So which country is next.

[John Smith]

Paul Stevens: I personally feel that any post like this using an anonymous handle should be deleted by the forum moderators or sherrifs.
I personally feel that moderators like you should be JavaRanch Court marshalled. It's not the name that matters, but what's behind the name. And I stand firmly behind my IP address when I proclaim this truth.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

And Alan hides his real name no more carefully than I do.

Thanks, Map, but I understand and agree with what they're saying. From now on I'll just stick to the less controversial threads where it's possible to focus on the rhetoric without stepping on anybody's toes...!

[Jim Yingst]

[Eugene]: I personally feel that moderators like you should be JavaRanch Court marshalled.
It's "martialled" BTW. :roll: Are you saying JavaRanch should be like the military?
"Al", you should know that historicially here, it seems that a disproportionate number of people posting as unregistered users seem to do so in order to post attacks and insults to others without any personal accountability. So while unregistered posts are allowed, many of us are prone to be dismissive of them. In this case I think it's unjustified, as you haven't been abusing the ability to post the way some others have in the past (especially immediately after 9/11). But be aware that using an unregistered account does tend to undermine the perceived worth of posts, justly or otherwise.
Also, realize that anyone can impersonate you if they feel like it, and if you're posting about controversial subjects, eventually some jackass will try to impersonate you. Moderators can look at IP numbers if they wish to figure out who's the "real" you, but it's usually not worth the trouble. People who wish to prevent others from impersonating them can simply register an account; it's not difficult.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Al: From now on I'll just stick to the less controversial threads where it's possible to focus on the rhetoric without stepping on anybody's toes...!

Ugum... Like "Jews in Germany" or "France In Trouble"
By the way, this thread just reached 7th page... Are we going to celebrate or what?
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
It's not the name that matters, but what's behind the name. And I stand firmly behind my IP address when I proclaim this truth.

Bull. The name has nothing to do with it. Anybody can post under the name <Al Labout> and nobody knows for sure whether it is the same person who has made other posts. Why take the time and effort to have a discussion when you can't even be certain you are talking to the person you think you are talking to. This topic is nothing new and has been discussed before.
JavaRanch court martialed, eh? How about "Thanks Paul for all the work you've put in to help make JavaRanch the kind of place I like to hang out at." MD is a place where even the moderators are allowed to have opinions. If you can't handle that...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The name has nothing to do with it. Anybody can post under the name <Al Labout> and nobody knows for sure whether it is the same person who has made other posts.

Agree with this.
I am sure no one has registered with name "Al Labout", go and grab it

[Jim Yingst]

To further clarify, when Paul S. talked about deleting unregistered posts, he was stating what he, personally, thinks the policy should be - not what it actually is. Paul's not currently a moderator of this forum, so he can't delete anything here anyway. When in the past he was moderator of MD (during some particularly stressful times), I know he tolerated quite a few things that he personally would have liked to delete, but did not because he respected ranch policies, even while disagreeing with them. And in retrospect we should have let Paul S shut down a lot of those discussions much sooner than we did, because in our desire for "no censorship" we let MD get pretty far from the "friendly place" that most of us like to see here. A lot of us like, ummm, spirited discussion here, and that's cool - but when the forum descends into nothing but people sniping at each other, that's too far.

[John Smith]

Jim: It's "martialled" BTW.
Well, the usage dependson the meaning that the writer is trying to convey. "JavaRanch Court marshalled" means serialized/deserialized in the RMI sense. In that context, Paul Stevens would be an object exportable down the above mentioned path. Now, the "JavaRanch Court martialled" expression would have a legitimate use, too, but entirely different meaning altogether.
Jim: Are you saying JavaRanch should be like the military?
Quite the opposite, -- a democracy that tolerates the difference of opinions no matter how a person's name may sound like, even if it sounds "anonymous".

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Paul Stevens: I personally feel that any post like this using an anonymous handle should be deleted by the forum moderators or sherrifs.
I personally feel that moderators like you should be JavaRanch Court marshalled. It's not the name that matters, but what's behind the name. And I stand firmly behind my IP address when I proclaim this truth.

I don't give a . If they are going to post the US is evil which is just their opinion with an anonymous name. I will voice my opinion if I want. If you or anyone else doesn't like it tough.
Opinions are like assholes everyone has them and most of them stink.
If "Al About" wants to point out "Evil" doings, then do so. To make a blanket statement like that is . And I don't give a flying what anyone else says about me stating my opinion of them posting crap like that anonymously.
It is that same bs over and over. If others can voice their "opinions", then why shouldn't I be able to.

[John Smith]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Well, you stated your opinion, I stated mine (aren't we both entitled?). I couldn't get much insight from your post 'cause of lot of blinking red, but you certainly have the right to think whatever you were trying to express above. On a more positive note, I do wish that my tax rate was lower.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[b]
So, no, I never said the anti-Bushies were not anti-American. And in fact, any of those people who IS anti-Bush WITHOUT being anti-American is seriously deranged.
Joe

Absolute rubbish. I very much disagree with some of Bush's policies, but most definatly not anti-American. I think that America is, by and large, a decent place, and that I would get on well with most Americans I may meet. As for your comment that most Americans agree with Bush, I find this hard to believe. Wasn't his election very close? That implies that at least a large percentage of the country didnt want him in power.
I think there are a few other factors that may affect this (I guess your) viewpoint:
* It seems as if Americans almost 'worship' their presedent - to disagree with what the presedent says seems almost treacherous to them. It is almost taken that although you can disagree with a presedential candidate, as soon as they are in power, they become an almost heroic figure of all-american goodness (at least until they start doing dodgy things with their secretaries ) for a few years. Maybe this is why some Americans cant see the difference between being anti-Bush and anti-American.
* The media in America is very different from the European media. American new programmes seem to glorify in war and victory - they seem like film adverts rather then factual reporting. As a part of this, they like the story of a heroic leader leading America to victory. Again this seems to imply that if you are agains the leader, you are somehow unpatriotic. The media in Europe probably goes a bit too much the other way, and is always slightly against the government. This is probably why Europeans feel more comfortable questioning those they put in charge.
* Nobody likes the idea that some people out there disagree with them. Particularly if they are used to getting their own way.
One last thing, Joe - lighten up a bit. Its only a chat forum - we dont want the first Ranch-related hernia or something

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Absolute rubbish. I very much disagree with some of Bush's policies, but most definatly not anti-American.

These aren't simply Bush policies, they are American policies. If you read opinion polls, you will find that his policies reflect public opinion. I suspect claiming to only be anti-Bush is Euro-PC-speak for being anti-American in many cases anyway. Bush is simply a focus for anti-American expression. You are trashing not only the freely-elected leader of a Western democracy, you are trashing the American people who voted for him then, as well as those who support him now (that's the majority of this country btw).
JK: As for your comment that most Americans agree with Bush, I find this hard to believe.
Believe it. All you have to do is look at the polls.
JK: Wasn't his election very close? That implies that at least a large percentage of the country didnt want him in power.
A couple of things have happened since the 2000 election. Things changed on 9/11/01 for us. Bush is a war time President, and the American people in the majority strongly support the war efforts. The man continues to be popular. Anyone basing their measure of the will of the American people on the results of the 2000 election doesn't understand how things work here (and anybody who throws out the often heard "illegaly elected" crap is simply an idiot with no grasp of the US electoral system).
JK: I think there are a few other factors that may affect this (I guess your) viewpoint: ...
This is part of the problem, and directly relates to why this is anti-Americanism, not simply a dislike of one man. Too many of you (not JK in particular, but the general plural form of you) people over there feel you are superior to us intellectually and morally. The constant never-ending stream of condescension tends to get noticed after awhile. Enough of you guys think that we are all sheep who have no clue what is going on. You think we are brainwashed by our media. Many of you think we have been fooled into supporting these policies, because after all, how can any right-minded person support this stuff. "Look at us, Harrod's was bombed once and we didn't blow-up Ireland, you should pay attention to us because we know what we're talking about."
The man is doing what we are paying him to do. His policies reflect the will of the American people (yes, that means the ICC and Kyoto as well). We are not clueless sheep blindly following the shepherd. We likely have access to more varied news media than many folks in Europe, so the claims about our media are baseless (I have the opportunity to watch, read, and listen to that BBC crap that passes as news, for example).
I suspect that isn't we who can't see the difference between being anti-Bush and anti-American, rather it is quite the opposite.
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Al: "...right now America is the most active country on Earth. As such, it is both the most evil and the most benevolent country in the world. It does more good for other humans than any other country; but it also does more evil.
Paul: If they are going to post the US is evil which is just their opinion with an anonymous name.
This reminds me a story I read somewhere on the Internet. A woman was talking about zebras with her black friend. "I said that zebras are white with black strips, and he said zebras are black with white strips."

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: You are trashing not only the freely-elected leader of a Western democracy, you are trashing the American people who voted for him then, as well as those who support him now (that's the majority of this country btw).
Ok. So if you would decide to criticize V.Putin for his way of solving Chechen problem, it means you are anti-Russian? And that you are trashing the Russian people who voted for him? In other words, there is no way to criticize a democratically elected leader of any country without being "anti-this-country", without "trashing" and possibly offending people who voted for him/her?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Ok. So if you would decide to criticize V.Putin for his way of solving Chechen problem, it means you are anti-Russian? And that you are trashing the Russian people who voted for him? In other words, there is no way to criticize a democratically elected leader of any country without being "anti-this-country", without "trashing" and possibly offending people who voted for him/her?

There are degrees. The Bush bashing and rampant anti-Americanism goes far beyond simple disagreement with one or two of his policies, and is far more vitriolic than what's acceptable. I'd like to think we can all recognize the difference.

[Mapraputa Is]

Well, you responded to JK, not to "the Bush bashing and rampant anti-Americanism", so I was confused. I guess, "you" in your response was to be read as you clarified later: "(not JK in particular, but the general plural form of you)" and this "general plural form of you" was used to address "the Bush bashing and rampant anti-Americanism". Ok, I think we all can agree that calling Bush "murderer" or "Hitler" was plain stupid.

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Al may be talking about things like this:
KIFL, Iraq, Nov. 20 � The first bombs began falling unexpectedly on this village at 3:30 one morning in March. Ali Kazim Hamza was shepherding his family into what he hoped would be a safe room when one bomb landed outside his front door.
The blast crumbled the front of the house and hurled him across the entryway. He cradled his son, Muhammad, in his beefy arms. Shrapnel or perhaps flying shards of brick had sliced through the boy's forehead, killing him. He was 2.
<...>
"We are breathing freedom," Mr. Hamza said.
For him, though, more than for most, it came at a cost � a son's short life. "Yes," he said, "it was too expensive a price."
[link]

Now, nobody specifically targeted 2-year old boy, if it helps...

As usually, Map (just like a girl :-)decides to use emotional stories to backup her case... not cold hard facts and logic... I thought we were beyond this. If not, maybe people should start posting stories of how bad the previous Iraqi administartion (or their Fadaeen was). Something like this:
For 15 years I was tortured by the Fadaeen. They killed my mother and father -- slit their throats in front of me. My 2-year son, Assalam, cried. He was then shot in the back of the head with a shot gun... Blood splattered everywhere. They then raped my wife. She was let go, but committed suicide a short time later. After beeing freed by the Americans I still have a difficult time walking. I need clutches. My back was broken several times. Sometimes late at night, when I sleep I still hear screams of my fellow inmates - so many of them...
It's okay now since I can visit my relatives. Though, they don't recognize me. I have changed. I am now an old man. I am wrinkled and shake uncontrollable at times. Even though my life was forever changed, I am glad I am free. I am breathing freedom. Yes, maybe noboby "specifically targeted 2-year old boy", however, maybe someone did. All I know is where I am today which is a lot better than were I was. "if it helps"

-eleison
DISCLAIMER:
above story is fictitious. However, I doubt you would have a hard time finding a similar "true" story...... "if it helps" ;-)
[edited really long link to fix screen sizing - Jim]
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Mapraputa Is]

As usually
Mmm? How often do I post such stories?
Map (just like a girl :-)
Thank you for reinforcing sexist stereotypes. Your efforts are much appreciated.
decides to use emotional stories to backup her case
My case? Cannot you read? I said "Al may be talking about things like this" -- I tried to bring up examples of what Al might consider evil - just to make a discussion more focused. If we advanced in this direction, i.e. clarified what each side means by "evil", it could even happen that there would be no need to become offended for anybody.
"My case" - you do not even know what my case is.
"to use emotional stories" ... not cold hard facts and logic...
How does one contradict to another? Isn't this story as cold hard fact as it can be (as much as you can trust Western Press anyway) It is "emotional" -- but we were talking about "evil", right? And by the way, what was so particularly emotional? :roll:
Hell we just got Joe not talking to Al, then we got Paul using obscene words, yet it is me who is an enemy of "cold hard facts and logic"!
And only because I am a girl?

[Alan Labout]

Why would personal narratives be any less relevant than the "cold hard" statistics that the government uses to justify its wars? Personally, I'd be curious to read the account of the Chinese journalists who died when the U.S. bombed their embassy during the Serbia campaign. Something like that would at the very least attest to the fact that despite their best intentions (and I'm sure we all understand the inextricable link between bombs and good intentions) American pilots tend to be less than completely accurate with their targeting. Of course you could argue that such personal accounts are not "cold hard facts", but subjective and therefore unreliable; however, the same could be argued about any "fact." At least with a personal account I can go to the graveyard to visit the evidence. The same cannot be said for statistics.
Eleison: As usually, Map (just like a girl :-)decides to use emotional stories to backup her case... not cold hard facts and logic...
Hey Eleison, why don't you challenge Map to a one-on-one debate using only "cold hard facts and logic"? You know, mano a womano? I'd be curious to see how you do...

[John Dunn]

I was just thinking - (believe it or not) - that it might be useful to have a mechanism for the previous poster to delete or collapse their follow-up post. >>>> (stick with it for a second) Imagine a good healthy debate when you are out with you good-time buddies. It never gets too personal, or too nasty, but is usually quite lively, right? Doesn't it help that if some segways with a dumb joke or unnecessary put-down or just strays off course than the conversation shifts away and gets picked up again by someone else?? Some of these JR conversations drift off on really needless and useless tangents or they just become laden with blog-rage.
=======================
After being away for some while I must ask, why do some of you come to this site? What do some of look to accomplish, gain, get back? I'm sorry but I just can't read some of your intentions.
hmmm... it might be nice to remind folks of their own intentions, etc. when they are acting a bit out of character.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
This is part of the problem, and directly relates to why this is anti-Americanism, not simply a dislike of one man. Too many of you (not JK in particular, but the general plural form of you) people over there feel you are superior to us intellectually and morally. The constant never-ending stream of condescension tends to get noticed after awhile. Enough of you guys think that we are all sheep who have no clue what is going on. You think we are brainwashed by our media. Many of you think we have been fooled into supporting these policies, because after all, how can any right-minded person support this stuff. "Look at us, Harrod's was bombed once and we didn't blow-up Ireland, you should pay attention to us because we know what we're talking about."
The man is doing what we are paying him to do. His policies reflect the will of the American people (yes, that means the ICC and Kyoto as well). We are not clueless sheep blindly following the shepherd. We likely have access to more varied news media than many folks in Europe, so the claims about our media are baseless (I have the opportunity to watch, read, and listen to that BBC crap that passes as news, for example).
By your definition anyone who votes against Bush next election is anti-American.
I guess I only ever feel intellectually and morally superior after reading one of your insightful mini-rants, you rampant anti-European you! This one from the first page is my favourite so far:
Most of you all are just sheep waiting for the slaughter, blissfully ignoring any threat to your own way of life until it comes crashing down on you in your back yard. As long as they feel they're not directly affected, the rest of the world can play their morallistic games, living in their fantasy lands of blind idealism, living off their rampant anti-Americanism, without actually having to take a stand and do anything meaningful. As always, we'll do most of the heavy lifting.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
By your definition anyone who votes against Bush next election is anti-American.

Not sure how you came up with that one.
RH: I guess I only ever feel intellectually and morally superior after reading one of your insightful mini-rants, you rampant anti-European you! This one from the first page is my favourite so far:
The personal attack... The last defense of a person with no argument to offer. Come to think of it, have you presented any arguments?
As for my mini-rant, taken in context the best you can accuse me of is anti-Worldism (is there such a thing?), particularly as the person I was replying to was not European. I think maybe you're reading too much into things. Why do you think that is?

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
particularly as the person I was replying to was not European. I think maybe you're reading too much into things. Why do you think that is?

Er, I think Joe King is European,possibly English. AW I seem to have seen a European view in his posts.
regards

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Not sure how you came up with that one. - Because you said:
These aren't simply Bush policies, they are American policies. If you read opinion polls, you will find that his policies reflect public opinion. I suspect claiming to only be anti-Bush is Euro-PC-speak for being anti-American in many cases anyway. Bush is simply a focus for anti-American expression. You are trashing not only the freely-elected leader of a Western democracy, you are trashing the American people who voted for him then, as well as those who support him now (that's the majority of this country btw).
- That just sounds like more "with us or against us" talk to me.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
The personal attack... The last defense of a person with no argument to offer. Come to think of it, have you presented any arguments?
As for my mini-rant, taken in context the best you can accuse me of is anti-Worldism (is there such a thing?), particularly as the person I was replying to was not European. I think maybe you're reading too much into things. Why do you think that is?
Attack? Just a retort from one of "you people over there", incapable of discerning the difference between "not supporting a particular US President" and being "anti-US everything".

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Er, I think Joe King is European,possibly English. AW I seem to have seen a European view in his posts.
Actually the earlier mini-rant was in reply to Gustavo Torreti and I think he's from South America.
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Attack? Just a retort from one of "you people over there", incapable of discerning the difference between "not supporting a particular US President" and being "anti-US everything".

Yeah, whatever. Why don't you try demonstrating some of that intellectual and moral superiority by arguing against what it is that I said that you disagree with. Or are we pretty much limited to snappy little one-liners?

[John Dunn]

Yeah, whatever. Why don't you try demonstrating some of that intellectual and moral superiority by arguing against what it is that I said that you disagree with. Or are we pretty much limited to snappy little one-liners? hate to point this out... but I did just that in another link, (where you called me: Anti-Catholic), and we never heard back from you. I ~think~ this guy might have been busting on you for that.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
Yeah, whatever. Why don't you try demonstrating some of that intellectual and moral superiority by arguing against what it is that I said that you disagree with. Or are we pretty much limited to snappy little one-liners? hate to point this out... but I did just that in another link, (where you called me: Anti-Catholic), and we never heard back from you. I ~think~ this guy might have been busting on you for that.

I thought I had responded. I must have been distracted by the other guy who said "I'm anti-Catholic", so my apologies if you felt ignored.

[Don Kiddick]

I guess I only ever feel intellectually and morally superior after reading one of your insightful mini-rants, you rampant anti-European you! This one from the first page is my favourite so far:
Most of you all are just sheep waiting for the slaughter, blissfully ignoring any threat to your own way of life until it comes crashing down on you in your back yard. As long as they feel they're not directly affected, the rest of the world can play their morallistic games, living in their fantasy lands of blind idealism, living off their rampant anti-Americanism, without actually having to take a stand and do anything meaningful. As always, we'll do most of the heavy lifting.

I think Richard was just trying to highlight some perceived hypocracy in what you were saying...does not seem to be a personal attack to me either. Honest question, do you not see any hypocracy in that quote ?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
Honest question, do you not see any hypocracy in that quote ?

I'm a little slow. I'd prefer you spell it out for me.

[Axel Janssen]

again: Today Americans have forgotten what Pilgrim Fathers did know.
When they arrived on the american coast, they looked for positive relations with the people allready living there (american indians).
Now looking for common solution with the inhabitants of occupied is seen as whimpsy, sheepish and self-destructive.
Why do todays americans think, they don't need no allies inside occupied land? Why they think being so much stronger than the guys who have laid the foundation of their country?
I tell you: Those weapons are the only reason.
But as long there is so much opposition in ME against you, those weapons won't help to end the war. Russians took same lesson in Afganistan.
Jason, my problem with your postings is, that you seem to just not see any difference between escapistic-Michael-Moore-crowd and the many europeans who want to see serious attempts for solving all those ME problems. O por la raz�n o por la fuerza. NO ME IMPORTA. (with negotiations or with war, I don't care) It just should be effective.
A lot of the post-09-11 attacks were directed against european tourists and last week an european city was attacked, governed by a party, which understands itself as strongly based to muslim traditions. And turkish president Erbakan for all I see is much better president than Bush and Schr�der together.
Current US policy leaves a lot to desire regarding efectiveness. Should be less rethoric and more cooperative.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
]Jason, my problem with your postings is, that you seem to just not see any difference between escapistic-Michael-Moore-crowd and the many europeans who want to see serious attempts for solving all those ME problems.

No, I certainly recognize that there is a difference. It should be said though that the former certainly tends to drown out the latter. It's just not often that we seem to hear from the latter.

O por la raz�n o por la fuerza. NO ME IMPORTA. (with negotiations or with war, I don't care) It just should be effective.
I certainly wouldn't disagree with this. Resolve and serious efforts are required to make either course effective.
A lot of the post-09-11 attacks were directed against european tourists and last week an european city was attacked, governed by a party, which understands itself as strongly based to muslim traditions.
And you know what some of the reactions were? "Why Turkey?" and "They weren't cooperating with the Americans anyway." And in the UK many people were saying basically "that's what we get for siding with the US". You heard the same thing when the Italian Carabineiri (sp?) were targetted in Iraq. So when you hear these reactions you can draw some conclusions. Basically, those kind of reactions indicate that people seriously believed in a strategy of appeasement, and believed that if they did nothing to anger the terrorists, the terrorists would leave them alone. It's hard to describe the utter disdain that many have for the appeasement strategy and those who would advocate it, particularly in light of what history has shown us the cost of appeasement in the face of a great threat is.
Current US policy leaves a lot to desire regarding efectiveness.
I think this is hard to measure if there are no options that people honestly believe would produce more effective results.
Should be less rethoric and more cooperative.
Well, the US certainly is cooperating with a great number of willing partners. We've tried to cooperate with others as well, but we have gotten burned trying to go down that road as you may well remember.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Yeah, whatever. Why don't you try demonstrating some of that intellectual and moral superiority by arguing against what it is that I said that you disagree with. Or are we pretty much limited to snappy little one-liners?
I don't actually feel morally or intellectually superior and little one-liners suit my smartarse personality. As for what I'm disagreeing against, well emotional outbursts are generally ignored or responded to with another outburst. With your occasional eye rolling and insinuations that we Europeans must love terrorism, and are too clueless and naive to do anything worthwhile about it, I don't understand why you seem so upset at my anti-European jibe. We've certainly heard alot of "anti-US" accusations.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Europeans must love terrorism, and are too clueless and naive to do anything worthwhile about it

I believe I made a specific comment about support coming from Europe for Arafat and Palestinian terrorism. I also believe I characterized the apparent attitudes of some people (no specifics mentioned) as believing terrorism wasn't their problem, and wouldn't be if they played the appeasement game. Is any of this in dispute?
I don't understand why you seem so upset at my anti-European jibe. We've certainly heard alot of "anti-US" accusations.
Well you quoted some comment I made in reply to a guy from South America and pointed to it as evidence of my anti_Europeanism. In any event, who here have I directly accused of being anti-US?
I might suggest your arguments might be more effective if you spent your time addressing the issues raised instead of the participants.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I believe I made a specific comment about support coming from Europe for Arafat and Palestinian terrorism. I also believe I characterized the apparent attitudes of some people (no specifics mentioned) as believing terrorism wasn't their problem, and wouldn't be if they played the appeasement game. - Well that sounds much better now that you've re-worded it. How hard was that? If you'd just put it like that in the first place. Why all the talk of sheep and slaughter, moralistic games, fantasy worlds, blind idealism and rampant anti-Americanism?
who here have I directly accused of being anti-US? - You've implied that those who oppose the current administration's policies, defy the will of the American people and are therefore anti-American. So that includes me and some others on MD even though we try to point out its nothing personal. You've implied that only Americans can rightfully challenge the policies of the US because they're the stakeholders, besides the fact that the US is so powerful we're actually all stakeholders.
I might suggest your arguments might be more effective if you spent your time addressing the issues raised instead of the participants.
- Err thanks, I'll make a note of that pearl of wisdom. However if it looks like anti-Europeanism, sounds like anti-Europeanism etc, then, using your definition, why not call it anti-Europeanism? If you oppose the will of Europe (or the rest of the world) that's fine, but just call it what it is! You don't have to be ashamed of it! Embrace it!

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

JM : I believe I made a specific comment about support coming from Europe f
for Arafat and Palestinian terrorism.
Henry Kissinger and the events at Camp David which started the ball rolling at the time AFAIK about resolving the ME issue. I can't determine who the US President was at the time. I think it was President Carter - admired around the globe, a more responsible JFK. After Camp David , most started seeing Arafat as not just a mindless terrorist but as someone who could resolve the ME issue. Quite a few years of peace in the ME followed.

What Henry Kissinger says on Iraq

JM : I also believe I characterized the apparent attitudes of some people (no specifics mentioned) as believing terrorism wasn't their problem, and wouldn't be if they played the appeasement game. Is any of this in dispute?
Let's read more on Henry Kissinger :
The Henry Kissinger Doctrine - An Analysis
By contrast, Dr. K's version of an international order was made clear when he spoke about the Rodney King riots at a global conference on May 21, 1992 in Evian, France.

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
Clearly, the Al-Qaeda terrorists fit right into Dr. K's plan for global order. As an unknown evil that will frighten us into giving up our rights, attacks on America do not meet his requirements for suffering "grievous and unacceptable consequences". Thus, while Kissinger supports going to war with Iraq, it is not clear that he agrees with our efforts in bringing justice to terrorists."

Henry Kissinger's next stage for Iraq policy :
HK on US Iraq policy
regards
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[HS Thomas]

from the above link HK on US Iraq policy :

As for the countries that have urged an alternative approach to building Iraqi institutions, is their position based on a judgment as to the most effective means to restore stability to Iraq? Or do they urge a rapid transfer of sovereignty primarily in order to undermine a putative American monopoly position in Iraq so that they can begin competing for influence there in the shortest possible time? Are we dealing with differing approaches to stability or the assertion of classical balance-of-power politics in the guise of multilateralism? An answer to these questions will determine the prospects of a multilateral outcome. It is complicated by the unsettled conditions in Iraq. Were America clearly dominant, other countries would join to achieve influence. Were America in serious difficulty, other countries might participate to prevent the consequences described earlier. In-between conditions put a premium on fence-sitting.

Er, what kind of premium might Henry Kissinger be talking about?

Too much is at stake to let matters drift. Iraqi policy must navigate between two extremes. A solitary American effort, while it may become a last resort, would run up against the psychological and political pressures of a hostile international environment and the encouragement this provides to Iraqi guerrilla movements. On the other hand, an abstract multilateralism will multiply vetoes and frustrations, and it will tempt nationalist policies in Iraq justified by multilateral slogans. Iraq thus becomes a major test of the possibility of an enlightened world order and, above all, of the possibility of restoring the Atlantic relationship. The United States should be prepared to share defined responsibilities with its allies and with the international community because the international legitimacy of the emerging Iraqi government depends in part on its international acceptance. America's allies and putative partners such as Russia must choose between using these discussions to play balance-of-power politics or to make a serious commitment to a common concept of the political future of Iraq.

Are we wrong then in thinking that the issue at stake is to restore democracy to Iraq to let them determine their political future ? The above suggests a much broader agenda. For instance, why consider what stance Russia takes on this issue ? Historically, they had nothing to do with Iraq.
Unless it is as a lesson on how to counter terrorist attacks.
regards
[ November 30, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]