Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

The struggle will go on for a very long time since the goal of the Islamist extremists is to install Islamist governments and Sharia law in their countries, retake areas formerly ruled by Muslims, such as Spain, and complete the conquest of the world. The conflict will last much longer since Western Europe is settling large numbers of Muslims into Europe where they are becoming radicalized. The conflict will ultimately spread to Europe where it will become a significant problem in the decades to come. This isn't about us, it is about them.
 

No, I stated that they were primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, and that is correct.

Is that what you think? Then you managed to get it wrong, including getting your own claim wrong.

You see this? -

Saddam was never under Soviet control, was never part of the Soviet bloc. It was a Soviet client state, and the Soviets did arm them.

And we return to your being unable to keep my factual statement straight - the Iraqis were mainly armed by the bloc of nations controlled by the Soviets. That doesn't rule out American involvement. (You do understand that, right?) You seem to be getting wrapped around the axel about the approximately 1% of armaments or support Iraq received from the US. Big deal.

Saddam made his own decision to attack Iran. Western aid came long after the fact. You are trying to twist the history.

Well if that's true, then it is a vice we both share.

The substance of my argument was that Iraq was primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, a fact you keep getting wrong.

You seem to be projecting.

The weapons mostly much hit what is aimed at, but they do miss on occasion. And a Taliban guerilla group moving cross country at night and part of an Afghan clan moving cross country at night to attend a wedding may appear similar, and both will be armed. Yes, there have been some mistakes made - note: mistakes - in targeting them. But by the same token the Taliban has claimed on more than one occasion that a guerilla group of theirs that was attacked was really a wedding party. In other words, the Taliban lied. You should be including that as part of your evaluation, especially since I although I may be mistaken I seem to recall that you regularly accuse the US or its associates of lying about this or that but I somewhat doubt that lying by the Taliban is something you consider.

Also don't overlook the fact that the US often compensates victims or families of mistaken attacks.

Nonsense. The US is in an armed struggle with armed militant Islamist extremists trying to overthrow governments, attack Westerners, fellow Muslims, and targets of opportunity to gain control over more territory and impose their harsh version of Sharia law. That is a pretty small population. The US has no conflict with Belgian farmers, Mexican factory workers, French doctors, Italian bakers, Turkish journalists, Jordanian date farmers, miners in Nigeria, or a vast number of other people.

Elxsi Fortran had it long ago.

Richard Maine in FORTRAN IV program illustrating assigned GO TO on web site

The truth isn't what you claim. In the conflicts you reference the US has bombed targets (like a rocket launcher) in cities, not the cities themselves. It isn't trying to destroy the city but rather the military targets in it. Using modern precision guided weapons makes this possible. The goal is not to frighten or terrorize the civilians but to destroy the enemy's military forces. The US often avoids attacking particular targets due to their being located on a protected facility (such as a mosque or hospital), or when there is a strong probability of excessive civilian casualties. There are times when the presence of enemy forces or equipment is sufficient to justify attacking anyway, but it will at least be considered. The point is that the US is not deliberately targeting civilians in an attempt to cause large numbers of civilian noncombatants to be killed.

Al Qaida and various other terrorist organizations take a very different approach. They deliberately target civilians engaged in ordinary routine to try to kill as many as they can. That is why they explode truck bombs in city markets - they are trying to kill innocent people to create terror.

There are consequences to being confused on that point, one of which is making it harder to condemn actual terrorism and the deliberate targeting of civilians. That makes it harder to achieve consensus and try to effectively address the problem.

No, they don't. It was conventional military operations, not terrorism.

I never claimed that Saddam's Iraq was part of the Soviet bloc, only that they bought their weapons there. It is sort of like you don't have to be an employee of Tesco to buy goods there.

So then, we agree that Saddam attacked Iran for his own reasons? Good, since those are the facts.

And yet you understood the entire time what President Bush was referring to, and what I was referring to, and decided to avoid discussing the substance of the argument and quibbled about minor things. You aren't proving yourself to not be an idiot there.