aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Jews in Germany Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Spring in Action this week in the Spring forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Jews in Germany" Watch "Jews in Germany" New topic
Author

Jews in Germany

R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
You have right to inform respective authority, in this case Police.
Since there are no World Police,

I was expecting this [and thats why I said step by step]
OK, now let us consider a scenario.
Mr. X commited a crime inside his home.
Police is corrupt. [or there is no Police]
Obviously Mr. X should get punishment.
I say that Mr. X has commited a crime.
Obviously Mr. X will demand proof.
Now I have the proof, there are people who doubt on that proof.
But I want to punish Mr. X.
Instead of going myself alone and punishing him, I would gather his neighbours/other people of the society, get support of them[if I am right I will get the support.] and then make him(Mr. X) to accept his fault and will give punishment with the support of other people.
In a civilised society, I dont think one gives right to one person the role of judge, jury and executor. It is a system who does all these things. right??
SO my question is, what would you do if you find your neighbour commiting some crime? Would you give him punishment by yourself ??
Or will you get support of others and prove his guilt to others and then decide the punishment with consultation of others. [assuming there is no police.]
If you think that others are not supporting you[even if you are right], then either there is problem in you or in others. And if others cover major part of the society, then its time to retrospect yourself because no one suppots crime.


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Now I have the proof, there are people who doubt on that proof.
Who doubts the proof? Only you, Ravish.
Joe
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Who doubts the proof? Only you, Ravish.

You win.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Mr. X commited a crime inside his home.
Police is corrupt. [or there is no Police]
If the police are corrupt then you call the state police or the FBI.
In this case since the UN had already declared that Iraq was in violation of their agreements, there was no question that a crime had been committed. Since the US did consult with other countries and received support from many (including Great Britian), the US and Great Britian (as well as other countries) enforced the UN mandate. The US did not act alone. Are you suggesting the US must have France's approval for all of its actions?


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
In this case since the UN had already declared that Iraq was in violation of their agreements, there was no question that a crime had been committed.
Let us not talk about violation of UN.
And you must be knowing why we should not talk.
the US and Great Britian (as well as other countries) enforced the UN mandate. The US did not act alone.
I think, it would have been better if we let UN did his job.
If you are suggesting that UN was not doing his job then I dont think so.
UN was doing its job.
Obviously when we are living in democratic world, all process take time and one person does not get whole cake.
[b]Are you suggesting the US must have France's approval for all of its actions?[/QB]
It was matter of US security, France's approval does not come in to picture at all.
So let us only talk about "war on terror", we can say that "war for liberation" is by product of it.
And when we talk about "war on terror", as Joe said, its me only who cant see any proof.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
I think, it would have been better if we let UN did his job.
The UN did its job. It determined that Iraq was in violation of its international agreements.
It was matter of US security, France's approval does not come in to picture at all.
So then why are you bringing the UN into this? You have me thoroughly confused.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by R K Singh:
And when we talk about "war on terror", as Joe said, its me only who cant see any proof.

Are you saying that you do not believe that Iraq was supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East?
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Are you saying that you do not believe that Iraq was supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East?

Now you are confusing me. War was for ME or for US ??
If it was for ME then surely US should have taken more countries in confidence first.
AW I fail to see any reason for US attacking Iraq at that time.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
I fail to see any reason for US attacking Iraq at that time.
The torture and rape of civilians. Do you say they were not happening?
Joe
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I fail to see any reason for US attacking Iraq at that time.
The torture and rape of civilians. Do you say they were not happening?
Joe

Instead of going myself alone and punishing him, I would gather his neighbours/other people of the society, get support of them[if I am right I will get the support.] and then make him(Mr. X) to accept his fault and will give punishment with the support of other people.
In a civilised society, I dont think one gives right to one person to play the role of judge, jury and executor. It is a system who does all these things. right??
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Ravish, you were asked two (more) direct questions that you (again) refused to answer. They seemed like quite fair questions that were addressed to you, and I know I wouldn't mind seeing your learned responses.
TP: Are you saying that you do not believe that Iraq was supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East?
This looks like basically a yes or no question. I know I personally have provided an ample amount of information on this topic in the past to enable one to make an informed decision on this subject. Also notice that Tom does not mention the word "Al-Qaeda" anywhere in his question above, and refers to terrorists in general.
The non-response to the above question:
Now you are confusing me. War was for ME or for US ??
If it was for ME then surely US should have taken more countries in confidence first.
AW I fail to see any reason for US attacking Iraq at that time.

What does Michael Ernest (ME) have to do with this? And what is AW? It's certainly not a common abbreviation, and as such its constant usage may be seen as a barrier to effective communication by some. Would that mean "anyway" or "aw" by any chance?
Regarding your statement that you fail to see any reason for US attacking Iraq, would you agree to the point that whether or not you personally saw any reasons which you felt were justified, that it is entirely possible that there were certainly reasons which the US and the other 62 or so participating countries felt were justified? And if the US and others, who were the one's undertaking the action, felt there were justifications, at this point does it really matter whether or not non-involved parties felt it was justified? Further, given that the invasion of Iraq has already happened, isn't the responsible position to be concerned about the Iraqis rebuilding a secure and prosperous free society? And would not anybody standing in the way of that goal in fact be against peace and against the Iraqi people?
The second ignored question:
JP: The torture and rape of civilians. Do you say they were not happening?
Again, a direct "yes or no" question begging an answer.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Ravish, you were asked two (more) direct questions that you (again) refused to answer. They seemed like quite fair questions that were addressed to you, and I know I wouldn't mind seeing your learned responses.

Both questions were irrelevant thats why I choose to ignore them.
TP: Are you saying that you do not believe that Iraq was supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East?
You call them terrorists. So I did not reply.
The second ignored question:
JP: The torture and rape of civilians. Do you say they were not happening?

If you read my mail I have said very clearly that if you feel that "US is more secure after Saddam was captured" then I have nothing to say.
Whether I say yes/no, does not matter as to free Iraqui civilians is not "USA" job. right ??

And what is AW? confused
No need to get confuse, after reading full sentesnce no one feels need to know the meaning of AW.

that it is entirely possible that there were certainly reasons which the US and the other 62 or so participating countries felt were justified?
Once if you remember I gave list of more than 40 nations and their reason to support this war.
And if you remember even I provided a scene from adult movie too.
But you fail to see that what is told to you as "support", actually it is not a support.

Further, given that the invasion of Iraq has already happened, isn't the responsible position to be concerned about the Iraqis rebuilding a secure and prosperous free society?
Yes, its time for US to handover Iraq to UN.

PS:
What does Michael Ernest (ME) have to do with this?
Its good habbit to put smiley after a joke.
If its not a joke then "I" lack common sense who thought that ME will read as Middle East.

Last time you choose to ignore and this time Joe choose to ignore.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Now I have the proof, there are people who doubt on that proof.
Who doubts the proof? Only you, Ravish.
Joe

Anyone here, do you expect this reply from the post I made.
I asked clear question:
[i]SO my question is, what would you do if you find your neighbour commiting some crime? Would you give him punishment by yourself ??[/i ]
And if you dont get the question then you could have asked me again.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Anyone here, do you expect this reply from the post I made.
I asked clear question:
[i]SO my question is, what would you do if you find your neighbour commiting some crime? Would you give him punishment by yourself ??[/i ]
And if you dont get the question then you could have asked me again.

I guess people found the question irrelevant and chose to ignore it.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I guess people found the question irrelevant and chose to ignore it.

You are right.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
In a civilised society, I dont think one gives right to one person to play the role of judge, jury and executor.
We just went through this. You are now repeating yourself, which is the "ad Nauseum fallacy".
RK: Call Police
JP: There are no World Police, so we perform Citizen's Arrest
RK: there are people who doubt on that proof.
JP: Who doubts proof? Only you Ravish.
RK: You win.
So when you said "you win", evidently it does not mean you agree. Instead, it means you cannot answer my point, but you will use the exact same argument again later.
I refuse to waste my time this way.
Joe
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Anyone here, do you expect this reply from the post I made.
I asked clear question:
SO my question is, what would you do if you find your neighbour commiting some crime? Would you give him punishment by yourself ??
And if you dont get the question then you could have asked me again.

If my neighbour (Iraq) was commiting a crime I would blow the whistle on him and report him to the authorities (UN). If the authorities gave him adequate punishment, I would be satisfied and leave it at that but I would keep an eye on him because I dont trust him that much anymore. But if the authorities turned out to be like UN bureaucrats, stopping and stalling at every turn and taking an unbearably long period to mete out justice I would take the law into my own hands.
Inaction is not the right answer and inefficent action is also not the right answer. I am totally convinced the UN is a farce now.. it has collapsed under the weight of its own size.
Ravish, you say US should hand over Iraq to UN.. but can you point out one successful UN controlled state? UN was given control over Kosovo.. and look at what is happening there. A return to militancy.. thats what!


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Instead, it means you cannot answer my point, but you will use the exact same argument again later.

What is your point ?
1) It is USA job to free Iraqi civilians ?
2) It was for ME(Middle East) ?
If these are your point then really you are wasting time.
And if you say that it was for US. I can consolidate myself (NOW), ok if one person's death give mental peace to millions then it must be right.
But killing a person for its own mental peace does not sound good ??
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Ravish, ...

I think sometime back Map provided a list of succesful operations of UN.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by R K Singh:

I think sometime back Map provided a list of succesful operations of UN.

I don't recall that one. Either Map posting a list or a successful UN operation, that is. Of course, there's always the chance I'm mistaken.
I guess you could consider Gulf War I a successful UN operation, but the truth is that it was a successful US-led operation (with much thanks to our allies, particularly the Brits, in this case). Maybe East Timor as well, although wasn't that predominantly an Australian operation? The sad truth is that what more readily comes to mind when discussing the UN's involvement in conflicts is places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, and Israel.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Now you are confusing me. War was for ME or for US ??
The war was to stamp out terrorism. This should come as no surprise since Bush said that in his state of the union sppech after 9/11. This is not a war against Al Queda. It is a war against anyone who supports terrorism anywhere. For some countries that will mean quiet negotiation. For some countries it will mean sanctions. For others it will mean war. Hopefully the lesson of Iraq will convince other countries that supporting terrorism is a dead end.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
It is a war against anyone who supports terrorism anywhere.

You must be kidding.
This should come as no surprise since Bush said that in his state of the union sppech after 9/11.
And what I heard in Mr. Bush's live press conference[3-4 days back] is that "Now US is more secure after Saddam is removed".
He said this, might be, because elections are near.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I guess you could consider Gulf War I a successful UN operation, but the truth is that it was a successful US-led operation (with much thanks to our allies, particularly the Brits, in this case).

This war also could have been abother successful UN operation and truth could be that it would have been US-led war OR christianity vs. Islam.
But, truth is that then US could have not claimed all contracts of Iraq.
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by R K Singh:
This war also could have been abother successful UN operation and truth could be that it would have been US-led war OR christianity vs. Islam.
But, truth is that then US could have not claimed all contracts of Iraq.

OK! Now this argument is a classic case of left-wing rhetoric. Let me tell you why you are wrong in a simple point-by-by format
1. US requested UN participation (umpteen times) - But reality is UN was unwilling to act. Therefore it is not the US's fault but UN's own undoing.
2. US requested France, Germany, India etc. to participate by pitching in with their troops. If not during the invasion atleast after the invasion for peace keeping. But they refused.. again their own undoing.
3. US requested money - Everyone refused saying that US should pay for their own actions.
So now tell me.. why in this f... world should US give contracts to anyone else??
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
1. US requested UN participation (umpteen times) - But reality is UN was unwilling to act. Therefore it is not the US's fault but UN's own undoing.
UN was doing its job. It was US who was in hurry and why, now we know.
2. US requested France, Germany, India etc. to participate by pitching in with their troops. If not during the invasion atleast after the invasion for peace keeping. But they refused.. again their own undoing.
They demanded that they would send troop under UN authority.
Can you give me some idea why US is not giving authority to UN after invasion ?? [if I say its all about money, then I wont be wrong.]
3. US requested money - Everyone refused saying that US should pay for their own actions.
But US has got support of world. Atleast 62 countries as I am told.
Do you call it international support for war??
And thats why I was saying that even if I want to give punishment to a criminal, I will do it after taking others in confidence.
why in this f... world should US give contracts to anyone else??

This thing I predicted long back.
But I like this idea of runing the economy.
[ December 19, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Jews in Germany