• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Tim Cooke
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Paul Clapham
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Henry Wong
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Al Hobbs
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Mikalai Zaikin
  • Himai Minh

Countdown Starts

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 117
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Looks like the countdown is startign afa Iraq is concerned.. The war looked inevitable for the last few weeks .. and its given now that the war is starting in about 2-3 days, based on all the news reports.
:roll:
Read this interesting article on Newsweek ... interesting...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0dm=C21JN
:roll:
 
vi kam
Ranch Hand
Posts: 117
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
On a different note .. I noticed i've been rolling my eyes aweful lot now a days ...
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 634
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
gives ya a headache, don't it??
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I don't get this:
But in its campaign against Iraq, America is virtually alone.
Was President Bush by himself in the Azores this weekend? I would say that France, Germany, and Russia are virtually alone in their opposition to the war.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I would say that France, Germany, and Russia are virtually alone in their opposition to the war.


From a government perspective I agree. From a non-US public opinion stance of course this is not the case. Thank god decisions like this aren't made based on world public opinion.
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I would say that France, Germany, and Russia are virtually alone in their opposition to the war.


Really? Is this why Bush decided not to seek another U.N. vote?
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
"One diplomat questioned why the British and Americans were making this proposal if they believed they already had the authority to use force.
"Why are they so desperate for the council to endorse something they don't want to endorse?" the diplomat asked."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/12/sprj.irq.main/index.html
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Really? Is this why Bush decided not to seek another U.N. vote?


I think Chirac saying he will veto a new resolution "in all circumstances" pretty much made it pointless, don't you?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I think Chirac saying he will veto a new resolution "in all circumstances" pretty much made it pointless, don't you?


It is just an excuse, at this moment USA did never win a majority. The only country following USA are UK, SPain and Bulgaria. Not one more country. So, indeed USA is virtually alone, while France, China and Russia have the support of many countries and the support of the public opinion.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I wonder if the French and Germans donated money for this memorial:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/885991.asp?0cb=-31d133692
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
It is just an excuse, at this moment USA did never win a majority. The only country following USA are UK, SPain and Bulgaria. Not one more country. So, indeed USA is virtually alone, while France, China and Russia have the support of many countries and the support of the public opinion.


And you of course know this because there was a vote where everyone raised their hand? Anything regarding who would have or wouldn't have voted one way or the other is speculation at best.
What I believe happened is that it was clear from a legal standpoint that it would be best to not vote on a resolution which would have been vetoed. In other words, we have a better leg to stand on legally if we commit to force under present UN resolutions, than we may have had if we put up another resolution which was then vetoed.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I don't know about the Security Council but there are certainly other countries around the world that support the US.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Good luck to Dave Vick and other ranchers who are more personally involved in this mess.
 
vi kam
Ranch Hand
Posts: 117
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

I don't know about the Security Council but there are certainly other countries around the world that support the US


And here they are .... http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa122997.htm
Just kidding .. Could'nt resist myself
had a 5 hr meeting today morning ..to discuss a change request that i could have completed in 2hrs max had to let go off all that some where
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What I believe happened is that it was clear from a legal standpoint that it would be best to not vote on a resolution which would have been vetoed. In other words, we have a better leg to stand on legally if we commit to force under present UN resolutions, than we may have had if we put up another resolution which was then vetoed.
That the resolution will be vetoed was known long ago, yet Bush was trying to "persuade" other countries to vote for it. He wanted 9 votes out of 15, then he could claim "veto" rule outdated and say that the Security Council, in fact, (in some "better" reality) approved his resolution.
"Even if the measure is vetoed, the Bush administration would consider nine votes a moral victory, sources said."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/12/sprj.irq.main/index.html
All this is well-known.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
All this is well-known.


Yes, but in recent days issues of legality have been more in focus, particularly since France made it clear this weekend that they would not allow any resolution to pass under any circumstances.
It's been mentioned in several news articles, but here's one from Reuter's that highlights this:

If there were no vote on the new resolution, the legal situation might be governed by Resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, which threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq did not disarm. But if the resolution is defeated, an attack against Iraq would be in violation of international law.

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I don't get this:
Was President Bush by himself in the Azores this weekend? I would say that France, Germany, and Russia are virtually alone in their opposition to the war.


I count at least three of them ... not virtually that is. The dutch government is still a bit of a coward here, but odds are that they don't want to participate in this redneck induced aggressiveness either.
My respect to Russia, China, France and Germany for not being intimidated by this ridiculous short sightness those americans exhibit nowadays.
(Jason Menard, censori[sz]e this again ...)
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
One of the possible tragedies involved in facing such an inhuman regime:
US troops might end up fighting Iraqi child soldiers
There's also this, but I think it was expected by most anyway:
Iraq Arming Troops With Chemical Weapons
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Mapraputa,
I hope you enjoy this article.
I urge everyone to read this article, but it is posted here especially for the likes of Mapraputa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html
AmericanEagle
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:
I urge everyone to read this article, but it is posted here especially for the likes of Mapraputa.


That's not really fair, or particularly nice for that matter. We all have our own views and Map has presented hers as civilly and intelligently as anyone else, more so in many cases. It's kind of pointless to debate when everyone has the same opinion.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Jason:
As a conservative libertarian, I believe in pure freedom of speech, including the views of anyone who cares to contribute to a dialogue. Map has continuously made a point that there is no proof of atrocities going on inside Iraq, and that references to them are American contrivances to cover the true US economic intentions of any Iraq invasion. Surely I am free to counter that view.
I posted the last article specifically for Map to read, in order to balance that view. I offered it to Map and the like, or anyone with similar views, because the article contains candid quotes from Iraqis that have suffered directly under the rule of Saddam Hussein. I also made a note urging all readers to take a look at the article simply for background purposes, since I'm not balancing anyone's view that already believes the information in that article.
I'm absolutely perplexed as to why you think offering an article countering Maps view directly to Map is somehow not fair. I can go through these threads and copy-paste dozens of times I've seen you do exactly the same thing. and there is nothing wrong with you having done that. Very strange.
I will continue to utilize my First Amendment rights, regardless of what you think is fair and especially after you do the same repeatedly, while I also support the First Amendment rights of those with a counter-view.
Or
What is that saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." Well, I apologize to your humble greatness for having done as you have, and surely will do my best to only do as you say from now on. Hogwash!!!
Now, the nonsense spewed out by the user known as <finally>, goes beyond good discourse and therefore deserves a warning, not cencorship, but a warning, and perhaps even an article or dialogue from you, me, or someone else that counters that view. Or would you not consider that to be fair?
Very strange!
AmericanEagle
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 252
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I found an interesting article
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/saddam_goodguy_030310.html
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
< AmericanEagle > you have no freedom of speech here. What ever right to speech you have is what ever is granted to you by the owner of this site. Try actually reading the Constitution. It says that Congress will pass no law restricting your speech but it says nothing about Jason restricting your speech. The owner of this site and his chosen representatives reserve to themselves the right to shut you up whenever we feel we should. Don't like it? Start your own website.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:
Map has continuously made a point that there is no proof of atrocities going on inside Iraq, and that references to them are American contrivances to cover the true US economic intentions of any Iraq invasion.


I do not remember that I ever said anything about "atrocities going on inside Iraq" at all. I quoted sources (90% of them from respectable US press institutions like CNN or New York Times) that questioned some of "finding" regarding Iraq's WMD. WMD only, not atrocities.
Here is one example:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.
"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.
Close said the CIA should have known better.
"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."
A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "
If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to incompetence not malice.
"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."
President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.
U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.
Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
If you do not like it, blame your own press.
references to them are American contrivances to cover the true US economic intentions of any Iraq invasion.
If we are talking seriously, I think that many different "agents" contributed to the final decision to use force against Iraq. All these "agents" (I do not have a more precise term) have their own goals. Oil companies, military, CIA etc. It's hard for me to believe that "to liberate Iraq" is the only or even the main goal -- although it's very good and convenient explanation for American public. I do not think you belive in it yourself
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I can't think of a single time that Map has questioned the atrocities in Iraq.
I've been thinking about the situation and I have come to the conclusion that taking out Sadaam is the right thing to do. Forget about WMDs. Forget about terrorists. It's time to get rid of Sadaam because he is a mass murderer. We stood by in Rwanda. We did nothing about Cambodia. We are the world's only superpower and it is time that we started showing the world what that means. We did the right thing in Bosnia. We tried to do the right thing in Somalia. And now we are going to do the right thing in Iraq. When it is over and Sadaam is gone, I will be damn proud of my country for doing the right thing. No matter what you think of the reasons that we are doing it, no matter what the "secret" hidden agendas may be, getting rid of that bastard is the right thing to do.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

And you of course know this because there was a vote where everyone raised their hand? Anything regarding who would have or wouldn't have voted one way or the other is speculation at best.


Well the speculation was so evident, that USA and Co decided to retire their proposition. As Map says, USA wanted this polls (even if it was vetoed) to gain support, to show the world that the USA are not alone. It was just doing the opposite, while USA was promising billions of dollars to some countries, they never win a majority. France was going to veto, Russia was going to veto, China would not have voted for. At this moment only 4 country made it clear that they would have voted for. As for the legal point, many experts in international law said that Resolution 1441 does not allow force, does not allow to retire Saddam from his siege and was not intended to (check the only circumstances where force is allowed to be used). USA, at this moment never prooved that Iraq have MWD. But they did show some fakes proof (Mr Baradei said they were fakes). All this shows the determination of USA to attack Iraq whatever circumstances, but it does not show any "legitimacy" (sorry I don't have my english dictionnary here).
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I don't care if it is legitimate or not. How many people does Sadaam have to kill before we get rid of him? Do we need him to drop poison gas on the Kurds or Iranians and everyone to rub their hands and call more emergency meetings to discuss how terrible things are? Aren't 2,000,000 dead Arabs enough already?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

< AmericanEagle > you have no freedom of speech here. What ever right to speech you have is what ever is granted to you by the owner of this site. Try actually reading the Constitution. It says that Congress will pass no law restricting your speech but it says nothing about Jason restricting your speech. The owner of this site and his chosen representatives reserve to themselves the right to shut you up whenever we feel we should. Don't like it? Start your own website.
--------------------
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University


Try taking that logic to its logical end, and you would see any would-be dictators herein defeated legally, socially, criminally, and possibly militarily, depending on which logical end you take. I am on US soil, and your servers are on US soil; i have first amendment rights here and you do not legally have any rights to take that away from me. You are right about the owners of this site and its servers; they could shut down the site and servers to silence any and all of us, but then we'd continue to exercise our rights without the existence of the site. By the way, the First amendment is not in the Constitution, that's why it's an amendment to it.
AmericanEagle
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I don't care if it is legitimate or not


That's the point. In our morning TV this was the dominant topic.
European perspective is more legalistic.
USA has a more anarchistic view regarding international law.
If the Security Council don't legitimize the war, the americans just do it.
Europeans fear that this will damage international institutions. We fall back to a time where the strongest just does what he likes.

And stronger nations were never short of finding a just case for a war. America has not a big problem with that, because militarily they are by far the strongest.
On the other hand international law has an enforcement problem. Saddam did not comply to UN resolutions in the past 12 years. He hindered inspectors doing there work. I could not do that with my national police.
... or that if Gaddafi chairs human rights commitee the things are yet damaged.
[ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I do find it strange still that Jason decided that I was mean and unfair to Map, when in fact I was not, even before Map decided if I was. This reminds me of the French deciding the wording of our second reloution was acceptable or not even before Iraq made their own decidion. Stop trying to be dictators in here, and celebrate what the military members of this forumn have faught for, your freedom to express your own ideas.
AmericanEagle
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator


Originally posted by Mapraputa Is
I do not remember that I ever said anything about "atrocities going on inside Iraq" at all. I quoted sources (90% of them from respectable US press institutions like CNN or New York Times) that questioned some of "finding" regarding Iraq's WMD. WMD only, not atrocities.

[
I stand corrected Map. I'll attempt to restate my reasoning for posting an article for your reading. You're right that you did not specifically mention atrocities at all, in fact. This was my poor attempt at shorthand while arguing a different point all together with someone else. What I meant to counter-balance by posting a particular article for you was simply, and this is my opinion now, a general belief that America is the wrong party in the Iraq situation, and that anything put forward by the American media and/or government should be viewed with skepticism. The article was simply to point out that there truly are terrible things going on in Iraq, while someone has to take on the burden of stopping Iraq's behavior now, and I say that without any economic agenda.
AmericanEagle
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:
Try taking that logic to its logical end, and you would see any would-be dictators herein defeated legally, socially, criminally, and possibly militarily, depending on which logical end you take. I am on US soil, and your servers are on US soil; i have first amendment rights here and you do not legally have any rights to take that away from me.


I have no clue what you are trying to say. Let me put it this way... your ability to speak here is at the whim of Jason. He can shut you down whenever he feels like it and there is nothing you can do to prevent that. You have no rights here. The first ammendement only prevents the government from interfering with your speech. Your employer can still fire you because he doesn't like what you say. This site can ban you because we don't like what you say. And there is nothing you can do, no legal recourse you can take to prevent it.
 
Bartender
Posts: 1843
Eclipse IDE Ruby Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:

Try taking that logic to its logical end, and you would see any would-be dictators herein defeated legally, socially, criminally, and possibly militarily, depending on which logical end you take. I am on US soil, and your servers are on US soil; i have first amendment rights here and you do not legally have any rights to take that away from me. You are right about the owners of this site and its servers; they could shut down the site and servers to silence any and all of us, but then we'd continue to exercise our rights without the existence of the site. By the way, the First amendment is not in the Constitution, that's why it's an amendment to it.
AmericanEagle



Actually, in as far as I can tell, the First Admendment rights to free speech only extend to the government/public institutions (although the "public institutions" has never been legally defined, as far as I know; it's just a natural extension of the "government"). Private institutions are fully capable of limiting speech and other rights as defined by the Constitution. Witness such groups as the Boy Scouts and the Agusta Golf Club. Like it or not, the Boy Scouts have time and time again been able to uphold their ban on gay members because they are a private institution (although this is admittedly a blurry distinction if they receive govenrment funds). Likewise, there is nothing criminal about limiting membership in Agusta to males only (although there may be repercussions sociologically and politically). In short, the rights granted by the Bill of Rights may be curtailed by groups in which there is a voluntary membership. If you don't like the curtailment of these rights, you go and find another group that doesn't curtail these rights. This is why I do not live in an area where there is a Home-Owners Association; For me, the benefits of living there do not outweight the limitations that would have to be placed on me. And also remember that the right the free speech and the right to be listened to are completely different things.
I will agree that Thomas's reply was a bit brusque, but that his point is accurate. Since this site is moderated, the moderators do have the right to remove any posts that they feel are inappropriate for whatever reason. Thankfully this is a fairly open group, and the comments-that-will-be-removed are limited in scope.
For what it's worth, I did not feel as though you were specifically attacking Map (which is something that would get the moderators mad). Your posts to this point have seemed mostly well-reasoned and level-headed (whether or not I agree with you is another topic). Whether or not you agree with my analysis of the curtailment of rights is probably fit for a seperate discussion thread.
BTW, my understanding is that the amendments are part of the U.S. Constitution; they are not a seperate document. Reading the Constitution entails reading the amendments.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <AmericanEagle>:
Jason:
As a conservative libertarian, I believe in pure freedom of speech, including the views of anyone who cares to contribute to a dialogue. Map has continuously made a point that there is no proof of atrocities going on inside Iraq, and that references to them are American contrivances to cover the true US economic intentions of any Iraq invasion. Surely I am free to counter that view.


That's fine. I never said anything about censoring you. Actually I somewhat enjoy some of your posts, even though I might not agree with all of it. All I objected to as unfair was your phrase "the likes of Mapraputa", and that's as a long time participant in this forum, not as a moderator. The Mapraputa is a complex personality and I don't think you are in any position to state what "the likes of Mapraputa" is. I've been trying to figure that out myself since 2000 with little luck. However if you guys are long time drinking buddies or childhood best friends, I stand corrected.
Also as a long time particpant (not a moderator), I would point out that there is a long standing history in this forum of somewhat increased hostility towards people who make overly aggressive statements while using an anonymous login. There are many old threads dealing with this subject which you could search for if you are interested. Just my $0.02.
As for my moderation style, I prefer to stay hands off. However I am also an active participant in this forum, and if you choose to misconstrue something I say as me flexing my muscles as a moderator, I guess there's not much I can do about that. If you were to hang around the forum for awhile and get the feel for the community and their interactions with each other before making mischaracterizations, you may have not misread my intentions. If I am acting in my capacity as a moderator, you will know it because I will be sure to use my "big boy" voice. :roll:
[ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
That's the point. In our morning TV this was the dominant topic.
European perspective is more legalistic.
USA has a more anarchistic view regarding international law.

I'm picturing members of the European Parliament debating what the appropriate response is while people are being murdered in Bosnia. After all, the legalisms are so much more important than a few dead people. Bah! The time for debating is over. It is time to put an end to this.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Not exactly following the lines of public opinion in other countries:
Poll: Support for Bush, War Grows
  • Seven in 10 said they supported Bush's televised call to go to war without the blessing of the United Nations unless Saddam Hussein and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours.
  • Three in four disapprove of the way the United Nations has handled the Iraqi crisis
  • Seven in 10 rejected giving amnesty to Hussein or his sons for crimes they may have committed if they accept exile outside Iraq
  • 71 percent -- agrees with Bush that war is the only way to disarm Iraq
  • roughly six in 10 Democrats said they support an attack on Iraq
  • nine in 10 back the U.S.-led invasion
  • A majority of women now back the invasion of Iraq. Two thirds of those surveyed said they support a war with Iraq
  • Eight in 10 men supported a war
  • Six in 10 believe that the threat of terrorism will increase in the short term


  • That last one is particularly interesting, as political leaders in some of our allied countries think that an increased threat of terrorism is a good excuse to hide under the blankets. Pitiful really.
     
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Posts: 13974
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    By the way, the Australians have joined the list of countries supporting the US invasion of Iraq. Their 2,000 troops in the area will be available if needed to participate in the attack.
     
    Axel Janssen
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 2166
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    Tom.
    Me personally have problems with that legalistic standpoints, too.
    I agree that no-action results in a cruelty, which is less visible.
    ... and there is very little debate about the fundamental weakness of international law and institutions.
     
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 2823
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

    That's the point. In our morning TV this was the dominant topic.
    European perspective is more legalistic.
    USA has a more anarchistic view regarding international law.
    If the Security Council don't legitimize the war, the americans just do it.
    Europeans fear that this will damage international institutions. We fall back to a time where the strongest just does what he likes.

    And stronger nations were never short of finding a just case for a war. America has not a big problem with that, because militarily they are by far the strongest.
    On the other hand international law has an enforcement problem. Saddam did not comply to UN resolutions in the past 12 years. He hindered inspectors doing there work. I could not do that with my national police.
    ... or that if Gaddafi chairs human rights commitee the things are yet damaged.
    [ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]


    The Europeans do not seem to be concerned with Sadaam's violations of international law. Use of Chem weapons. Human rights violations. Violating all current UN resolutions pertaing to Iraq.
     
    vi kam
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 117
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    What can you say about people like this :roll:
    http://headlines.sify.com/1717news4.html?headline=Fired~by~religion,~11~Indians~prepare~to~die~in~Iraq
    From this piece of news ::
    "We are fully aware of the consequences. We are even carrying the funeral shrouds with us " says Suhail Rokadia
    (He adds ) My wife says "Dont come back alive" ..
    I could imagine why she would say that .. err may be because you are such a bone head !!
    Fired by religious considerations he added "Iraq is very sacred to us, It ahs many saints " .. yeah right like The Saint Hussain
    Bone heads .. and apparently there are 135 of others like this guy gathering in Iraq from all over the world ..
    Unbelievable
     
    With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime.
    reply
      Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
    • New Topic