We can't keep making this longer and longer, and below Michael resorts
to the classic demonization he accuses CNN and NATO of doing.  I will
refocus on his final point, since he has now accused me wrongly.

Michael Strutt writes:
> >>  Tell me Martin, what *is* the NATO military goal, as they repeatedly
> >>  avoid any commitment to putting in ground troops? If you are just going
> >>  to repeat the 'degrading Milosevic's military capacity' line,
> >>  please explain what this means in terms of a viable exit strategy.
>
> >The NATO military goal is to destroy the military capability of the
> >Yugoslavian military.  There is no exit strategy.
>
>    If that is true, given that there is no hope of doing that from the
>    air, there is no exit at all. You're proposing eternal war like the
>    middle east or '1984'.
>
>    I made the mistake of responding to you in the belief that you
>    were putting forward an opinion you honestly hold re the bombings.
>
>    However, from the evasive nature of your arguments I suspect I've
>    fallen for a troll.

You say that my direct answer to your direct question is an example of
the "evasive nature of my arguments".  I answered your questions
directly.  I do state my cases directly.  That *is* the nature of my
arguments, so that part of your statment is true.  But you claim this
nature is evasive, so you are saying that answering questions with
direct answers is being evasive.

You asked me to specify the NATO military goal.  I stated the NATO
military goal.  I am not a spokesman for NATO, so my statement of the
NATO military goal was obviously my opinion.  You also asked me to
state the exit strategy.  I stated that there is no exit strategy.
Again, I think it was obvious that was my opinion.  You then say this
means I am "proposing eternal war".

You say that giving direct answers to questions is evasive, and you
say that giving you the answer you asked for is a proposal for eternal
war.  These are examples of Orwellian DoubleSpeak.  You use examples
of DoubleSpeak in the same argument in which you refer to Orwell's
'1984' as an example of what *I* am proposing.  That is DoubleThink.

Lastly, after I have answered your questions directly, and after you
have name-dropped '1984' in the same argument where you yourself use
DoubleSpeak and DoubleThink, you accuse me of being a troll and
resign.

I'll drop a name too, then.

"That's all I have to say about that." - Forest Gump

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701