Pangloss

That's some pretty substantial hair-splitting that you and Dak are doing. Do you think the average 12-year-old is capable of making that kind of distinction? Or is it more likely that they just think GTA is "cool"? We've already got our Columbine for the GTA side of that argument. When some kids decide to shoot their classmates because they don't want them to be "Left Behind", will you consider that proof of the accuracy of your statement, but dismiss Dylan Kleibold and Eric Harris as exceptions and kooks? Just curious.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. But what I was hinting at is that Turkey's (quite a bit younger) constitution also protects freedom of religion. I may just be demonstrating more ignorance here, but I'm not sure I understand the fuss with Turkey. I understand the basic religious problem, but I wonder how much of this is overstatement or exaggeration. The fuel on the fire of Muslim fundamentalism isn't religious viewpoint, but rather being poor in a modern, technological, interconnected world. Perhaps the reason Turkey doesn't have as much of a problem with fundamentalism is that it's simply a richer country.

You can PM folks by clicking on the "Private Messages" link in the upper-right area of the screen, underneath where it says "Welcome, PolZegerully." In there you should find all the commands you need for that. Pleast feel free to reply to any of the existing threads, or start a new one if you wish. Make sure you've read the forum rules first, which may be found here.

It's fascinating how many of those freedom-of-religion constitutions have cropped up in the last 200 years or so.

Yah that's a good point. I know one soccer-mom liberal in particular who is ready to burn her bra on the subject of the war but doesn't blink an eyelash when it comes to draconian measures in the local school district, where she has two young girls in attendance. She's a real trip to talk with, too, quite aware of the conundrum but perfectly comfortable with it, and quite able to throw your own hypocrisies right back at you if you're not careful. (chuckle)

Personally I have no problem with you wanting to be called something specific. You happen to favor the term "magenta with a hint of mauve", that's just fine by me. Just be sure and let us know, and polite society will happily comply. Just as soon as we stop laughing at you. But when I mark your race down on my government-mandated taxation and immigration forms, don't expect me to cross out "white" and write in "magenta with a hint of mauve". Your personal crusade really isn't going to become my problem, and if you push it the only one getting called into any offices for explanations is you. As for dealing with your fists, in most quarters I think you will find your opponent laughing too hard to even bother. I know I am.

Wow, I thought you were being sarcastic. Good lord, has white guilt really taken us this far? Can I still be white? Please? Who do I need to get permission from for this? Please let me know so I can send my tax-deductible "donation" in immediately and receive my papers of Racial Authenticity. If not, can I just go ahead and blame you for everything? I'm kinda tired of haivng to be the Bad Guy all the time, but sounds like you don't mind a bit. Thanks!

Under no circumstances will we be allowed to celebrate victory in Afghanistan. It simply cannot be allowed. PBS Frontline put its entire recent episode called "The Return of the Taliban" online, something they only do with about a third of their episodes due to the expense. The episode and its flashy accompanying web site, which will likely be nominated for a Pulitzer, can be viewed here. For another example, see this recent op/ed in the New York Times. Not that there's anything wrong with his assessment, mind you. What's worth noticing is its title: "One War We Can Still Win". Present tense. Under no circumstances will we be allowed to celebrate victory in Afghanistan. Not then, not now, not ever.

Those are some valid points above. Mostly what interests me here is the political angle. Moderate Democrats have identified video games as one of the areas in which they can most strongly appeal to "red state" America. Hillary Clinton has practically gone to war against them, and she's hardly alone. Combined with a new Democratic congress armed with a "mandate from the people" (uh huh), and that signals a very interesting 2007-8 for the computer gaming industry.

What irks me is that we've essentially created a socio-political environment that prohibits the celebration of success and achievement. The best we can hope for is to lower the amount of trumped-up criticism to a level that is accepted by 51% of the polling population. Afghanistan being a perfect example. Afghani polls indicate overwhelming gratitude and optimism. But all you hear about are "a rising tide of disatisfaction" and "return of the Taliban", which is a phrase that always has to be proceeded with "possible" or "eventual". It simply is not possible to pat ourselves on the back about anything. It's just not politically correct. (Yeah I know they operate in some areas. I'm generalizing. Sue me.)

A conundrum, you say? It couldn't possibly be true that liberal organizations would promote the censorship of video games? What could possibly cause liberals to throw away one of their their most fundamental principles -- free speech? You got it -- the religious right! These groups are asking WalMart to pull "Left Behind" from shelves because it promotes "violent religious intolerance". It's okay for them to sell video games that promote the violent destruction of policemen and prostitutes, but apparently it's not okay to promote the violent destruction of non-believers. (chuckle) Thank you, God, for hypocrisy, without which my life would be far less fulfilling! http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1111935809

Now we're finally getting to the heart of the thread! Sisyphus you may well be right, but let me ask you this: What specific plans would you have made? The statement that "no planning was done" may be an exaggeration. I'm not at all convinced that it is. I suppose it's fair to say some technical/paper planning was done, but it's a very good and very real question as to whether a comprehensive and intelligent plan existed at the end of the initial fighting phase of the war. But I think we also have to dig deeper than that. Assuming for the the moment that the answer to that question is "no such planning was done", then the question arises: What could such planning have accomplished, were it done, and done perfectly? I think that this is a legitimate, non-partisan, and important question. In fact it may be the most important question of the entire war.

It was interesting that the Iraq Study Group specifically recommended against the "three-state solution". Their problems were, as I understand it (not having read the report yet), the ones we discussed here on the board, e.g. having too many mixed-population areas (like Baghdad), the oil problem, etc. Politically speaking, since that solution was mainly proponed by Democrats and has virtually no support amongst Republicans (or at least not at the White House), it is now essentially orphaned. Expect to see it disappear from radar.

Yah my eyes glazed over pretty quick, and I think you're right, it would be a nice tool for layman educational purposes. I think this experiment has surprised them in terms of its popularity, so perhaps something will be done about that. One thing I wondered about is whether those are blood cells specifically, or some other type of cell, or if they're intended to be more generic than that. And if the latter is the case, how these cells differ from cells found in other organisms (in the broad sense).

I caught this on the news tonight, where one of the networks had a piece about it. It's an eight-minute video showing the inner workings of a cell. Fascinating stuff. Apparently it was made at the behest of Harvard biologists who wanted to make the subject more exciting for their students, and the video has apparently gone on to win major awards. News story about it here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713188/posts The video is available here: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/ I recommend watching both the abbreviated 3-minute version, which has cool music, and the longer version which has a voice-over narration track.

All hail the insane! No, I'm afraid it's pointless to even ponder this one, as it just isn't going to happen. Even if the situation completely falls apart there the Shi'a are going to execute Saddam, no ifs, ands or buts.

That's a good start on the political angle. I think these points can be generally agreed-upon. Where would that money have been spent that it would help the economy? Lower oil prices seems likely... does anyone have any data on what oil prices were in 2002? That would make an interesting comparison. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning re: the stock market. Are they down? I've read that they met their quotas this year, but when I read that the first question that leapt to my mind was whether they adjusted the quotas downward after the previous years' failure to meet goals. What resignations? Very interesting point there. It's speculative, unfortunately, but I'd wager that with a little research we could buttress that point up quite a bit, especially if we looked into pending legislation in the 107th and 108th congress. ------------- Here's another one: Pornography. The Ashcroft Justice Department was planning a major war on porn all through the summer of 2001. It was put on hold due to 9/11 and he never had a chance to pick up that ball again.

Any kind of logic that's generally unassailable or objectively apparent. Such as the fact that since the invasion countless thousands of Iraqis have died, which is both (a) a bad thing, and (b) they'd likely be alive today (were they not slain by Saddam or died for some other reason) had we not gone there.

Would that be considered a "success"? I suspect the answer to my question is "yes" if it entails the Saddam's Baathist replacement inviting UN inspectors back in and giving them a free reign, agreeing to all other international demands and generally leading the country back into international accord. Which of course would leave the Kurds and Shi'a stuck, but the international community was fine with that before so presumably they'd be fine with it again.

I thought one of the criticisms was that too many of the existing forces were disbanded.

So we can't prove, or even state with demonstrable accuracy, that we're worse off having gone to Iraq, is that it?

I'm not at all convinced that half a million troops would have done anything more than produce twice as many allied casualties. I mean woopdeedoo, they can hold TWO areas secure instead of one. Meanwhile eight other areas are in uprising.

Presumption (circa 2003) for the sake of argument: The US is going to invade Iraq, and you are charged with the responsibility of making that happen. There is no debate, you simply get to carry out the broad order of "invade this nation, topple its government, and construct a new democracy in its place". Question: How do you do it? Specifically, what steps do you take? What actions do you perform differently from how the US/UK actually did things? How, in a nutshell, do you prevent the onset of the situation we have today? Warning: Off-topic posts in this thread will be DELETED. You can talk about causes of the current situation, but posts about justification for the invasion, jokes about not going in the first place, etc, will not be tolerated.

First of all, Mokele and Paranoia I'm getting pretty sick of you two responding to people's polite/professional responses with insults and slander (not to mention hijacking my high-concept thread). Knock it off, or we're going to have a whole different kind of conversation. I won't ask again. Second, do I need to delete or moderate this thread just to get an answer to the OP? Holy mother of all battles, what is wrong with you people? Yeesh. That having been said, there are some on-topic replies, which I appreciate. Let's take a look at a couple of those: Not precisely on point, but an interesting line of reasoning. =-=-=-=-=-= I'm still waiting for someone to answer the OP. Is anyone capable of doing so?

"Small" consolation for those whose jobs were outsourced to India: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6161691.stm