For those of us who have seen maps of the entire world in our classrooms we call it the american civil war. If we were to call it just the civil war how could we possibly differentiate it from the rest of histories civil wars? You americans can sometimes be so self-important. "The Civil War"...... thats silly.


I always only ever been on the side of a principle. The nationalist insurgency may reflect that principle, but it has always been the principle that is primary.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

And it has previously manifested itself in support for the insurgency in Iraq. Iraq: Which Side Are You On?

Still, I am glad to see you moderating your position a bit ...

Just semantics. The principle of resistance is what i was clearly talking about in your link.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Fooled me.

You are taking it out of context of the entire post.

You could have easily quoted this from the same post:

"t is unequivocal support for killing American soldiers who invaded a country in violation of the laws against foreign aggression. I do not support killing American civilians at home or anywhere else. I abhor it."

Im not trying to fool you or anybody else Fidei. Im just saying that i have always been motivated by the principle of resistance, first and foremost.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I copied the relevant portions without changing the meanings.

I could have, but it loses some of its meaning out of context. You were correcting someone else who characterized your support as "for killing Americans." You then corrected him to say that it was "unequivocal support for killing American soldiers." I wouldn't quote you out of context if the meaning wasn't clear so I didn't include that portion. (As you know, internal quotes don't come with a fresh post that you're quoting.)

I know. And I'm just saying that that adherance to that principle (misguided or otherwise) led to your siding with the "national insurgency" and your "unequivocal support for killing American soldiers" in Iraq. As you now say that you "don't support any side in Iraq," I can only assume that your position has changed in this regard, and I applaud it.

Sorry, I should have more clearly defined the idea of total war. Every war the US has conducted since WW2 has been limited war. There are rules, restrictions, conventions and an understanding that civilian populations would not be targeted.

WW2 was the last "total war" where annihilation of the enemies production facilities was deemed necessary and proper even though they were buried deep in the heart of German and Japanese population centers. (Dresden is a good example but the list is huge)

When looked at through the lens of "real politic" the US military has been comparatively restrained. In terms of real strength AQ has barely anything, a few thousand trained militants with various improvised bombs and stolen weapons. Compared to the US with a 450 billion defense budget, we have nearly as many nuclear warheads and AQ has professional fighters.

The point is that politics makes AQ able to fight us. It is because the US repects national boarders, international treaties, and have moral and political restraint. (Yes some of you may not agree but we can all agree that we have more restraint than AQ does.)

Im not saying that we should get rid of such restraint, in fact I believe that it is the thing that makes us better than them.

PS. If you call nuking Japan into submission, completely disarming and dismantling a militaristic society, occupying their country for a few decades, and writing their constitution a conditional surrender, im afraid I cannot agree. Allowing their emperor to become a US puppet simply to keep large swaths of their population from committing mass suicide doesn't seem like much of a condition.

Machiavelli wrote, "be gracious in peace and brutal in war, to better show the benefits of one and the horror of the other." If that makes me a tyrant than I geuss I am.

Its more complex that that.

When i say i don't support any side i mean exactly that, but as long as the national insurgency is pursuing resistance to american designs on Iraq, i do indeed support them as proxies in pursuit of my own principle of resistance - but only insofar as they are pursuing resistance.

If tomorrow they gave up the resistance i would no longer support them because then they would have betrayed the principle that i hold dear.

I really don't see how my position has changed from a year and a half ago. If we take the post in its entirety where i am clearly talking about resistance and my support (which i hope you and others understand is only in words, not in deeds) for the insurgency only insofar as they are pursuing said resistance.

In other words. i have never supported any goals of the resistance other than their goal of ridding iraq of american policy and imperialism. I have certainly never 'taken their side' in their pursuit of theocracy, oil exploitation, the status of women and girls, or any sectarian/ethnic violence they may or may not have been involved in.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

OK. Now you just sound like a politician ... I don't support any side ... except one.

Back then you said that you "side" with the "national insurgency" and "unequivocally support killing American soldiers." (And I understand you mean to limit this support to killing American soldiers.) Now ... Well, at least yesterday, you said that you don't support any side. Now, you seem to be saying that you do indeed support the insurgency to the extent they limit their activities to killing American soldiers with the proviso that your support ends when their killing of American soldiers ends.

I've always assumed it was just talk and that you were not providing material support to the killers.

I understand that, and I've never said otherwise. But it is a far cry to deny that you have taken a side in the battle. You have.

BTW, I hope you understood I was joking about the "Civil War" thing above. Hence, the winkie.

Its no different than someone saying they don't like Celine Dion or Michael Bolton, but that they like music, and insofar as Celine Dion or Micheal Bolton pursue music they support them in that endeavor. Its not that difficult Fidei, im sure you can understand it with a little effort.


'

Not for the sake of killing american soldiers, for the sake of resistance to imperialism. My support ends only when they start to cooperate with the imperial policies of america.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I understand that dead American soldiers is music to your ears.

Naturally.

You can be such a child Fidei.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

It's one of my most endearing qualities.

And you can be such a willfully ignorant adult - what's your point?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Don't worry Eric, it really is beyond your capacity.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown