” behind the inspectorate. Or do you really believe that Hussein would have complied without the military threat, just as he did from ’98 on? :rolleyes: Not to mention that we discovered drones which could potentially hit American targets and discovered both Iraqi and al-Qaeda plots to hit troops while still in Kuwait.

[Dalton]

Red tape? We gave Saddam a chance to leave Iraq, and be totally protected from all future war crimes trials, etc etc, to prevent this war from starting, and HE TURNED IT DOWN!

Uh...what leader worth their salt would wilfully and voluntarily abandon their country upon the demands of an aggressor? "Leave or we'll bomb you" is not exactly the best peace plan.

[Durandal]

We know he?s trained them and provided safe haven in the past. It?s a passable leap of logic to assume he might pass on intelligence or equipment (after the same fashion as Pakistan or North Korea). This is especially concerning given the fact that he might be tempted to support Palestinians in a large-scale terrorist action on Israel. Not only would he eliminate a hated enemy, but in his mind, he might waive the threats of discovery, assuming Arab goodwill and Franco-Russian indolence will spare him American wrath.

And yet, if he's been giving weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda, why haven't they used them? I won't deny that he has such weapons; we've seen them. However, by all indications, he's kept them for himself. He couldn't manufacture them in large quantities; that would make them difficult to hide. Is he going to give them away to Al Qaeda and lose his primary capacity to do damage to an invading force?

It's not a passable leap in logic, because it makes no sense. While Saddam hates the US, his primary concern is securing his internal rule.

In other words we have reports that al-Qaeda has joined Iraqi troops on the ground and that Saddam Hussein has in the past been responsible for the training and support of numerous terrorist factions.

False cause. They're fighting with the Iraqis because they want to kill American soldiers, which is no grounds for asserting our suspected connections to them. This should be obvious.

Why not? Are you suggesting to me that they couldn?t have ?skimmed off the top? of Iraqi assets sent to the Palestinians? Are you suggesting that it would be impossible for them to have concluded a deal with certain more independent elements of al-Qaeda to cooperate in hitting American targets with weapons of mass destruction in the near future?

Nice try shifting the burden of proof, but it's not up to me to prove your claims false.

Also, the presence of Al-Qaeda troops in Iraq suggests nothing more than Al Qaeda troops taking an opportunity to kill American soldiers with some fellow Arabs. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

No. It makes our position hypocritical. But that?s life. Remember. From our perspective ? and that?s the only one that matters since we?re the ones who led the Coalition into Iraq along with the British -, Hussein is a far greater threat than Ariel Sharon. We have a vested interest in forcing Baghdad into compliance. Tel Aviv isn?t as pressing from our point of view.

I still have yet to be convinced that Saddam is/was anything more than a regional threat. If his people and the countries around him want to put up with his bullshit, fine. He's made no aggressive moves to go beyond his borders, and he hasn't been connected in any way to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Because right now we can fulfill the objective before Hussein is in a position to copy fully the behavior of regimés like Kim Jong-Il?s. It?s why we call it ?preemption.? Within twenty or thirty years, we might find ourselves facing another such battle somewhere else in the world. But by that time our influence will have declined relatively and the European Union, Chinese, and Russians come out more strongly for their own interests. Hell, we might be fighting a nation quite like Iraq even as the Russians and Chinese publicly ferry them anti-tank guided missiles and IR equipment. In the case of Hussein and the Ba?ath, it was the sooner the better.

In other words, appeal to consequence. "Preemption" is secret-code for "defensive aggression," which is exactly what Hitler did. Granted, if there was some solid connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, I'd fully support taking him out as soon as possible, but he's just a regional threat that we could have easily set on the back burner until we were in a better political and economic position to deal with.

We have a plan for a future government, I assure you. Most likely will be a federal structure based on the Yugoslav model. A largely figurehead government with which to conduct negotiations and three distinctly autonomous ethnic provinces, one Kurdish, the others Shiite are Sunni.

And the money for this comes from ... where, again?

I agree that the Bush White House mangled their PR plan. If there is one thing this government can?t do it?s put a decent foot forward to the media. That does not mean this is a lost cause.

No, but ignoring it completely (which is what the Bush administration has been doing) isn't a good thing. If you want to know how beneficial international support can be, just ask Israel.

Not dangerous? If Hussein attacks Israel and kills thousands of people, we?re resigned to lead a similar attack anyway ? and then it?s on Hussein?s timetable as opposed to our own.

If he does. Has he? No. Has he demonstrated the capacity to fire a nuclear weapon across the ocean and hit us? No. Has it been shown that he is giving such weapons to people who could hit us? No. Has it been shown that he even has nuclear weapons? No.

No. Bush has said that he will consider them enemies of they don?t cooperate in stamping down on terrorism.

Which is exactly what I said. That is unilateralism as a foreign policy, since it's the United States that decides what cooperating in stamping down on terrorism is. Bush said, "You're either wish us or against us." Forcing the rest of the world into a corner is not wise, and it's part of the reason why we have shit for international support in this war.

While I agree that the rest of the world resents Bush?s brusque approach, it?s not exactly something we can avoid. Perhaps it?s better left unsaid, but we?d be practicing the same policy whether or not he was in power.

I disagree, but there's little point arguing over hypotheticals like this.

I fervently believe that military preemption ? and therefore, for the most part, unilateralism ? will end after Iraq.

I don't, and personally, I think you're giving Bush far too much credit in his ability to restrain himself. He has been very consistent in his cowboy attitude toward foreign policy and his little "crusade" against terrorism. You don't declare crusades if you intend to stop at one country, but I suppose we'll see what happens after Iraq, won't we?

I think this is the core of our disagreement. Bush is a religious bigot convinced of his own righteousness and who will not hesitate to act once he believes that God has spoken to him or whatever. Remember, there are three countries in the "Axis of Evil," not one. I guess you see Bush a little differently from the way I do.

[Axis Kast]

This has become a clash of opinion.

I am convinced that Hussein will one day pass information or equipment on to terrorists if left unchecked. I am convinced that Iraq indirectly helps al-Qaeda via Palestine. I am convinced that al-Qaeda's decision to capitalize on the War with Iraq is evidence of a deeper association with Hussein. I am convinced that by posing a threat to Israel - one that can grow only larger as general Arab ire increases -, Hussein poses a clear threat to the United States. You agree with none of these positions. So be it.

As for preemption? I'm also fairly certain that Bush will stop after Iraq. Aside from a potential missile strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, peace will come.

[Steve]

Pre-emption will be inviable anywhere else, I think. This still has the potential to bite Bush in the ass when he least expects it.

Secondly, yes, troops were sent into Kuwait before the UN debacle began, but that's justifiable as an increased presence to try and coax Hussein into obeying the ceasefire. Of course, neither will I argue that Bush didn't intend from the start to invade Iraq, and was mostly involved in trying to get the UN to get onboard for cleaning Iraq up. Of course, they didn't, and thus here we are.

I think this war is a "good" thing, inasmuch as wars can be "good", but I'm not entirely fine with how the leadup was handled or even with how it's been fought so far.

Bush waited too long with the UN and on the same hand let himself be carried away with the outer appearance of American military might. The basics of war always apply and cannot be thrown out the window because defense analysts have a hard-on for smart weapons and cruise missiles and an almost childish belief that the good guys always win and will always be backed by the public.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I hope Iraq is the end of it, but I fear it isn't. From one point of view (mine), this war is about gaining access to Iraq's oil in order to reduce our depedence on Saudi Arabia's. Bin Laden and all 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. I'll let you connect the last dot.

[Steve]

Arthur, that is exactly what some have been saying from the beginning.

And I'll add, when you think about it, the casualty (killed-wounded-missing) ratio is still heavily in our favor. It's just that the media likes to focus on a handful of Coalition POWs compared to what? A few thousand Iraqi POWs?

[Darth Wong]

Arthur, that is exactly what some have been saying from the beginning.

And I'll add, when you think about it, the casualty (killed-wounded-missing) ratio is still heavily in our favor. It's just that the media likes to focus on a handful of Coalition POWs compared to what? A few thousand Iraqi POWs?

True; the Coalition is still decisively winning. However, when you sell a war on the premise that it will be so quick and utterly one-sided that there will be negligible collateral damage, even this is not good enough to live up to advertising promises. Is there a money-back refund on this product?

[RogueIce]

True; the Coalition is still decisively winning. However, when you sell a war on the premise that it will be so quick and utterly one-sided that there will be negligible collateral damage, even this is not good enough to live up to advertising promises. Is there a money-back refund on this product?

Hasn't Bush said from just about the beginning that this will be a "long and difficult" campaign? The "quick-and-easy" stuff is mostly the media, not Bush.

[Axis Kast]

Wong, you need to assess the difference between the biased "quick and easy" (the kind we see in movies) and the actual quick and easy.

Desert Storm is celebrated as a walkover. We're still far from the kind of damage taken and dealt during that conflict. Despite the tougher going (some of our troops say this second conflict is nothing like the first), we've not even scratched the surface of intensive conflict per se (outside a few firefights or localized ambushes).

Sure there's been some half-assed bungling - the al-Nasariyah issue is a bit disconcerting (apparently, we're running the gauntlet rather than moving to "smoke out" the irregulars), but for the most part things are going fairly well by comparison with any actual conflicts of this type (Panama, Genada, and Somalia don't count given the different conditions of popular support or limited deployment).

You need to stop thinking in terms of "One casualty and prisoners?!" It's always bad to take a loss - any kind of loss -, but it's not always unexpected.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To Eleas and Marina:

I know I have no place in your discussion. But I wanted to interject a little bit. It seems to me that one of you is willing to end an otherwise good friendship over political differences. Simply put, that's ludicrous. I've had a friend for years, a girl I love dearly, who is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. She's the kind of girl that voted for Bush only because Buchanan wasn't running; you know the type. And I'm a leftist "commie pinko" pacifist, just left of Lenin. We bump heads more often than not, but we don't see the other as either unpatriotic (in my case) or peacenik scum (in her case). Regardless of our political agendas, we're both just people with personalities. We are not comprised of our beliefs, though they are important to us. You can't hate someone because they believe something different than you. Judge them on what they do, what they say, how they say it, how they come off... Don't hate each other because of the political spectrum. That's just too complicated.

[/intrusive rant]

I'm not demanding a single political ideology. I'm just making note of the fact that there are ties that bind you with your fellow-citizens which are stronger than any friendship could ever be, and unite you in times of trouble. Sadly, these ties, the unity of the people in the State, have lately eroded. But one finds more in common with one's fellow-citizens, than with someone of a different national identity.

There are ties which draw together and make whole States, and these are ties of concepts and ideals and memories to the greatest of such States. Where these are shared even the most ideologically diverse can find common ground - until the very point of sundering - that lends to at least merely recognition. Even the most crazy green who spends time in the forest trying to protect it, if truly experienced there, might resemble in some vague fashion an oft-derided redneck. Those of other countries have their own traditions; and though the human being is a social creature and friendships despite these might be made - they create a gap which cannot be bridged, short of transplantation.

That was very much an incoherent ramble, but perhaps some sense can be made of a bit of it.

[Eleas]

Isn't that just a tad bit concieted? That's not quite a flame in what I've seen of them, so much as "I'm smarter than you, so of course I won!"

Just my opinion, anyway. Maybe I interpreted it wrong.

Yes, it was really a calculated insult. I grant you that I perhaps should have refrained from such things.

On the other hand, he represents something I can't stand: the rank newbie that, upon seeing something he doesn't like barges in and reflexively cries troll, because that's what all the big kids do. And when he's told he's an utter moron who can't understand the difference between a troll and an opinion, he lashes out in rage, not comprehending the fact that he's digging a deeper hole for himself in doing so. And, when he finally is made to understand the situation, what does he do? He tries to educate the moderator on forum etiquette. And does so stupidly, I might add.

I don't know about you, but I think it obvious that anyone could debate this guy to the ground using nothing but the first five letters of the Alphabet.

Queeb Salaron: Thanks for the thought, and believe me, I do appreciate your attempt at patching things up. Still, from now on, I think this is a matter best taken over IM between me and Marina.

[Eleas]

And now, at long last, I'm finally going to answer Uther, having promised to do so. I'm not going to demand an answer of him, however, because he seems to have tired of waiting for me. In other words, I'm not going to yell "concession accepted" if I don't get any reply.

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.

Fair enough. I'll listen to them.

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.

All of which doesn't change the fact that you are easily capable of going to war (your point was all about sustaining a war). And small countries would still be easy pickings. Take Sweden for instance. Just nine million citizens. A single carrier's worth of fighters could swamp all our country's air force, no matter how good the new JAS 39 Gripen really is.

Well, to continue the analogy, rushing him would be what, invading the USA?

No. Rushing him would be not doing what the US wants. Remember what Bush said? "You're either with us or against us."

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.

Just like Iraq invaded the USA... oh, wait.

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?

Yep. In both articles they wanted to know Europe's response, when said response could not and might never be unified.

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.

Yeah. Anyway, I was referring to the Iraqi themselves.

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.

I'm not too sure. The US restraint will be hard pressed to compete with the fact that they're an outside aggressor coming over the border to take over the country. That's how a lot are going to see the situation. And they also know that said invader seems to loathe their religion, "Islam is a religion of peace" talk nonwithstanding, and that it's had a history of exploiting other countries.

(Yes, I know Europe has a rich history of doing the same, but that's not the point here.)

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.

Now that, I like.

[meNNis]

Unless you've had a previous account here, Eleas, I've been on these boards as long as you have Don't mistake the low post count for not being here long. Oh yes, and I'm no newbie.

[SirNitram]

Unless you've had a previous account here, Eleas, I've been on these boards as long as you have Don't mistake the low post count for not being here long. Oh yes, and I'm no newbie.

You shall not diss one of the ASVSers. We torture our own wounded and eat babies.

[Eleas]

Unless you've had a previous account here, Eleas, I've been on these boards as long as you have Don't mistake the low post count for not being here long. Oh yes, and I'm no newbie.

Comparing to me and Rob and Damien, you are. We've been debating Vs matters before Mike's page came online, and I'm not talking about the BBS here. I'm talking about times when there wasn't a nice little "I Want YOU For the Empire!" information mine on the Net at all.

As for the mistake, it had nothing to do with post count. It was in charitably assuming your clumsiness was the result of youthful inexperience. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

[jegs2]

This truly is the thread that won't die...

[Durandal]

Unless you've had a previous account here, Eleas, I've been on these boards as long as you have Don't mistake the low post count for not being here long. Oh yes, and I'm no newbie.

You obviously need to reasses your basic math skills. He joined in July of 2002. You joined in October of 2002. He's been here 4 months longer than you have.