[Mr. Vega]

That'sa pretty incompetent peacenik who can't refute arguments like that.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Actually, it's not even that. Both sides are fairly careless with the truth, and if you look at old news broadcasts with the hindsight five or so years offers, you'll usually go "How did I ever buy into that crap?"- at least, when the truth eventually outs, which isn't always the case. The difference is, the lies are crafted carefully to appeal to the preconceptions and political positions of the consumer, and those are by no means universal- what might be perfectly believable to an Iraqi is obvious horse**** to someone in the US, and vice versa. And, of course, the preconceptions that you base your level of belief on are formed by... the news! Great, isn't it?

Yep. It makes you a complete sceptic, when you realise the credibility (lack of) of the great majority of news sources we listen to everyday. Very disappointing.

[Stryke 9]

Goober: Egad, you have FAR too much spare time. I hardly bothered read that whole thing, much less attempt to rebut it. Never mind that about 2/3 of what you said was complete horse****, plain and simple. I got about as far as "We know Iraq has WMDs because we've seen them!!!" before I cracked up and couldn't go any further. So tell me, maestro, short of slightly before and after the Gulf War, ten ****ing years ago, when have we seen these magical weapons? 'Cos if you know of any, then you're better informed than 100% of the rest of the world.

And naturally it's a strawman argument. I've heard far better ones, though they generally had major logical inconsistencies. This was partially a half-assed attempt to unify all the various strands of bull**** that have been flying around here into a less confusingly lame form, and partially to see what rabid knee-jerk right-winger would be dumb enough to take this seriously and go for the bait. You'd been warned from the beginning, so it's really your own fault, but hey.

JFK: Yeah, but in the end most peoples' opinions really don't change anything at all (you think this thread matters?), so it's okay to assume that the news is "right". I mean, hell, it's not like anything is hinged on the result of these little debates here, and most people who participate in them are so grossly ill-informed about one aspect of hte situation or another that it'd be very much the same if the whole war and everything to do with politics was entirely fictitious. Most of this crap will never influence our lives directly in any meaningful way, if you think about it, so it doesn't really matter whether we've gotten the story straight or not- it's all entertainment, choose your bull****.

Besides, if you distrusted the news services to the extent that they deserve, then you'd have damn little to say, now wouldn't you?

[Anaz]

Didn't saddam use some chemical agent against 5000 people, either his own or kuwaites (I can't spell...)?

[Stryke 9]

He used chemical shells against the Kurds during their uprising. "His own people" is the first Bush taking a bit many liberties with the language, since he never regarded them as his, they were largely a separate, unregulated entity (a far cry from if he'd gassed, say, the residents of Baghdad), and were in the midst of trying to kill him and everyone loyal to him at the time.

Moreover, he used them more than a decade ago, and to apparently not much effect. Chemoweapons sound kinda scary in theory, but they're pretty useless most of the ime, and aside from some lingering side effects that aren't hyped much (which leads me to suspect they're a rarity), it wasn't much worse than shelling them with regular old HE- respiratory ailments rather than missing limbs being the result, basically. Bioweapons are pretty nasty (result in quite unpleasant deaths, and often spread like all hell, making them largely an anti-civilian weapon), but the vast majority of chemical weapons are only really considered so bad because the US hasn't found them useful- they propogate over a slightly larger area than conventional explosives, but in the end are far less deadly or likely to maim you, particularly if you've got a gas mask. They're a combat variant of the tear gas cops fire into just about every demonstration- suppression fire more than a killing weapon, since if you're being gassed and have half a functioning brain, you'll find a secure spot, put on your gas mask, and stay there until the cloud's dissipated or passed over.

It's worth noting that this was during the Kurdish uprising that we had promised to sponsor and never did, turning what could have been eventually a sucessful local overthrow of Saddam into a battle of armed civilians vs. trained army (aka "a massacre") and effectively screwing over anyone's chances of a peace in the region that did not involve replacing Saddam's repressive regime with a repressive regime more beholden to the US.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Goober: Egad, you have FAR too much spare time.

Eh, I was bored. But it's upsetting to hear "peace, peace" when there is no peace; we have a responsibility, and we need to uphold it.

So tell me, maestro, short of slightly before and after the Gulf War, when have we seen these magical weapons?

Read again - I said we've seen him use them.  That was in reference to gassing the dissidents and such back in the day.  As for the present, we have no evidence that Iraq's destroyed them, and the burden's on them to prove it.  Anyway, we found those empty chemical warheads during the inspections, and we apparently found evidence of recent chemical weapon usage in the soil around the Kurdish territory.

You'd been warned from the beginning, so it's really your own fault, but hey.

Well, I didn't take it seriously because I figured people would see the straw man argument for what it was.  On the other hand, I didn't want to see it go unresponded to, and I wasn't otherwise occupied.  So that depends on your definition of "took the bait".

[Rictor]

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As well as many other resolutions passed before, during, and after the Gulf War, which are still in effect.

However, these violations are injust and made under the threat of force, which removes their validity

A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is debatable. Why should the U.N. have total sovereignty over another nation? U.N. resolutions are not binding by themselves; they're expressions of the consensus of will of the Security Council.
The UN has control so that no one country can go maverick and harm other without some risk of reprisal.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Many of those resolutions passed against Israel were unjustified (relating to defense and capture of critical territory), and again, the U.N. doesn't have sovereignty over anyone.

Really? And the "we take 25% of your oil profits for 10 years, while your people starve" resolution is just? Also the "no weapons for you, since we're the boss around here, its not like you're a soverign nation" resolution..

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Iraq does have WMD. We know because we've seen it use them.

Even if Iraq did have WMD, they have NEVER shown agression towards the US or Europe or most of the world for that matter. Whatever you may think of Saddam, he has NEVER used Iraqi resources to take US lives, so why would he start now after 20 years?

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not just the weapons themselves - Iraq finances terrorist organizations, who could themselves buy WMD.

Well, the inspectors also checked for biological and chemical weapons and found nothing. Also, please show me the undeniable proof (or ANY proof) that Iraq is or will ever sponsor terrorists. I'm not one to just believe the Pentagon on their word, I need proof.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such Weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They do, because the inspectors found them (!) and they used them once Gulf War II started.

Missles do not constitute WMD. This is the only evidence you have so far, a few missles. This is the ONLY violation so far, and hardly a reason to attack.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes. Such as Russia. This is why we have nonproliferation treaties.

Again, the proof. Where is the proof that Iraq is associating with terrorists? Conjecture is not enough.

We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Iraq was fighting against Iran at the time, and we believed Iran to be the nastier foe. And I'm not positive we sold them WMD.

You sold weapons. Weapons kill people. The fact that an AK is "less effective" at doing so than a nuke is no excuse.

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a
power-hungry lunatic murderer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A valid reason why we should remove him even if he had no WMD.

Yes, but not tear up the whole country, kill civilians, destroy basic living resources and screw up their economy. If you want him dead, get a sniper.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And during WWII we allied with another cruel dictator who killed his own people - Stalin. Because Germany was the bigger threat.

Anyway, shouldn't we want to correct previous mistakes?

Saddam killed his own people. the US kill people in other countries. Does this make them "less evil". Saddam is small fries compared to how many people the US killed, why arent they being bombed?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That was not a pre-emptive first strike.  It was an invasion to seize Kuwait's oil assets. Unprovoked.
And so it this war.[color]

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No information about this.

Convenient. You only have info about things that make the US look good, but no info on the things that make the US look bad.

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not just al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization.

And since it is the US who decided which organization gets labeled "terrorist" then they can take out whoever they want under the guise of "protecting oursleves"

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We may have actually done that, but we can't confirm it so we swept it under the rug.
No, had you done that, you would have gone to great lengths to verify it. Then  you would publicize it and broadcast it all day. You went into Afganistan to get this guy, you would not just say "who cares" had you actually got it.

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



bin Laden wanted to instigate a war anyway - he knew that the U.S. would wipe out the "Iraqi infidels" if a war came to pass. Then the Muslim world would be angry at the U.S. Two birds with one stone.

No, if bin Laden wanted the US to go to war with Iraq, he would support them. Also, wtf is "there could easily be a link"? There could easily be a link between the US and Al Queda, depends who decided what "easily" means (the US) and who investigates the matter (the US).

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, didnt it. I dont know one way or the other, but can you prove that it wasnt a  harmless shack? Furthermor can you prove that the sattelite pics werent altered or entirely fabricated?

WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Plaigiarism, which was unfortunate. But that doesn't make it false.

Yes it does. I can write a Grade 12 politics paper on "The UK's connections to Al Queda." However, having NO data on such a thing (and how would a graduate have access to military intel) this is entirely MADE UP.

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No information on this.

Very likely. Again, convenient that you have no info on this, but info on every thing else..

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who may have been bribed. People are wondering about that. And Blix has had several "slips of the tongue" that could be interpreted as showing that he's not letting on everything he knows.

Bribery, you can use this do discredit ANYONE. Again, proof.

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More complicated than that, but essentially yes.
Cool. So I can say that I have evidence that shows Bush smoking pot, but I cant relase it, so just take my word on it.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence.You're missing the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactly. The inspectors are there to supervise the disarmament, not to go treasure hunting. The onus is on Iraq to disarm. Other countries who have disarmed haven't gone through the gymnastics that Iraq is doing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030123-1.html

What do inspectors usually do? They inspect. They inspect Iraqi facilities for traces of WMD. IT is their job to find any WMD that you think Iraq is hiding.

PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And other resolutions, as well. Or you could argue that we're finishing Gulf War I. The end of that war was predicated upon Iraq's cooperation.

You know full well that whatever they did, the US would never say that they cooprated. You are so quick to enforce 1441, but you are violating international law by going to war with Iraq, so you cant enfore laws that are convenient to you, and disregard others
 
If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ... unless it rules against us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The main point is to follow through with what we started earlier (Gulf War I and the initial establishment of disarmament) and to show terrorists and terrorist states that they don't have carte blanche to get away with stuff.

If the UN security council bocome irrelevant, it is BECAUSE of your action, not despite them. Proof of Iraq sponsoring terrorists? You said it best, "we support them, until they rule against us".

PN: And what if it does rule against us?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which, by the way, would be abandoning its earlier position. And we shouldn't even NEED a second resolution. Nor a Resolution 1441, for that matter.

You took advantage of state of panic and distress in 2001, by putting the resolution on the table. Now that people have calmed down and taken a look at things rationaly, they no longer support it. If 3 members of the security council were ready to veto, you cannot possibly claim to have UN support.

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And about forty others.

Yes, such as Pallao and Iceland, both of whom have no armies. You have the support of many small countries by promising $ or threating "conseqeuences". Or others still signed on once the war already started, realizing that if they could not stop it, they might as well profit from it. BEFORE the war, you had 4 allies. Thats how many countries support you, 4, not 40.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A bit of blackmail, that. So we withdrew the offer.

And yet, you're offering the members of the "coalition" very large amounts of money. Thats not blackmail, thats bribe.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Public opinion was against WWII during the 20s and 30s.

How could public opinion we against WW2 in to the 20s? And how could it be against it in the early 30s?

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not necessarily. Leaders have responsibility to lead. This may mean going against the will of the people if it's important enough. Both Blair and Bush are risking their political future over this.

The politicians are the spokesmen for the people. If the people skip the spokesman and directly express their opinion, thats more important.

WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 Not this again. No he wasn't. He was elected - publicly and openly - by the Electoral College. And as far as the Supreme Court goes, they ruled 7-2 that the system of recounts was unconstitutional. The 5-4 was only about what the court thought Florida should do next.

Was he? Is that why it took you 6 months to decide who was going to be the next president. AT MOST Bush represent 1/2 of the American population.

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not blindly support the decisions. But think them through and come to a rational conclusion.

Again, if the will of the people is made known directly, politicians are out of the equation.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You can protest - in fact, many have been doing so. However, protesting during a war is counterproductive. I'd call it treason... giving comfort to our enemies by showing them that the U.S. isn't totally behind this. As long as we're fighting the war, support the troops. Then when the war's done, show your dissatisfaction by voting.
No, protesting shows the Iraqi people who are being bombed "We're not all idiots, sorry that some of us are trying to kill you"

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, the burden is on Iraq, not the inspectors.

There is a chance? There is a chance that I'm actaully a cocunut, but conjecture is not enough, you need proof

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because THEY'RE NOT COOPERATING WITH THE INSPECTORS. If they didn't have them, they'd be only too glad to prove it. Instead, they're doing nothing and letting the inspectors run around the country.

If Iraq came into the US and started poking around, would you cooperate? Even if you had signed a treaty, would you cooperate? And again, the inspectors have stated that they have been cooperating for the last month or so of the inspection, so they were cooperating.

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not all of them, not always, and nothing's preventing them from manufacturing more.

Process of elimination is not a valid strategy in this case, you need to actually see the weapons. Also they could be manufacturing, they could not be..proof.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because Iraq is failing to live up to its 12-year-old agreement.

The age doesnt matter. What if the agreement had been signed 120 years ago? There is always a small chance that someting is happening, there is a small chance that the UK is about to invade France, that doesnt give you the right to act on it, chnace is not enough..

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because we've been trying diplomacy for 12 years and it hasn't worked. Iraq can't be reasoned with. It remains to be seen whether North Korea can be reasoned with.

They are allowed to have nukes etc, they're not the 52nd state, its an indpenedet country and you cant tell them what to do.

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which might be recouped with more oil being opened up for trade, but this is not certain. Anyway, from a strategic point of view invading Iraq is sending the world a message: don't mess with us. Which serves yet another useful purpose.

Iraq has been paying for its own inspections, with its own money, not you. You certainly are sending a message, "Those who oppose up get crushed" and "We're out to control the entire world"

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Possibly, but the more terrorism is rooted out, the harder it will be for them to do anything about it. But I doubt much will happen - there isn't much love for Saddam Hussein in the Muslim world. They're blustering, but they aren't doing anything.

If attacking Iraq doesnt provoke terrorists to attack the US, I dont know what will.

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hopefully, not much, and hopefully, not for long. These solutions aren't ideal.

The terrorists dont want to change the way you live, they want to kill you. They couldnt care less how you live.

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We're invading because we're living up to the responsibility Gulf War I thrust upon us. We're not shirking from what is right.

Thrust upon us? You chose to go in. And the world is calling to an end to this war. The population of almost every country in the world is strongly opposed to this war, and even in the US and UK about 30-40% are against it. That amount to about 95% of the world's population being against it.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No. But we've listened anyway. And we've been "peaceful" for
12 years.

Oh, so you only use "the world" as a scapegoat, but never give credence to them when they're against you.

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We have an obligation to do none of these - the U.N. doesn't override a nation's sovereignty. On the other hand, the Security Council unanimously approved 1441. They're going back on their word.

3 out of 5 nations on the security council are against. In the late 30s, of nations (US included) thought that Hitler was a great guy, and thought the Jews deserved it all. So now, can I call the US Nazis? Opinions change, you took advantage of hysteria and panic with 1441.

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because it's a straw man. See the previous point.

What? Thats hypocracy, and very blatant at that. You either follow laws or you dont, you cant pick and choose. Who decides what is an "unreasonable veto"? What you just said descredits you more than I can hope to do.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Or be a human shield. And come back and tell us what you see.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/o...23%2Fdo2305.xml

I dont love Iraq, I hate war. And I see no reason to kill its civilians with bombs.

Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, your own stupidity shows the crappiness of your arguement


Think of some better arguements, some that stand up to examination. Oh wait, but then you'de have a blank page, since you have no reasons for going to war

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Most of this crap will never influence our lives directly in any meaningful way, if you think about it, so it doesn't really matter whether we've gotten the story straight or not- it's all entertainment, choose your bull****.

Besides, if you distrusted the news services to the extent that they deserve, then you'd have damn little to say, now wouldn't you?

Yeah, that's true... I dunno, there's just something that makes me uncomfortable about enormous untruths forming the 'truth' off which I base my actions and thoughts. Then again, you're quite correct in pointing out how remote this war is from all of us sitting in front of our computers getting bloodshot eyes, but hey, who knows what could happen.

Ack, ya got me there.

[Tiara]

Well, as I said before... Don't give a **** anymore. As long as they keep their ulgy arses out of The Netherlands and don't bother me then I DON'T CARE ANYMORE

Its not like we will ever make a difference. They have the power and they will do with it whatever they want.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara
their ulgy arses

Anyways we got the point that you didn't care anymore last week.

But if the US suddenly decides to rule the world.,...Ummmm I think the Netherlands are safe.  Half this country couldn't pick you out on a map the size of a bus if your name was in Neon.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Warlock
But if the US suddenly decides to rule the world.,...Ummmm I think the Netherlands are safe.  Half this country couldn't pick you out on a map the size of a bus if your name was in Neon.

Yeah, people only know where Australia is by virtue of the fact that it's roughly the same size as the US itself.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Warlock


But if the US suddenly decides to rule the world.,...Ummmm I think the Netherlands are safe.  Half this country couldn't pick you out on a map the size of a bus if your name was in Neon.

Too bad for you as we have the biggest harbor in the world . And there are already plans to expand it :wink:

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Tiara


Too bad for you as we have the biggest harbor in the world . And there are already plans to expand it :wink:

Point being ? Sorry but I fail to see where a big harbor in the Netherlands would do anything for the US

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Warlock


Point being ? Sorry but I fail to see where a big harbor in the Netherlands would do anything for the US

Well, if one would want to take over the world you might want a harbor that can hold your navy and supply troops throughout Europe.

You could go through Germany, borders of France, eastern europe even.

Buuuuuut... I wouldn't really care if they decide not to bombard us to crap.

[Warlock]

No worries,... I think you're pretty safe.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Tiara
Well, if one would want to take over the world you might want a harbor that can hold your navy and supply troops throughout Europe.

Just how important is sea power these days? General question for ya

[Warlock]

Originally posted by J.F.K.


Just how important is sea power these days? General question for ya

actually how important is a harbor would be the question. Look at the US navy,... rarely in harbor unless it's for repairs or allowing the troops leave. It's much more effective to keep a navy in a strategic location and airlift supplies to them. That way they're always right where you need them to send in some fighters of cruise missiles

[Tiara]

Well, the US pretty much underestimated Iraq, so don't look too surprised if our little underwater country takes over the US

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyywaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyzzzzzzz...

And sea power can be quite important actually...

*proceeds to steal stealth sub and launches underwater nukes at US coast*

[Warlock]

And how did we under estimate Iraq? Noone said this would be a one week war

Oh wait.... that's right,... if we lose a soldier ,... we didn't calculate something right,...that it?

Sorry this is something the twits reporting keep getting into ,...

"Have the US under estimated the war since we had soldier's get captured or die? ? ? "

I don't think there's been so much as a police action that went through without loose of life.

[Tiara]

......

Then why does the US want to take a 5 day break (wich wasn't planned)? Why can't they uphold a decent supply line? Then why did many people expected this to be a short war?

Ow, and why is it that 30% of all allied casualties are the result of friendly fire?