Commissar

They may have more, in other words, but they have no way of getting them anywhere near us.

I'd like to see the evidence you have to back that statement. I think that lately China's military power is being grossly overrated. Wait, shouldn't this go in the other thread? " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, depends on semantics to a point, but I wouldn't fancy anyone trying to invade China. Maybe India. You would have to use nukes, there aren't enough bullets. (Very technical, but take my word for it.") <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nor would I fancy anyone trying to invade us. We've got the best blue-water navy in town.

I'd like to see the evidence you have to back that statement. I think that lately China's military power is being grossly overrated. Wait, shouldn't this go in the other thread? " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, me too. I've lost all faith in our intelligence services. We vastly overestimated the USSR's capability, we kind of screwed the pooch on Iraq... I no longer give us the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone else notice that Reveilled's been writing a response to this thread for like an hour? I'm curious to see what kind of essay we're going to get.

It's unusual to have a state with two areas of territory that aren't connected, but not unprecedented. Pakistan was originally two seperate parts, before the east split off to become Bangladesh. And Kaliningrad is a small part of Russia split from the main by Poland and Lithuania. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I know all about Kaliningrad. Been there. That's where the little lady's from. Used to be Konigsberg. But it's an illustration of some inherent problems with non-contiguous territory. If residents don't choose (or can't afford) to fly to the main part of Russia, they're obliged to get travel visas through Lithuania for the train. And the Lithuanian government can be finicky about that kind of thing if it chooses. I imagine the Israeli government will be even moreso.

The Israeli and Palestinian governments, apparently. Nobody knew that you could really sail around the world until it'd been tried.

To my knowledge, no one in this thread has really defended Palestinian terrorism. What a lot of us have said, over and over, is that the best chance for peace in the region involves a Palestinian state. Gaza apparently needs to be a part of that state - though as I said earlier, I have no idea how that's actually going to work, since it's not physically connected with the rest of the Palestinian territory. Are they going to build a bridge or something? The Israeli government agreed, and that's why the settlers were told to move on out, quite a while ago. Those that stayed are being forcibly removed, both for their own protection and for the good of the region as a whole.

Apples, meet oranges.

They had plenty of time to pack. Anyone who wanted to get out had all the time in the world to do so. The people who didn't chose to stay, to protest.

And we also realize how close we came to exchanging bombs a few times in the cold war because of what a war of idealogy can make people do. Add zealotry to the mix, and I certainly understand people's fear and concerns. Name one good reason any nation should be pursuing new nuclear weapon programs today? I thought the world all agreed that we should disarm our nukes as much as we can, not build new ones. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We are, in fact, pursuing low-yield nuclear devices designed for smaller targets. These are purely offensive weapons; they're not going to be sitting in silos out in Wyoming. They're designed to be dropped. They are, in essence, things we might very well use. Now, I don't see how we can be building these things, while keeping our world-leading stockpile of larger warheads intact, and still have the nerve to tell any other country that they can't build a nuclear defense program. This isn't to say that I want to see Iran get the bomb. I just find the shriek of moral outrage, the "but we're the good guys!" defense sickening.

Not at all what I said. I said that the good of the many outweighs the personal preference of the few. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I still fail to see how your memories, posessions, and your home are considered a personal preference. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because they chose to live in the Gaza strip. They could've gotten out months ago. They could've gotten out two years ago when Sharon started taking pullout. They stayed, and now they're getting pulled out. But it's what they chose to do.

I couldn't agree more. I think partisan politics is destroying this country. No one cares about admitting mistakes, or doing what is right. Everything is about supporting your party line no matter what, and spinning things to make the other party look bad. If the other party is going to pass legislation that will help this country, you better ruin it before they get a political victory! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We've found something we can agree on.

Not at all what I said. I said that the good of the many outweighs the personal preference of the few.

Restraint? As far as I'm aware, we're the only country that's ever actually killed anyone with a nuclear bomb. But seriously, why should we get them? More importantly, why should we be the ones to decide who does and does not get them? We keep ours for defense, right? Why does that argument work for us but not the countries we don't like? Israel has the bomb, and they're not too fond of Iran or its neighbors. But Israel's on our side, so hey...they can have 'em.

I'm assuming by "countries" you mean their governments. What was it that the poll found, something like 90% of the British population didn't want to go into Iraq? And as far as making statements about being happy to see Bush in power...well, I hate to break it to you, but Bush does the same thing with just about every other leader in the world when they get elected/reelected. Little something we like to call politics, but do you really think he prefers Chirac to some right-wing Christian nutjob in France? I doubt it. Anyway, if you really think that the token contributions of countries like Poland are all that allowed us to fight this war, I suppose that's an opinion. They're all getting out, though, and I recall reading an article in a London paper when I was over there which quoted Jack Straw as saying, "Never again," in regards to following the US to war. If we throw another party, no one's going to come. Not like anyone except the British really came this time, but you get my point.

I wouldn't call your home and all your belongings a "personal preference"...At the very least, you give the people time to pack their lives up. But no, common decency apparently isn't so common. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They weren't forced to settle the Gaza Strip, by any means. They chose to do so, knowing full and well that it'd be at the very least dangerous, and that something like this could quite possibly happen.

oh there's a good one... one that has so many similar incidences for comparison, it's almost silly that you even mention it. no, wait, it is silly. about as silly as calling bush dumber than kerry... i still chuckle. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Chuckle all you want. Trust me, we're laughing just as much whenever those folks on the right suggest that Bush has anything of an intellect. But you're kind of proving my point. Prior to the actual attacks, if you'd done a poll of the American populace, I bet even the Republicans would've said that when a president is informed the country's under attack, the right thing to do is...something. Something other than sit there. Now that we've seen how things actually went, most of the folks on the right twist themselves into pretty little partisan pretzels trying to defend this. If Kerry had done it, I'd have called him on it. If Clinton had done it, I'd have called him on it. If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln had done it, I'd have called them on it. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Partisanship gets in the way of reason. No one can honestly believe that this was the proper thing to do, but nobody wants to admit it because it has an air of letting down the side. Why not just say, "Yeah, that was a bad move, but we've recovered from it and I like what he's doing now." But no. Everything has to be morally impeccable, which is rarely how actual reality goes. Crazy. Anyway, I like the UN, but changes definitely need to be made, both in terms of reforming the actual institution and the way America interacts with it.

Well, 30 counties went into Iraq, and many are still giving their support to this day. Several nations are still vocally supporting Bush and the whole affair like Canada and Australia. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sending two guys and a jeep doesn't count as support, Ender. Canada and Australia may still be supporting us - give me numbers on the amount of troops they have in Iraq at the moment, though - but plenty of others are running for the hills. Oh, and drudge up a list of those thirty countries. It's an amusing read.

Doesn't much matter, either way. People are allowed to hate us, after all, and America's not really the issue here. Israel is. Alright, Ender, you asked how people being forced out of their homes is cool or justifiable. Simple answer? It's a step in the peace process. That's what justifies it. The good of the many over the personal preference of a few.

What about those of us who condemn the US when it behaves badly as well as condemning the UN when it too behaves badly? This is one of those things I've never understood about party politics as we have them. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with people on your particular side of the political spectrum; indeed, it's often necessary if you want to maintain any credibility. People who say that Bush did the right thing by freezing for seven minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks, for example. Or people who suggest that Clinton lying under oath was no big thing, and not an impeachable offense. I just don't get why people fall into line so easily on things like that. Why they swallow the Kool-Aid, as Bill Maher put it.

Ah, see, if Germany declared war to not be an option in response to us saying that it is an option, that I can understand. There is not a country on this planet that will follow the United States into a Middle Eastern conflict after Iraq. And yeah, that includes Britain. They just won't do it.

Anyone else curious why it's in English? The text on the cup, I mean?

That's pretty odd. No way could Bush pronounce it.

I'm getting nothing. Is 'Yrkoon' the correct spelling? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. If he's around here, he's under a different name. I doubt he is.

Are they targeting a government or are they targetting civilians? Freedom fighters fight the government. Again, I can repeat this a few more times. Let me know when you catch on. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Freedom fighters fight the government. The Palestinians are fighting the Israeli government. What's your point?