The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

After having watched the TV 2nite I could just puke about the news-update about the "intergalactic" war pretty soon going on in YOUR neighborhood.

(If anyone doesn't feel like throwing up right now - answer in a "UQM"-related matter or quote and you'll be answered soon - no doubt 'bout it! If you wish to remain silent, do so, your vote will be counted - the cards are on the table... I'm sorry, but I really can't talk or rant about this really great game when not too far away great injustice will be taking place soon. - Cancel me if you will - that is what regimes usually do when the public doesn't want to be heard!)

Star Control 2 quotes that fit the situation?  Okay...

"There are no more Androsynth now. Only Orz."

That is so fitting, you wouldn't believe it! The Unorzed Orzes of Orzica... *Frumple* them all, them *Orzes*, I'd *dance*'em if they played by fair means...

Unfortunately the New Alliance of Free Stars seems to have fallen under the control of a monkey.  However, it turns out the monkey's advisors are those pesky Dynarri.  Too bad the alliance electorate had chosen this monkey because the previous leader's trivial consensual taboo-breaking.  Probably 50,000 sentients will pay the ultimate price for having a "respectable" monkey-leader.

...Heaven help the world^H^H^H^H^Hgalaxy if this starts another circle of violence, ala the civil war on Palestine-IV.

However, the nicities of diplomacy aside, the "injustice" could not be visited on a shadier regime.  Once they are conquored, I doubt the people of Iraq-VI will complain nearly as vehemently as the rest of the galaxy has.

Now if the New Alliance can just manage to resist the temptation to screw of the perpetually exploited Kurdorians.  Doubt it but there's hope.

My first thought after reading the first paragraph in the topic was "Wow, Americans are even worse in Geography than I thought!"  :P
Then of course I realized stuff.

The great injustice is how Saddam treats his people.  I only wish we'd ousted him back in Desert Storm.  As for the war brewing today, I wish it could be avoided but Saddam is an evil man and should be dealt with as such.

Great quotes and replies, guys! I really like UQM for its complexity and the way it covers a lot of topics!

Where you see America as the Ur-Quan, I see America as doing what should have been done to Hitler in 1933.

You could also see America as doing what Germany did to Poland in 1938.  I guess it all depends on how you spin it...

But I figure that at this point, anything short of dragging Bush out of the White House and trying him for treason is navel-gazing.  I'd prefer that there not be shooting going on, but if there's going to be, let's support the troops, and hope that most of them come home in one piece, and soon.

the main difference is that Bush is after Saddam, not Iraq.  Too few people (including many critics of America) differentiate between a country and the current leader of the country.  If there were no such difference the Yehat would never have rebelled and you would have fought the Sa-Matra without Terminators.

In response to the "slave laws" quote, lets keep in mind that the "international laws" (as if such a thing could really exist) Saddam broke were the United Nations' edicts, not America's, and certainly not Bush's.

So, wait are you saying the only thing Saddam did was violate the UN, dude are u insane?!?! are you saying he did nothing wrong with the U.S.??? torturing our soldiers and everything. god man rethink that.

I am shocked and astounded that you people would have such a low view of our president and all you hippie celebrities whining about a war you'll never have a part in. If saddam was gonna bomb hollywood you artsy fartsy wierdos would be singin a diffiretnt tune if it  was yalls life on the line you would love for other people to kill saddam for you you people make me sick >:( :-[ :-X

Saddam = evil, no question about that. But is he enough of a threat to justify attacking?  No.  Although attacking him would get rid of one enemy, it would create more terrorists, make our allies like us a lot less, and probably make a few new enemies. It is not our right to just destroy someone because they're evil. The Druuge are sickeningly evil, but would attacking them be justified?

Now this is not exactly the same thing because Saddam is power-hungry and wants conquest, but it is similar because Saddam's military isn't that strong (he does have some WMD, but not much of a real military). Some say Saddam has almost nothing that can harm, the government says he has tons, I think it's somewhere in between.

What I would do is wait until Saddam does something stupid, like attack a Middle East country again (you know he will eventually). Then we can go after him with international support.  Give the guy enough rope and he'll eventually hang himself.

I asked you guys to please answer in a preferably humorous way related to the Star Control game to my thread - not start ranting politics here.
We had a thread going on that topic and it got cancelled 'cause people were insulting each other and were posting way off UQM.
Let's all be civilized (at least here!) and remember that this forum is only about the Ur-Quan Masters. I intended this thread to let you say what you think quoting our favorite game - please follow these rules (even if others don't).
It's important to talk about things going on - I wanted to do it including SCII.

Well then, maybe it would be best just not to touch this topic on this board.

i was talking with my uncle, and he brought up a goodpoint.
even if saddam doesnt have a major arsenal of destruction. whos to stop terriosts from getting there hands on small amounts of chem,bio, or nukes that he does have. it only takes less than a pound of raidoactive substance to be detonated with dynomite to make a nasty dirty bomb. it may only cover a small area but it would be enough to disrupt our lives for years to come. or how about an outbreak of of a serious disease. anthrax is nothing comparied to bio engineered super bug. even diseases that do exsist without our help like, ebola, small pox, ect... are deadly in there own right. and lastly, chem weapons, everyones seem the movie THE ROCK, staring sean conery.(yes i know using a movie is not real life, but theres no stanger fiction than real life). that could be a possibilty too.

do i think a war with iraq is justfied? NO
why?what? but i thought you said...
give the UN  more time, thats something we didnt do. and if hes hiding something, go in, remove it and remove him, but do it with proof. so far ive seen little in the way of "hand in the coockie jar" proof.

bush has got the "small man" syndrone. hes trying to live up to his big old daddy and finish the job his daddy started but didnt finish. "hey dad look at me!, im a big president now!"
IMHO~DEFIANT

Indeed- the complexities of this situation go beyond those seen in any game I've ever heard of.
Let's call it quits...
Maybe in a few days we can have a discussion of how the war went.
;P

By then, thousands of Iraqi civilians will be visiting the spirits that the Pkunk talk to...  :P  Thankfully, people protested and took action before the war instead of reacting as people often do.  Too bad the Pkunk values of peace, love and harmony don't apply in our world...  :(

Iraqi citizens will only die if U.S. soldiers have to capture a city.

In response to your Pkunk "peace love and harmony" let me respond (As GN requested!) with a quote from the Spathi!

"Peace, as you call it is an illusion..."

The Ur-Quan Hierarchy (UH)brought peace and stability to this section of the galaxy, but one member, the Mycon had a hidden agenda.

The Mycon realized that there was a possibility that certain Non were un-voidable.  When they faced the un-voidable Non, they joined the Non, until they have enough power to void the Non.  Thus, the Mycon joined the UH.

Luckily, the Earthlings and Syreen (Both members of the UH) discovered what the Mycon were planning:  The Mycon used weapons of mass destruction - Deep Children - which rip planets' crusts apart, releasing the magma.  

The rest of the UH was clearly in favor of letting the Mycon continue in their abyssmal practices, but the Earthlings and Syreen (together with a rag-tag fleet of other races like the Spathi, Pkunk, Thraddash, etc.) went to war to stop the Mycon from destroying more verdant worlds.

Some will say that the whole war was started as a way for the Earthling Captain of the Mark I to get his hands on the Mycon's source of power, the Sun Device.  This was just a happy side-effect.

Nice story, but it doesn't match the situation IRL very closely. Namely, the relative power levels of Human/Syreen, Mycon, and rest of UH.

I would argue that (fleet strengths aside) it matches the RL political wranglings almost exactly.  And since I agree with you that the fleet strengths don't match (earth didn't even have a fleet, but they did have a whopper of a weapons-platform), let me say that I don't believe that makes any difference.  Even f the earthlings started out the game with one billion Chmmr Avatars, I would still want to kick some Mycon butt because:
1) The Mycon are Dangerous
2) The Mycon admit they are dangerous
3) The Mycon admit that they act nice until they're ready to kill you
4) Even if the Mycon could never reach Earth, my protective insticts would make me want to prevent another disaster like Syra.
And:
5) Diplomacy with the Mycon is useless because their leaders are a bit loopy in the head.

"We have come to your homeworld to seek a truce."
"Let's be friends."
"Mycon. Please try to understand. We wish peace between our peoples."
"Why are you unwilling to address my questions?"
"You're not paying any attention to me, are you?"
"I don't suppose there's a chance that you'll actually respond to what I am saying, is there?"
"Helloo? Ugly! Can you hear me?"
"Heinous fungus! Submit to our will!"

Juffo-Wup fills in my fibers and I grow turgid. Violent action ensues.

"Where's the Absorbine Junior when you need it?"

I respect that argumentation and really like the quotes from the hunams when trying to talk to them.
I don't see anything wrong with killing fungus in my shower (better: preventing it from settling there) or eating mushrooms nicely steamed with a delicious buttered sauce - it still is a damn mycon-sibling of some sort which can be eradicated.
That's why - as a hunam or Earthling - would like to kick Mycon butt whenever I encounter one...

BUT: Let's not forget (not saying that anyone is!) that in RL, it's real living, breathing human beings we're talking about (and as perverted as it is, are able to watch dying in a live -dead?- broadcast on TV).

I hope that everything will be over soon without too many lives lost - each life is one too many. And noone but the "Great Spirit in the Sky" makes the call (okay, maybe the Pkunk could tell us something, but they remain silent and just offer us a sad smile...)
Peace to all who still find time to post here without hatred!

Germany invaded, captured, and proceeded to inflict genocide on Polish Jews.

America plans to invade, take out a dictatorship that pretty much everyone agrees is evil, and proceed to (try to, at least..) set up a new democratic government.

...how exactly can you spin it to make them the same?

Scott, you're again getting way off topic! Let's keep it UQM-style, please!

Makes me wonder: Why hasn't anybody mentioned the Zebrankies' fate yet?

Just because Saddam is a bad man, doesnt give the USA the right to break the law.

George Bush should be tried in a court for war crimes.

The United States of America IS a foreign aggressor.
They are INVADING another country.
Call it liberation if you want to, they are moving into a country of which they have NO jurasdiction.

They have NO legal backing, and NO United Nations backing.

They are invaders.

If doesnt matter a BIT what George Bush thinks.
It doesnt matter HOW just their cause is, the USA simply DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to invade another country.

I agree.  There's a world of difference morally between stepping in to end a war, and starting a war.  I'd like to see most of the administration/legislature/joint cheifs lined up and shot as traitors for this, but those who make the rules can (and do) usually get away with breaking them.

However, an Iraqi expatriate said something that has really left me conflicted -- He said that Saddam was not elected president, he was an "agent of the West", installed by foreign powers against the will of the people.  He reasoned that therefore it was the duty of the West to remove him, since the locals could not.

And now for a completely specious SC2 comparison:

It's as though somebody came along years ago and dropped this ULTIMATE EVIL on the poor Spath-er-Iraqi, who found themselves no match for its cunning and ferocity; and whose only hope for the return of their homeland rested with a powerful foreign player.

I don't think that massive bombing by pre-Vietnam-war technology (the B52 bomber) can prevent the deaths of many Iraqi citizens.  In fact, I'd argue that bombings would and will kill more civilians than any infantry ground strike could.

I agree - especially since the laser guided stuff will have a very hard time with all that smoke. Of course, Saddam may be slowly murdering his own people en masse with respiratory failure due to living inside a smoke screen for days on end.

Which is worse? Whose fault is it? Saddam, for doing it - Bush, for putting him in the situation where he felt that he had to.
That kind of sums it up...
Next question - will this war cost few enough civilian casualties that simply not having Saddam in power will make up for the losses quickly (since an ensuing government will probably be much healthier to live under than Saddam's...)?

Who knows...

The US doesnt "HAVE" do do anything.

If I held a gun to your head, and told you not to move or you would die, and you moved, whose fault is it your dead?

Your quote is grossly wrong on many levels.
The US are acting like international thugs.

Heh.  You said "do do"... heh huh huh huh... that was cool... yeah. huh huh

Here's a good one. The Pkunk in this case are, say, Finland, and the Ur-Quan are Iraq. Humans are the U.S.

Why is Finland the Pkunk? We don't seem to have that many similarities really...

So, J, you seem to think that every Iraqi is like the VUX... they want to be in the heirarchy... but you forget that there are also Spathi; they don't want to be in it but hey can't leave safely!  You would seemingly argue that every action the human commander in UQM took was immoral -- he had "NO RIGHT WHATSOVER" to attack the Thraddash and steal their Aqua Helix!  NO RIGHT to send the Syreen to fight the Mycon -- after all, its ANOTHER country...  Despite the whole "end of all non-Ur-Quan sentient life" you would say the capitan is not justified?

Digressing slightly from the SC metaphor, this reminds me of a political cartoon I saw today... a protestor was holding up a sign that read "It's bad enough WE have to live in a democracy!  Must we inflict it on others too?"

Correct. The proper course of action would ahve been to let the Kohr-Ah extinguish  all sentient life. At least we would have gone down with outr heads held high, instead of living on in this eternal sahme..

sweriously, this RL comparison is a bit silly, isn't it? But, if it must continue, then I will be the Arilou, and tell all you children to be careful, or something might *smell* you. I may be a *smell* controller. But there aren't that many of us around, so be careful yall!

In this case, because our attitude towards the war is much the same as the Pkunks' attitude towards the Slave Revolt, or whatever it is.

Seeing as we aren't fighting another war at the same time, against a foe that is about to make us pass from the physical plane by way of sacrifing us to their dark gods, I'd say we aren't quite. the Pkunk, for all their talk of peace and love and harmony, are fighting the Ilwrath. Finaland on the other hand isn't.

Also the Pkunk are peaceloving spiritual ebings. If you've ever been in a bar in Finalöand on a Saturday night, you'll see the same often cannot be said for us....

The Iraqi Hierarchy of Battle Thralls? I don't like the sound of that.  :o

Yes, yes, yes, but my point here is that we tend to view George W. Bush as a moron, and Saddam Hussein as a bigger moron.

Saddam Hussein is _NOT_ a moron.
He has shown supervillain like intelligence in his planning
his is a very bad man tho
Bush = Well Meaning Moron

Supervillain like intelligence? did I miss something here?

Oh, and Kizor, I suppose I have to concede your point on that one. Although I always got the impression that the Pkunk didn't look at people as morons, just less enlightened beings. Still, that way we are similar I suppose.

Here's a couple of ideas that wanna-be president could do:

1st: Stop polluting the environment like you have another planet in your basement
2nd: Pay your fees to the U.N. ontime and regularly - not only if you want something from them
3rd: Learn about the world as a whole and not only "America first" (Dubya has been to ONE foreign country before he got president - and that was Mexico! Oohwee! Yehaw!)
4th: Follow the U.N. Charta and the Geneva Convention. Just because you're the U.S. doesn't mean that might makes right.
5th: Spend more money on developing 3rd world countries. Right now 3 days of running your military (in times of peace) equals the amount of $$$ spent in a whole year for that.
6th: Solve your own problems first before you want to change the world (unemployment, medical care, gun control, education etc.)... that splinter in your own eye thing!
7th: Don't re-elect that religious fanatic crusader - pick someone smart  ;)

Bush is the president of the United States, not the world.  He should be focusing on "America first", that is his job.



um, when have we not followed the geneva convention?  It is Saddam who has/was trying to make biological/chemical weapons.  As for the UN charter, the UN has increasingly become just like the League of Nations -- defunct.  The only sort of global government that will work is a sort of "global EU" that has ACTUAL athourity.



take your own advice and "first remove the wooden beam from your own eye, that you may see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's."  Every country in the world has a military.



The US has some of the best medical care in the world.  I agree that our public education system needs some reform, but solving that doesn't necessarily mean we can't "change the world."  In fact this contradicts your earlier point of "not America first".  Also, who sez gun control is a problem?  just look at Britain's crime rate!  More laws that the bad people will break anyway aren't the answer.



But, GM!  Bush was picked with only the most complicated strategery!  lol... seriously though think "lesser of two morons" and you'll understand why Bush was elected.

Principally, the fighters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda that we captured in Afghanistan are considered by Bush not to be prisoners of war (which they really are). Since they are non-citizens to boot, he has avoided treating them according to the restrictions of the Geneva Conventions OR the constitutional protections.

Second, if we're going to pick nits that the Iraqis publicly humiliated our soldiers on TV (a violation of the Geneva Conventions, even in the absence of the TV), then we should be willing to admit that we publicly humiliated theirs too, by showing them, kneeling, hands-on head, with US soldiers standing over them with guns pointed at them, on international TV. That's very humiliating, and extremely public.

(Edit for grammar so bad it ceased to make sense)

Ah... I was not aware that "no public humiliation" was part of the GC... [shrugs] apparently it is.

Also, I can see both sides of the prisoner-of-war thing.  Since they are not members of a formal military force, one can say they are not prisoners of war.  On the other hand I can see the argument that they are.  [shrugs again] I deal with what is...

On the other hand, they are unequivocally NOT American citizens and as such DONT have any expectation of constitutional protections.

[soapbox]
This whole thing aobut war... good or bad... every single idealist I have ever met my reaction has been "maybe in a perfect world..."   But we don't live in the idealist's world, we live in the real one.  Earth.  And humanity is just as evil as it is good.  I prefer non-realities like UQM, roleplaying games, and such.  But when I do deal with reality, I gird my haunches and DEAL with it.  I just wish everyone could accept that reality is what it is, and that simply wishing it were better will not make it so.
[/soapbox]

This has been a rant by ErekLich.  Feel free to disregard.

This quoting in and out doesn't really work, so I hope that the italicalized stuff is Ereklich's that I'd like to answer...

Bush is the president of the United States, not the world.  He should be focusing on "America first", that is his job.

Well, then why doesn't he manage his own business? Oh, I forgot that he ain't much of a businessmen (didn't all three of his companies go broke?) - No, honestly, he should consider America's needs, but not at the expense of others!

um, when have we not followed the geneva convention?  It is Saddam who has/was trying to make biological/chemical weapons.  As for the UN charter, the UN has increasingly become just like the League of Nations -- defunct.  The only sort of global government that will work is a sort of "global EU" that has ACTUAL athourity.

That part was already explained by Death_999. One more thing, though - the U.S. started first with broadcasting those TV-clips...
As for the U.N. - if you call it defunct just because it doesn't dance to your tune...

take your own advice and "first remove the wooden beam from your own eye, that you may see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's."  Every country in the world has a military.

Yes, but we use ours not to invade countries (anymore!) but to aid in humanitarian and peace-keeping missions. Not saying that the U.S. doesn't, but right now they ain't for sure.
Out of our budget of 247.5 billion Euros (app. $250 billions), "only" 27.5 Euros go into the military (20 for paying the checks), 11 billion Euros go to education/research/science, 4 billion go to the "casualties of war"-fund. If I'm not completely mistaken, the U.S. spend about $250 billions on their military alone...

The US has some of the best medical care in the world.

Yeah, for those who can pay for it... Canada is better off there (our systems nears bankrupcy, where yours already is)

I agree that our public education system needs some reform, but solving that doesn't necessarily mean we can't "change the world."  In fact this contradicts your earlier point of "not America first".

Well, yeah, I guess it sort of does... I mean, our people really like the "Amis", but they disagree with their president - that will change when he's gone, I'm sure!

Also, who sez gun control is a problem?  just look at Britain's crime rate!  More laws that the bad people will break anyway aren't the answer.

Well, first off all, Michael Moore says so (and a whole lot of other people.) Gun control really works (at least in Germany). Don't forget that it was fairly easy to own a gun in Britain (where even some of the Police, those Bobbies, don't wear a gun.

But, GM!  Bush was picked with only the most complicated strategery!  lol... seriously though think "lesser of two morons" and you'll understand why Bush was elected.

Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot! The choice of dumb & dumber
;) No, seriuolsly, there's gotta be better men for the job!

Oh, one more thing: I think that those who wage war should pay for the rebuilding as well... If I break something willingly, I not only get into trouble, I have to pay for it, too!
Glad that we can at least here state some thoughts without fighting each other!

I actually disagree with you about Socialized medicine.  I think the horror stories about waiting lists are far worse than anything wrong with private practice.  We have two hospitals in my city:  The MedCenter (gov't subsidized) and St. Josephs (privately owned and run).  By far the more sucessful is St Joesphs.  St Jospehs is buying the land nearby to expand while the Med is looking for ways to cut costs.  But enough ranting aobut socialism.

"..there has to be better men for the job!"

I AGREE!  The main problem with any seat of power is that those who want it are exactly the ones who should not have it, and those who don't want it are the ones who should.

I also agree wholeheartedly that America should help pay for rebuilding Iraq.  We have already shown concern for the rebuilding when we took out a staging area from which we think Saddam was going to destroy an oil field.  Those fields are the lifeblood of Iraq's economy, and contrary to what Anti-American hatemongers say we are not in this to take that oil for ourselves.

Gun control -- let me clarify my view a bit.  Gun control must be all or nothing.  Either NO ONE but police or military can own a gun, and anyone else who does, for ANY reason, suffers severe penalties, or EVERYONE msut be able to own one.

I'm quoting with the italics. I didn't put any names to the quotes, so don't assume these are all by the same person.

I think that those who wage war should pay for the rebuilding as well...

Couldn't agree more. America pushed for this war so we should be the ones to pay for it. That's one of the reasons I believed we shouldn't have jumped into it so quickly. The UN, however, seems to want to assist in that matter, probably so it can show that it is still a very relevant world body. And I also agree with the earlier comment that just because the UN doesn't do what we want it to doesn't make it defunct. What makes it lean more towards that status, though, is the way it doesn't follow through when dealing with people like Saddam. Let's face it: the sanctions weren't working. I would have preferred for the inspectors to have a longer time in the country, and I dislike the way Bush cynically used the UN to stall Saddam while getting troops in place. I would not be surprised if he was just paying lip service.

seriously though think "lesser of two morons" and you'll understand why Bush was elected

It would be useless to argue the point by stating IQ points, credentials, natural talent, or "strategery" or what have you. So I'll just say that (obviously!!) Bush was not elected based on his apparent intelligence, whether the man is actually a moron or not.

Don't re-elect that religious fanatic crusader - pick someone smart

Ok, this is not to bring up old wounds or anything, but I'd like to make a point about US presidential elections. What most people either don't know or fail to remember is that the people of the US don't directly elect the president, the electoral college does. This is why a president can lose the popular vote but still make it into office. Florida (where I live) had 25 electoral votes. That's like the 4th largest number of electoral votes out of all the states, and this is what made it a determining factor.

Before anyone says anything -- I had nothing to do with that voting fiasco, though I'm still ticked off at all those old people who don't even know how to frikkin use a ballot. And as much as that whole fiasco frustrated the rest of the country, they don't have anything on me: I have to put up with Dubya's brother for a governor. Talk about a double whammy!

EricLich, that is a very interesting viewpoint on Gun Control, and I can respect it (I am not sure what to do about guns, so I can't quite say I agree).

As far as why W is in office, it probably doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, but that the slimewad he was running against dealt with the Clinton scandals by disavowing him rather than riding above the storm, pointing out as needed, "I worked with Clinton in decision-making, not the bedroom! Grow up!"

In the process, Gore annoyed the numerous genuine Clinton fans, came off as insincere to almost everyone, and achieved none of the taint-washing he had tried to do.

That blunder is what catapulted W into office.
The election fiasco just indicates how close it was, despite all that.

I agree with Ereklich on gun control, although probably from the other angle. I don't think anyone, except law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry any sort of firearm. Anyone found with a weapon like that at home should face the law at it's harshest. If this means the hunters have to go for crossbows or whatnot instead, at the cost that noone accidentally blows their brains out, or loses it and starts picking people off with a sniper rifle, then I think the pros outweigh the cons.

On the UN. What surprises me in this is how most people just say that the UN is turning into "the league of nations", and we should just ignore it. Surely it would be better to sit down and work out how it could be improved, and bettered, instead of bashing it and going our own ways. Do we really want to go the way of anarchy here?

Out of our budget of 247.5 billion Euros (app. $250 billions), "only" 27.5 Euros go into the military (20 for paying the checks), 11 billion Euros go to education/research/science, 4 billion go to the "casualties of war"-fund. If I'm not completely mistaken, the U.S. spend about $250 billions on their military alone...

Well, to be fair, the overall budget of the US is bigger than the overall german budget as well. just out of interest, does anyone actually know how much the US spends on causalties of war and development in third world countries?

I actually disagree with you about Socialized medicine.  I think the horror stories about waiting lists are far worse than anything wrong with private practice.  We have two hospitals in my city:  The MedCenter (gov't subsidized) and St. Josephs (privately owned and run).  By far the more sucessful is St Joesphs.  St Jospehs is buying the land nearby to expand while the Med is looking for ways to cut costs.  But enough ranting aobut socialism.

Ereklich, you may be overlooking a slight fact here. The reason one of your hospitals is doing so much better is because they only take people who can pay. If you can't pay, you may as well go die somewhere. And the other is doing poorly because the gov't isn't really putting that much effort into it. In a country where people can be made to pay for it, why should they provide anything at all? Over here, we pay a lot more in taxes, and there are extra taxes on things like alcohol and fuel, but in exchange we get a system where anyone can get treated. The queses over here aren't that long.

I think that those who wage war should pay for the rebuilding as well...

I couldn't agree more. The UN wants to make a stand here, to show that they are still involved in things but really. It's a pity the rest of the world have morals, otherwise the simplest thing in the world to do would be to simply say : "You went over there on your own, now fix it on your own". Unfortunately, it's human lives we're talking about here, so even though we didn't start this, we still have the responsibility to help those in need.

Hi guys,

this time I changed the headline because, seriously, I am very glad about the way page 4 in this thread turned out!

Nice discussion on a civilized level - that's what the world really needs!

Couple more things I'd like to state though:

1st: Let's face it - the U.N. inspections worked, but only with the U.S. Armed Forces standing ready to strike (and I bet that was expensive enough, but the war costs so much more!)

2nd: I visited Florida last summer (despite the double Bushism) and besides all the old people from the North it's very nice. Maybe next time the U.S. has an election, the U.N. should send in their election control task force (you know, the one they send to some countries to make sure everything is legal and alright?  ;)

3rd: I really hope that the U.S. will not use the Iraqui people's only way to rebuilt their country through their oil exports in any advantage (although that's already too late I fear - most of Bush's administration has close ties to the oil and energy industry).
By the way, did you guys know that - seriously - "Operation Iraqui Freedom" is the second choice name. It used to be "Operation Iraqui Liberation", but that had a weird taste to it: "O.I.L."

4th: As for the gun control: Noone should own one, but as long as there are millions under the pillows and whereelse not - let's stick with Chris Rock: "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control! Instead of selling a bullet for $0,25 a bullet should cost $5,000! No more innocent bystanders. If you catch a bullet, man, you gotta deserve it. Man, just you wait: If I save enough money, I'm gonna buy me a bullet with your name on it!" (This is something from "Bowling for Columbine" where C.R. has a stand-up scene)

Good night, folks, I talk to you tomorrow (and yes, there will be a tomorrow - no more "repent - the end is nigh" from me!)

I agree with Ereklich on gun control, although probably from the other angle.

I find both of my "angles" to be equally acceptable, actually.  Glad you agree, though  ;D


On the UN. What surprises me in this is how most people just say that the UN is turning into "the league of nations", and we should just ignore it. Surely it would be better to sit down and work out how it could be improved, and bettered, instead of bashing it and going our own ways. Do we really want to go the way of anarchy here?

IMHO the way to "improve" the UN is to scrap it, and start over with a governing body that functions more like the EU.

Ereklich, you may be overlooking a slight fact here. The reason one of your hospitals is doing so much better is because they only take people who can pay.

Actually this is not true.  St Joesephs is a Catholic hospital and does not turn away those who cannot pay.  They try very hard to get you to pay, even offering long-term payment plans etc, but they do not turn away someone who needs treatment.

the UN ispections worked

What do you mean by "worked"?  If you mean they were able to disarm Saddam, you are incorrect.  If the UN wants to be treated as an athouritative world body it should enforce its own edicts, not make the US do it for them.  Saddam admitted, publicly, that he had disregarded UN edicts.  Also, lets face it the sanctions did nothing but hurt the Iraqi people.  That is part of why I think the UN is defunct.

On the electoral college -- just go to computerized voting!  It should have happened years ago!  That would've prevented the entire Florida fiasco.  (The EC itself is still debatable, however.  I personally am against it.)

In The Ur-Quan Masters Trademaster Greenish says:

Just under 20 years ago, the brave and suicidal Shofixti annihilated their species by exploding a Precursor device -- some kind of bomb -- in the interior of their sun. The resulting storm of solar flares cooked the life off the Shofixti homeworld and incinerated over a hundred Ur-Quan Dreadnoughts which had just entered the system to conquer the Shofixti.


So, are the Shofixti dirty little terrorists or, as Commander Hayes puts it, noble and fearless Warriors?

IMHO the way to "improve" the UN is to scrap it, and start over with a governing body that functions more like the EU.

Well, I'd have to disagree - The problem is that the U.N., being what they were supposed to be from the start - do not have any means of enforcing anything without the troops of the members.


Actually this is not true.  St Joesephs is a Catholic hospital and does not turn away those who cannot pay.  They try very hard to get you to pay, even offering long-term payment plans etc, but they do not turn away someone who needs treatment.

I've heard of many people (and I've been to the States half a dozen times) who waited till their sickness became an emergency to be treated without costs.
In Germany, you have to pay your average health insurance and they usually cover everything except the real fancy or unneccessary stuff...


What do you mean by "worked"?  If you mean they were able to disarm Saddam, you are incorrect.  If the UN wants to be treated as an athouritative world body it should enforce its own edicts, not make the US do it for them.  Saddam admitted, publicly, that he had disregarded UN edicts.  Also, lets face it the sanctions did nothing but hurt the Iraqi people.  That is part of why I think the UN is defunct.

Well, the inspectors didn't have enough time (Ask Mr. Blix) and after all, those sanctions were really pushed by the U.S. - no wonder the Iraquis are quite upset... and now this!

By the way - I dug up some numbers for those who are interested. They are from 2001 (same year as my German numbers from our budget)

Overall budget of the U.S.: $2,019 billions

Military budget in 1993 $262.4 billions -> in 2000 $280.9 billions

proposed budget for 2001: 292.2 (and that was before 9/11)

approximate military budget 2003: way over $300 billions (and that was before the war)

(Those numbers are from the "www.whitehouse.gov" homepage)

Well, the Shofixti question probably depends on who they blow up...
Baddies -> heroes
Goddies -> villains

Makes me think: I wouldn't blow myself up for the world - at least not for the world in the state it is in right now... Maybe the world of 4000 B.C. would have been worth it  ;)

Anarchy? How would the world nations go to anrachy if the U.N. was gone. They do have their own seperate governments right?

Things certainly wouldn't go into a state of anarchy... I think a better word is things would mbe disorderdly without the United Nations.  There is the possibility of less international co-operation and diplomacy, creating possible conflict and different interests between the nations of the world.  And hey, if the United Nations is deemed useless, how does it become the world-unifying and world-guiding U.N. we know and love from SC2?

I think that the shofixti would be fearless warriors regardless -- and here's why:

The scout is a military vessel. If you are at war with the shofixti, you know to blow up a scout if it tries to get close to you.

Unlike, say, a suicide bomber who hides, gets close to a target by wearing civilian clothing/driving a civilian car, etc.

If all of those palestinean suicide bombers were driving "technicals", the ground equivalent of a Scout,...

Oops, there's the hole in my reasoning. It depends whether they're attacking civilians or military targets.
Or rather, whether they attack with the intent to terrify. The American "Shock and Awe", for all that it was ineffective, was really a terrorist campaign directed at the Iraqi elite. Inasmuch as it was not directed against civilians, it was mostly acceptable. However, as noted elsewhere, it invited retaliatory fire which did kill civilians (and that's the most generous interpretation of events)

Now, the terroristic attack against the US soldiers by a car bombing in recent days was acceptable in that it targeted the military, but was unacceptable in that it used a civilian disguise, which endangered the Iraqi civilians trying to use the checkpoint.

SO: there are three variables:
suicide attack?
targeting civilians?
using civilian disguise?

conventional warfare: no no no
kamikaze: yes no no
iraqis mortaring basra: no yes no
shofixti charging and blowing up a passenger liner: yes yes no
Viet Cong normal operations: no no yes
USS Cole bombing: yes no yes
old-school airplane terrorists: no yes yes
sept 11 hijackers: yes yes yes

Of these, which would we call terrorism?

Basically I consider anything that answers yes to "using civilian disguise" is terrorism.  Now, interestingly enough, it is STILL debatable wether the Shofixti Nova was terrorist!  Clearly they hid their intent, but one can hardly say that they "disguised" an entire planet...

"targeting civilians" does not, in and of itself, make something "terrorist."  Such an attack must be very carefully considered, and must be necessary and part of a declared war between two nations, or I would argue that it is terrorist.

To me, "suicide attack" or not has no bearing whatsoever on wether the attack is terrorism.

Wow, Death_999, that really made me thinking! It's really hard to define "terrorism" as such - that's why it makes people so afraid... It's a threat you can't really put your finger on until something happens.

I'd have to disagree with Ereklich though (nothing personal, alright?):

Your definition would also include each and every intelligence personnal to be terrorists! NSA, CIA, Secret Service, MI6 - They don't run around in uniforms but wanna blend in and therefore use civilian disguise although they often enough are involved in military conflicts (like the CIA guy killed in Afghanistan)...

Terrorism is what terrorizes the people. That would also include large bombing campaigns, nomatter whether you target "military only with a couple of stray shots" or if you intend to terrorize civilians by "Shock and Awe".
The Allies tried that in WWII and all it did manage was to make the civilians unify behind their leadership, even though our cities already lay in ruins. "Jetzt erst recht" - something that could be translated as "Especially now" could be heard amongst many, the resentment and determination increased the more the tide turned against them.

Two weeks of war in Iraq managed to accomplish what Saddam couldn't do in 20 years of reign (or better: dictatorship): to unify his people against a common aggressor. Guess that one didn't work out the way it was planned  :(

I personally do not consider it ever necessary to target civilians under any circumstances. But - as soon as they carry a weapon or gun, they become something like militia or armed political party members (the SS was not a military organisation but one of the party!).
Suicide attacks using civilian disguise works for a moment, but it makes the lives of ordinary civilians a lot harder (as the killings in the days after that taxi-bombing show).

Oh wow, I totally forgot about intelligence agents!

ummm.... lessee... they're spying, not killing people... yeah, that's it!   :P

I think maybe we are also missing a key question in our definition here:  what is the intent behind the action?

Regarding intelligence agents not killing people: what about Bond?

As for intent, just let me tell you a fact about Portugal. One of our national heroes is a baker. The story goes like this: after being routed during an attempt to invade us, a few Spaniards hid away in her oven. When she came to work, she found them and finished them off with her baking shovel. Now, this was a long time before the Genebra Convention and I don't support her actions towards enemies that were already defeated, but when you invade someone's country you are bound to find resistance from both civilians and military. I don't know much of American History but similar episodes must have happened during the Independence War. The intent, then as now in Iraq, is to defend your country from invasion.

But is terror a legitimate means to that end? The Macmillan Encyclopedia defines terrorism as "The use of violence and intimidation to achieve an objective that is usually, but not always, political". It seems to me that all acts of war, as well as 'muscled diplomacy' (comprising the idea of an ultimatum) fit to this description. So, keeping to this strict definition, everybody, from states to playground bullies and parents disciplining their children, does it. We're all terrorists; as a noun, it could replace 'mankind'.

Though technically useless as a way do discriminate between people, the term is still widely used. Why? Because it questions the legitimacy of the other guys - generally the weak ones - fighting back. I recall that when we, the Portuguese, were fascist and the oppressors a good chunk of Africa :-[ the term 'terrorism' was used to designate the same guys that, by the standards of the international community, were freedom fighters. It's a dirty name, that's all. You call it to people you don't like. Especially if you are oppressing them and they have the nerve to fight back.

Hmm... One of the factors the the Geneva Convention used to determine whether or not something was a war crime was whether or not the action put civilians to adverse risk.  
Anything with 2) (assuming they are not collateral damage, but are the main target) is terrorism in my book.
Anything with 3) where humans are indiscriminately targetted (thus avoiding covert ops assassinations).  This even applies to groups of soldiers.  If a group of soldiers cannot determine between an enemy they know will shoot at any of their group and a civilian, the actions of the enemy place the civilians into adverse risk.

Thus:
conventional warfare: no
kamikaze: no
iraqis mortaring basra: yes (only if the Iraqis are aiming for civilians)
shofixti charging and blowing up a passenger liner: yes
Viet Cong normal operations: yes (not counting focused assassinations)
USS Cole bombing: yes (assuming this was not a specific assassination)
old-school airplane terrorists: yes
sept 11 hijackers: yes

I know that I added a couple more variables, which should expand our results base, but I'm too lazy to find any other examples except for covert ops assassinations.

Well, we are certainly getting a lot of definition on terrorists here. I'll just add my 2 cents worth...

Anyone striking at civilians is a terrorist, and even though collateral damage can be claimed, it then has to be investigated thoroughly. Someone will have to pay.

Striking at military targets out of civilian clothing doesn't really count as terrorism. This all depends on your point of view, are they freedom fighters or terrorists. It is simply the way smaller groups attempt to fight bigger ones. It is simply guerilla warfare.

A civilian striking at the military automatically becomes a military target. If you want to defend your homeland, fine. But you should then be aware of the fact that this makes you an official enemy. If you gun down a few enemy soldiers, don't expect them not to shoot back just because you aren't in the army.

As for the UN comment I made earlier: Yes RR, there are indepedent goverments in (most) countries in the world. But the UN, ineffective as it has been, has been a way of making legitimate decisions between countries. If the UN says so, people may grumble and complain, but they'll end up doing it or paying for it, and noone else will intervene, because the UN has decided. But the UShas broken this arrangment. If North Korea suddenly invade the South, why should they care if the UN criticizes this. They don't have to play by the rules anymore.

And as a more realistic example, any african dictator who decides to invade anywhere else can do it freely. Yes, they did it before, but they were hampered by UN threats, that managed to get close by countries to warn them off. Who's going to even try and control them now? the Commonwelth? The French? not likely.

Lukipela -- remember also that Saddam has repeatedly ignored the UN.  I'm telling you, the UN only has the athourity (sp?) that a country lets it have -- both the US and Iraq have repeatedly proved that.  And that is the biggest problem with the UN.  If they cannot back up what they say, then they are defunct as a ruling body.  And if they are not a ruling body, what are they doing telling Iraq to disarm and telling the US to join the world court?

If all we want from the UN is a "country club" (pardon the pun) then it needs to stop telling people what to do.

If we want a ruling body, then we need to have a NEW body, which countries join voluntarily, a la the EU...

As to the EU, UN thing. Rememebr, the UN was once the thing to join, now in europe it's the EU. Don't get your hope up too high on that either, even though the EU still works, the machinery is beginning to show considerable strain. It remains to be seen what happens after this crisis is over, and when the new states join. and anyway, isn't EU just another version of the US? Same principle, no?

And the problem with the UN is that it can't enforce what it decides, I agree wholeheartedly on that. However, when we already have an organsiation, set up in almost every country in the world, wouldn't it be easier just to give it more power, to give it the power to enforce it's decisions, to reform the security council into something more "Eu-Like"? Instead of starting from scratch...

Guys, guys guys: Waaaiiiiit a minute!

I hear repeatedly that the U.N. is a RULING body. It's NOT!

It is a forum almost like this one, a platform countries talk to before they go to war or do anything else stupid.
It is not a ruling body - see it more like a tool to unite the peoples' different goals (health, food, children).

The ability of the U.N. to enforce its decisions (e.g. made in the Security Council) are dependend on countries who are willing to do so (most of the time in the form of those "Blue Helmets"). One of the great examples are the latest U.N. members (Switzerland and the peacefully joined East-Timor - thanks Aussie Blue Helmets!).
Being neutral doesn't mean you can't be in the U.N. because it is an organization to address things, and East-Timor wouldn't be a free, peaceful country if it weren't for the U.N. - had they had oil, they'd probably been "peacified" a lot sooner.

As for the E.U. - change is not only coming but definitely needed, because decision-making will become a lot harder with so many (not saying too many!) countries as members. But I'm confident that "We can work it out..." (The Beatles)

Okay, here's the part that gets me...

"Not a ruling body..."

"power to enforce its decisions..."

If it is not a ruling body, it should have NO power to enforce anything, just as we here on this board have no say in the process of porting UQM.  (gah, just realized the pun...)  And yet, people act like it has athourity.  It either is or it isn't; you can't have it both ways.

is dependend on countries who are willing to do so.

The U.N. does not have any troops or executive forces! Countries volunteer to contribute to the common good. By funding someone who executes the decisions or gives the U.N. the necessary troops (Blue Helmets) to do so.

They act with the authority of the U.N., but the U.N. itself is not a "world-government" of any kind...

I think GM puts it quit nicely there. this is how the UN works, and also the reason it deosn't work. In an ideal world, the leaders of all countries would come together here, figure out the right thing to do, and then do it. However, as we all know, things don't really work that way. It is an idealistic idea, nice but impractical.

To sum up a bit, this is where me and E go onto different racks. We both recognize that the UN in it's present form doesn't work. However, while you would prefer to disband the entire thing, and start from scratch, i would rather salvage what I can, and let the UN grow into a more powerful presence in the world. correct me if I got you wrong will ya? ;)

I just feel that the disbanding of the UN and the subsequent founding of a new international EU-like body would be a huge waste of resources we also have. also, the EU isn't at current as equal as it could be. Big countries decide a lot of what happens. And it is as GM so correctly sated, a union with a goverment, while the UN isn't. The question of wether we should have a world goverment or not is something I leave for another day.

I mean, we already have the UN infrastructure. If the rules could be changed a bit, to give it a bit more punch to put behind it's decisions, we'd have a working system. (As long as noone too powerful rocks the boat anyway).

LP, I agree with you.

One thing that sort of hinders the E.U. from being really effective is that the different European countries still don't speak with a single voice. What they're trying to install right now is something like a "double leadership", president and foreign minister of the E.U. - a good idea if you asked me.
The big "BUT" (no pun intended!) would be that once one of those two makes a decision, all would have to comply.
A problem which would arise in conflicts like this would be that the German "Grundgesetz" (our "basic law" or equivalent to the Constitution) absolutely forbids the preparation or realization of an "Angriffskrieg" (offensive warfare). We have learned from our mistakes and even if a war might be justified (like the one in Yugoslavia), it still is a great undertaking to be part of it as Germany.

Another thought on the E.U.: Right now all the different countries' votes count equal in the European government (if I'm not mistaken) - no matter how large your population is. I don't really know a solution for that, but being in the largest country (over 80 million) I find that kind of, well, miss-balanced. On the other hand, if the vote of a smaller country counts less, they'd have a hard time too...

As for the U.N. - not only has Iraq not fulfilled many (14?) of the U.N.'s resolutions, but another country in the region has willingly ingnored the U.N.'s decisions as well: Israel.

Why should anyone expect a "bad guy" like Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. if the supposedly "good guys" like Israel won't do it? Only because the U.S.A. back them up doesn't make it right, or does it?

LK: Nope, you got it exactly right.

GN: The prohibiton on agressive warfare is interesting... unless I completely misunderstood what you are saying, Germany's "constitution" forbids it from going to war except in self-defense.  (Yes? No?) If this is the (utterly fascinating) case, when did this restriction come about?  Did post-WWII Germany get tired of being slapped down by the rest of the world, or did people like Hitler justify their actions as "self-defense" somehow?  (Also, if that sounds anti-germany it isn't intended to be...)

As for the UN:  Israel can get away with defying the UN because the US lets them.  And here is my conundrum with the UN!  If we are saying that Israel defies the UN that means the world expects the UN's statements to carry weight; ie is has real and legitimate athourity (sp?) over member nations.  This implies, to my mind, that the UN acts as (note that I did not say is) a ruling body.  If this is the case, it needs to enforce what it says.

On the other hand, if we do NOT believe that the UN has real athourity, ie it makes "suggestions" then the opposite conundrum appears -- if it is not acting as a ruling body, then member nations are not in any way bound by it's edicts!  Thus, countries like Israel, the US, and Iraq can do whatever they want, and while it may piss off some nations, the UN can't do anything about it.

Basically, the sticking point for me is this:  Does the UN have real and actual athourity or not?  Should the UN have real and actual athourity or not?  I do not like the current, "in-between" state it seems to operate in.

As a side note, the US declaration of war on Iraq is not inherently related to the fact that Iraq may or may not have been defying UN edicts -- in many ways this is just Bush's excuse to eliminate what he sees as a threat to the US and the Iraqi people.

The former... perhaps aided by the allies, much as Japan's constitution was helped along by MacArthur...

All that is quoted from ErekLich is inverted (I still haven't figured out how to do multiple quotes with my reply in between...)

LK: Nope, you got it exactly right.
Glad to hear that!

GN: The prohibiton on agressive warfare is interesting... unless I completely misunderstood what you are saying, Germany's "constitution" forbids it from going to war except in self-defense. (Yes? No?)
YES. (Unless our gouvernment votes with a 2/3 decision which i.e. took place when German Forces were involved in the peace-making and/or peace-keeping campaign in Yugoslavia.)

If this is the (utterly fascinating) case, when did this restriction come about?
May 8th 1949 - exactly 4 years after the unconditional capitulation of the 3rd Reich. The men and women who created our constitution started from scratch and included almost everything important. Some changes were added by a 2/3 parlamentary vote (like the changes made after and for the Re-Unification).

Did post-WWII Germany get tired of being slapped down by the rest of the world, (just you wait!  ;D) or did people like Hitler justify their actions as "self-defense" somehow?  (Also, if that sounds anti-germany it isn't intended to be...)
No insult taken. Post WWII-Germany really started from scratch and they wanted to improve on everything and learn from all that which went wrong in our first Democracy, the Weimar Republic. (And of course the 3rd Reich including all the atrocities and injustices).
Interestingly enough, Hitler did indeed use the term of self-defense when Germany invaded Poland on September 1st 1939 (Not to mention Germany's interference in Spain between 1936-1938 where the Armed forces made a "test run" of their capabilities).
"Today, for the first time, Poland has operated with regular troops on German territory. From 5:45 a.m. on, we are now shooting back!" (Hitler's speech on the beginning of WWII). So indeed he has used the term of "self-defense" although the whole thing was staged and those Polish soldiers were disguised German special forces...
The campaign "Barbarossa" (June 21st 1941) against the USSR (an ally of Germany in the first two years of the war!) was also based on the assumption that Stalin was assembling troops and the German attack on Russia was only a "pre-emptive strike" about three weeks before the Russians were supposedly about to attack the Reich.

As for the U.N.:  Israel can get away with defying the U.N. because the U.S. lets them.  And here is my conundrum with the U.N.!  If we are saying that Israel defies the U.N. that means the world expects the U.N.'s statements to carry weight; i.e. it has real and legitimate authority over member nations.  This implies, to my mind, that the U.N. acts as (note that I did not say is) a ruling body.  If this is the case, it needs to enforce what it says.
Well, as soon as you as a country become a member state of the U.N. you accept its Charta and therefore, yes, the U.N.'s statements and decisions do carry weight. This happens voluntarily though, and member nations are the ones who are to make sure that other members conform with the rules of the U.N. - maybe to make it clearer, the U.N. doesn't really act like a ruling body but more like a really strong advisor backed by other nations (although that's not really it...).
Take this example (not really fitting, but a nice picture): Imagine an ice-hockey match. You (a country) are part of a league (the U.N.) which has certain rules. The umpire or referee (the U.N.'s Security Council, the U.N. diplomats or who else has that kind of role) sees you breaking the rules amongst the players by committing a foul.
So far, everything is easy and fine (well, maybe except for you committing that foul!). The ref' calls your 2 minutes. If you are a good player and go conform with the rules, you will take your brake and then return to the field.
But what happens if you decide not to leave the ice? Who is to carry you off-field and make sure you stay there?
The ref' doesn't have any means to throw you out (he himself can't really use force against you, 'cause you are a brute). Either your fellow players can persuade you to go off the ice or the other team's players will take you off the ice with force (which in itself is again a violation of the rules).
The ref' might threaten you with additional time or even throw you out of the game completely (not sure with the U.N. right here!), but all he really can do is make the call, not enforce it!
That is pretty much what the U.N. does and can do. It is up to the other players to make sure you follow the call. If you don't, someone more powerful will have to make you follow the rules (and thereby will break the rules himself). In the world, there is no manager who stops paying your salary or kicks you out of the league... You might have to pay a fee though (sanctions).

On the other hand, if we do NOT believe that the U.N. has real athourity, i.e. it makes "suggestions" then the opposite conundrum appears -- if it is not acting as a ruling body, then member nations are not in any way bound by it's edicts!  Thus, countries like Israel, the US, and Iraq can do whatever they want, and while it may piss off some nations, the U.N. can't do anything about it.
Exactly. (And I did have to look up conundrum)

Basically, the sticking point for me is this:  Does the UN have real and actual athourity or not?
It has the authority the member countries give to the U.N. and let the U.N. have.
Should the UN have real and actual athourity or not?
Well, I myself consider the U.N. an authority. So does Germany. So should the U.S. who are a founding member AND host to the U.N. headquarters in N.Y.C. - although I sometimes get the feeling that the crusading Bush doesn't give a damn... All those Americans who worked for the establishment of the U.N. will definitely be turning in their graves. Turning? Rotating, faster and faster each and every day! (Nothing personnal, right!)
I do not like the current, "in-between" state it seems to operate in.
It's not an "in-between" state - it's the way things go when some players start ignoring the book o' rules...

As a side note, the U.S. declaration of war on Iraq is not inherently related to the fact that Iraq may or may not have been defying U.N. edicts - in many ways this is just Bush's excuse to eliminate what he sees as a threat to the U.S. and the Iraqi people.
Don't be mistaken about it: An ultimation does NOT mean that the U.S. have publicly declared war on Iraq. It is the same as it was in Vietnam. It's a military conflict but not a "real" war... There is a jurisdictional difference somewhere - although the folks dying on either side probably don't care!

As for our German "Grundgesetz" ("basic law", our Constitution):
Article 26 (Peacekeeping)
(1) Actions which are suitable and are made in the intention of disturbing the peaceful coexistance of the peoples, in particular the guidance and preparation of a war of aggression, are unconstitutional. They are to be placed under punishment.
(2) Weapons specified for warfare may onlay be manufactured, carried and marketed with permission of the Federal Government. A Federal law regulates the details.

What that means right now? The American Abrams M1 (no matter which serial number) uses a German-built cannon and ammunition that we made for our Leopard IIs. Our Federal Law should inhibit us from supplying spare parts because the tanks/weapons are used for a war of aggression. The U.S. airplanes use German-built optic systems (infra-red, missile guiding what-not stuff). Again, we mustn't supply any spare parts. Why do the U.S. use German technology? Well, first of all, it's "Made in Germany". Then, we still build the best Panzers in the world. And on the optic-sector, few could beat us... Why we still supply spare parts to the U.S. although our Constitution should actually inhibit that transfer? "Don't ask me, I don't know!" (Well, that's a quote from Ozzy, but it fits!)

Have a good start into the week, I'll talk to you guys later  ;)
[Edited for typos and not for content! GNM]

heh... all in all a very nice post to read... thanks for the enlightenment!  Just a few quick comments before I must go...

Ice hockey: nice metaphor.  I actually get where you two (meaning LK too) are coming from now.

Vietnam: I didn't mean we officially declared war... ever since Korea, US Presidents have blithely (another fun word for you to look up perhaps!  :D) ignored the constitutional way to declare war... I mean that we are, in effect, now at war...

It really did have to use it again! It means "to happily do s.th."

(Shouldn't type at 3:30 in the morning... even one sentence is full of typos!)

No. Definitely not. Smart men and women sat together and worked that one out for themselves in quite a short time for the common good of the German people in regard to their future relations with other peoples. I'd even go as far as to call it better than the U.S. Constitution since it incorporates more topics and does so in greater detail. (If you can get your hands on an English translation and have some time to read it - you'd be astonished!)

[Have I mentioned before that I really detest, loathe and abhor typographical mistakes and mishaps?]

Well, in all fairness you made yours about 200 years later, when more topics were imaginable and relevant...  and in regards to your question, it appears that you have now...

Well, that 200 years difference is true... As for the words to express dismay - I found those three in my Dictionary when looking for the right word  :D
(I can use smart-sounding words, too!)

I have another question about the 1st Amandment to the Constitution: How come that Americans who exercise their right are criticized for doing so. Isn't using your rights in the "land of the free" very patriotic indeed? I don't understand why being against the war somehow automatically implies that you do not support your troops. Isn't bringing the grunts home the best way to support the troops?
Wish someone could explain that to me (remember, I come from the "Old Europe" and don't know much about anything  ;))

[sigh...]  People are criticized for speaking, because, in many cases, the criticizer is a twit who doesn't realize that free speech means ALL speech...

As for war protesting, well... there is, in my opinion, a fine line... I agree that it is possible to be against a war and still support the troops.  The problem comes when your anti-war protest (whether meant to be anti-troop or not) lowers morale.  Also, during the vietnam war many of the anti-war protests WERE "anti-troops" thanks to the Viet Cong's tactic of using civilian garb, which led to soldiers shooting civilians... I think perhaps the vocal "anti-anti-war protestors" are still thinking of that, and not realizing that it is a different war... (of course some anti-war protestors have the same problem!)

The people who oppose others' free expression aren't true patriots, but self aggrandizing idealogues who drape themselves with the dignity of the American flag to spread their agendas*. True patriots want to tell people what they think, yes... and they want to hear what the others think, so that the government can truly be by the people, not by the loudest shouters.

*Note that I don't insult the agendas, since it's fallacious to think that if an agenda has some bad followers that the agenda itself is necessarily bad.

Iadoga:  you are taking what I said completely out of context.  I was looking at the UN perspective on Iraq when I said that, NOT the American perspective.

The United Nations ordered Iraq to disarm.  Saddam therefore defied the UN by not disarming.

I agree with you, economic sanctions did not work.  It takes something like a war to remove Saddam.  You have defeated your own argument.

As for Oil:  That argument is overdone, and I'm quite frankly getting sick of it.  If anyone has oil interest in this case it is France and Germany who have very large oil contracts with Saddam's regime.

And finally, as to the 12 year old:  Ask the thousands killed by Saddam what they did wrong.  Yeah, war sucks and people die.  But I'd rather have a thousand die today to remove Saddam than a hundred die each and every day living under Saddam.  (and, yes, those numbers are made up, but they prove my point.)

[/rant]

Death: I tend to agree with you, however I think free speech does have some limits -- to use an overused example, I can swing my fist wherever I want, but my right to do that stops at your face.  I'm not sure whether anti-war protests cross the line or not.  I'm also very glad to see at least one other person in the world who doesn't condemn a group based one one of its followers!  :)

Well, I didn't say that free expression included, say, attacking people, making threats, burning crosses on lawns...
The reasons that threats are not permissible as free speech is simply that they are coercive - they reduce someone else's freedom. That I elided that is irrelevant to the argument that the heckler's veto is antidemocratic.

Excuse me?
Where in the world did you come up with that information? Ever since the U.N. sanctions were in effect the only way to get your hands on Iraqi oil is by trading it in the U.N.'s "oil for food"-program (well, or just go ahead and invade the country).
No matter if you're sick of it or not, oil is a factor in that whole mess. If Iraq didn't have any oil, I don't think that the guys running the U.S. right now would be interested in liberating it. Just look at the résumés of all the head-honchos who are pro-war and you will know what I'm talking about.
You guys are using more oil and fuel than the next nine economically leading countries combined. That's my 2 cents...
We pay about 4 times as much for a gallon of fuel than you guys do and we still don't go to war for it!

As for the civilians killed in the war - I bet they are really happy that they've been liberated from their bodies by coalition bombs and bullets instead of standing the chance of surviving Saddam's regime.

Added:
I just checked the official website of the Federal German Agency for Statistics (yes, no hoax, we have that here!)
(http://www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch/pm2000/p1540181.htm)
(http://www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch/pm2000/p3540181.htm)
and according to those, Germany imports most of its crude oil from Russia and Norway. Iraq is not even part of the statistic.

Hey, I never said war was pretty.  But I'd rather have the blood of thousands on my hands in one day than the blood of millions built up slowly over the years.  I'm sure the thousands aren't happy about it, and I never said I was either.  But those millions certainly aren't in any case.

You know, I'd rather have nobody's blood on my hands!
(And as a trained German Red Cross Paramedic I had that way too often!)
Death is rarely pretty, but what you are saying is just sarcastic. How much is one life worth? Do the lives of 1000 people carry less weight than the lives of a million? 1000:1 ratio, is that the price you are willing to pay?
I hop I will never have to decide on that - and I bet you don't want to either!

I know that officially the C.I.A. doesn't do that anymore, but why don't you guys just kill Saddam and all of his doubles and friends in his dictatorship instead of killing thousands of innocent people and children? That is what bothers me. Killing a tyrant would even be morally acceptable (although murder never should be).

[shrugs] -- the world sucks sometimes.  Ideally, no one should have to make that choice, I agree.  Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world.

And no, I am not being sarcastic.  If I had to make a choice between thousands and millions of deaths (and thankfully I don't) I think I would choose the thousands.  I would also prefer just killing Saddam, but I don't decide the policy...

Germany attacked in greed for oil and rubber.

USA attacked in greed for oil.

You know stounedi, there is nothing that is easier to do than just grab a general attitude and go. We don't live in a black and white world here, and as such, there are many factors that have had different effects on the attack in Iraq. To simply say "It's all about the oil" is a gross oversimplification of a complex set of events. Yes, there is oil involved, yes there is a lot of feeling that the US wouldn't have gone through this much trouble had there not been oil. This doesn't mean that is the true reason however, and even if it is A true reason, it doesn't necessarily mean that it''s the ONLY reason for this war.

Ereklich and GM, what you're actuially discussing re the oil is kind of a no-victory. Before the war, France at least (possibly Germany? This I don't know), had large contracts, so it could be cynically argued that France was opposed to the war only because of the Oil Issue. However, if we follow this path we may just as well argue that since american companys are probably going to get the new contracts afetr the war, the US attacked only for the oil. While these factors may well have had some influence on those making decision, I seriously doubt they were large factors in any way.

Btw. GM, excellent example of the UN there! Reading it brought a hufge smile to my face. The principle is quite the same really... So I suppsoe I'd be on the side that wanted to get the umpires some sort of "bodyguard" to help inforce some decisions...

In regards to the Media thing. Yes, of course american media gives a completely differnt picture from european, and probably Arab media gives a third picture as well. However, bjust because they are different doesn't mean one of them is necessarily right, or wrong for that matter. The best you can do is watch them all, and try to find some sort of middle road. They're all propaganda fro crying out loud, you can't take them at face value.

And what if it was you getting your hands blown off and your parents killed? It's easy to say, hahaa, Saddam is bad, they like it when we bomb their guts out, they understand we're their friends. Well, mister, why are the Iraqis more united against the coalition then in the gulf war?

Just think. We are again getting hundreds of orphans. Who are easy targets for terrorst organizations... "revenge"... I am afraid the war in Iraq does not end when Saddam is removed.

So you're saying that nothing else that occurs during/after the conflict matters? Also, I've never heard the "Hilter wanted oil" argument for the attack on Poland before.

Silesia (a region of Poland) is rich in oil. That was one of the principal reasons he'd want the place.

As for the Iraqi opinion of the Coalition, it's not too hard to find that this is a common sentiment:
1) we hate Saddam
2) if the coalition leaves Iraq promptly, then this has been a great thing
3) if they coalition tries to pressure us, they are evil.
4) if they stick around for a while longer than we'd like but do leave within, say, a year and also they don't keep us from setting up our own government, well, that's OK. Not great, but also certainly not Jihad time.
So, the basic idea is, they're withholding judgement. We still have a chance for things to work out pretty well (note how easy this would be to execute) -- and we also have a chance to royally screw things up (also easy).

Given the administration, I think it's about a 50/50 chance.


Also, this kid whose limbs were blown off... well, what about the kid who would be forced to stand in a room full of water and have someone apply 240V 50Hz AC to points on his body carefully calculated to cause maximum pain?
If your complaints about the war are just the civilian deaths, be sure to subtract out the civilian deaths that not having a war would have caused... and integrate those over time.

True. Every loss of life in a war should be measured against what would have happened had the war not taken place. Of course, had it not taken place, these deaths would not have helped cement the opinion that the west is evil.

Still, the problem with trying to keep in mind what would've happened if something, is that we can't. Everyone just ends up arguing about it, so as a excersise it is pretty pointless. Still, the war hasn't gone quite the way that the most pro war strategists were advocating, the 3 day war never became reality... As to what will happen now, we shall see.

Thanks for the backup, Death!

As for the "three day war" I never anticipated that...  no one should ever anticipate easy victory, it's jsut stupid.

The way I'm starting to see it all is this:

The stupid war's here, like it or not.  Just quit whining and pray itis over soon.

That's what we're doing. (Well, except not belonging to any religion I can't really pray). And we all realize that the war is here to stay, and there is no way to make it undone. The best course at the mo. is to bring this thing to a swift end, and it can't end until Saddam is defeated now.

However, the fact that we know and accept this doesn't mean we can't argue about it, and the inherent justice in it. If we never learn from history, we'll get nowhere. And when better to learn than while it is actually happening?

Also, I have to say, looking through this topic, that I am impressed. There are a lot of tender subjects in here, and they've all been discussed quite thoroughly, and in a reasonable tone of voice, something one doesn't encounter often...

Germany did not attack Poland to commit genocide on the Polish Jews, they did it, but it was not a goal of the war and operation "Weiss". The genocide and fate of 11 million European Jews was discussed and planned years later during the Wannsee-Conference on January 20th 1942, where the concept of the "Final Solution" took form.
Neither was a main goal the oil in Silesia (what we call "Schlesien") which became part of Poland due to the Versailles Treaty after WWI. It used to be German Territory.
Before WWII, Hitler and Stalin had a secret Treaty in addition to their pact of non-aggression where they decided over the fate of Poland together!
WWII started as a direct result of the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty:
Lost war, lost land, lost prestige, lost influence, lost power, the economy having reached a low before Hitler took over as chancellor... About 1/3 of Germany had been taken away as a result of WWI (And no, we did not start it alone!). There is always more to it than "greed" or "oil"!
I wish you guys would read the history books more carefully, learn from it and not assume so much!
By the way, we received more crude oil from Russia before and during WWII (well, until we attacked them as well) than there would have been available from Poland.

Ereklich, the point I'm trying to bring across to you is this:
We know that Saddam killed innocent people at will, he is a tyrant and maybe an even evil man (I am not the one to judge).
But killing people because your all too trigger-happy troops just don't give a damn or are afraid... that makes the U.S. motives at least questionable, if it doesn't even put them on a similar "evil" level. Evil is who evil does.
Just because "shoot first, ask questions later" worked back in the days in your country doesn't mean that U.S. policy should be applied to the whole world.

As for your bloody hands argument: There is no difference if someone else commits a crime or if you commit a no lesser crime to stop him. Two evils do not make one good, never did, never will.

As for winning the war, the U.S. will. As for winning peace, the U.S. (or the coalition) won't. Not the way they are acting right now. If they wanted to persuade the people that the war is not fought against them, there should be tons of food, medical supply and all that flooding the country (or given to the International Red Cross to supply the hospitals. They amputate and do surgery without any narcotics. That is pain!
And if you see Iraqi people on T.V. giving your troops the "thumbs up"-sign. It has a different meaning in Arab countries: it means "up yours"...

I am definitely not "whining", I am complaining and making good, thoughtful arguments. Biiig difference.

No, two evils do not create a good.  But it can prevent a greater evil.

I also strongly discourage an individual soldier form taking a "shoot first ask later" approach.  I'm aware that our country doesn't have the purest motives here.  Btw, which war are you talking about "back in the day"?

I was not trying to imply that you personally are whining.  Indeed, you, Lukipela, and Death_999 are some of the most reasonable people I know regarding this war.  Just kinda ranting in general, no protest here at my college (over ANY topic) recently has been intelligent at all...

Really glad we can talk about this in an orderly manner.
I am actually happy to have you guys on this forum here, because I don't know many people who are willing to discuss this with me! (At least not English speaking people!)

Maybe I am critical about the approach to commit a smaller evil to prevent a bigger one, because me personally, I wouldn't even want to be responsible for the smaller one. And where's the thin red line you don't want to cross before the two evils become equal or even worse?

GN, when I said that the oil was one of the main reasons that one would want Poland, I meant, "From a strategic point of view, this is the main asset of Poland that can be taken over." Certainly it's not good defensive terrain.
Also, the oil issue is not unreasonable. Germany took over portions of Czechoslovakia in order to get their industry (lots of weapons manufacturers and general-purpose steel mills) and to get past their easily fortifiable area while it was still not as massively fortified as it could end up and the German army wasn't busy elsewhere.
I presume you will remember the name of that region better than I do.

Lebensraum or not, Germany WAS taking economically profitable regions, and there were potential strategic considerations.

But when it really comes down to it, you're right -- Hitler was all about making Germany the capital of Europe (as compensation for the injustices of Versailles), so Poland was just a portion that would have to have come sooner or later anyway.
He wasn't strategic in the sense that he would listen to his generals or anything... which is a good thing. ::phew::

Interestingly enough, there is another very reasonable war discussion going on at sluggy.net. BOTH boards I frequent are being civil about it.

GN's right, that really is the biggest threat at the moment. noone seriously doubts that the US is going to win the war. That's pretty much a given. The problem is really winning the peace afterwards.

With all these newsstories about the coalition bombing their own and/or civilians, their image really isn't going any better. And even if the Iraqi in time may come to like their new regime, they probably aren't going to remember the coalition fondly.

and worse are the cuntries around of course. Civil unrest in them is rising pretty damned quick, and the fanatics are gaining ever stronger footholds. Countries like Egypt where there was at least some moderates in power, and Iran, which was going the right way are being set back quite a bit by this. The coalition PR machine is really going to need to make mriacles to fix this.

I mean, Meccha-Cola? Halal Fried Chicken? These things may not be too serious now, but they'll get worse. things tend to. Remember Murphys Law of Thermodynamics (I think) : Things get worse under pressure.

D_999, indeed Germany used the infra-structure and natural resources of the countries it conquered (*). As for Tchechoslovakia (or the "Sudetenland"-part of it), it did have a German population and Hitler again used a trick in saying that he needed to save those people. Sadly enough, Great Britain and France played along. Interesting fact: Germany used many Tchech-build "Skoda"-tanks in their early campaigns against Poland and France because German tank development had been lagging behind. Hitler was not only interested in Lebensraum but definitely in the ressources as well, i.e. the vast "wheat chambers" of Europe, the Ukraine.

I'm just glad that the "Gefreiter" (= private, Hitler's rank in WWI) didn't listen to the generals - otherwise we'd probably not be discussing on this forum, or maybe not this topic, or we'd be doing it in German...

LP, you're right. It takes more than just a couple of nice pictures and a good slogan. On the other hand, Mekka-Cola is not an American product. Haven't tasted it till now, but I guess it's yet just another cola.
How would this fast-food meal sound like?
You go to Halal Fried Chicken and have Freedom Fries, Mekka-Cola and a Nazareth-Double with cheese.

(I guess it will all end with the topic-headline of this thread :-X)

___
(*) Thought: That's why I'm really nervous/afraid/curious about what the U.S. have planned for Iraq. Let them sell their oil to the world, pay American companies to rebuild their country, Iraq is doing better, the U.S. economy booms... uh oh! I guess the U.N. should really have a saying in that, to legalize the new Iraqi government and integrate it into the world.

Mekka-Cola and HFC aren't american products, that's my point,. they are an attempt to break "the corrupt captialist powers of the west", by bying homemade products. In itself, nothing wrong with local products, but these things are a strong anti american and pro jihad statement if I haven't gotten it all wrong. It'll spread, and grow. (agaibn, maybe). And then what?

Well, from the "all capitalist" point of view, I don't think the new products or food chain will be a threat to the U.S. companies.

Wasn't Mekka-Cola just meant as an alternative to Coke^R or Pepsi^R for the Muslim world? The "Jihad" or "justified holy war" is only one part of Islam.
Another fact: All the necessary circumstances for an official Jihad are fulfilled at the moment: Unjustified, unprovoked attack by "unbelievers" (i.e. Christians) on innocent Muslim people (the civilians in Iraq). There's more trouble ahead than anyone could ever anticipate. Let's hope for the best!

yes, but I seem to recall reading somewhere (and correct me if I'm wrong again!), that part of the profits on Mekka-Cola goes to organisations that are suspiciously closely linked to suicide bombers and terrorist organisations... So in a way, protesting against the US also means endorsing terrorism...

That could very well be true, LP. I haven't read anything accordingly, but that doesn't mean that you are mistaken at all! I'll keep my eyes open for more information on that.

Another thing: Why hasn't anyone told that sorry tank-commander (and he's an officer!) that there are only press and reporters in the Hotel Palastine? There's only a couple of really tall buildings in Bagdad, whereas the hotel is the 2nd tallest one.

What that PR-general Vincent Brooks told the world in that press-conference today is such a lie!
1) There was no fire directed at that particular tank from the hotel's lobby.
2) The lobby is facing in a completely different direction and the firing tank couldn't even be seen from the lobby.
3) If the fire comes from the bottom flor, why in the world would you shoot the 15th floor?

I am really deeply concerned about the way this war is developing. Talk about trigger-happy...