no war

[Anonymous]

This one is great!

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It is the UN itself who is not paying attention to its own resolutions. But as always, we will look out for ourselves.

US may never be wrong, it is the word tat is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Just one point about us Americans going to war alone... why is it that the majority of European countries are actually on our side?
[ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

Which majority you're talking about? There is UK, Spain and some new europeans countries. UK people is against the war. Spain people is against the war. Europe is against the war. The world is against the war. Not only the people but also the politics. Those countries allied with US are only dealing for money like Turkey or those new Europeans countries looking for partnership. That's all. Nobody is supporting this war. Unless, US.

[Melvin Menezes]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Do you want to say its all abt oil

That's what [i]Ardhendu Sen, senior fellow of Tata Energy Research Centre[i] in that link says

As for me, i have always thought that international politics is almost always about natural resources (oil, uranium, water, gold, coal, etc.), it can be about teritories, it can be about geographically strategic sites e.g. forts and hills. Reasons behind international politics can be anything but a pure kind heartedness.
People are fooling themselves if they are thinking that the war-cry is all about liberating iraq civilians.
AND
People are fooling themselves if they are thinking that anti-war-protests are all about saving iraq civilians.
Because you can rest assured that common people of all the countires on both sides of the war/no-war thingy may be emotional, the politicians are definately not

[Paul Stevens]

As opposed to France's 50 billion in business and oil dealings with Iraq. They are not doing it because ... :roll:

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

A veto would most likely mean the end of the Security Council. Is that what you are hoping for?
As far as countries standing up for their principles, which countries do you think those are?

Sorry , a veto will not mean the end of the security council, it simply means that countries are not for sale. BTW a little bit of history, US stood against the world 14-1 against the re-election of boutros-boutros ghali as UN sec gen some years ago and the US applied a veto-- well the UN security council did not come to an end.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

In sum, to me it doesn't look like you're dancing on the line of tolerable conduct; if you're stepping over it to see what will happen next, I'll explain it to you in a private message.
This looks pretty tame to me. Attacking the credibility of the speaker has been used by JM many a time.
Sometimes when the debate gets too anti-American ...
is a charge that starts to look true.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:

But Saddam == Islam!!! You see what I am saying?

Sorry to say this, but this is all wrong. No muslim does support Saddam. Saddam is all except a muslim.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
People are fooling themselves if they are thinking that the war-cry is all about liberating iraq civilians.

I agree. I would say it is primarily about removing Hussein's WMDs first, and removing the regime second. Icing on the cake is liberating 25 million oppressed Iraqis, removing a base of support for terrorism, influence with the new government (which will including preferential oil deals), and a strategic foothold in a region that will now have one more friendly government.

People are fooling themselves if they are thinking that anti-war-protests are all about saving iraq civilians.

You are correct again. All you have to do is listen to what they are saying to know it is about anti-Bushism and anti-Americanism. For some of the other governments you can throw in self-interest as to why they are in opposition.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

Because you can rest assured that common people of all the countires on both sides of the war/no-war thingy may be emotional, the politicians are definately not

YES.
And its far more complicated than just oil or french business interests or us-transfers. Its lot more, contradictorial and multiperspective.
its seeing US as only capable to garantize national independence (oops this one will sound weird to indians and arabs or magrebs, but maybe not for people in Poland). its about getting in the position to hegemonize european foreign politics. surfing a wave of national unity in face of a war (if its pro or against, the wave). its about drying out voter-ressources of communistic party in eastern parts of germany. its about sadam having weapons of mass destruction is dangerous. its about all regional neighbours (except perhaps Israel) governments and populations does not like it... and lots more.
[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <younes>:
...some new europeans countries...

It is this skewed view of Eastern Europe by some in Western Europe that drives them closer to the US. Temper tantrums like the one thrown by Chirac telling them to keep their mouths shut probably doesn't help things. There are other factors though.
For one, they know what it's like to live under dictatators. One of their PMs recently said something along the lines of "it's easy to appease a dictator when it's not your life that is being dictated over".
Most nations in Eastern Europe are greatful for our position during the Cold War and credit us with being a major factor in bringing down Communism. They believe that their collective security rests with NATO, and therefore that it is the US who will guarantee their security.

[R K Singh]

That's what [i]Ardhendu Sen, senior fellow of Tata Energy Research Centre[i] in that link says

Thats what I am saying form the very begining
No more jokes and fun..
I and I think everyone will agree with this
[b]Because you can rest assured that common people of all the countires on both sides of the war/no-war thingy may be emotional, the politicians are definately not[B]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

A veto would most likely mean the end of the Security Council. Is that what you are hoping for?
As far as countries standing up for their principles, which countries do you think those are?

France, Germany, Denmark. The Dutch government is hopeless since last year ...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
No, but you might check the list of "countries who want to keep a murderous dictator in power".

What is your point

1. Check the list of govts which recognised Taliban as govt and supported them.
2. Then check the list of countries who support the nation which supported Taliban, the main cause of 9/11.
3.Then check the list of nation which have dictators in power.
4. Then you might check the list of "countries who want to keep a dictator in power".

Everyone is saying war is for revenge 9/11.
To have a cause for a war, Iraq is told to destroy missile which cant go beyond 130 mile and US has fear from that missile.
enough.... I am not here to discuss abt oil/war..
I just told that I am proud of India that PM openly said that It does not support war on Iraq.
You be proud on US that US is going for war for *whatever reason* please to americans and US.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:

This looks pretty tame to me. Attacking the credibility of the speaker has been used by JM many a time.
Sometimes when the debate gets too anti-American ...
is a charge that starts to look true.

Ask Jason if he thinks I go out of my way to defend him. If he has crossed the lines of rhetorical fair play from time to time, it's also true he has
walked back over it, and in my readings ignored far more taunts than he has responded to.
I'm more tolerant of occasional missteps that are corrected by future practice than I am of character who always seems to be on the attack. That's just me, and if that queers the healthy moderating of this forum, I'm open to hearing that.
As for my warning to Shay, I don't look at posts out of context to apply against a policy. I am not interested in screening words or sentiments. I am flattered that a guy who often seems to color my statements as those of a self-loathing liberal is concerned about my American bias, but that's another discussion.
Anyway, I look at what I think is a broader context than the individual post. When I don't like what I am seeing, I say something.
It's often the case here that people want to use consistency as the measure for when it is reasonable for a moderator to speak up. We have enough experience in this forum to know that while consistency helps keep the room clean, people also like to use consistency as leverage to tell us to mind our own business. To which I can only say, this forum is partly my business.
If how I do things here causes concern, I encourage you to address them to Paul or another sheriff. This is how I do what I do.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I just told that I am proud of India that PM openly said that It does not support war on Iraq.

That's a great reason to be proud of your country; sadly enough I can't say the same for my country (the Netherlands); there's such a discrepancy between the people and the government overhere right now ...
kind regards

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
To have a cause for a war, Iraq is told to destroy missile which cant go beyond 130 mile and US has fear from that missile.

It is the UN who is telling Iraq to destroy those missiles. Iraq signed an agreement to destroy those missiles. Iraq's neighbors were bombed with missiles just like those so there is reason to fear them. If Iraq starts dropping missiles with anthrax in them on cities in Israel, what do you think will be the end result for the Middle East?

[shay Aluko]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

You're trying to pick a fight, Shay. Perhaps if you resort to less goading, others will follow.
This is Meaningless Drivel. People are free to offer their evaluations as they see fit. They are also free to annoy others with them -- not my favorite thing, but it's permissible. It should, to the degree possible, remain a spirited but friendly place, meaning people can say what they want -- within the confines of a spirited but friendly place to hang out.
In sum, to me it doesn't look like you're dancing on the line of tolerable conduct; if you're stepping over it to see what will happen next, I'll explain it to you in a private message.

I know you are the sherrif but the warning is patently unfair-- i have seen jason attack the crediibility of several people on this board-- i think a warning to him is also in order if you are going to be consistent-- if you don't agree with me please take some time to review some of his previous posts

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by shay Aluko:

I know you are the sherrif but the warning is patently unfair-- i have seen jason attack the crediibility of several people on this board-- i think a warning to him is also in order if you are going to be consistent-- if you don't agree with me please take some time to review some of his previous posts

I have questioned whether or not people are qualified to make definitive statements that they have made. Some of those people whose credentials to make a judgement that i have questioned have been authors of various links. I have always backed this up with qualifiers. There is a difference between questioning the basis of knowledge used to form a statement, and insulting somebody. For example, if I made a statement describing how I disagreed with a diagnosis given by some medical professionals, and there was no evidence that I myself was a medical professional, then you would be correct in questioning on what basis I am able to make such statements.
I generally don't care whether or not you level insults at me or act belligerent towards me personally. However the edict at the ranch is that this is to remain a friendly place, and the moderators are tasked to enforce this. People who consistently approach "unfriendly" will, as Michael stated, be warned. If I consistently display such behavior myself, then Michael, Jim, and the other moderators will be sure to let me know about it in MO.
It is possible to engage in spirited debate without insulting each other, and this is something we should strive for. If we wish to continue to debate emotionally charged topics such as this, I suggest we all try to keep this in mind.
[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

I reread all of shay's posts and I don't see anything on the friendly order of

We know this is true since you are arrogant and you don't think.

shay has had the courage to register as opposed to life as an anonymous coward.
The target of shay's fury being Jason Menard has to have some bearing on this issue too. Perhaps a third party might interject here. Map, is Jason enjoying this intercourse with shay?
shay is showing a little emotion and some anger, Jason's BP is rising. I find that to be the fine spice flavoring this thread. Like Jason of TP and Map, I'm enjoying watching these two go at each other.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
shay has had the courage to register as opposed to life as an anonymous coward.

And this is always to be appreciated.

The target of shay's fury being Jason Menard has to have some bearing on this issue too. Perhaps a third party might interject here. Map, is Jason enjoying this intercourse with shay?

Not required imho. As I said, it doesn't bother me.

Jason's BP is rising.

I'm a cool, calm, and collected 120/80, thank you very much.

[Michael Ernest]

I reread all of shay's posts and I don't see anything on the friendly order of
We know this is true since you are arrogant and you don't think.
shay has had the courage to register as opposed to life as an anonymous coward.
Actually that quote sounds like Thomas Paul to me.
Look, fellas, there's no point system here. A warning is not a yellow card; I keep no memory of this stuff, so long as the conversation mellows on all sides. Just get back on track. I have no one's permanent file. I do not issue double-secret probation orders for Cindy to execute, which is good news for all of you.
I'm just sayin' I'll be a cop if the blatherskiting continues.
Please, then, back to your regularly scheduled meaningless drivel. If you want to say more on what moderators should do and how, please take it to the JavaRanch forum.
[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Mapraputa Is]

I wrote this as a response to Rufus' post, but while I was typing, more was said, so the whole this "JM problem" is getting bigger than it is, IMHO.
Nevertheless...
Map, is Jason enjoying this intercourse with shay?
Mm... I am not an expert on Jason Menard personality and his ways of enjoying intercourses, but this particular intercourse seems to stay civil so far.
Like Jason of TP and Map, I'm enjoying watching these two go at each other.

But there is a difference I would like to highlight. All three of us spent significant amount of time on this board and know each other pretty well by this time, and even if we strongly disagree about something, there are a lot of other things we appreciate about each other, so our fights are unlikely to go out of hands and turn ugly. Other people (like Jos or Shay) seems to be new (of course, they could watch this playground (aka MD) for long time without participating...) and this has some potential for hostility that has no other reason but misunderstanding and one-dimensional perception of each other.
"Unfriendly behavior warnings", I believe, can be legally issued by any MD participant, but here I would like to encourage everybody to try to prevent old perceptions from affecting your current vision. In particular,
if you don't agree with me please take some time to review some of his previous posts
Jason's data of registration said he's been here since 2000, so he made a lot of posts. Some of these posts can be seen as "unfriendly", but the same can be said about everybody who bothered to post frequently on topics they consider important. These "unfriendly" posts attract a lot of attention, so they may look like "typical", but actually, majority of his post are very calm, and restrained, and as Michael said, he "ignored far more taunts than he has responded to". If to look at the ratio of "responded/ignored", then "Jason Menard karma statistics" is actually better than of any other MD long-time combatant.
And I did not notice any "bad karma" posts since he is a moderator of this forum, which is a new factor to consider...
Now as ME said, let's go back to our "no war!" business.
[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[R K Singh]

blatherskiteing [Noun] => Foolish gibberish

[Mapraputa Is]

Thanks, Ravish, I just looked up the same word

[R K Singh]

a war in no war thread
Can I call it oxymoron ??

[Jim Yingst]

[Map]: Mm... I am not an expert on Jason Menard personality and his ways of enjoying intercourses
...
There are just too many ways to respond to that one.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[Map]: Mm... I am not an expert on Jason Menard personality and his ways of enjoying intercourses
...
There are just too many ways to respond to that one.

I've been fighting the urge.

[Mapraputa Is]

And I have been stirring up trouble.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:

......

But I have never found JM to use such filthy languge.
Are you OK ??
If you dont want to come to this forum then dont come.
OR you also cant refrain yourself from coming here

[John Dunn]

What does everyone think of George Dubya's recent lift on the ban to assassinate Saddam?
Saddam sends a message that he wants to debate Bush and Bush sends a messages that he wants to kill Saddam. Sounds like love to me...

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
France, Germany, Denmark. The Dutch government is hopeless since last year ...

Denmark I can't comment on since I haven't really taken a look at their situation.
France has two main interests concerning Iraq. The first is it wants to protect very lucrative economic deals it has with the Hussein regime. The second is that it envisions itself as some kind of world power and wishes to serve as a counter to the US. It sees the EU and the UN as vehicles it can use to achieve this goal. This explains the harsh reaction towards countries in Europe who don't follow France's lead, particularly Eastern European countries.
Germany is also seen by some as having economic interests it seeks to protect, including in the realm of sensitive dual-use technologies. Schroeder narrowly captured his election on an anti-American platform and has even ruled out working within the framework of the UN. As a result politics may be a factor with him. Additionally, Germany has seemingly placed itself in bed with France and her aspirations to craft a EU that will serve as a counter balance to the US, instead of an ally. I'm sure though that there are other dynamics going on in Germany that Axel has hinted at.
I'm not saying that the reasons these countries may have for their positions are invalid by any means. It is possible anybody would do the same in their position. I'm only stressing that it is not some great altruistic stance that is being taken by these nations, any more than the US is taking some great altruistic stance. Everybody has their own interests they are looking after.
[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
What does everyone think of George Dubya's recent lift on the ban to assassinate Saddam?

Do you have a link?

[John Dunn]

This is what I am referring to:
Bush wants to KILL Saddam...
This was also on the news today. I thought he had done this a long time ago. Note the following link:
June 16, 2002 Order to kill Saddam
I am wondering if the former is the "answer" Bush is giving to Saddam about the debate?
Personally, I think it is pretty odd, but also darkly humorous for our papers to talk about assassination of Saddam. I'd love to see it.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
This is what I am referring to:
Bush wants to KILL Saddam...
This was also on the news today. I thought he had done this a long time ago. Note the following link:
June 16, 2002 Order to kill Saddam
I am wondering if the former is the "answer" Bush is giving to Saddam about the debate?
Personally, I think it is pretty odd, but also darkly humorous for our papers to talk about assassination of Saddam. I'd love to see it.

It would require an executive order to lift the current ban. That has not happened.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Most nations in Eastern Europe are greatful for our position during the Cold War and credit us with being a major factor in bringing down Communism. They believe that their collective security rests with NATO, and therefore that it is the US who will guarantee their security.

I have relatives from the Czech Republic. They tell me that they love the US because the US is the only country that has ever supported them. They were an independent country from 1918-1938 when they were sold out by the French and English to the Germans. Then they were taken by the USSR. They see the US as the only country with the nerve to respect and guarantee their independence.

[Axel Janssen]

Business groups at least in western europe seems to favor low profile positions like that of the dutch government.
German business groups are critizicing Schroeder for taking his high profile position, because they fear damage of image for german products in America. America is a much more important trading partner than the arabic world.
Spanish business groupes are criticizing Aznar, too, because they fear unfavourable consequences for their middle east businesses.
Business people do not like loud discussions with doors open.

[Anonymous]

When do/does this 'friendly place' (mind the quotes, because they're talking US friendly stuff only here with a bit too much of redneck attitude on top) remove my personal data? Please send me a confirmation when you've done so.

[Thomas Paul]

Sorry to see you go, Jos. But as you requested we have deleted your account.

[Johannes de Jong]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Back on topic:
Several people are traveling from Europe and Africa right now to Bagdad; they are going to be human shields there. My sympathy is with those brave people.

Considering the high moral pedestal you stand on, what stops you from doing it ??

[Jason Menard]

A Costly Charade At the U.N.

The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of American soldiers to rid the world -- and the long-suffering Iraqi people -- of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant.

A half-century later, that charade has proved costly. In order to appease the French, we negotiated Security Council Resolution 1441, which France has thoroughly trashed and yet which has delayed American action for months.
Months for the opposition to mobilize itself, particularly in Britain, where Tony Blair is now hanging by a thread. Months for Hussein to augment his defenses and plan the sabotage and other surprises he has in store when the war starts. Months, most importantly, that threaten to push the fighting into a season of heat and sandstorms that may cost the lives of brave Americans.

That is a serious challenge. It requires a serious response. We need to demonstrate that there is a price to be paid for undermining the United States on a matter of supreme national interest.

First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council -- with India and Japan as new permanent members

The article is worth a read imho. I think the suggestion to expand the security council to include India and Japan is valid.
[ February 28, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]