NationStates Jolt Archive

It was extremely strange the circumstances of this broadcast I saw. I was watching the stock market (which is down 1% today...I have a bad feeling in the pit of my wallet) and starting to doze off. Well before I did I was awakened very quickly by this "Breaking News" alert. It said that they had information that the United States was planning an invasion of Iran to commence within the following weeks. They said that the Pentagon was vehemently denying any of these allegations, but whats new? There wasn't a follow up story and I can't find any information about it on the internet. Likely it was suppressed (as many such articles are. Look at that one story about a year ago where George Bush Sr. came out and admitted that he was ashamed of his son for his presidency. That article was GONE within ten minutes and you could never find anything else out about it). Did anyone else happen to catch it? It was between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

I'd like to add that CNBC is a very reliable news station, granted its geared more towards the financial sector but it serves its purpose for other needs. Maybe it was just something that was stated falsely to spark the economy a bit, oil stocks did rise three or four dollars today, subsequent to that statement, but still...its scary.

i dont know what is being said and denied but we CANT invade iran. we dont have the military manpower to do so.

we could bomb the shit out of it but we cant invade.

I'd like to add that CNBC is a very reliable news station, granted its geared more towards the financial sector but it serves its purpose for other needs. Maybe it was just something that was stated falsely to spark the economy a bit, oil stocks did rise three or four dollars today, subsequent to that statement, but still...its scary.
it's not the 'reliability' of the news source. but the fact that there is nothing else about it. no linky, nothing up to date on Google and other sites.

I think they just mentioned an old rumor that's been flying around for years now.

i dont know what is being said and denied but we CANT invade iran. we dont have the military manpower to do so.

we could bomb the shit out of it but we cant invade.

we invade Iran (or anywhere else) and it will only prove two things.

1) the GOP wants to commit political suicide.
2) the DNP are actually the same as the GOP.

i dont know what is being said and denied but we CANT invade iran. we dont have the military manpower to do so.

we could bomb the shit out of it but we cant invade.

F-22 for the win.

F-22 for the win.

+Napalm

+Agent Orange

Maybe you dreamt it.

Oh we CAN invade them. We do have it but it'd have to be drawn up from all our overseas garrisons. And a draft. lol

"... and today the Pentagon is denying reports that the US has any plans to invade Iran. We're still going to invade, we just don't have any plans."

;)

"... and today the Pentagon is denying reports that the US has any plans to invade Iran. We're still going to invade, we just don't have any plans."

;)


LOL Well said!
:D

Maybe you dreamt it.

Might be... he DID say he was dozing off.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=United+States+was+planning+an+invasion+of+Iran+to+commence+within+the+following+weeks&btnG=Google+Search

If they do they better not restart the draft....lol i just turned 18.....FUCK!

TO CANADA all aboard

+Napalm

+Agent Orange

Nah, that's what B-52s are for.

Given that America is considered an international menace by a significant number of people in the world,I don't think it really makes a difference.

The South Koreans dislike your military presence,the Okinawans hate your soldiers and the Iraqi's don't really have a choice in the matter.The US has done some good and some bad,but as far as I'm personally concerned your country and its regime are a necessary evil one must tolerate.can't live without them,can't really live at peace with them.

Your soldiers will pay the price for the agendas of your politicians.That's all.A real pity.

And by the way,you're NOT the greatest country in the world.Nor are you the home of the brave or land of the free.All countries balance out for their own inhabitants.It's relative.

Every other country out there has its own definition of being the greatest.If you define greatest in terms of amount-China has amongst the greatest population and history in terms of numbers,Russia has the greatest amount of land,India has the greatest number of people of any democracy,etc.

Any European country has a 'greater' history than the USA in terms of duration.

Brazil,Pakistan and many other developing countries have greater freedoms in some respects than the US,while having less freedom in others.

Every country has brave people,so if you went by definition of greatest,the greatest number of brave people live in India and China, who are at least 2 times larger than the USA in terms of population.

I'm proud of my country,but it's not the 'greatest nation in the world'.It can improve in many things,just like the US.

So invade Iran,Let your soldiers die.Let your politicians and aristocrats enrich themselves.End of the day,you'll end up screwing yourselves over with the Patriot Act and all your strange politics.

You're not a beacon of freedom anymore and are becoming just like all the countries you criticise.You've suffered terrorist attacks just like other countries.

Welcome to the Hotel California, the USA!It's a lovely place every other country inhabits.You thought you were any different?

Wrong

Nah, that's what B-52s are for.

*whines*

But back in 'Nam...!

It woke you up and caused you to watch their news. Good promo needn't be true, you know.

i dont know what is being said and denied but we CANT invade iran. we dont have the military manpower to do so.

we could bomb the shit out of it but we cant invade.

We could invade it, we would just have to have a lot of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan cross the border which would ruin secuirty in those countries. Maybe that was the plan all along. Invade those two nations and secure them. Then jump into Iran...

We could bomb the crap out of them. I like that one more.

"... and today the Pentagon is denying reports that the US has any plans to invade Iran. We're still going to invade, we just don't have any plans."

;)

Oh we have plans. The US navy and army had dozens of plans to fight a war with Japan. Circumstances didn't allow those plans to be succesful so we did a little island hopping. I am sure there are plans to fight Iran, China, Russia, Mexico, Trukmenistan, the Vatican, Andorra...

Given that America is considered an international menace by a significant number of people in the world,I don't think it really makes a difference.

The South Koreans dislike your military presence,the Okinawans hate your soldiers and the Iraqi's don't really have a choice in the matter.The US has done some good and some bad,but as far as I'm personally concerned your country and its regime are a necessary evil one must tolerate.can't live without them,can't really live at peace with them.

Your soldiers will pay the price for the agendas of your politicians.That's all.A real pity.

And by the way,you're NOT the greatest country in the world.Nor are you the home of the brave or land of the free.All countries balance out for their own inhabitants.It's relative.

Every other country out there has its own definition of being the greatest.If you define greatest in terms of amount-China has amongst the greatest population and history in terms of numbers,Russia has the greatest amount of land,India has the greatest number of people of any democracy,etc.

Any European country has a 'greater' history than the USA in terms of duration.

Brazil,Pakistan and many other developing countries have greater freedoms in some respects than the US,while having less freedom in others.

Every country has brave people,so if you went by definition of greatest,the greatest number of brave people live in India and China, who are at least 2 times larger than the USA in terms of population.

I'm proud of my country,but it's not the 'greatest nation in the world'.It can improve in many things,just like the US.

So invade Iran,Let your soldiers die.Let your politicians and aristocrats enrich themselves.End of the day,you'll end up screwing yourselves over with the Patriot Act and all your strange politics.

You're not a beacon of freedom anymore and are becoming just like all the countries you criticise.You've suffered terrorist attacks just like other countries.

Welcome to the Hotel California, the USA!It's a lovely place every other country inhabits.You thought you were any different?

Wrong

You make an excellent point in your post... it's usually the American soldiers that end up suffering from the politicians' bad judgement. Unfortunately I know a friend who is going into the marines, I just hope there's no wars for America in the next few years.

If they do they better not restart the draft....lol i just turned 18.....FUCK!

TO CANADA all aboard

Damn, we Canadians better get started on that southern border fence. We should keep them illegals out. :D

If they do they better not restart the draft....lol i just turned 18.....FUCK!

TO CANADA all aboard

Ha, we'll send you right back where you came from (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/05/21/us-deserter.html?ref=rss), you dirty draft-dodger!

An invasion of Iran would be truly evil at this point. All it would do is make life more miserable for the average Iranian.

What is needed is an anti-authoritarian revolution.

Any European country has a 'greater' history than the USA in terms of duration.


Belgium: Independent since 1830
Italy: Unified since 1861
Germany: Founded as we know it in 1871.
Finland: Independent since 1917
Poland: Independent since 1918.

I'd like to add that CNBC is a very reliable news station, ...Yeah, that's why it has such high-brow programs as Mad Money... :rolleyes:

i dont know what is being said and denied but we CANT invade iran. we dont have the military manpower to do so.

we could bomb the shit out of it but we cant invade.

"Where bombs go, ground troops follow"

F-22 for the win.

F-35.
F-22 is air superiority, not CAS.

But if you want to be technical, it's B-1 for the win. Pwnd. ;)

*snip*

Watch closely.

Sentence. New sentence.

Did you catch it?

Oh we have plans. The US navy and army had dozens of plans to fight a war with Japan. Circumstances didn't allow those plans to be succesful so we did a little island hopping. I am sure there are plans to fight Iran, China, Russia, Mexico, Trukmenistan, the Vatican, Andorra...

I think the word you're looking for here is contingency.

Watch closely.

Sentence. New sentence.

Did you catch it?

"Where bombs go, ground troops follow"

Notice the lack of something here? Pot, meet kettle who is also of a rather dark shade.

Notice the lack of something here? Pot, meet kettle who is also of a rather dark shade.

But not quite black...

Did you have a point?

Notice the lack of something here? Pot, meet kettle who is also of a rather dark shade.

Did you have a point?

:confused:, indeed.

But not quite black...

Did you have a point?
Perhaps that criticizing people's spelling and punctuation isn't a good way to start on this forum...

:confused:, indeed.

An off-topic digression that I, admittedly, am at fault for initiating.

Perhaps that criticizing people's spelling and punctuation isn't a good way to start on this forum...

It was punctuation, and I'm not really just starting.

It was punctuation, and I'm not really just starting.Meh. We get more new members a day than returning members a day. The impression you make with less than 20 posts under your belt though...

It was punctuation, and I'm not really just starting.

An off-topic digression that I, admittedly, am at fault for initiating.

You press the little button next to quote, with the little "?" mark on it.
Then you do the same for all the posts you want to quote.
Then you press the little button that says "reply".

This way, you don't have to post 5 times in a row, get it?

This way, you don't have to post 5 times in a row, get it?

So that's how the damn thing works. I never did figure that out.

Belgium: Independent since 1830
Italy: Unified since 1861
Germany: Founded as we know it in 1871.
Finland: Independent since 1917
Poland: Independent since 1918.Just a slight quibble - but if you say Poland has been independent since 1918, excluding the Occupation by Germany in WWII; then why not say Poland has been independent since the 10th century excluding its occupation by the Russian Empire and the Third Reich?

edit: I think what perhaps the guy meant was history of the nation rather than its respective nationstate. I applaud your ability to continue reading the whole post. First time round I skipped on after the first sentence. Far too preachy.

You press the little button next to quote, with the little "?" mark on it.
Then you do the same for all the posts you want to quote.
Then you press the little button that says "reply".

This way, you don't have to post 5 times in a row, get it?

No, I'm a little more retarded than you take me for ;)

Okay, yes, I seem to have irked some anonymous posters with my snide, offhanded comment to a particular poster regarding his lack of grammatical convention.

For this, I apologize.

I will, respectfully, rephrase my previous post:

Watch closely.

Sentence. New sentence.

Did you catch it?

as follows:

Orion Ascendant, with all due respect, I humbly request, for the benefit and ease of reading of all partaking of this thread, the use of spaces after punctuation between two sentences. I further apologize for my contrite remark previously and it is my sincere hope that I have not caused offense.

Thank you.
Nolandorcountry

Just a slight quibble - but if you say Poland has been independent since 1918, excluding the Occupation by Germany in WWII; then why not say Poland has been independent since the 10th century excluding its occupation by the Russian Empire and the Third Reich?Wasn't occupied during that time, it was annexed.

Just a slight quibble - but if you say Poland has been independent since 1918, excluding the Occupation by Germany in WWII; then why not say Poland has been independent since the 10th century excluding its occupation by the Russian Empire and the Third Reich?

Why not count America has been independent since the Xth century before it's occupation by European colonists?

Orion Ascendant, with all due respect, I humbly request, for the benefit and ease of reading of all partaking of this thread, the use of spaces after punctuation between two sentences. I further apologize for my contrite remark previously and it is my sincere hope that I have not caused offense.

Thank you.
Nolandorcountry

You may also wish to provide flowers with your open letter. Nothing fancy, just a simple arrangement under $40.

Why not count America has been independent since the Xth century before it's occupation by European colonists?

I believe the term we use here is conquest.

Let's also not forget the rise of nationalism and the creation of the nation-state in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Wasn't occupied during that time, it was annexed.I think that's just semantics. Annexation just means a territory becoming part of another territory through the latter's use of unilateral force. Which is generally what occupation means too.

Why not count America has been independent since the Xth century before it's occupation by European colonists?Because the Polish nation continues to exist in the area is has since the 10th Century. Whereas, the European colonists pretty much exterminated the native population from all the places they used to live in, with just a few reserves left here and there.

I think that's just semantics. Annexation just means a territory becoming part of another territory through the latter's use of unilateral force. Which is generally what occupation means too.

Occupation lends itself to a more temporary state. They are both similar in their initiation (but not exactly the same) but more importantly, the outcome is quite different.

Example: Hawaii was annexed by the United States. Iraq is occupied by the United States (its imminent annexation is still a question at large, however ;))

Occupation lends itself to a more temporary state. They are both similar in their inititiation (but not exactly the same) but more importantly, the outcome is quite different.

Example: Hawaii was annexed by the United States. Iraq is occupied by the United States (its imminent annexation is still a question at large, however ;))Possibly. Not sure I'm comfortable with that definition though. My looking around on the internet and dictionaries is telling me that the primary difference is who administers the territory. An annexed territory is administered by civil authorities whereas occupied territory is administered by military authorities.

I even found this one definition of Annex
2. to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state: Germany annexed part of Czechoslovakia.Why can Czechoslovakia be annexed, but not Poland?

...European colonists pretty much exterminated the native population from all the places they used to live in, with just a few reserves left here and there.


So if you are basing this off of population - then the folks in the USA have European History for their own. Thus the only difference would be events happening after their arrival in America or perhaps after Independence.

Just a slight quibble - but if you say Poland has been independent since 1918, excluding the Occupation by Germany in WWII; then why not say Poland has been independent since the 10th century excluding its occupation by the Russian Empire and the Third Reich?

I just use the intiial dates of formation listed in Wikipedia.

I think what perhaps the guy meant was history of the nation rather than its respective nationstate.

Fine, in this case American history goes back to the 16th century if you don't count the Indians, if you do, it goes all the way back to the first men across the Bering Strait.

Possibly. Not sure I'm comfortable with that definition though. My looking around on the internet and dictionaries is telling me that the primary difference is who administers the territory. An annexed territory is administered by civil authorities whereas occupied territory is administered by military authorities.

I even found this one definition of Annex
Why can Czechoslovakia be annexed, but not Poland?

Okay--here's what I found. The primary difference between the terms occupy and annex is in the application, and is similar to that between a rectangle and a square.

A country may be annexed and occupied, as by military forces, but since it is annexed it is governed not by the occupying force but by the civil authorities of the occupying country. If a country is simply occupied, as in Iraq, the occupying country's military forces are in de facto or direct control of the occupied nation, but the [US] government does not rule (I'm using the term loosely) Iraq as it rules South Dakota or Puerto Rico. Iraq is occupied by a military force, but is not governed by the United States. Does that distinction make more sense?

EDIT: Meanwhile, back on topic...

If the US were to invade Iran, it would first be pummeled by aerial bombardment and if we're smart (possible, if unlikely) we'll hold airpower over their heads as a bargaining stick to achieve limited political gains.

If shit hits the fan, as it almost always does, there will be a draft, people in the states will get pissed, and we will have an exact repeat of Vietnam.

An occupation of Iran would absolutely be out of the question as we lack the manpower to effectively maintain our strategic interests even today. At least, we would see the end of the all-volunteer force and the demise of our international military projection capabilities, which would have even more far-reaching and, quite simply, undesirable results.

Okay--here's what I found. The primary difference between the terms occupy and annex is in the application, and is similar to that between a rectangle and a square.

A country may be annexed and occupied, as by military forces, but since it is annexed it is governed not by the occupying force but by the civil authorities of the occupying country. If a country is simply occupied, as in Iraq, the occupying country's military forces are in de facto or direct control of the occupied nation, but the [US] government does not rule (I'm using the term loosely) Iraq as it rules South Dakota or Puerto Rico. Iraq is occupied by a military force, but is not governed by the United States. Does that distinction make more sense?I would think it does make sense to me as it's more or less what I said in the post your quoted ;)

I just use the intiial dates of formation listed in Wikipedia.

Fine, in this case American history goes back to the 16th century if you don't count the Indians, if you do, it goes all the way back to the first men across the Bering Strait.

So if you are basing this off of population - then the folks in the USA have European History for their own. Thus the only difference would be events happening after their arrival in America or perhaps after Independence.Oooh, interesting, one person saying that American history follows back with the natives and another saying it follows back from the European colonists. I guess that's the hard thing with history you can't just have one continuous single branch of it.

edit: Topiciness: The US will never invade Iran in the short-term, not with their lack of resources, huge cost of oil, the protraction of such a war and the inability to quickly get oil production back up and running.

It had to have been bullshit, there is no way the US would ever attempt an invasion of Iran in 2 weeks!

I even found this one definition of Annex
Why can Czechoslovakia be annexed, but not Poland?
Because when Poland was "annexed", the Allies said "No, it wasn't", and spent six years trying to prove their point.

Because when Poland was "annexed", the Allies said "No, it wasn't", and spent six years trying to prove their point.

Hehe, so the victor not only writes history but linguistics?:p

Btw I was wondering: who was the nazi guy that stated in Nuremberg "Had Germany won the war, an Allies general would be in my place tried by Germans" or something like that. I was looking for it, the other day and couldn't find it anywhere.

It was extremely strange the circumstances of this broadcast I saw. I was watching the stock market (which is down 1% today...I have a bad feeling in the pit of my wallet) and starting to doze off. Well before I did I was awakened very quickly by this "Breaking News" alert. It said that they had information that the United States was planning an invasion of Iran to commence within the following weeks. They said that the Pentagon was vehemently denying any of these allegations, but whats new? There wasn't a follow up story and I can't find any information about it on the internet. Likely it was suppressed (as many such articles are. Look at that one story about a year ago where George Bush Sr. came out and admitted that he was ashamed of his son for his presidency. That article was GONE within ten minutes and you could never find anything else out about it). Did anyone else happen to catch it? It was between 1 and 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

No invasion of Iran is forthcoming. This has been a News Update from Reality News Network.

i dont know what is being said and denied but we CANT invade iran. we dont have the military manpower to do so.

we could bomb the shit out of it but we cant invade.

Even if we had the military manpower to invade Iran, we couldn't.

the US public likes either:

1. Fire cruise missiles and send stealth bombers to hit accordion factories and mime schools

or:

2. Send the entire military over for 3 days of wholesale annihilation of enemy forces - stop - declare victory - come home

If you do anything else, everyone starts freaking.

Even if we had the military manpower to invade Iran, we couldn't.

the US public likes either:

1. Fire cruise missiles and send stealth bombers to hit accordion factories and mime schools

or:

2. Send the entire military over for 3 days of wholesale annihilation of enemy forces - stop - declare victory - come home

If you do anything else, everyone starts freaking.

I blame half hour sitcoms for this condition.

I blame half hour sitcoms for this condition.

I always meant to ask if you liked that briefing in Hot Shots about what targets they planned to hit...

I blame half hour sitcoms for this condition.JAG.

It is true, because I saw another news report reporting on this exact same thing, but it was on FOX News which means it must be false.

So if you are basing this off of population - then the folks in the USA have European History for their own. Thus the only difference would be events happening after their arrival in America or perhaps after Independence.


This is a common error of assumption made by Europeans, the idea that they are heirs to some special wisdom due to their having a "longer" history. It's nonsense.

First of all, memory and wisdom are not passed along genetically. We each have our own road to walk, and we all start out at the zero mile marker. How far your great great grandfather got is not a factor.

Secondly, even if it were, it certainly didn't do them any good- some two millenia plus after the founding of the Roman Republic, even longer since the Grecian golden age had laid out the foundations of modern philosophy, Europeans had basically reduced their continent to rubble. What wisdom had come out of their long history? Not enough to prevent the horrors of the 20th century, apparently.

Thirdly, while Europeans were still ruled by kings and queens, Americans began consciously applying the philosophical achievements of Europe. It's not coincidence that we took Greco-Roman words, Greco-Roman architecture, even the names of Greco-Roman cities. And of course the Order of Cincinatus, that determined the radically a-political nature of the US military. American is a derivative of Europe, classical history is our history too- possibly more so. The Atlantic was not the Styx or the Lethe. We took the ideas of Locke and Hume and made them real- first. Since our history and their history share a common root, claiming one history is older is absurd. Location has nothing to do with it. It's like claiming one twin as older than a sibling on the basis of that individual having had the same address longer.

If Poland has had a longer history as a stable ethnic group in a location, then, we have had the longer history as transient heirs to a set of philosophical principles.

Fourthly- people have a logarithmic scale of reality- the nearer grossly outweighs the further. This applies to time as well. If you're looking for what history impacts thought processes, don't look far back. Hastings might have changed the course of British history, but it doesn't really matter as a source of contemporary political values.

Even if we had the military manpower to invade Iran, we couldn't.

the US public likes either:

1. Fire cruise missiles and send stealth bombers to hit accordion factories and mime schools

or:

2. Send the entire military over for 3 days of wholesale annihilation of enemy forces - stop - declare victory - come home

If you do anything else, everyone starts freaking.

That's because this country does not have the stomach for prolonged conflict anymore. Fuck you Vietnam.

The Far-From-Reality set has been predicting the imminent invasion of Iran for years now.

It's not going to happen. Again. And UFO's will not make contact with us, and Jesus will not call up his faithful in the Rapture.

But predictions like that won't sell tabloids, will they?

That's because this country does not have the stomach for prolonged conflict anymore. Fuck you Vietnam.Blame the Civil War for not leaving a lasting impression.

Blame the Civil War for not leaving a lasting impression.

Which one? The one that started in 1775 or the one that started in 1861? :D

Which one? The one that started in 1775 or the one that started in 1861? :DThe one that started in 2006, you yellow-bellied fool! :p

Are you sure the news channel wasn't interviewing someone.
and that was his opinion?

That's because this country does not have the stomach for prolonged conflict anymore. Fuck you Vietnam.

how does that opinion square with you voting for Obama?

That's because this country does not have the stomach for prolonged conflict anymore. Fuck you Vietnam.
Hey, we should NEVER put up with crap like Vietnam again. And what's going on now, in Iraq, is nothing like Vietnam.

Maybe he's not a single issue voter.

That's a pretty big issue, lol

how does that opinion square with you voting for Obama?Maybe he's not a single issue voter.

I always meant to ask if you liked that briefing in Hot Shots about what targets they planned to hit...
I always tried to lighten up the briefs by talking about secondary targets of opportunity -- like the shrimp boats in the gulf -- or the latest JSTARS goof. Inside the squadron, you can do things like that. Generals and Admirals don't want to hear it, though.

That's because this country does not have the stomach for prolonged conflict anymore. Fuck you Vietnam.

wait wait, you think this is a bad thing that we don't tolerate prolonged conflict?

Hey, we should NEVER put up with crap like Vietnam again.

Next time don't put a guy like McNamara in charge.

wait wait, you think this is a bad thing that we don't tolerate prolonged conflict?Are you suggesting tolerating conflict is a good thing? ( =P )

Are you suggesting tolerating conflict is a good thing? ( =P )

make love not war.

But when you make love, make everyone in earshot think it's a war.

Next time don't put a guy like McNamara in charge.
McNamara was so screwed up on so many things. You have to wonder what Kennedy was thinking when he appointed him.

make love not war.

But when you make love, make everyone in earshot think it's a war.

make: Do not know how to make love. Stop.

UNIX FTW!

make install, not war!

EDIT: zomg, 42 posts!

wait wait, you think this is a bad thing that we don't tolerate prolonged conflict?

Yeah, we should have given up in WW II after that Pearl Harbor thing.

Who should we have surrendered to - the Germans or the Japanese?

Yeah, we should have given up in WW II after that Pearl Harbor thing.

Who should we have surrendered to - the Germans or the Japanese?

because world war II is so comparable to today's geopolitical landscape.

Gee, you sure got me there :rolleyes:

Yeah, we should have given up in WW II after that Pearl Harbor thing.

Who should we have surrendered to - the Germans or the Japanese?
Quick history lesson: It was the Japanese and Germans that started WWII with the US, whereas the US was the aggressor in the current conflict we're embroiled in.

You're welcome :)

Quick history lesson: It was the Japanese and Germans that started WWII with the US, whereas the US was the aggressor in the current conflict we're embroiled in.

You're welcome :)

Quick lesson - if you can't stomach prolonged conflict, when attacked, you surrender like the French.

You're welcome.

Quick history lesson: It was the Japanese and Germans that started WWII with the US, whereas the US was the aggressor in the current conflict we're embroiled in.

You're welcome :)
Half and half, depending on how strongly you believe Sadam had ties to terrorism...

There were a number of smaller attacks on the United States that were virtually ignored. It wasn't until the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon that the terrorists finally got the kind of attention that they deserved in the form of attacks on Afghanistan.

Quick history lesson: It was the Japanese and Germans that started WWII with the US, whereas the US was the aggressor in the current conflict we're embroiled in.

You're welcome :)
Al-Qaeda declared war on us in 1998, and has been attacking us since 1993.

You're welcome.

Al-Qaeda

That's a very unusual way of spelling "Iraq" or "Hussein"

That's a very unusual way of spelling "Iraq" or "Hussein"

I didn't say it was. That's another conflict, you know.

I think the US should just invade the whole world. That way, while the army's gone, the rest of us can continue completely unhindered in our USian land grab.

I think the US should just invade the whole world. That way, while the army's gone, the rest of us can continue completely unhindered in our USian land grab.

Several advantages there:

1. Unitary world currency (if it's good for Europe to have one currency...)
2. Solves the immigration problem everywhere - you're already in the same country no matter where you go.
3. Forces the US to be multilingual
4. No matter where the military is sent, it's already "home". So the troops are always "home"
5. We're not invading anyone - we're just moving troops around.
6. All problems can actually be blamed on US policy, no matter what the problems are.

Hey, we should NEVER put up with crap like Vietnam again. And what's going on now, in Iraq, is nothing like Vietnam.

No shit sherlock.

Quick lesson - if you can't stomach prolonged conflict, when attacked, you surrender like the French.

You're welcome.
I'm sorry, what state sponsored military organization attacked us again, I forgot.

Several advantages there:

1. Unitary world currency (if it's good for Europe to have one currency...)
2. Solves the immigration problem everywhere - you're already in the same country no matter where you go.
3. Forces the US to be multilingual
4. No matter where the military is sent, it's already "home". So the troops are always "home"
5. We're not invading anyone - we're just moving troops around.
6. All problems can actually be blamed on US policy, no matter what the problems are.
Well, sounds good except for the part where China hands you your ass.

Wait. No. That actually sounds better :D

Well, yeah. If you're deluded about Saddam, you're probably deluded in other aspects as well.

Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign, nor did we declare war on Iraq. Japan was and is a sovereign state, and unlike on Iraq, the United States declared war on Germany.

This is a major difference. I'm glad I could point it out to you :)

Sorry, you have to fight terrorists who organize and attack. By engaging in war against them.

There's a precedent you know - piracy. Remember the shores of Tripoli? You can thank me for the history lesson later.

Half and half, depending on how strongly you believe Sadam had ties to terrorism... Well, yeah. If you're deluded about Saddam, you're probably deluded in other aspects as well.
Al-Qaeda declared war on us in 1998, and has been attacking us since 1993.

You're welcome.
Al Qaeda isn't a sovereign state, nor did we declare war on Iraq. Japan was and is a sovereign state, and unlike on Iraq, the United States declared war on Germany.

This is a major difference. I'm glad I could point it out to you :)

Or retreat from Lebanon, unlike the French, and just like the Americans.

I don't see any French forces in Lebanon today, do you? Of course not...

Quick lesson - if you can't stomach prolonged conflict, when attacked, you surrender like the French.

You're welcome.Or retreat from Lebanon, unlike the French, and just like the Americans.

Maybe he's not a single issue voter.

I look at the whole person and not just where he stands on 1 or 2 issues.

I'm sorry, what state sponsored military organization attacked us again, I forgot.

See "the shores of Tripoli" for fighting wars against non-state actors...

Sorry, you have to fight terrorists who organize and attack. By engaging in war against them.Yes. But that's not what we were debating. We were debating whether or not you can compare two things that aren't at all alike.
There's a precedent you know - piracy. Remember the shores of Tripoli? You can thank me for the history lesson later.Now you're getting it! :)

wait wait, you think this is a bad thing that we don't tolerate prolonged conflict?

When you are trying to help people then Yes.

Al-Qaeda declared war on us in 1998, and has been attacking us since 1993.

You're welcome.

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a while. As I recall, Al-Qaeda is mainly in Afganistan, thus the reason that we are currently fighting there. And I seem to recall that our case against Iraq was not that the famed and elusive Al-Qaeda was there, but that that Saddam Husein had WMDs.

I also seem to recall that we declared war on Iraq, not vice-versa. And since Iraq is not Al-Qaeda, we would be the aggressors. Now that I'm thinking about it, wasn't the term "preemptive strike" thrown about a bit with regards to Iraq? Doesn't "preemptive" mean that they haven't done anything yet?

And now on to Iran. It seems to me that our main problem with Iran is that they are a dictatorship that may have nuclear weapons. But, if that were justifiable cause for a war, we would be in North Korea right now. And they have yet to attack us. In fact, quick history lesson, we were the ones who attempted a coups on them (twice, if I remember correctly). I'm pretty sure killing a leader is aggression.

As for WWII, there is no way that can be compared to Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. In WWII, there was a distinct attack on the US Military by a sovereign nation, on whom we subsequently declared war. 9/11, and all those other terrorist acts were all done by groups of radicals. And we fought those radicals. It was obvious that they were in Afghanistan, not just to us but to the rest of the world. And as such, war against Afghanistan was justified. Iraq, not so much. WMDs that nobody could find is not a justification for war.

Yes. But that's not what we were debating. We were debating whether or not you can compare two things that aren't at all alike.
Now you're getting it! :)

Pirates are non-state actors. The law of the sea and historical precedence allows declaring war on non-state actors. (in fact in some cases demands all "civilized nations" declare war on piracy).

Same same terrorists. So we're at war with al-Q.

Alternately, it's kind of hard to ignore someone who declares war on you publicly, and then proceeds to repeatedly attack you - you know, flying airliners into skyscrapers, blowing holes in ships, etc.

Would you be happier if we just ignored al-Q, no matter how many times they attacked or how many people they killed?

Anyone else here more disturbed about the bill currently in the Senate that in an attempt to lower the carbon emissions of large businesses will likely increase gas prices by $1.50 a gallon and average monthly energy bills by $300 (EPA estimates)? BTW all three presidential candidates support it.

I could care less whether or not we invade Iran. That's Israel's fight just as much as it is ours, and they should have fought it already.

I care more about the fact that we will allow Iran to keep a grasp on us through oil when we could be drilling in ANWR and off the Atlantic coast right now if we didn't have so many laws to "protect the environment".

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a while. As I recall, Al-Qaeda is mainly in Afganistan, thus the reason that we are currently fighting there. And I seem to recall that our case against Iraq was not that the famed and elusive Al-Qaeda was there, but that that Saddam Husein had WMDs.

I also seem to recall that we declared war on Iraq, not vice-versa. And since Iraq is not Al-Qaeda, we would be the aggressors. Now that I'm thinking about it, wasn't the term "preemptive strike" thrown about a bit with regards to Iraq? Doesn't "preemptive" mean that they haven't done anything yet?

And now on to Iran. It seems to me that our main problem with Iran is that they are a dictatorship that may have nuclear weapons. But, if that were justifiable cause for a war, we would be in North Korea right now. And they have yet to attack us. In fact, quick history lesson, we were the ones who attempted a coups on them (twice, if I remember correctly). I'm pretty sure killing a leader is aggression.

As for WWII, there is no way that can be compared to Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan. In WWII, there was a distinct attack on the US Military by a sovereign nation, on whom we subsequently declared war. 9/11, and all those other terrorist acts were all done by groups of radicals. And we fought those radicals. It was obvious that they were in Afghanistan, not just to us but to the rest of the world. And as such, war against Afghanistan was justified. Iraq, not so much. WMDs that nobody could find is not a justification for war.

I'm not talking about Iraq...

Pelosi and Reid want us out of Afghanistan too...

let's fucking give up is the message...

we can't tolerate fighting for any length of time...

Quick history lesson: It was the Japanese and Germans that started WWII with the US, whereas the US was the aggressor in the current conflict we're embroiled in.

You're welcome :)

Uh...actually...that's not 100% true.

Pirates are non-state actors. The law of the sea and historical precedence allows declaring war on non-state actors. (in fact in some cases demands all "civilized nations" declare war on piracy).

Same same terrorists. So we're at war with al-Q.

Alternately, it's kind of hard to ignore someone who declares war on you publicly, and then proceeds to repeatedly attack you - you know, flying airliners into skyscrapers, blowing holes in ships, etc.Yes! Exactly! Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates are an excellent example of what to compare the current conflict to. World War Two is not.
Would you be happier if we just ignored al-Q, no matter how many times they attacked or how many people they killed?Do you eat babies with salt, or do you prefer mayonnaise?

As for WWII, there is no way that can be compared to Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Yes, it can. The question was, "does the US have the stomach for prolonged conflict"

You don't get to pick and choose who your enemies are sometimes. And fighting non-state actors in "war" has a long precedence. See. "shores of Tripoli" in the famous song...

I'm sure Myrmidonisia can hum a few bars for you...

Or retreat from Lebanon, unlike the French, and just like the Americans.

Uh...they did retreat!

Yes! Exactly! Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates are an excellent example of what to compare the current conflict to. World War Two is not.
Do you eat babies with salt, or do you prefer mayonnaise?

1. Yes, and that's "war on non-state actors".
2. No, with a bit of mustard....

Uh...actually...that's not 100% true.

Oooh, here's a novel idea, Corny! Instead of making an assertion and waiting for someone smarter to come along and back it up for you, why don't YOU actually do the backing up? The way you hang on the coattails of your betters, and pretend their ideas are your own was amusing the first time you did it, but it's become tiresome long since.

Anyone else here more disturbed about the bill currently in the Senate that in an attempt to lower the carbon emissions of large businesses will likely increase gas prices by $1.50 a gallon and average monthly energy bills by $300 (EPA estimates)? BTW all three presidential candidates support it.

And people wonder why we complain alot.

I care more about the fact that we will allow Iran to keep a grasp on us through oil when we could be drilling in ANWR and off the Atlantic coast right now if we didn't have so many laws to "protect the environment".

Its not so much the laws WF but the environmental groups.

Uh...actually...that's not 100% true.Things rarely are. But if you boil it down to who attacked first in the conflict, that's what it amounts to.

Oooh, here's a novel idea, Corny! Instead of making an assertion and waiting for someone smarter to come along and back it up for you, why don't YOU actually do the backing up?

Here's a thought! Act like a fucking adult.

Things rarely are. But if you boil it down to who attacked first in the conflict, that's what it amounts to.

Again that's not 100% true.

I think we can agree that Iraq did take some action that provoked us into war (lack of clarity with UN weapons inspectors, etc.). Which is exactly why 90% of the people, who oppose the war now, were originally in support of it.

Here's a thought! Act like a fucking adult.

I learned during my time as a teacher, that when speaking to others, it's best to come down to their level in order to ensure they understand the concepts you're explaining.

Here's how it goes.

Someone makes a statement. You disagree so you say so. The onus is now on you to back up your disagreement with some alternative. Proof is generally required at this point. The other person can then agree with you, or disagree, at which point the onus would then shift back to that person to state why he or she is disagreeing. The inclusion of some proof to back up the disagreement up with is also required.

You simply saying, 'Nu-uh!' just doesn't cut it.

This has been a free lesson in Debating 101. I accept your gratitude in advance.

You don't get to pick and choose who your enemies are sometimes. And fighting non-state actors in "war" has a long precedence. See. "shores of Tripoli" in the famous song..

Hey, I heard this thing the other day. Apparently yeah, Iraq never actually had a connection with Al Qaeda nor did it ever have any WMDs. But this is totally new info, I wouldn't expect anyone to know this yet. :rolleyes:

Again that's not 100% true.
See, here is an example of you waiting for someone else to come along and make your argument for you. Tsk.

I learned during my time as a teacher, that when speaking to others, it's best to come down to their level in order to ensure they understand the concepts you're explaining.

Here's a tip. I'm not one of your students. I'm a full grown adult! I do not appreciate being talked down to. If you have a point to make, make it but not like some upstart bitch with a superiority complex.

Hey, I heard this thing the other day. Apparently yeah, Iraq never actually had a connection with Al Qaeda nor did it ever have any WMDs. But this is totally new info, I wouldn't expect anyone to know this yet. :rolleyes:

If you could remember five years back, it did look very much like they had WMDs. Unfortunately, once we realized they didn't, we were already stuck trying to establish a democracy. Turning back at that point would have lead to disaster as the region would have fallen into chaos and probably been taken over by terrorist elements or Iran.

Yes, it can. The question was, "does the US have the stomach for prolonged conflict"

You don't get to pick and choose who your enemies are sometimes. And fighting non-state actors in "war" has a long precedence. See. "shores of Tripoli" in the famous song...Well, sure you can compare them. The current conflict has more in common with World War II than it does with pineapple juice, for instance. Doesn't mean that WWII compares to OIF.
Uh...they did retreat!Later than the Americans.

Again that's not 100% true.Yes, in this case it is.

If you could remember five years back, it did look very much like they had WMDs.

Maybe to the press and the general public, not to the intelligence services (even though they said otherwise).


Unfortunately, once we realized they didn't, we were already stuck trying to establish a democracy. Turning back at that point would have lead to disaster as the region would have fallen into chaos and probably been taken over by terrorist elements or Iran.

Reluctantly agree.

See "the shores of Tripoli" for fighting wars against non-state actors...
So we should.. capture their ships?

Here's a tip. I'm not one of your students. I'm a full grown adult! I do not appreciate being talked down to. If you have a point to make, make it but not like some upstart bitch with a superiority complex.

It's not a complex when it's true.

Amazingly, I didn't use baby language with you, but you still seem unable to grasp the concepts I am imparting. Perhaps I need to lower my vocabulary a bit more?

BACK. YOUR. SHIT. UP.

Or shut up.

It's simple. Mr. Full Grown Adult.

If you could remember five years back, it did look very much like they had WMDs. Unfortunately, once we realized they didn't, we were already stuck trying to establish a democracy. Turning back at that point would have lead to disaster as the region would have fallen into chaos and probably been taken over by terrorist elements or Iran.If you remember five years back, you'll notice that Saddam was actually allowing Hans Blix to look for the WMDs, mainly because he was convinced a US invasion was imminent. But the Bush administration didn't feel like having anyone prove what we know now, because that would mean they wouldn't be allowed to invade (regime change is a popular cause for war now that it's too late to turn back, but not so much five years ago). As a result, the inspectors were pulled out before they could finish their jobs.

So yeah, sucks that Bush decided not to go the less expensive (in monetary and body count terms) of keeping America safe, huh? :rolleyes:

Yes, in this case it is.

Actually no. If we are talking about Iraq, there was no peace treaty that was signed. As such, the war was still going on before we invaded Iraq. Just like the Korean War is still going on 50 years after the cease-fire was signed. Hell World War 2 in Europe lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It's not a complex when it's true.

Except that I am not one of your students so it really is falling on deaf ears because I tend to ignore statements phrased like that.

Amazingly, I didn't use baby language with you, but you still seem unable to grasp the concepts I am imparting. Perhaps I need to lower my vocabulary a bit more?

Go ahead but if ya do, it will be fully ignored.

Whatever was corrupting this thread has apparently been removed.

Thread reopened.

If you could remember five years back, it did look very much like they had WMDs. Unfortunately, once we realized they didn't, we were already stuck trying to establish a democracy. Turning back at that point would have lead to disaster as the region would have fallen into chaos and probably been taken over by terrorist elements or Iran.

LOL it was obvious that they didn't have wmds.

Hell World War 2 in Europe lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Lie. A war requires a formal declaration of war by one or both state actors. Neither was the case for the Cold War.

This thread sucks.

America to invade Iran !! What a surprise there. Who the hell do those twats think they are - the World Police ? No wonder they're about as popular as a paedophile in a nursery.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to do some selective bombing combined with a clever array of economical sabotage and the covert financing of civil uprisings?

Yes, it can. The question was, "does the US have the stomach for prolonged conflict"

You don't get to pick and choose who your enemies are sometimes. And fighting non-state actors in "war" has a long precedence. See. "shores of Tripoli" in the famous song...

I'm sure Myrmidonisia can hum a few bars for you...

And I can tell you about Presley O'Bannon 'til you're bored to tears. Nothing says Marine like 232 years of tradition, unhampered by progress.

But the point is that you have to fight pirates where you find them. Or make them come to you at a place of your choosing.

So we should.. capture their ships?
You obviously didn't look it up. Try Derna.

Lie. A war requires a formal declaration of war by one or both state actors. Neither was the case for the Cold War.

Oh for the love of Christ!

Listen. It is indeed accurate since the war against Germany could not legally end till Germany was reunited. That did not happen till the Berlin Wall came down.

Most people believe and accept that World War 2 was officially ended in late April/Early May 1945 in Europe with the success of the Allies and fall of Rome and Berlin in Europe and in September of the same year in the Far East, but there is also a theory that states that it did not actually "officially" end until far later - almost 45 years later, in fact!


The reason behind this theory is that, after the cessation of hostilities, Germany was divided into the two separate sovereign states of East and West Germany. Therefore the country which originally declared war on Britain, starting World War II (just "Germany") did not then exist.

The state of war between the ORIGINAL PROTAGONISTS of World War II - those being "Germany" and "Britain" could not therefore technically be "officially" declared as over until "Germany" itself (and not just East Germany or West Germany) existed properly and independently in it's own right, which did not happen until the east and west countries were re-unified into one sovereign state once again on October 3rd 1990.

You sir, have been served.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did_World_War_2_officially_end

Actually no. If we are talking about Iraq, there was no peace treaty that was signed. As such, the war was still going on before we invaded Iraq. Just like the Korean War is still going on 50 years after the cease-fire was signed. Hell World War 2 in Europe lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A war between the UN and Iraq. I fail to see where the USA is allowed to invade based on that premisce.

Apart from the fact that's it's complete bull, that is.

Oh for the love of Christ!

Listen. It is indeed accurate since the war against Germany could not legally end till Germany was reunited. That did not happen till the Berlin Wall came down.


Governments declare war, not landmasses. Nazi Germany officially ceased to exist circa May 1945. The original declarator of war was considered destroyed, and as such, the state of war can no longer be sustained. In no shape or form did Nazi Germany ever reform following its defeat to present day. You don't get single faction wars as much as you like to pretend that they exist. If you argue that a war cannot end until all involved state actors formally ends it, then no war that ever resulted in the complete destruction and induction of a nation into another has ever ended.


You sir, have been served.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did_World_War_2_officially_end

You sir, rely on unvalidated material.

http://www.answers.com/main/disclaimer.jsp

Also


Whichever theory is correct, what is true is that Germany and Japan (the 'Axis' forces) conceded defeat in the war and surrendered to the Allied forces in 1945, with the Japanese doing so later in the year - on September 2nd, so it is reasonable to assume that date as the end to World War II.

Your argument is specious, and admittedly so by the source.

Oh for the love of Christ!

Listen. It is indeed accurate since the war against Germany could not legally end till Germany was reunited. That did not happen till the Berlin Wall came down.



You sir, have been served.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_did_World_War_2_officially_end

I think you're confusing the end of the occupation with the end of the war. Sure, the occupation was considered part of the war by the US, which is why my father is a veteran of WWII, despite being born in the 1950s. So you can go out on a very shaky limb and claim that the war didn't end until the 90s. Just like the Korean War is still going on, except for the fact that hostilities ended and both sides have been doing unwarlike things with one another for decades.

What a ludicrus argument. Because "Germany" declared war, the war could not end until a unified Germany existed to end the war? How utterly absurd. The political organization that was the Nazi party declared war, so the war ended when the legal regime that originated the war was destroyed.

It's like saying the American war for independance is still ongoing because the entity that declared war (Great Britain, which included the thirteen colonies) did not have the same borders as the entity that signed the end of the war (Great Britian without the thirteen colonies).

Wars are declared by governments, and ended by governments, not physical masses of land. The idea that "Germany" started the war so only "Germany" could agree to end it, and "germany" is defined not by the legal regime empowered to create and end wars but the mere borders of the nation? Stupid.

What a ludicrus argument. Because "Germany" declared war, the war could not end until a unified Germany existed to end the war? How utterly absurd. The political organization that was the Nazi party declared war, so the war ended when the legal regime that originated the war was destroyed.

It's like saying the American war for independance is still ongoing because the entity that declared war (Great Britain, which included the thirteen colonies) did not have the same borders as the entity that signed the end of the war (Great Britian without the thirteen colonies).

Wars are declared by governments, and ended by governments, not physical masses of land. The idea that "Germany" started the war so only "Germany" could agree to end it, and "germany" is defined not by the legal regime empowered to create and end wars but the mere borders of the nation? Stupid.

What a ludicrus argument. Because "Germany" declared war, the war could not end until a unified Germany existed to end the war? How utterly absurd. The political organization that was the Nazi party declared war, so the war ended when the legal regime that originated the war was destroyed.

It's like saying the American war for independance is still ongoing because the entity that declared war (Great Britain, which included the thirteen colonies) did not have the same borders as the entity that signed the end of the war (Great Britian without the thirteen colonies).

Wars are declared by governments, and ended by governments, not physical masses of land. The idea that "Germany" started the war so only "Germany" could agree to end it, and "germany" is defined not by the legal regime empowered to create and end wars but the mere borders of the nation? Stupid.Actually, if that were the case, the war's still going on, and will continue to do so until East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia are German again.

Actually, if that were the case, the war's still going on, and will continue to do so until East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia are German again.

indeed, but we'll have to resurrect the Ottoman Empire to put an end to WWI first.

Hey, I heard this thing the other day. Apparently yeah, Iraq never actually had a connection with Al Qaeda nor did it ever have any WMDs. But this is totally new info, I wouldn't expect anyone to know this yet. :rolleyes:


Who did you hear that from? Way off. Iraq did have WMD's, it's just that whenever they were found they were dismissed as "insignificant" or "too old" or "too few" or "not in completed form" or whatever. All those words have become equivalent to "None" in the new lexicon, I suppose. Saddam also had the two things that are really important to the issue though: 1) An industrial chemical infrastructure and knowledge base capable of quickly replicating the chemical weapon achievements of 1914 Europe. 2) The will to do so, once those pesky inspections were over.

Saddam also had numerous connections with Al Queda- what he DIDN'T have was an "operation connection to the 9-11 attacks". Al Queda is a very amorphous thing. As an Egyptian security official put it, anyone who shares its goals and views is effectively a member. Saddam's intelligence agency had connections with Al Queda, and more importantly, he was very much supportive of their ambitions. Remember, Al Queda is not the whole of the threat, no more than the enemy in 1941 was the Luftwaffe. Al Queda is an emergent element of the threat. The threat (at least in Europe) was Naziism then, it is Islamic Extremism now.

AL Queda is somewhat battered now, and Islamic extremism as a whole is not looking as good today as it was in 2001, when Osama was billed as a hero throughout most of the Islamic world- and publicly lauded by two and only two national leaders: guess which. Since 2001, we've seen their capabilites shrink from major operations in the US to major operations in Europe, now the best they can do is a third rate bombing in Pakistan; which is essentially their home turf. Much of this comes from the US strategy: force the fight to within the Islamic world, rather than around its periphery.

Funny thing, though- had Bush said "I intend to invade Iraq because our strategic think tanks say we should force the fight to within the Islamic world rather than its periphery", it would have been a collosal failure. Did Bush lie about intentions and reasons for going into Iraq? Of course he did. He's supposed to. That's how you win. If you interview a chess grand master shortly after a game begins, and ask him to explain his intentions behind his first few moves, live, on the air, how do you expect he will react? Can anyone be so stupid as to believe that a nation will bluntly betray its wartime strategy when it's barely begun?

Speaking of chess grandmasters, not coincidentally, Garry Kasparov had some very interesting opinions on the overall US strategy for dealing with radical islam. Not coincidentally, the "get out of Iraq" crowd would not want to hear them.

Iraq did have WMD's...Saddam also had numerous connections with Al Queda
Woah, déjà vu.

Or a nasty case of timewarp from 2004.

Who did you hear that from? Way off. Iraq did have WMD's, it's just that whenever they were found they were dismissed as "insignificant" or "too old" or "too few" or "not in completed form" or whatever. All those words have become equivalent to "None" in the new lexicon, I suppose. Saddam also had the two things that are really important to the issue though: 1) An industrial chemical infrastructure and knowledge base capable of quickly replicating the chemical weapon achievements of 1914 Europe. 2) The will to do so, once those pesky inspections were over.

Saddam also had numerous connections with Al Queda- what he DIDN'T have was an "operation connection to the 9-11 attacks". Al Queda is a very amorphous thing. As an Egyptian security official put it, anyone who shares its goals and views is effectively a member. Saddam's intelligence agency had connections with Al Queda, and more importantly, he was very much supportive of their ambitions. Remember, Al Queda is not the whole of the threat, no more than the enemy in 1941 was the Luftwaffe. Al Queda is an emergent element of the threat. The threat (at least in Europe) was Naziism then, it is Islamic Extremism now.

AL Queda is somewhat battered now, and Islamic extremism as a whole is not looking as good today as it was in 2001, when Osama was billed as a hero throughout most of the Islamic world- and publicly lauded by two and only two national leaders: guess which. Since 2001, we've seen their capabilites shrink from major operations in the US to major operations in Europe, now the best they can do is a third rate bombing in Pakistan; which is essentially their home turf. Much of this comes from the US strategy: force the fight to within the Islamic world, rather than around its periphery.

Funny thing, though- had Bush said "I intend to invade Iraq because our strategic think tanks say we should force the fight to within the Islamic world rather than its periphery", it would have been a collosal failure. Did Bush lie about intentions and reasons for going into Iraq? Of course he did. He's supposed to. That's how you win. If you interview a chess grand master shortly after a game begins, and ask him to explain his intentions behind his first few moves, live, on the air, how do you expect he will react? Can anyone be so stupid as to believe that a nation will bluntly betray its wartime strategy when it's barely begun?

Speaking of chess grandmasters, not coincidentally, Garry Kasparov had some very interesting opinions on the overall US strategy for dealing with radical islam. Not coincidentally, the "get out of Iraq" crowd would not want to hear them.

You're definitely going to have to source a lot of this I'm afraid, I've heard these claims a lot but they tend to be extremely over-exaggerated or just simply based on faulty sources. I'm aware that Saddam's intelligence possibly had a vague connection to AQ, but nothing at all resembling any actual control over it. That, along with the fact that the chemical weapons that were dismissed actually were too old and not complete, and Saddam would be insane to start rapidly re-arming as he knows this would create war, makes invading Iraq completely pointless. Afghanistan however, that's up for debate.

Did Mott Haven seriously compare Bush to a chess grandmaster?

Speaking of chess grandmasters, not coincidentally, Garry Kasparov had some very interesting opinions on the overall US strategy for dealing with radical islam. Not coincidentally, the "get out of Iraq" crowd would not want to hear them

Why the fuck would we? Chess is a game of equal sides, equal options, equal rules, and equal back and forth exchange, where every possible move is predictable and you know, with exact 100% certainty all of your opponents options at each and every turn.

Its resemblance to modern warfar thus is exactly nil. I don't trust Garry Kasparov to have an idea how to deal with modern warfare any more than I trust my hairdresser to do so. Both are very good at their chosen skillset, neither of those skillsets resemble actual warfare in the slightest.

So why the fuck should I care what Garry Kasparov has to think about war? What's he know of war? He knows chess, which is a very different thing, about as different from war as a haircut is.

I'm aware that Saddam's intelligence possibly had a vague connection to AQ, but nothing at all resembling any actual control over it.

See how fast we got from "never had a connection" to no "actual control"?

I've been connected to a number of things I've never had actual control of, but the media has been acting like the two are one in the same.

Connections are real. Resources are fungible.

The whole view changes when you accept that Al Queda is merely an emergent element of the actual threat.

The view of the threat changes when you realize that with increasing technological sophistication, the threat grows exponentially. The civilized world is essentially on a count down: as the technology to create mass damage increases and disseminates, sooner or later we hit the point where any small group of angry, motivated people can cause catastrophic damage. At that point, the West will face a very unpleasant choice: accept catastrophic damage, whatever it is; eliminate the angry people, whatever it takes; or appease the angry people, whatever it takes.

Right now, there is one way through a very dangerous sea, and that is to remake a major part of the planet's socio-cultural structure, so that the value structures that motivate the anger are changed.

Simply put: Due to the consequences of technological expansion, there is a finite time remaining for peaceful coexistence between a population that considers free expression an inherrent right, and a population that reserves a right to violent, lethal response to perceived insult. There are very few paths out of the trap, and none of them are cheap or easy.

When you start thinking down this path, whether Saddam had 144 aging BM-21's with degraded mustard gas, (Note, as the Chinese and Belgians have been reminded, "degraded" does not equal "non-lethal") or an arsenal full of SCUD warheads with Sarin, is something of a minor issue. Saddam was chosen because he was the best available target in a much larger, higher stakes conflict. WMD's were for advertising purposes.

So why the fuck should I care what Garry Kasparov has to think about war? What's he know of war? He knows chess, which is a very different thing, about as different from war as a haircut is.

Because it is also a game about concealing intentions.

Even MORE so because each sides moves and capabilities are open and limited, intentions must be secret for one player to win.

THAT is the key. The strategist asks "those are the opening moves, what intention is my opponent hiding"? The question is the same in war and chess- not, alas, haircuts. There is generally no opposition to a haircut, and no secrets being hidden. (Interesting opening cut... I wonder what style he will try to develop from this... naah, can't see it.)

Of course, you can assume Mr. Kasparov's opinions are worthless, but then, by the same logic, why should yours carry any weight?

Extending the logic, since you don't know Garry Kasparov professionally, does it not logically follow then that your opinions about his opinions are worth even less than his opinions?

why should yours carry any weight?

They don't. And neither do yours. Except my opinions, and I presume your opinions, manifest in one crucial way (which unfortunatly for Mr. Kasparov, being a Russian citizen, he does not have this opportunity in this country).

I vote.

Thus my opinion carries the weight of my ballot.

See how fast we got from "never had a connection" to no "actual control"?

It's possible, but the link was so minor there is no reason to even care about it, if we did care about "minor links", then we should have invaded Iran.

I've been connected to a number of things I've never had actual control of, but the media has been acting like the two are one in the same.


It's only a small possibility that Saddam had a minor link via his intelligence to Al Qaeda, and that is absolutely nothing to justify a war on. There are other governments with just as bad connections which are more apparent.


The whole view changes when you accept that Al Queda is merely an emergent element of the actual threat.


No it doesn't, it doesn't stop the War in Iraq being pointless.


Simply put: Due to the consequences of technological expansion, there is a finite time remaining for peaceful coexistence between a population that considers free expression an inherrent right, and a population that reserves a right to violent, lethal response to perceived insult. There are very few paths out of the trap, and none of them are cheap or easy.


Actually no, there will never be any powerful organisation that hates the west simply because "lol we hate freedoms", that's naive and you know this. Al Qaeda, Taliban and other extremists have many other and much more important motivations, mainly the decades of western interference in the east, justified or not, that is still going onto day and which they will resort to terrorism, using Islam to turn it into a moral obligation and to rapidly increase their numbers, in order to destroy western intervention.


Saddam was chosen because he was the best available target in a much larger, higher stakes conflict. WMD's were for advertising purposes.

You seem to be saying that we invaded Iraq simply to make a point, totally unjustified.

Actually no, there will never be any powerful organisation that hates the west simply because "lol we hate freedoms", that's naive and you know this. .



This is certainly true, and Bush (and others) have been very misleading with the "they hate our freedoms" line.

It would be more accurate (much more) to say, they hate what our freedoms have wrought. If we were free but lived in mud huts, it wouldn't bother them.

Our prosperity, and our cultural vibrancy bothers them. Why?
Religion. Any religion has to answer a few basic questions for people.
One key question has always been: "How can I get more stuff?"

Every religion has had an answer to that.
Christianity and Buddhism took the easy way out: You don't really want stuff, pursuit of stuff is just a distraction, camel through the eye of the needle yada yada yada.

Fundamentalist Islam, though, has a problem. "We promise you stuff."
This is bad when you have a theocracy, or even a religiously based social structure, and can't deliver stuff.

It's worse when another culture is obviously delivering stuff, in spades.

The question on everyone's mind becomes, "Why do THEY have stuff when you said you rule in the name of God? Does God like them more?"

This puts the theocrat in a real pickle. He can't say "well, those people have some really good ideas about generating stuff, let's copy them, and let's dump some of these archaic beliefs we have," (Like 19th century Japan did) because he's been preaching that the sum total of all wisdom comes from his little book. The Holy Book makes no allowance for outside sources of wisdom, it even preaches against it.

So what's a theocrat to do? He falls back on: "they got stuff the EVIL way!" Inevitably, since we are the Evil Outsider, whatever traits we have, that they don't, ESPECIALLY if they can be linked to the creation of wealth, must become Evil, by default. This should be obvious: The Holy Book has all you need to know. It tells you how to get stuff. People who get stuff without the aid of the Holy Book must therefore be getting it the wrong way. Simple.

And along with prosperity, an open, free society questions things. Now there's a problem. If there's one thing a theocrat really doesn't want, it's to be questioned!

It would be much easier to run a theocracy that was built on a religion rejecting wealth. Sit on a hilltop and meditate. But Islamic fundamentalist philosophy just isn't set up that way. You have to go to the Sufis for that. Islamic fundamentalists, unsurprisingly, hate Sufis.

The end result is that ANY theocracy with the same attitudes towards wealth would be forced into conflict with the West. Our freedoms were never the prime issue, but what we have done with them is an existential threat to theocracy.

indeed, but we'll have to resurrect the Ottoman Empire to put an end to WWI first.Try the Punic Wars. Those actually went on until the 80s or 90s before the mayors of Rome and Tunis officially ended them.

Who did you hear that from? Way off. Iraq did have WMD's, it's just that whenever they were found they were dismissed as "insignificant" or "too old" or "too few" or "not in completed form" or whatever. All those words have become equivalent to "None" in the new lexicon, I suppose.No, but the ammount found after intense searching is strangely equivalent to the ammount that the Saddam regime said they could no longer find.
Saddam also had the two things that are really important to the issue though: 1) An industrial chemical infrastructure and knowledge base capable of quickly replicating the chemical weapon achievements of 1914 Europe. 2) The will to do so, once those pesky inspections were over.Proof? Particularly on the last one. It runs counter to Saddam's sense of self-preservation, for which he was willing to sacrifice his WMDs and part of Iraq's sovereignity.

I think the US should just invade the whole world. That way, while the army's gone, the rest of us can continue completely unhindered in our USian land grab.

Such a pity.

First you have to get past Canada, Mexico,Russia,China,Japan,the Koreas,the South Americas,etc.

Your domestic voters won't stand for it and in the aftermath,the whole world might ally and decide it's time for regime change in the good ol' USA.

Seriously,I've been to the US and its a dynamic country full of great people,but stop with the damn invasion.We like aspects of your culture,we like your products,we like some of the goddamned pop music and even some of your godawful Hollywood shows.

So please....stop invading and killing us!

Because you're not the only country with nukes.....

lol getting past Canada and Mexico won't be hard... Fighting a war with Russia will screw us over.

Also, don't pay so much attention to post's like Neesika's, OA, he's just joking around.

And Please, our Godawful Hollywood movies are like a billion times better than most European ones, in my opinion. Most Europeans seem to like European movies, we Americans prefer our movies. Its a different taste but that's besides the point.

I hope we don't invade Iran, too much to loose and not much to gain. Or anything, really.

It would be more accurate (much more) to say, they hate what our freedoms have wrought. If we were free but lived in mud huts, it wouldn't bother them.


Again, this is a lie, and you know it. They hate what Western meddling in the Middle East has wrought. For the past two centuries, the Western world has been treating the Middle East as its playground, dividing territories, ruling places, deposing leaders they didn't like for dictators they did.

How would you like it if Washington DC took orders from Libya, and when something happened that they didn't like, they had the president killed hmmm?

If you don't, then you're a damn hypocrite for dismissing the gripes of the Middle East.

Again, this is a lie, and you know it. They hate what Western meddling in the Middle East has wrought. For the past two centuries, the Western world has been treating the Middle East as its playground, dividing territories, ruling places, deposing leaders they didn't like for dictators they did.

How would you like it if Washington DC took orders from Libya, and when something happened that they didn't like, they had the president killed hmmm?

If you don't, then you're a damn hypocrite for dismissing the gripes of the Middle East.

You are correct. The people of the Middle East in my opinion want to live how they want to live. If they want to be an oppressive religious dictatorship then so be it. Only time we as in the US and Europe should intervene is for legitimate calls for help as in the liberation of Kuwait or if they attack us. Fairly simple policy.

[QUOTE=Neo-Erusea;13743736]lol getting past Canada and Mexico won't be hard... Fighting a war with Russia will screw us over.
/QUOTE]

Actually as a Canadian I have to warn against that kind of train of thought. Invading either country would spark international outrage that could easily cripple the US economy. Since so much of the goods used in the US are produced abroad an embargo could seriously weaken the US. (Granted the embargo would need China on board but I digress)

Also Canada isn't as defenseless as you may believe. Sure our military is relatively small but frankly our troops are better trained (on average)and I can guarantee that you'll have thousands of civilians guerillas to deal with, me included.

Anyway, an actual invasion of Iran would be a poor move to take. Respect for the US is already rather low internationally and starting another unprovoked war in the middle east will only further degrade things. I also have to wonder were the troops would come from. With the price of the Iraq insurgency and the continued hostilities in Afghanistan starting another war will only cause more domestic problems.

@ Marrakech: The only problem I see with your statement is deciding who's calls for help we want to listen to. Say you get calls for help from a large rebel group within one of these countries. What do you do? (The question is retorical since what we do is supply the rebels with training and supplies without any actual military interference but hey.)