The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 15 2003,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But will EVERYONE, including the Japanese, be happy when there isn't a long drawn out ground war on Japanese homeland causing all types of casualties, including civilians?  Better be.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I'm sure most japaneese are very gratefull for the a-bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I suppose that's why they have constructed a museum and marked off the day it happened in their calendar?<span id='postcolor'>

What did you do, just read the last sentence I wrote?

[Guest]

No matter how you twist and turn it, it's still undeniably mass killing of civilians for a military/political cause. Trying to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a Japanese is the same as justifying the WTC attacks to an American.

I have a Japanese neighbor and we've discussed the abombing of Japan. Trust me: they havn't forgotten and they havn't forgiven either.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,10:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No matter how you twist and turn it, it's still undeniably mass killing of civilians for a military/political cause. Trying to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki to a Japanese is the same as justifying the WTC attacks to an American.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but it's not as bad as you make it seem. I'm not trying to justify it. But it certainly wasn't mass murder of civilians. Those civilians were working for the Japanese war machine. They were making bullets, bombs, and airplanes. They were as much a, if not more of a military asset than the bullets, bombs, and airplanes themselves.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a Japanese neighbor and we've discussed the abombing of Japan. Trust me: they havn't forgotten and they havn't forgiven either.<span id='postcolor'>

Funny how they started it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,05:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but it's not as bad as you make it seem.  I'm not trying to justify it.  But it certainly wasn't mass murder of civilians.  Those civilians were working for the Japanese war machine.  They were making bullets, bombs, and airplanes.  They were as much a, if not more of a military asset than the bullets, bombs, and airplanes themselves.<span id='postcolor'>

Just as much as the victims of the WTC were working for the US military machine.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Funny how they started it. <span id='postcolor'>

By attacking a military target.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just as much as the victims of the WTC were working for the US military machine.<span id='postcolor'>

What? The world trade center wasn't a war materials factory.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By attacking a military target.<span id='postcolor'>

They attacked our assets, which is what we did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just as much as the victims of the WTC were working for the US military machine.<span id='postcolor'>

What?  The world trade center wasn't a war materials factory.<span id='postcolor'>

Neither were two entire cities and their population. The State Department and the CIA had offices in the WTC. Does that justify the collateral damage?

These were nuclear weapons whose destruction could not possibly be confined to military targets. By their very nature they could not fail to kill and terrorize civilians. They were a continuation and extension of the Hitler doctrine of war. I do not mean to suggest that the allies' cause was unjust, but from the point of view of justice, abandoning the rule that exempted civilians from deliberate attack represented a grave injustice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They attacked our assets, which is what we did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.<span id='postcolor'>

You meddled in the middle east, attacking their assets, and that is what Osama returned with the WTC attacks.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a Japanese neighbor and we've discussed the abombing of Japan. Trust me: they havn't forgotten and they havn't forgiven either.<span id='postcolor'>

Neither have the Chinese or the Koreans.

Why do you think they raise a fuss whenever Japan talks of something militarily.

Hard to believe being over 50 years ago...

[Guest]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,064)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither have the Chinese or the Koreans.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, one evil doesn't justify another. We were talking about who has used WMD's in the past and not about who has committed the worst atrocities. For WW2 that hardly needs any debating.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither were two entire cities and their population. The State Department and the CIA had offices in the WTC. Does that justify the collateral damage?<span id='postcolor'>

No, because their targets were civilians, not the state department and CIA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These were nuclear weapons whose destruction could not possibly be confined to military targets. By their very nature they could not fail to kill and terrorize civilians. They were a continuation and extension of the Hitler doctrine of war. I do not mean to suggest that the allies' cause was unjust, but from the point of view of justice, abandoning the rule that exempted civilians from deliberate attack represented a grave injustice.<span id='postcolor'>

But we saved more civilians than we killed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You meddled in the middle east, attacking their assets, and that is what Osama returned with the WTC attacks.<span id='postcolor'>

WHAT!? We AIDED Osama in Afghanistan. AIDED him, not attacked. And us landing planes in Saudi Arabia is NOT a worthy cause for targeting our civilian populations.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,06:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,06<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither have the Chinese or the Koreans.<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, one evil doesn't justify another. We were talking about who has used WMD's in the past and not about who has committed the worst atrocities. For WW2 that hardly needs any debating.<span id='postcolor'>

True that G. True that.

But then again WMDs are NOTHING like the ones we have today. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even flattened. Hell rickety buildings still stood. We are not talking about thermo-nuclear war.

But if you want to bring in the "first use" Germany was the first to ever use a WMD. Mustard gas in WW1. Britian has done the same.

[FSPilot 0]

And the spanish used smallpox on the indians.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,06<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But we saved more civilians than we killed.<span id='postcolor'>

No you didn't.

“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender... n being the first to use it, we... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.â€

--Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during WWII.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WHAT!?  We AIDED Osama in Afghanistan.  AIDED him, not attacked.  And us landing planes in Saudi Arabia is NOT a worthy cause for targeting our civilian populations.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, how about helping the Palestinians against Israel. Or bombing Iraq? Those were attacks on what Osama considered being important for him. If you deem that a clean military attack on Pearl Harbor was justification for using nuclear weapons on a civilian populations then sure as hell the WTC attacks were justified by the US Mid East policy. I on the other hand say that they were both mass murder of civilians and therefor very wrong.

Edit: I suggest you read this article. It shows (with references) how the US military was against the usage of the abombs, but that it was enforced from the politcal side.

Edit2:

Better, but longer article with complete references to US official and other documents

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,06:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, how about helping the Palestinians against Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

That is false actually. And Arafat has even said so, and told Osama not to use the Palestinian issue for his own purposes.

Osama has never helped the Palestinians.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,06:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,06:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, how about helping the Palestinians against Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

That is false actually. And Arafat has even said so, and told Osama not to use the Palestinian issue for his own purposes.

Osama has never helped the Palestinians.<span id='postcolor'>

I believe Denoir meant vice versa!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender... n being the first to use it, we... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.â€

--Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during WWII. <span id='postcolor'>

That's laughable. The Japanese wouldn't of surrendered. You should know this, they're not the type to surrender. They're the despserate kamikazi, holed-up in cave type of fighter.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, how about helping the Palestinians against Israel. Or bombing Iraq? Those were attacks on what Osama considered being important for him.<span id='postcolor'>

Whaaaaat? When did we aid the palestinians? And bombing Iraq was justified, but I guess not in his opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you deem that a clean military attack on Pearl Harbor was justification for using nuclear weapons on a civilian populations then sure as hell the WTC attacks were justified by the US Mid East policy.<span id='postcolor'>

When did I justify the use of atomic weapons on Japan with pearl harbor? I just said they started it with a surprise attack.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I on the other hand say that they were both mass murder of civilians and therefor very wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, I don't consider them civilians. No, they weren't military, but they were a military target.

I took one look at the peacewire.org URL and main page and didn't read that article. It's obviously biased, and I still maintain that biased sources are not good sources. It's like asking Satan what the facts about Jesus are.

What exactly are you trying to prove by showing me these articles?

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Jan. 15 2003,05:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 15 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 15 2003,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 14 2003,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A base would NOT deter the Military, and this is clearly backed up by the fact one nuked city didn't.

And apparently you missed my previous post. The US warned the Military a number of times that they were in possession of a "devastating bomb." The warnings went unheeded. The US did try to avoid casualties. The Military refused to give up.<span id='postcolor'>

So terrorism was chosen.  Get out of here, how can you not see the similarity between 2 757's and 2 nukes?  

EDIT: 4 Airliners... forgot about the pentagon etc...<span id='postcolor'>

One was specifically designed to end a war and save lives (lives on ALL sides).

One was designed to take lives and start a war.

No...I don't see a similarity at all.<span id='postcolor'>

So how is it living life with blinkers on, or should I say rose (red-white-and-blue?) coloured glasses. Wake up and smell the coffee, and stop being blinded by patriotism.<span id='postcolor'>

It funny how whenever someone doesn't agree with your view it "patriotism" or "blinded" or "being a sheep."

Get over yourself and get off yoru soap box. Accept that fact that there are people with a view point different than yours.<span id='postcolor'>

I totally accept that you have a different viewpoint from me, it just happens to be wrong.

Just for your information, my comments about you were based on your comments, not simply that you have a different view from me.

I would just as readily accuse an Afghani (bad example, but bear with me) who glossed over S11 as not being an atrocity of being blinded as I would an American who glossed over the atrocity of dropping two atomic bombs on civilian targets in Japan.

Anyone who scrambles for justifcation over any action their country or leaders take, no matter how fundamentally wrong or evil, is indeed a "sheep" and "blinded", and your comments have proven this time and again.

Please, if you are so easily offended and confused by debate, maybe withdraw from this discussion.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Jan. 15 2003,11:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I totally accept that you have a different viewpoint from me, it just happens to be wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Only in your opinion.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,06:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender... n being the first to use it, we... adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.â€

--Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during WWII. <span id='postcolor'>

That's laughable.  The Japanese wouldn't of surrendered.  You should know this, they're not the type to surrender.  They're the despserate kamikazi, holed-up in cave type of fighter.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes, you know so much better then the US military command at the time. If they would have never surrendered then they would have not surrendered after the aboms either. As a matter of fact with the notable exception of Okinawa, the Japanese on other islands surrendered.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, how about helping the Palestinians against Israel. Or bombing Iraq? Those were attacks on what Osama considered being important for him.<span id='postcolor'>

Whaaaaat? When did we aid the palestinians?

<span id='postcolor'>

I meant the opposite, helping Israel against the Palestinians.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I took one look at the peacewire.org URL and main page and didn't read that article. It's obviously biased, and I still maintain that biased sources are not good sources. It's like asking Satan what the facts about Jesus are.

What exactly are you trying to prove by showing me these articles?<span id='postcolor'>

The article was not theirs, they just requoted it. Take a look at the second link I gave you. It gives you direct references to official US documents that say that the abombing of Japan was not necessary and that Japan would surrender.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Despite Truman’s calculations, new studies quickly dismiss Truman’s account of saving half a million or more Allied lives as being grossly inflated. By the time historians were given access to the secret files necessary to review the situation, it was clear that estimates ranged from 20,000 to 46,000 American lives4 (Selden, 1989, xxxi). The official report prepared by the Joint War Plans Committee on 15 June 1945 presented the following calculations to the Chiefs of Staff: Killed – 40,000; Wounded – 150,000; Missing – 3,500; Total – 193,500. With Okinawa weighing heavily on the mind of Truman, top military officials assured the President that losses suffered in an invasion of Japan would be lighter. According to the Joint War Plans Committee, the Tokyo Plain had many more beaches suitable for amphibious assault, with its geography precluding the concentration of defense. The favorable terrain would allow American forces to outmaneuver the Japanese in combat. With this in mind, the military planners concluded, “in terms of percentage of casualties the invasion of the Tokyo Plains should be relatively inexpensive†(1945, 342).

The report was not alone in questioning the military necessity of the atomic bomb. Many of America’s most important military leaders urged the Truman to avoid using the bomb. At a time when Japan’s main army was in China, cut off from supplies and reinforcements as Chinese and Russian forces closed in, U.S. military planners knew that a Japanese surrender was forthcoming. Both General Eisenhower and MacArthur, supreme commander of the Allied forces in Western Europe and the Pacific respectively, voiced “grave†misgivings about the use of the atom bomb and deemed it “completely unnecessary†in achieving the military objective (Takaki, 1995, 30). Their views were supported in a 1946 report by the U.S. Bombing Survey that concluded, “certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned Kyushu invasion in Japan], Japan would have surrendered even if the bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated†(13).

<span id='postcolor'>

The references to the reports is in the second link I gave you. Do you want me to dig up some more references, like I did on the "US giving Iraq bio weapons"?

[Major Fubar 0]

[theavonlady 2]

/cant stop giggles

/hyperventilating

/hits emergency services phone button

[Warin 0]

Trying to use rational thought and reasonable sources to chip through the thick shell of FSPilots unquestioning patriotism is futile.

He is the product of 50 years of justification and glorification of American 'science and technology' being used to end the hostilities in the PTO.  And nothing any of us say can make him see the truth of the thing.

One cannot compare Truman and the American people to Saddam, and that is honestly not what I am doing.  But the simple fact is that Truman and his advisers made a concious decison to use what they KNEW to be a horricif weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population.,  Not once, but twice.  

Now the US is saying that if Saddam posses WMD, he may make a choice to use them against American citizens.  And while a muslim extremist may be a far cry from a President in a wartime situation, there is the same malice of forethought in releasing a biological agent in NYC as there is in dropping a nuclear weapon on the Japanese.  Both instances are the use of an horrific weapon to make a psychological impact on an enemy.  It just happens that Truman was a 'good' guy and Saddam is a 'bad' guy.

I suppose in the end I am just terribly tired of what seems to be the American arrogance that their way of life is the only right one in the world... and the inevitable conflicts that such an attitude engenders.

edit: OMG. Fubar, that is a classic. *saves* *prints* *puts on the Refrigerator of humourous wisdom*

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 15 2003,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh yes, you know so much better then the US military command at the time. If they would have never surrendered then they would have not surrendered after the aboms either. As a matter of fact with the notable exception of Okinawa, the Japanese on other islands surrendered.<span id='postcolor'>

But the article that you yourself listed that Japan was not near surrender.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Late in the war, Stimson recognized that Japan was near defeat but not near surrender and looked upon the bomb to make the crucial difference (Bernstein, 1976, xiv).<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I meant the opposite, helping Israel against the Palestinians.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh ok.  Then again, it was justified, just not in Osama's opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The article was not theirs, they just requoted it. Take a look at the second link I gave you. It gives you direct references to official US documents that say that the abombing of Japan was not necessary and that Japan would surrender.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it's just me, but I see this article as irrelevant.  It's trying to find a reason that the bombs were dropped.  Now if you ask me it just doesn't matter that much.  They were dropped to end the war, primarilly, whether or not that would of happened soon or not.  This simply isn't terrorism because it did not target a civilian population.

There are a few things I've noticed about terrorism

1) Terrorists often don't represent a country.  The USAAC in the Pacific did.

2) Terrorists sometimes don't claim responsibility for their actions.  The USAAC did.

3) Terrorists target civilians.  The USAAC was not targetting civilians.

4) Terrorists usually don't declare war on their enemys before they attack.  The USA did.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see any correlation between this and terrorism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The references to the reports is in the second link I gave you. Do you want me to dig up some more references, like I did on the "US giving Iraq bio weapons"?<span id='postcolor'>

Are they going to be as useless to your point s your first references?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trying to use rational thought and reasonable sources to chip through the thick shell of FSPilots unquestioning patriotism is futile.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, this is when I stopped reading. Why? Well, there are a lot of opinions on the internet. Violently biased ones are the most worthless and time-wasting.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 15 2003,07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trying to use rational thought and reasonable sources to chip through the thick shell of FSPilots unquestioning patriotism is futile.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, this is when I stopped reading.  Why?  Well, there are a lot of opinions on the internet.  Violently biased ones are the most worthless and time-wasting.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not violently biased.  It's a fact.

In very nearly every debate that I have seen you participate in, you vehemently deny the possibility that quoted sources may be right and reasonable.  You toe the line that your government has decided to filter to the masses through your popular media and national psyche.

'My country, right or wrong'  can be taken to extremes.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 15 2003,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trying to use rational thought and reasonable sources to chip through the thick shell of FSPilots unquestioning patriotism is futile.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, FSPilot's all posts are reasonable and rational. Under one assumption: that the world is black and white. If I removed all the gray shades that I view the world in, it is not unlikely that I would agree with FSPilot on many issues.

America is the white, the good. No need to argue for that, its his country and that view is inevitable. And he would be right, America is great in many respects - foreigin policy is not one of them - but we are currently viewing the world in black and white. So since America is good then its foreigin policy must be good too, right?

What about the bad things then? It's a bit hard to explain why something good would give biological weapons to a dictator or why two civilian cities would be nuked.

There are two possible cases here:

1) We didn't know and thought we were doing good at the time (Iraq bio-weapons case)

2) It was for a greater cause. If we had not done it something worse would have happened (nuke case).

Having these assumptions as a foundation, one can easily see that FSPilot is quite rational in his discussion. All his points are very valid.

Unfortunately, FSPilot, I and many other people don't see the world in black and white but we see shades of gray.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, FSPilot's all posts are reasonable and rational. Under one assumption: that the world is black and white. If I removed all the gray shades that I view the world in, it is not unlikely that I would agree with FSPilot on many issues.

<span id='postcolor'>

Never once did I say he was irrational!  I was saying that he is patriotic, sometimes to the point of denying something that is as plain as day.

What I find a little frightening is the amount of hubris that most 'patriots' seem to have when it comes to the denial of the darker shades of gray in their nations foreign policies (and this is not an exclusively american trait!! )