Saddam is purging Kirkuk at this very moment.

[Vympel]

Don't you love it how he pretends he knows Hussein's reasoning? He must've sat down and had lunch with him yesterday or something. He even quotes himself as an authority: "of this I am certain".

[Sir Sirius]

One. I love your new title Axis.

Two. Are you a mind reader? Or did Hussein tell you those things personaly?

[Colonel Olrik]

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

Iraq's support of the Palestinian liberation doesn't envolve WMD. It's not much worse than current U.S support of the Israeli government. The leap in logic you suggest is gigantic and illreasoned, and Saddam's not a suicidal maniac.

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

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

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

You sure know how he may think. Pity that he's not retarded, and he can see how thin is the line he's holding to survive. You're attempting to justify an attack (justifications you already described as smoke curtains) with moronical giant leaps in logic Saddam may have. This is not an argument. It's your fantasy.

[Axis Kast]

It's better than "Jedi Knight." Help! I've been called: "Too American!" by someone half a world away!

Nobody told me these things - just as nobody told Vympel that Hussein wouldn't attack and isn't still suppporting terrorism that will harm the United States or its allies.

[Crown]

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

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

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

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

Duchess, I am sorry but that doesn't fly. Why? Soviet Union. The entire bulk of the Army was and still is conscript based. AFAIK so is China. And lets not mention the military Junta's of Turkey and Greece. And yes I know you were/are generalising, but still.

[Colonel Olrik]

It's better than "Jedi Knight." Help! I've been called: "Too American!" by someone half a world away!

Damn, he likes the title.

Quick, let's change it to "fucking moron", or "Saddam's betrayed lover"

[Axis Kast]

Oh no! You're going to try to insult me with another title change because it's just so funny!

Seriously. It's kind of sad that you waste your time thinking up special titles for those people you disagree with. It's funny too - but not in the way you might have intended.

[Vympel]

Nobody told me these things - just as nobody told Vympel that Hussein wouldn't attack

Projecting your pathetic fantasies on to me I see.You'e a fucking moron. He *can't* attack anyone, and what's more, you haven't presented a single fucking cogent, non-moron reason as to why he would.

and isn't still suppporting terrorism that will harm the United States or its allies.

Still demanding proof of a negative I see. The wheel is spinning, but the hamster is DEAD folks. Maybe I can point out your brain-damaged reasonign to you:

Prove that you personally are not supporting terrorism.

[Vympel]

Oh no! You're going to try to insult me with another title change because it's just so funny!

Nah, I like the current one Darth Wong gave you just fine!

Seriously. It's kind of sad that you waste your time thinking up special titles for those people you disagree with. It's funny too - but not in the way you might have intended.

Indeed, you join a distinguished company- who all recieve their title for the same reason- they're fucking dishonest, moronic debaters. The only difference in what title they recieve is the particular subject they rave about.

[Axis Kast]

Projecting your pathetic fantasies on to me I see.You'e a fucking moron. He *can't* attack anyone, and what's more, you haven't presented a single fucking cogent, non-moron reason as to why he would.

You accuse me of projecting fantasies. I’m not the one who stares Hussein’s deceit and the continued findings of weapons inspectors in the face and then concludes that the United States of America or Iraq’s neighbors are “safe.”

He cannot attack anybody conventionally. You would have made the same argument for Afghanistan before September 11th.

My reasons are perfectly cogent. Your opposition doesn’t change their validity. All of your arguments are based on the fact that you refuse to accept circumstantial evidence or the case of speculation. But what are you yourself presenting? The same thing.

Prove that you personally are not supporting terrorism.

Nice attempt to compare apples and oranges. We’re talking about Saddam Hussein here, Vympel. A man who is acknowledged to be in support of terrorism.

Indeed, you join a distinguished company- who all recieve their title for the same reason- they're fucking dishonest, moronic debaters. The only difference in what title they recieve is the particular subject they rave about.

Dishonest because of a misquote? Oh no! My life is shattered!

Moronic only because the majority of people here – all of them against the war – have no appreciation for my points of view. You’re doing the same thing to Marina.

[MKSheppard]

Moronic only because the majority of people here – all of them against the war – have no appreciation for my points of view. You’re doing the same thing to Marina.

No, you're a crackpot, the same way she is.

[Axis Kast]

Wow. MKSheppard thinks I'm a crackpot. The world is ending.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess, I am sorry but that doesn't fly. Why? Soviet Union. The entire bulk of the Army was and still is conscript based. AFAIK so is China. And lets not mention the military Junta's of Turkey and Greece. And yes I know you were/are generalising, but still.

Turkey and Greece are probably examples of extreme nationalism acting to break normal concerns.

Look for a moment at the old USSR - Their conscripts were losing badly in Afghanistan. The Spetsnaz, however, who got paid more money and were a quasi-professional force, did quite well. Likewise, Saddam's conscript army is also effectively worthless, but his professional Republican Guards and Saddam Fedayeen are useful.

Why is this? The simple answer is that both the USSR and Iraq used/use their intelligence services to prevent the conscript army from getting uppity about its rights and capabilities. The downside, of course, is that it is often close to useless.

[Dahak]

Projecting your pathetic fantasies on to me I see.You'e a fucking moron. He *can't* attack anyone, and what's more, you haven't presented a single fucking cogent, non-moron reason as to why he would.

You accuse me of projecting fantasies. I?m not the one who stares Hussein?s deceit and the continued findings of weapons inspectors in the face and then concludes that the United States of America or Iraq?s neighbors are ?safe.?

He cannot attack anybody conventionally. You would have made the same argument for Afghanistan before September 11th.

Afghanistan never attacked the USA. It was a terrorist organization who happened to be temporarily based in that country... Not exactly the same thing...

My reasons are perfectly cogent. Your opposition doesn?t change their validity. All of your arguments are based on the fact that you refuse to accept circumstantial evidence or the case of speculation. But what are you yourself presenting? The same thing.

"Just because I say so!" isn't the most water-tight proof in the world, you know?
Face it: You live in a weird, deranged fantasy world, which bears no resemblance to the here and now.

Prove that you personally are not supporting terrorism.

Nice attempt to compare apples and oranges. We?re talking about Saddam Hussein here, Vympel. A man who is acknowledged to be in support of terrorism.

Indeed, you join a distinguished company- who all recieve their title for the same reason- they're fucking dishonest, moronic debaters. The only difference in what title they recieve is the particular subject they rave about.

Dishonest because of a misquote? Oh no! My life is shattered!

Moronic only because the majority of people here ? all of them against the war ? have no appreciation for my points of view. You?re doing the same thing to Marina.

Sometimes it is a sign that you are not only wrong, but stupid, when a huge majority is tearing your "arguments" to very tiny bits...

[Axis Kast]

Afghanistan never attacked the USA. It was a terrorist organization who happened to be temporarily based in that country... Not exactly the same thing.

Yet Afghanistan’s Taliban government empowered al-Qaeda to act. This is no less than what Iraq does. And Hussein’s activities have the potential to “branch out.” Afghanistan had nowhere near the requisite level of infrastructure to produce weapons of mass destruction on its own.

"Just because I say so!" isn't the most water-tight proof in the world, you know?
Face it: You live in a weird, deranged fantasy world, which bears no resemblance to the here and now.

Your argument that Hussein won’t support an attack on Israeli with money, information, or worse is based on the: “Just because I say so!” argument as well.

Face it – you’re taking risks with my security and that of my country’s allies.

Sometimes it is a sign that you are not only wrong, but stupid, when a huge majority is tearing your "arguments" to very tiny bits.

“Very tiny bits?” More like pointing out an unfortunate misquotation and claiming that any and all speculation toward a situation that has not yet fully developed is out-of-the-question. These people aren’t going to stomach the notion that Iraq poses a threat unless another landmark explodes.

[MKSheppard]

Why is this? The simple answer is that both the USSR and Iraq used/use their intelligence services to prevent the conscript army from getting uppity about its rights and capabilities. The downside, of course, is that it is often close to useless.

Conscripts fucking suck. They're in for just 2 years, and when they're
just getting good at their job, they leave, and another fresh conscript
just out of boot takes their place.

[Axis Kast]

I believe Marina just admitted as much.

[MKSheppard]

I believe Marina just admitted as much.

She claims that Iraq's secret police "keeps" the conscript down, along
with the Former Soviet Union's KGB.

99% of all conscripts in the world don't want to be there, and they're just
doing their two years and then they're gone.

There IS a reason Germany is talking about doing away with conscription
and going to an all-professional army.

[Dahak]

Afghanistan never attacked the USA. It was a terrorist organization who happened to be temporarily based in that country... Not exactly the same thing.

Yet Afghanistan?s Taliban government empowered al-Qaeda to act. This is no less than what Iraq does. And Hussein?s activities have the potential to ?branch out.? Afghanistan had nowhere near the requisite level of infrastructure to produce weapons of mass destruction on its own.

I yet have to see proof that Iraq is supporting Al-Qaeda. So far, I haven't. And your word is not really counting.
And you can't really compare Iraq to Afghanistan.

"Just because I say so!" isn't the most water-tight proof in the world, you know?
Face it: You live in a weird, deranged fantasy world, which bears no resemblance to the here and now.

Your argument that Hussein won?t support an attack on Israeli with money, information, or worse is based on the: ?Just because I say so!? argument as well.

In case you didn't notice (the ability to read is clearly an advantage in the modern world), I was not arguing about anything related to Isreal and/or Palestine in this whole thread. So your above's statement's value evalues to NULL.

Face it ? you?re taking risks with my security and that of my country?s allies.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrott??!!

Sometimes it is a sign that you are not only wrong, but stupid, when a huge majority is tearing your "arguments" to very tiny bits.

?Very tiny bits?? More like pointing out an unfortunate misquotation and claiming that any and all speculation toward a situation that has not yet fully developed is out-of-the-question. These people aren?t going to stomach the notion that Iraq poses a threat unless another landmark explodes.

Excuses. You try to hide the idiocy of your entire argument behind a smokescreen of excuses (Buahahah, I was misquoted. Buahahah, you don'T like me....).
Grow up, and grow some common sense.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

She claims that Iraq's secret police "keeps" the conscript down, along
with the Former Soviet Union's KGB.

99% of all conscripts in the world don't want to be there, and they're just
doing their two years and then they're gone.

There IS a reason Germany is talking about doing away with conscription
and going to an all-professional army.

I'm saying that makes the conscripts worse. Keep them in for four years instead of two and don't have political officers and secret police looking over their shoulders and they could make a decent fighting force.

[Axis Kast]

I'm saying that makes the conscripts worse. Keep them in for four years instead of two and don't have political officers and secret police looking over their shoulders and they could make a decent fighting force.

Hence your technical agreement with Sheppard's comment about Soviet and Chinese armies being rather questionable in value.

I yet have to see proof that Iraq is supporting Al-Qaeda. So far, I haven't. And your word is not really counting. And you can't really compare Iraq to Afghanistan.

I have yet to see proof that Iraq isn't supporting al-Qaeda. It stikes me as a very likely possibility that Iraqi money and training intended for the Palestinian Infitada is leaking to and empowering Osama Bin Laden's men.

My "word isn't counting?" I could say the same for yours.

Iraq does compare to Afghanistan. We're talking about a pair of "rogue" states, equally apparently isolated, but both capable of supporting under the table a series of heinous acts.

In case you didn't notice (the ability to read is clearly an advantage in the modern world), I was not arguing about anything related to Isreal and/or Palestine in this whole thread. So your above's statement's value evalues to NULL.

Null? My argument is that Hussein is a threat because of the potential that he will aid and abet an attack on Israel.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrott??!!

You claim I "live in a deranged, fantasy word." I claim you are being naive.

Excuses. You try to hide the idiocy of your entire argument behind a smokescreen of excuses (Buahahah, I was misquoted. Buahahah, you don'T like me....).
Grow up, and grow some common sense.

Common sense? I've got common sense.

All of my arguments are based on speculation. That doesn't invalidate them compared to your own - which are founded on the same stuff. You claim Iraq won't abet an attack on Israel, but I point out that hey are doing so already without so much as a slap on the wrist.

No. I said that I misquoted an article. I mistakenly believed that the BBC discussion of the capture of a Palestinian working for al-Qaeda mentioned Iraq as having footed the man's training. I was wrong. But it doesn't eliminate the potential for other Palestinians with a background of training from Iraq to join al-Qaeda.

And the fact of the matter is that you discredit my person because you dislike my arguments. That's rather purile, no?

[Dahak]

I yet have to see proof that Iraq is supporting Al-Qaeda. So far, I haven't. And your word is not really counting. And you can't really compare Iraq to Afghanistan.

I have yet to see proof that Iraq isn't supporting al-Qaeda. It stikes me as a very likely possibility that Iraqi money and training intended for the Palestinian Infitada is leaking to and empowering Osama Bin Laden's men.

My "word isn't counting?" I could say the same for yours.

Iraq does compare to Afghanistan. We're talking about a pair of "rogue" states, equally apparently isolated, but both capable of supporting under the table a series of heinous acts.

For Al-Qaeda proof: I have faith in the various intelligence services repeatedly reporting that there are no ties whatsoever.

Iraq is a nation state under the control of one man, who can organize it.

Afghanistan was, and is, deeply divided between various factions, struggling for control. In essence, they are in a perpeutal state of civil war, unable to focus enough to be a threat to anyone besides themselves.

In case you didn't notice (the ability to read is clearly an advantage in the modern world), I was not arguing about anything related to Isreal and/or Palestine in this whole thread. So your above's statement's value evalues to NULL.

Null? My argument is that Hussein is a threat because of the potential that he will aid and abet an attack on Israel.

Learn. To. Read. Since I did not in any way participate in your argument about Isreal/Palestine/Isreal, your utterance: "Your argument that Hussein won?t support an attack on Israeli with money, information, or worse is based on the: ?Just because I say so!? argument as well.", directed at me, has a value of NULL, because I didn't say anything about that AT ALL.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrott??!!

You claim I "live in a deranged, fantasy word." I claim you are being naive.

Excuses. You try to hide the idiocy of your entire argument behind a smokescreen of excuses (Buahahah, I was misquoted. Buahahah, you don'T like me....).
Grow up, and grow some common sense.

Common sense? I've got common sense.

All of my arguments are based on speculation. That doesn't invalidate them compared to your own - which are founded on the same stuff. You claim Iraq won't abet an attack on Israel, but I point out that hey are doing so already without so much as a slap on the wrist.

And I could speculate that tomorrow the moon explodes. But that doesn't make it any more true.
Your speculations have no foundation in reality.

No. I said that I misquoted an article. I mistakenly believed that the BBC discussion of the capture of a Palestinian working for al-Qaeda mentioned Iraq as having footed the man's training. I was wrong. But it doesn't eliminate the potential for other Palestinians with a background of training from Iraq to join al-Qaeda.

And the fact of the matter is that you discredit my person because you dislike my arguments. That's rather purile, no?

You don't *have* an argument to discredit.

[Axis Kast]

For Al-Qaeda proof: I have faith in the various intelligence services repeatedly reporting that there are no ties whatsoever.

They report no direct ties. Hussein’s support for al-Qaeda comes via his support for HAMAS and Hizbollah.

Once more: Afghanistan and Iraq are alike in that they potentially harbor and can abet under the table agents and acts of terrorism. Both have already done so.

Learn. To. Read. Since I did not in any way participate in your argument about Isreal/Palestine/Isreal, your utterance: "Your argument that Hussein won?t support an attack on Israeli with money, information, or worse is based on the: ?Just because I say so!? argument as well.", directed at me, has a value of NULL, because I didn't say anything about that AT ALL.

One premise of mine is that because Hussein is a threat to Israel, he is a threat to the United States.

And I could speculate that tomorrow the moon explodes. But that doesn't make it any more true.
Your speculations have no foundation in reality.

My speculation is grounded in logic as firm as yours. I look at the past and present, then suggest the future. Hussein has the weapons, he’s got the ties to terror, he’s got the motivation, he’s got the history, and he’s got the tools necessary to make a horribly leap of false logic.

You don't *have* an argument to discredit.

Then what are you trying to do right now?

[TrailerParkJawa]

I have yet to see proof that Iraq isn't supporting al-Qaeda. It stikes me as a very likely possibility that Iraqi money and training intended for the Palestinian Infitada is leaking to and empowering Osama Bin Laden's men.

You cant prove a negative.

[Dahak]

For Al-Qaeda proof: I have faith in the various intelligence services repeatedly reporting that there are no ties whatsoever.

They report no direct ties. Hussein?s support for al-Qaeda comes via his support for HAMAS and Hizbollah.

Once more: Afghanistan and Iraq are alike in that they potentially harbor and can abet under the table agents and acts of terrorism. Both have already done so.

Learn. To. Read. Since I did not in any way participate in your argument about Isreal/Palestine/Isreal, your utterance: "Your argument that Hussein won?t support an attack on Israeli with money, information, or worse is based on the: ?Just because I say so!? argument as well.", directed at me, has a value of NULL, because I didn't say anything about that AT ALL.

One premise of mine is that because Hussein is a threat to Israel, he is a threat to the United States.

Does light bend around you, because you are so dense?
I DIDN'T PARTICPATE IN THAT ISREAL ARGUMENT!!! In fact, I couldn't care less. SO TELL IT SOMEONE WHO FUCKING CARES!!!
You're bullshitting me with things I didn't argue about in the first place. Gosh...

And I could speculate that tomorrow the moon explodes. But that doesn't make it any more true.
Your speculations have no foundation in reality.

My speculation is grounded in logic as firm as yours. I look at the past and present, then suggest the future. Hussein has the weapons, he?s got the ties to terror, he?s got the motivation, he?s got the history, and he?s got the tools necessary to make a horribly leap of false logic.

Hussein never did something like that before. He only did things in the past out of cold, pure calculation.
His motivation is to stay in power. Attacking Isreal, and the following glassing of Iraq by Isreal, is quite counterproductive.