Don't worry about offending me by finger-pointing.  I see it everyday.  Let me try it using your form.

Reasons for the war:

- Yes, terrorist training.  What do you mean insignificant?  Quantify that with numbers or data.  I forget the exact number, but I think we bombed something like 20+ camps in the first couple days of the war(war war, not the crap that followed)

-Yes, he took more than a few shots at our planes(AND other UN aircraft) and we should have responded then.  If you're going to play in international politics, you need to be ready to live by them.  He attacked Kawait(creating the international incident) and was summarily routed back to his own country, at which point certain restrictions were put on him.  Look at Japan if you want to see it done right.  To this day, their constitution forbids armed conflict with another country except in self defense.  I applaud them with the utmost respect.

- It's not the fact that he had stockpiles of weapons, it's that he openly used them and that he supported terrorism.  How hard would it have been for him to supply terrorists with some of that stuff?  Yeah, the US has some(more nuclear than chemical, I think), but it's no secret that we'll only use them only as a last resort to defend ourselves or in response to another nuclear attack.  Significant difference, or do you disagree?  As far as them being fictional, that's completely untrue.  Soldiers have been finding caches of contaminated artillery rounds ever since we first got there.  Also, hundreds of trucks crossed into Syria about the time we were wrapping up the war and no telling how much of it went out on that.  I know it's the cool thing now to debate their existance, but there's just way too much proof.  Even IF we hadn't found cache after cache of contaminated warheads, there were taped conversations between officials not just admitting that they had them, but saying how they'd use them.  Even if that wasn't enough, he'd used gas on the Kurds in 89, and chemicals on Iran several years before that.  Do you think he just decided to use up the last of his supply on the Kurds?


Reasons against the war:

- It's not the lack of support I was talking about, it's the tight political controls that prevents effect waging of war because of the senseless attrocities of Vietnam.  Every citizen in the US these days thinks they're qualified to dictate how to fight a war.  Obviously overly dramatic sarcasm aside, politicians do not want stories of bloody women and children on their watch, unfortunately that's really the only way to wage war and win.

- Because of the reason stated above, I don't think the US is capable of fighting a war anymore.  I don't think you'll see another sustained war effort unless it's on our own soil.  Most American citizens have been trained from birth to think of themselves first and nothing else second.  Don't get me wrong, some great folks in this country, but a whole bunch of selfishness too.  The media knows this and uses it to sell news and the politicians want to be re-elected, so they don't want that news in their term.

- I think the better course would have been immediate retaliation to Iraqi attacks on UN aircraft.  That would have given us plenty of excuse to take out military targets and covertly attack terrorist camps.  With a significantly weakened Iraq, the whole political balance in the Middle East would have become less stable.  I think the blood in the water would have been enough to cause Iran to step in and probably try to out Sadam for us.  We then could have engaged like we did with Kawait as 'Peace Keepers' and used the leverage in our own interests.  In that case, we're the liberators not the invaders, and I think it would have been much easier to secure the country that way.

- The terrorists being trained were not very good and fairly easily tracked.  Though there was always a chance we would miss one, the question is was the risk great enough to use it as an excuse for war.  I don't really think so, but I've known several who disagreed concidering Iraqs chemical capabilities and dealing with N. Korea who also has nuclear capability and is much more subtle.




To sum up, I hardly think we went to war over oil.  That's just silly since we already have Kawait.  Once there the oil companies made a KILLING, but more at our own expense rather than on the Iraqi dime, I think.  I think what we're doing in Iraq is completely necessary and in our national interest, but I think there was a better way of doing it.  I'm not the only one, btw.  I read an old assesment and suggested plan of action not much different from that a while back.  So, that idea was on the table.  My bet is that President Bush didn't feel he could afford to wait another ten years for the situation to destabilize enough for us to enter in a good light.  Another President might miss the opportunity to get that foothold in the region.  Trust me, I think there are good reasons to be against the war.  I just think the favourite ones are mostly bunk.

Yeah, you're right 12.  I should have picked a better title for the thread.  I didn't mean to imply that Evonus himself is broken, but rather the way he debates is.  I'm really proposing nothing more than you'd get taking a debate class in school or college or something.  The idea is to attack the structure of the arguement, and to show how you have to understand the argument from both sides to do much good.

Like Vespertine said, if we critique his form here, I think it's less personal than in another thread and, I think, better recieved.  Either way, it's just an offer to help.  I don't care whether he takes me up on it or not.

Because that won't be the point of the topic in whatever thread you decide to post in.  Don't expect folks to take a thread off-topic to show you holes in your arguement.  This is your chance to do it and remain emotionally detached.  Besides, the whole point to it is that you should be able to make a statement and support your stance at the drop of a hat.  If you require some one to say something you disagree with first, then what you're doing isn't taking a position.  You're simply being contrary and inflamitory.

I'm not going to wait for you to find some one to attack and then come in and try to support a position I don't agree with.  Why do I care if you can't support your own argument in another thread?  I'm offering to help you do that here.  If you don't want to, fine.  Don't start complaining when folks slam you for not being able to form an intelligent argument later.

[/sigh]

I just realized why I'm the only one replying to you.

I've never once said someone is wrong for not agreeing with me, unlike BizB and Demo.

I think it's interesting that you bring up those two names.  I don't think it's any secret that I've disagreed with both at one point or another, and they with me.  I've never seen either say some one was wrong just for disagreeing.  Both attack the points of the thesis, not the individual.  That's how you win arguements.  Notice how Agent_Tachyon slipped into blithering idiocy after I showed him the falicy of one of his arguements.  Realize, he could have come back and pointed out how the US plays in geopolitics and therefore our actions effect him, thus giving him a valid reason for having a say in our politics.  That would be the intelligent thing and what I would expect from any of the folks you've mentioned so far.

It may be a little late for this, but since I have unique knowledge of the subject...  Agent_Tachyon, you realize those "wiretaps" you hate so much never targeted US citizens, right?  Currently laws prohibit the collection of intelligence involving US folks in any way.  So, if you're a known and proclaimed terrorist talking to your brother in the US, intel guys can't touch it.  Those "wiretaps" were simply a lax in those rules that said you could record any coversation involving known terrorists.  Even the use of the term "wiretap" is clear give away that you probably don't know much about it, since they're NOT wiretaps.  To be honest, I don't think wiretaps are even used anymore.  Also, even when you get a warrant for collecting on a US citizen(as in the FBI, or local Police), you're going to be collecting on who ever they're talking to.  So no matter what you do, almost any "wiretap" is a warrantless one since you rarely have warrants for both individuals being recorded.

There are plenty of good reasons not to be a fan of the President.  "Warrantless Wiretapping" however, is probably the stupidest since it's complete bull.  It was a low blow by folks that knew the intelligence community couldn't defend itself without giving away classified collection techniques.

In short, disagree if you like.  I'm not entirely sure I could care less.  At the very least though, try to form an intelligent opinion about something and don't just regurgitate the crap you saw on TV.  No matter who you listen to on the radio or watch on TV, they have an agenda and chances are good they're full of it.

Again, sorry to be late on that one, but it irritates the hell out of me seeing folks spewing that propoganda.

It probably keeps them from spinning as fast as they would if they had their arms and legs all curled up in a ball.

I think that's it.  Vespertine's uncle probably will know.  It's an extraction trick the SF use pretty often, from what I've heard.

You?

Doing well, myself.  Just finished my enlistment and now contracted to the government.  Pays way better.  lol

Don't worry about the crazy part.  Most of us go crazy before too long anyway.  Think it has something to do with the forced multiple personality thing.  You know, be one guy at work, but go home and forget that guy exists and be some one else?  I'm sure other stuff doesn't help too.

Well then, please allow me the pleasure of informing you that you're wrong.  The army relaxed its restrictions against high-school drop-outs and increased the percentage of new recruits who are considered Category IV.  Category IV applicants are those who scored in the lowest third on the ASVAB.

There's a little more to it than that, but that's a blunt way of putting it.  The Army will allow you in if you have a GED, and now they'll even help you get it from what I hear.  The big relax in test scores is a little more complicated than just a general "must score this high to get in," though.  The Army uses a score called your GT(calculated from parts of the ASVAB) to determine what specialties you're qualified for.  Believe it or not, to be straight-leg infantry, you actually need to have a decent score.  Petrolium specialists and cooks, on the other hand don't need near the same qualifications to do their jobs.  So, they've lowered standards on many of those MOSs in order to fill them faster, that way they can move the smarter folks into more difficult jobs.  My complaint is that they've made it easier for folks to get into jobs that are too important to lower standards for.  Take my old job, for example.  When I joined, we had to take another test, beyond the ASVAB, to prove that we were capable of processing information on the level needed to perform our duties.   They no longer require that test, and the fail rate in Advanced Individual Training(AIT) shows the results.

You're still partly right, trekchick.  Standards haven't really been lowered in Basic, that I know of, but it seems like the training itself isn't as intensive as it used to be.  From what the newer guys have told me, it sounds like there's more classroom time and not as much marching and outdoors stuff as there used to be.  Plus the actual physical training isn't supposed to be as intensive as it was in the past.

Demo, I've got a good buddy here in San Antonio that used to be a sub guy too.  I think he was propulsion as well, actually.  Whatever it was his current job has nothing to do with nuclear power... lol   I think any military service is honorable and a great thing to do for your country.  I think the smart thing to do is to find something that'll get you a job when you get out, though.  :p  Of course, it's all what you make of it.  Any experience is good experience if you put a lot into it and word it right on your resume.

I'm not optimistic.

That's because you're a pessimist.

Like Evonus pointed out.  Regan had some obvious sucesses.  I've stated plenty of times in the past that I don't think you could be a true moron and become President of the United States.  I think Regan deserves the term far less than many, in any case.  Just because you don't agree with some one's policies doesn't make them less intelligent.

I always thought Bill Clinton was a smart guy, but watch what he does to this reporter.  I get so sick and tired of seeing reporters pulling that kind of stuff, and it was really nice to see some one do something about it.  I hate how conservative media will host a liberal figurehead, or visa versa as often, just to appear to be neutral.  Of course, once the individual arrives for the interview, they get bombarded with these little pokes and jabs in an attempt to make them look stupid.  We've got some sorry political leaders in our country, but I firmly believe it's a sorrier media that makes decent ones look worse.