is the War on Terror a War on Islam?

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
On the subject of broad international support of US invasion, here is a good article:

You and your third party quotes. This time you quote the Assistant Secretary of State of the previous administration. Do you really think this man doesn't have an anti-Bush agenda, or do you just like quoting incredibly biased individuals?
In any event, you can quote as many Monday morning diplomats as you want, the fact is that we had UN resolutions in place. The fact that France and Germany decided to back out of supporting those resolutions - in effect, reneging on their promise - is what caused the breakdown of international support. And for once, the United States said to that ever more ineffectual body: "Guess what? Just because you have no backbone won't deter us from doing what YOU promised to do."
But of course notice that those countries that wanted nothing to do with the war IMMEDIATELY wanted to jump in to get the money from the reconstruction. That pretty much shows where they stand on the whole thing - it's all about the money.
Anyway, the facts are clear: the UN supported the invasion right up until it was actually time to invade. At that point, France and Germany realized we were serious, and backed out like dogs. And so the US, stuck between a murderous tyrant and backstabbing "allies", went ahead with its coalition of true friends, the UK, Australia and my beloved Poland. The results are that Saddam is deposed, and that's the best thing that has happened to Iraq in decades.
If we had to ignore the UN and the bad faith of supposed allies to do it, then I guess that's what we had to do. It doesn't make me feel like we did antyhing wrong, it just makes me feel that the UN has become a puppet to the money changers. Roosevelt would probably weep to see what his grand United Nations - originally a league of 26 nations committed to fighting against tyrants like Hussein - has become.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

You and your third party quotes.
Me and my third party quotes. A lot of people post quotes in this forum, Joe. I would say that everybody is free to post quotes in this forum. I do not remember you ever objecting other people quotes. What makes me so special, Joe?
This time you quote the Assistant Secretary of State of the previous administration. Do you really think this man doesn't have an anti-Bush agenda,
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I do not think everybody who worked for one president necessarily hate another. The article has a good analysis, that's why I liked it and wanted to share with other. If you think I tried to persuade you, no, I would prefer to argue with these guys
or do you just like quoting incredibly biased individuals?
Joe, spare me your insinuations, please. I am serious.
[ October 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Joe Pluta]

If you're serious, then you may misunderstand American politics. In general, a member of a Democratic administration would rather be boiled in oil than ever say anything positive about a Republican administration, and vice versa. If they were to do so, they would more than likely lose any credibility within their own party. That's just the way the two-party system works.
So, to quote a Democratic source saying bad things about Bush is roughly equivalent to quoting Sinead O'Connor saying bad things about the Pope. Pretty much expected, and unlikely to provide any real information. That's why third-party quotes are so volatile - unless you understand the concept, the context and the agenda of the writer, they're very tricky to use.
My problem with your quotes, Map, is that you seem to leap upon any quote that agrees with you, regardless of the source, and present it as validation of your position. Unfortunately, the things you quote are more often than not just somebody else's unsubstantiated opinions, and as in this case, opinions that are pretty suspect.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe, I said:
Well, we just invaded and occupied a country on what turned to be false intelligence data -- in spite of broad international protests.
This was posted in response to Jason's comment "Heavens forbid we offend anybody", to highlight that we are pretty capable of doing what we want to do. What exactly are you objecting to? Did you forget anti-war demonstrations in many European countries? Surely, there were countries that supported US case for war, and there were countries that did not. This question was already beaten to pulp, but Ok, here is something from my old posts:
In CZECH REPUBLIC public support to the war felt from 50-50 in August, 2002 down to 12% without the backing of the UN Security Council and 22% with UN support.
Ref: http://www.radio.cz/en/article/38587
According to Reuters: "A TNS-OBOP survey showed 63 percent of POLES opposed sending troops to join any action against Iraq but 52 percent thought the country should give political backing to the United States for any such action." Polish public opinion is still very pro-American in its general views but it might change in America would be seen as a country imposing its laws on others. Pope John Paul II is a moral authority for Poles and he expressed strong opinion against the war. Poles are waiting to hear about smoking gun, if the weapons of mass destruction will be found Polish public opinion will forgive pres. Bush's attack to Iraq.
According to Reuters: "A Gallup poll In HUNGARY published on January 27 showed 82 percent of Hungarians opposed military action under any circumstances. The remaining 18 percent said they would support a war but of those, two thirds said that support would be conditional on U.N. approval."
Ref: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30567527 (this link is not active anymore)
http://www.bellaonline.com/ArticlesP/art9173.asp
As war loomed with Saddam's rejection of a Bush ultimatum giving him until tomorrow night (1200 AEDT Thursday) to leave Iraq or face attack, at least two dozen countries were standing firm behind the United States with offers of moral or military support despite strident public opposition.
"I'm sure Saddam is a bad guy, but you don't need an army to swat a fly," said Peter Illes, 49, a parking ticket inspector in Hungary, where three in four people say they are against an American-led war and their government's pledge to help.
Italy has continuously expressed its solidarity, though it has no plans to send troops and surveys suggest 75 per cent of Italians oppose a war.
Spain's unshaken pro-US stance has proved deeply unpopular. All opposition parties oppose a war, and recent polls show more than 80 per cent of Spaniards do, too.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6151852%255E1702,00.html
"It's a tidy notion, but as an American who's lived east of the former Iron Curtain for more than six years, I can attest that it's quite false. Despite the pro-U.S. statements their leaders have signed, polls show the general public in these countries oppose the war by a wide margin.
Conservative pundits are largely responsible for the myth-mongering, which posits a new continental divide closely approximating the former Iron Curtain. Europe is divided between "old" and "new," they say, between those who view Europe as a counterweight to American military adventurism and those who recognize American power as the guardian of democracy and freedom. John C. Hulsman of the Heritage Foundation wrote, "The dirty little secret in alliance politics is that the farther east one goes in Europe, the more pro-American you find both the political elites and public opinion. ... The Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians know that it is American military, economic, and political might that safeguards the world, not debating societies like the United Nations."
Really? How is it, then, that 82 percent of Hungarians oppose war under any circumstances? This shows a greater level of opposition than in Germany or France, where polls show 70 to 80 percent against war. Neoconservatives hailing the emergence of democracy in the region might do well to pay attention to what the people in these countries, rather than political elites, have to say about the matter of Iraq.
In Prague, outgoing president Vaclav Havel signed the statement of solidarity with the United States, but Czech polls showed 76 percent of respondents oppose a war without a second U.N. resolution�€”and 67 percent oppose it even with one. (The Czech government has distanced itself from Havel; Prime Minister Vladmir Spidla was asked to sign the statement and refused. The prime minister and his Cabinet, not the president, hold most political power in the Czech Recoderanch.) In one of the few media stories to focus on popular opposition to the war in "new Europe," the Associated Press reported that Slovakian support for an Iraq attack without U.N. approval is almost nonexistent.
The average Pole is perhaps the closest the United States has to a model post-Communist ally, with 52 percent saying the country should give political backing to the United States in the event of an invasion of Iraq, according to a January poll. Yet despite a stronger military tradition than most of its neighbors, 63 percent of Poles oppose sending troops to join the action�€”hardly a ringing endorsement. The Poles' is perhaps the shrewdest position of all: "Regime change? We're on board. Go ahead, you first." (A poll released Tuesday, moreover, indicated Polish opposition to war had risen to 75 percent.)
http://www.cdi.org/russia/245-10.cfm
If you have alternative statistics, please post it.

[Joe Pluta]

Just for fun, a few quotes from the good old Internet:
Various parties supporting the ousting of Hussein, including a poll showing overwhelming support from the Iraqis themselves:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4809
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/alanreynolds/ar20031016.shtml
http://www.vermontgop.org/icym_9_26.shtml
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/12/03122001101230.asp
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/feb02/20712.asp
And now a few people who find Rubin's ideas, character and even his reporting suspect:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16257
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/html/rubin.html
http://lincolnplawg.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_lincolnplawg_archive.html#106502336722155986

My point is not to determine whose quotes are better, but simply that third party quotes are as valid as the person who wrote them. Anonymous sources representing the Iraqi elite, dissenting members of the opposition party - these are not necessarily a balanced view.
Anyway, nor more argument for today. I just get a little cranky when I see quotes from you, Map - I KNOW they're going to be anti-administration, and also I know they're unlikely to have anything backing them up. I just wanted to show that I can find just as many quotes backing the ousting of Hussein, including the Iraqis themselves.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

As for "WMD may or may not be found, but that's not the primary reason we invaded the country" -- if my memory serves me right, it was pretty much the primary reason we invaded the country. Legal ground for this was the UN SC resolution 1441 which is about Iraq's disarmament, not about us tired or not "of a brutal regime".
If you claim that we invaded Iraq because we were tired of a brutal regime, then you need to provide some evidences of this (US administration representatives speeches in UN etc.) Are there any legal documents that justify a regime change on the ground of its brutality?

[Joe Pluta]

Do you think Hussein should still be in power, Map?
Joe

[Donald R. Cossitt]

As for "WMD may or may not be found, but that's not the primary reason we invaded the country" -- if my memory serves me right, it was pretty much the primary reason we invaded the country. Legal ground for this was the UN SC resolution 1441 which is about Iraq's disarmament, not about us tired or not "of a brutal regime".
If you claim that we invaded Iraq because we were tired of a brutal regime, then you need to provide some evidences of this (US administration representatives speeches in UN etc.) Are there any legal documents that justify a regime change on the ground of its brutality?

This seems to have an underlying tone saying that the US (or any other country) needs to have permission from the UN to do anything. Which is pure HOGWASH! It of course would be nice to have but if not - tuff stuff!
I would think anyone that has kept up with what has been happening over the past few decades, could only come to one conclusion: the regime was the motivation for the resolution to invade. There also could be no question the US was going to invade resolution or no.

[Mapraputa Is]

Various parties supporting the ousting of Hussein, including a poll showing overwhelming support from the Iraqis themselves:
Let me try to explain one more time. I said in this thread:
Well, we just invaded and occupied a country on what turned to be false intelligence data -- in spite of broad international protests.
-- you responed "your version of history is fine, as long as you don't care about things like, oh, accuracy". So I am trying to prove that my "version of history" is in fact, pretty much accurate. Now you are seemingly trying to object the point I never made - that there was no support (in the US and abroad) to adminisration's plans whatsoever. I asked you to post statistics on public opinion in different countries, and you posted this:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4809
"Who's Really Lying to the American Public About Iraq?" -- has nothing to do with International support/non-support of invasion.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/alanreynolds/ar20031016.shtml
-- an article by an American about "economical liberation" of Iraq:
"It seems fair for the United States to repair the damage caused by U.S. bombs. But too much help can be addictive and unhelpful. Like welfare, foreign aid can discourage productive effort and encouraging chronic dependency."
Great, again what it has to do with international support/not support for an invasion?
http://www.vermontgop.org/icym_9_26.shtml
"Baghdad Residents Say Ousting Hussein Worthwhile,
Give Strong Ratings to Leadership in Iraq
In Baghdad, residents by more than 2-to-1 (62% to 30%) say ousting Hussein was worth any hardships. The margin was even higher, nearly 5-to-1 (78% to 16%), in the region of Sadr City (formerly Saddam City), which suffered some of harshest deprivations under Hussein."
-- Ok, this is on topic.
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/12/03122001101230.asp
"Mansoor Ijaz is a wealthy New York financier of Pakistani origin. Inspired by U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1993, Ijaz has made it his personal mission to build a dialogue with terrorists.
<...>
But something happened to him on 11 September. As he watched the World Trade Centers collapse from the balcony of his Manhattan penthouse, Ijaz realized that dialogue with some people is just not enough:
-- this is one guy's opinion.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/feb02/20712.asp
-- again, an American opinion (whatever it is) plus it only proves my point: "It is true that a U.S. invasion of Iraq undertaken with the intent of removing Hussein would not enjoy the international support that Operation Desert Storm and the campaign in Afghanistan did"

[Jason Menard]

Maybe I misunderstood you Map, but regarding all those European public opinion polls you posted, what ever gave you the idea that Americans were even remotely concerned in European opinion polls? And for that matter, why on earth should we be?
[ October 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Legal ground for this was the UN SC resolution 1441 which is about Iraq's disarmament, not about us tired or not "of a brutal regime".

Yes, and even if WMD's are never found, we had complete authorization under 1441. I suggest you read this resolution if you are trying to suggest otherwise.

[Joe Pluta]

Map my post was only after yours because of timing. I posted my list just minutes after yours, and I was busily posting it while yours showed up. So my list of Internet issues was NOT in response to your demand that I match your Gallup polls. I am never going to try to match poll for poll, especially since MY poll says the Iraqi people think the people in YOUR polls are idiots . In any case, because polling depends highly on the people you poll.
Instead, I stand by the fact that over two dozen countries stood firmly behind us (from your very same article), and while vocal segments of both UK and the Australian people voiced their disapproval, their governments were willing to do the right thing.
How many live human beings have you asked face to face about this Map? In my own informal polls, every person I ask is glad we got rid of Hussein. They would have all liked us to be able to do it peacefully, and they all agree Bush got some pretty bad info on the WMD issue. But they don't care. All they care about is that the bum is gone.
And the Iraqi people seem to agree! So what does that go to show? That perhaps the wonderful, peace-loving peoples of Europe are completely out of touch with the rest of the world? That they don't care about the plight of the oppressed as long as they get their oil? I don't know, you decide.
I'm just glad we didn't listen.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
this is one guy's opinion.

I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I read this.
You constantly post unsubstantiated, anonymous opinions, and yet when I post something, you say, "This is only one guy's opinion."
Further words escape me...
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Maybe I misunderstood you Map, but regarding all those European public opinion polls you posted, what ever gave you the idea that Americans were even remotely concerned in European opinion polls? And for that matter, why on earth should we be?
What gave me this idea - you did. Again, I was responding to your "Heavens forbid we offend anybody" and tried to prove that we are not too shy to offend lots of people. You apparently agree, so nothing to argue over here...
Yes, and even if WMD's are never found, we had complete authorization under 1441.
This is a debatable question, some legal experts disagree. But this isn't my point, so I am not going to object.
I suggest you read this resolution if you are trying to suggest otherwise.
I am trying to suggest that the resolution was about Iraqi's WMD, not about "a brutal regime that was killing its own people". And if Saddam complied, he would still be in power his brutality notwithstanding!
Are you agree or disagree with this?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Well, we just invaded and occupied a country on what turned to be false intelligence data -- in spite of broad international protests.

Actually, "intelligence data that we cannot verify post-war after allowing Iraq monhts (years?) to prepare before we finally enforced UN resolutions that the UN and some of their Hussein-supporting member nations refused to" would be far more accurate. And as far as those "broad international protests", the only ones to get anything out of those were the people making the protests, and Saddam Hussein.
The fact Map, is that Iraq was in violation of the terms set out by the UN, including UNSC resolutions 1441 and others. The fact Map, is that Iraq possessed certain WMD's verified by UN inspectors, that disappeared and were unaccounted for on subsequent visits (after they were forced out). The fact is, that even our enemies in France and other countries who sought to preserve the dictator knew these weapons existed. The fact is Map, that some backstabbing European nations, supposed allies whose security we ensured throughout the Cold War era, decided it was more in their interests to actively support the murderous dictator (one of the worst our planet has known) and actively sabotage US efforts at building the UN consensus which some of our allies would have preferred.
But this is far and away off topic at this point, so I don't see any reason to contniue going into it. Iraq is related to war on terrorists, but it isn't the mani thrust. Iraq supported terrorist organizations and carried out some terrorism, but this was only a side-issue. The bonus is though, that with all the terrorists flocking to Iraq across the Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian borders, we don't have to seek them out in order to kill them, as they are coming to us. Killing a terrorist on Iraqi or Afghani soil is preferable to having to kill a terrorist on US soil, imho.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
What gave me this idea - you did. Again, I was responding to your "Heavens forbid we offend anybody" and tried to prove that we are not too shy to offend lots of people. You apparently agree, so nothing to argue over here...

I was making a general statement aboutnot wanting to offend through lack of pc, and although I didn't state it, I wasn't thinking outside these borders.

[Mapraputa Is]

I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I read this.
Miscommunication again. I agree that one guy's opinion is nothing but one guy's opinion, so to make some progress, I decided to use poll statistics. As you explained, I misunderstood your intention regarding yur links. But I am glad you laughed!
You constantly post unsubstantiated, anonymous opinions, and yet when I post something, you say, "This is only one guy's opinion."
Anonymous? But anyway, I thought we decided to move from "This is "only one guy's opinion" to more substantiated sources, that's why I objected. And in any case, my point was "broad international protest", not that there was no single person on the Earth who supported the war!
Further words escape me...

[ October 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Jason Menard]

Doh! I forgot to reply to the rest.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am trying to suggest that the resolution was about Iraqi's WMD, not about "a brutal regime that was killing its own people". And if Saddam complied, he would still be in power his brutality notwithstanding!
Are you agree or disagree with this?

Do I agree that he would have remained in power in the event he complied with all UN resolutions? As past history has shown that the UN lacks the will to depose mass-murderors, I would reply "yes, if the UN had anything to say about it." We made the point moot.

[Jim Yingst]

[Map]: Again, I was responding to your "Heavens forbid we offend anybody" and tried to prove that we are not too shy to offend lots of people.
Ah, bitten by nuances of the language here. "Heavens forbid" is a non-obvious but fairly standard construct indicating heavy sarcasm in whatever follows. Roughly, "heavens forbid [X]" means "some people seem to believe that [X] is forbidden by God or something, but I disagree". Or, "[X] is OK, despite what some others may think."

[Mapraputa Is]

"Heavens forbid" is a non-obvious but fairly standard construct indicating heavy sarcasm in whatever follows.
I think I read it as such! I thought Jason meant that there is no need to be particularly afraid to offend anybody. And my point was that we are not, so he should not worry.

[Tarun Sukhani]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"Heavens forbid" is a non-obvious but fairly standard construct indicating heavy sarcasm in whatever follows.
I think I read it as such! I thought Jason meant that there is no need to be particularly afraid to offend anybody. And my point was that we are not, so he should not worry.

Map, why do you insist on protracting an argument with an individual (Joe Pluta) who seems incapable of altering his opinion on the topic? I would suggest that this is an immense waste of time on your part.
A memorable lesson I learned from the teachings of Gandhi in his own dealings with the British is that there is no point arguing with individuals with entrenched ideologies. It is far better to ally oneself with those who share your opinion, and to effect change through such means. Do you think Gandhi would have accomplished what he did had he spent an inordinate amount of time arguing with the British?

[Jim Yingst]

[Map]: I think I read it as such!
OK. When you said "prove" I figured you thought you were demonstrating something which contradicted Jason's statement - then later saw that your statements were actually congruent. Ummm, I guess this is too confusing trying to reconstruct my previous understanding of Map's previous understanding of Jason's previous understanding of Map's motivations for saying something. It seems that the current understandings are more in sync than the former understandings were, so further backtracking is probably counterproductive. Nevermind then...
[ October 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Tarun: Map, why do you insist on protracting an argument with an individual (Joe Pluta) who seems incapable of altering his opinion on the topic? I would suggest that this is an immense waste of time on your part.
I agree with you. I got tired of Joe picking on me, so I wanted to show that his accusations are badly grounded -- and concentrated on this particular case, just to have an example. I did not hope Joe himself would admit it, and he did not, that's fine. You are right, no need to waste more time on this.
Jim: Ummm, never mind this is too confusing trying to reconstruct my previous understanding of Map's previous understanding of Jason's previous understanding of Map's motivations for saying something. It seems that the current understandings are more in sync than the former understandings were, so further backtracking is probably counterproductive.

Jason: what ever gave you the idea that Americans were even remotely concerned in European opinion polls? And for that matter, why on earth should we be?
Do you mean that European opinions will not change our decisions, or that we aren't even interested in what they are? It's easier to me to accept the former reading (with some reservation) but the latter sounds horribly arrogant.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Ref your sig Map... pretty weak.
Ooooh, handbagged from the side!

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Tarun Sukhani:
Map, why do you insist on protracting an argument with an individual (Joe Pluta) who seems incapable of altering his opinion on the topic?

And why should I alter my opinion? My particular position happens to be the majority position among the general population here in the United States.
If you don't believe me, I suggest you go to any tavern in any working class town in America and raise your voice and say, "That Bush is a jerk for not listening to the UN! He had no right invading Iraq until there was a consensus among European nations!".
Let us know the results.
Of course, Tarun, your logic is impeccable - only discuss things with people who agree with you. Lots of growth potential there...
Joe

[John Smith]

If you don't believe me, I suggest you go to any tavern in any working class town in America and raise your voice and say, "That Bush is a jerk for not listening to the UN!
Hmm, this is not a very scientific experiment, -- it assumes that wisdom and/or "average" Americans are concentrated in taverns of working class towns of America.
[ October 26, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Joe Pluta]

I would suggest that the average tavern is more representative of America than the participants in MD, especially the ones who go on and on about how the big bad US was so terribly uncivil to that pleasant Hussein chap.
And I used a tavern as simply a typical location. As always, Eugene, you disregard the underlying truth for an opportunity to nitpick the minutiae.
Insert, if you will, any of the following: gas station, VFW hall, roadside diner, shopping mall, McDonald's, bowling alley, dentist office, newsstand, library, truck stop, village hall, AA meeting, police station, softball diamond, fire department, barber shop, grocery store, butcher shop, resale store, steel mill, auto body shop, railroad station, pawn shop, liquor store, lumber yard, home improvement store, ballpark, hotdog stand. The results would be the same.
I was just suggesting tavern because the reaction would be a bit more visceral .
Joe

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Insert, if you will, any of the following: gas station, VFW hall, roadside diner, shopping mall, McDonald's, bowling alley, dentist office, newsstand, library, ....
Or even better, Geckos Terrace, Itaewon, Seoul, Saturday, 10.30pm after Army payday! (whilst wearing your best Uncle-Sam-in-a-dress t-shirt)
Alternatively, how about a coffee morning at Michael Moore's house? (Susan Sarandon's bringing the cookies)

[Joe Pluta]

Janeane Garofalo and Woody Harrelson are bringing a cake, with little burning American flags as candles!
Joe

[John Smith]

As always, Eugene, you disregard the underlying truth for an opportunity to nitpick the minutiae.
As always, Joe, you are trying to prove yourself in MD.

[Joe Pluta]

Hee hee! I don't even know what that means, Eugene! I don't do anything here that you or anybody else doesn't do, so I guess we're all trying to prove ourselves!
I'm picturing a little pixie flying in with a wand... POOF! YOU ARE A THEOREM! PROVE YOURSELF!
Joe

[Tarun Sukhani]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

And why should I alter my opinion? My particular position happens to be the majority position among the general population here in the United States.

So was slavery at one time, what's your point? Just because it's a widely held opinion doesn't make it a sustainable policy. This is a bandwagon fallacy.

Of course, Tarun, your logic is impeccable - only discuss things with people who agree with you. Lots of growth potential there...
Joe

Lots of growth potential there..umm..yeah, you see, that's how solidarity movements are forged (btw, your puerile sarcasm is unjustified). If you actually paid attention to my other paragraph (you know, the one about GANDHI), you would have realized the underlying truth he figured out when he got his ass kicked out of a South African train - there is no point arguing with those who disagree with you. Better to form solidarity movements and effect change, which is precisely what millions of people around the world have been doing.
I am neither espousing nor denouncing the policies of the United States because I am in no position to change them. That is why I suggested to Map that argument with entrenched individuals such as yourself (and as you so eloquently pointed out, the majority of the US population) is a fruitless endeavor. If you believe in something strongly, then pursue it in a forum in which you can effect change.
Anyway, I'm signing off, you can troll or flame or whatever you do best.
[ October 26, 2003: Message edited by: Tarun Sukhani ]

[Joe Pluta]

<LOL>!
I love it! MD as a SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT! Equating yourself with GANDHI? Oh my, Tarun, that's really quite special!
Actually, I get a kick out of the fact that Eugene, Map and Tarun are all mad at me... the most intransigent, unrelenting, argumentative folks here, used to getting their way and pummeling people with torrents of disputative dissertation, and because I actually don't just fold over, because I have the AUDACITY to disagree, I'm somehow the bad guy!
Map says I pick on her, Eugene says I'm trying to prove myself, Tarun says I'm a troll. Ravish, if you're willing to call me a nasty name, then I will have the entire Fab Four ticked off at once!
Some would consider that a career accomplishment, and it only took me a few months! Time to hang up the cleats while I'm at the top of my game, maybe get a coaching spot at a small cowtown in the panhandle. I'll do a couple Nike spots, maybe guest host SNL. I bet I make the hall on the first vote!
Joe

[Tarun Sukhani]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
<LOL>!
I love it! MD as a SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT! Equating yourself with GANDHI? Oh my, Tarun, that's really quite special!

Um, Joe, do you know how to read? :roll: I'm asking only because I've noticed you seem to have a penchant for hyperbole and misrepresentation. Let's start off with MD as a solidarity movement. When did I imply, infer, or even state such a thing? All I said was that if Map felt so strongly about an issue, she shouldn't waste her time talking to the likes of you (and now I can see why!) She should find like-minded individuals who share her passion. I also find it uncanny that her reasoning seemed to mirror Gandhi's own early on in his legal career, namely that the British could be reasoned with, that ultimately they could be compelled simply through oral argumentation. Of course, we all know how that ended.
Secondly, how does stating that I learned a memorable lesson from Gandhi connote equivalence with said figure? So, by your warped logic, Martin Luther King Jr. is equating himself with Gandhi because he followed his example, right?

Actually, I get a kick out of the fact that Eugene, Map and Tarun are all mad at me... the most intransigent, unrelenting, argumentative folks here, used to getting their way and pummeling people with torrents of disputative dissertation, and because I actually don't just fold over, because I have the AUDACITY to disagree, I'm somehow the bad guy!

Blah..blah..blah...more hyperbole to add to your already astonishingly prodigious list of specious rants.

Map says I pick on her, Eugene says I'm trying to prove myself, Tarun says I'm a troll. Ravish, if you're willing to call me a nasty name, then I will have the entire Fab Four ticked off at once!
Some would consider that a career accomplishment, and it only took me a few months! Time to hang up the cleats while I'm at the top of my game, maybe get a coaching spot at a small cowtown in the panhandle. I'll do a couple Nike spots, maybe guest host SNL. I bet I make the hall on the first vote!
Joe

BTW, while you're revelling in your own hubris, I suggest you spare a few seconds of your seemingly precious time (yes, that was a sarcastic remark, a la Joe Pluta) to actually ruminate on the remarks you've made above. Now, put down the thesaurus..good boy, and actually pay attention to the following words: I never called you a troll..I used troll as a verb, and flame as well. You see, trolling and flaming is what you seem to be exceptionally gifted at. Pursue this to its logical dead end. And, as always, have fun!

[Mapraputa Is]

because I actually don't just fold over, because I have the AUDACITY to disagree, I'm somehow the bad guy!
If we are talking seriously there are people in this forum who disagree with me, heck, actually we probably all disagree with each other here! It doesn't prevent me from respecting them and having a spirited debate now and then. You, Joe, instead of civilised discussion often resort to personal attacks and obnoxious remarks. You, for unknown reason, have very low opinion about your opponents. To say that Jim is just pissed that you don't find atheism intellectually satisfying, and so he is going to attack you for every other thing he can find -- that was something. If you were joking, it was a bad joke. That's why I have less and less desire to communicate with you.
I would return your advice "so go sit in the corner until you can act like a grownup" but you will not, will you?
But that's only my opinion!
Really, lighten up, dude!

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe, can you answer one question seriously?
Actually, somebody posted this question anonymously, and it was deleted by a moderator (cannot imagine who was so concerned with decorum of the forum after all <censored out> you posted here).
The question was: do you enjoy pissing off people?

[Joe Pluta]

Look folks, let's all just lighten up here a little bit. Tarun's all talkin' 'bout my hubris, and Map's got me sayin' shizzit, and the truth is that I ain't nothin' but a down-home American boy.
Seriously, I don't think I have any special skills, nor any elevated intellectual capabilities, nor any special insight into the Universe. And to be honest, no, I don't particularly like getting people angry, Map, and I have no particular problem with people taking potshots at me. In fact, I'm pretty good at making fun of myself. But if you take aim at my country, I will respond. Always. If that surprises you, then I feel badly for you, because pride in country is something I and lots of my fellow countrymen take for granted.
Please let me be clear on this: there's little chance you can cause me any grief by what you say about me as a person. I guarantee I've been called worse, and for better reasons. I'm no saint, not even particularly scholarly. I can occasionally string a few words together to make a decent sentence, and I can code RPG and Java like nobody's business. Short of that, I'm nobody special, just another guy.
But I AM a patriot, through and through. I love my country, I love what she stands for, I love what we have been able to do, and I have great hopes for what we can do in the future. Anybody disses my country, I will take up the gauntlet. I believe in Democracy, I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Office of the President of the United States of America. I believe we try to do what's right in a complicated, difficult world, and I believe more often than not we help.
MY OPINION: I think there are a group of people here on MD who consistently take shots at America. I think they are not interested in hearing anything except what they want to hear, and I think they tend to gang up on people who disagree with them. I took it upon myself to fight a couple of what I considered to be the more egregious bits of misperception, but in my heart I'm finally coming to realize it's a useless battle: nobody here is trying to learn, really - the opinions are cast in stone and nothing really gets accomplished except perhaps some heightened blood pressure.
Just to be sure, I went out of my way this last time to really take some of the arguments to task. The result was astonishing. I find it amusing that you've all gotten so ticked at me, when in the past you have all done some awfully vicious slams on other people. I can go through history to see some serious attacks pulled by one or more of you folks on some poor unsuspecting driveler. Heck, when I first came here, you and Eugene joked about how I couldn't handle the two of you, and Eugene went so far as to state that I shouldn't bare my soul, because it just gave him more ammunition to make me angry. Honest! He said that, I didn't make it up!
But in any event, it's obvious that I've become more of a pain than anything. Rather than actually interact with what I say, you guys look for opportunities to trip me up in some sort of untruth. Some of you seem to revel in finding what you consider to be inconsistencies in my logic. So now, instead of contributing to the discussions, I simply add to the noise. That being the case, I'll drop out of MD, except for the lighter fare. I'll leave changing the world to you folks, and I'll return to the less weighty issues of Java and servlets.
It was fun, really, to sharpen my pen here. You folks are no slouches when it comes to logic, and debate, and pure unfettered, no holds barred argument. I just think some of your world views are incompatible with those I hold, and of course I consider mine to be more accurate . And as Tarun says, so does the majority of the US population. The funny thing is, he says it like it's some sort of indictment. As if I don't cherish the decent, hardworking "average" American. As if for some reason I am not proud to be part of that wonderful contingent.
Make no mistake. You and me, person to person, no animosity. But take aim at my country, especially since 9/11, and you will likely get some serious static from me. I am fiercely, unabashedly proud to be an American, and I don't really give a damn what the Gallup polls say about sentiment in the rest of the world.
I'm sorry if I've REALLY offended anyone. This is an online forum, and a loosely moderated one at that. It's meant to allow people a little latitude in commenting, and you guys have taken advantage of it on a regular basis. But you seem to indicate that I've somehow crossed some line, wandered into some territory that other people don't go. Personally, I think that's hogwash, but hey, who am I to argue?
But if I did really hurt anyone's feelings, I apologize. And the BEST way I can apologize is through action. I'll stay out of the heavy topics from now no. Peace to all.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

I find it amusing that you've all gotten so ticked at me, when in the past you have all done some awfully vicious slams on other people.
Some examples wouldn't hurt, you know :roll: Preferably with links.
you and Eugene joked about how I couldn't handle the two of you,
Actually, it was my joke, Eugene did not participate so strike him out.
Here it is:
"Genya! We need to calm down this man. Apparently two cynics are too much for him."
This was said after your:
"Stay away from my family. Really, I mean that."
I meant that you got too emotional. Actually, I do not remember anybody in this forum going so emotional, that's why I said we need to calm you down, so we can talk.
and Eugene went so far as to state that I shouldn't bare my soul, because it just gave him more ammunition to make me angry. Honest! He said that, I didn't make it up!
Surely he did! Here is what he said:
"Thanks for your patience and the willingness to open up, Joe. I now know what you are. That will give me an unfair advantage in our future debates. "
-- I would never think you can read it in bad sense! Did you notice "unfair" word? Eugene wanted to play fair. In any case, did he ever said anything offensive to you later?
Ok, enough. :roll: Question to anybody: who else read Eugene's words as it just gave him more ammunition to make Joe angry?

[HS Thomas]

Question to anybody: who else read Eugene's words as it just gave him more ammunition to make Joe angry?

Eugene HAS been very quiet lately.
regards

[Mapraputa Is]

But I AM a patriot, through and through. I love my country, I love what she stands for, I love what we have been able to do, and I have great hopes for what we can do in the future. Anybody disses my country, I will take up the gauntlet. I believe in Democracy, I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Office of the President of the United States of America.
Great! I mean this sounds really great! Is this why you found it necessarily to execute childish personal attacks against whoever you perceive as "enemy of the state"? You missed the worst times in MD, Joe. I have great respect for people who stated their position calmly and without insulting other. Your responses make me wonder how much "patriotism" correlate with inability to listen, enamor with somebody's screwed perceptions and illusions that he/she has good reasons to attack their opponents. :roll:
MY OPINION: I think there are a group of people here on MD who consistently take shots at America. I think they are not interested in hearing anything except what they want to hear, and I think they tend to gang up on people who disagree with them.
Why don't you tell who are these people and who are the victims? We could discuss this, and hopefully understand each other better. This would be more constrictive way to resolve what you perceive as "problem", no?
but in my heart I'm finally coming to realize it's a useless battle: nobody here is trying to learn, really - the opinions are cast in stone and nothing really gets accomplished except perhaps some heightened blood pressure.
I am sorry you feel this way. My impression is diametrically opposite.
Rather than actually interact with what I say, you guys look for opportunities to trip me up in some sort of untruth. Some of you seem to revel in finding what you consider to be inconsistencies in my logic.
And what exactly is wrong with pointing out what we consider to be inconsistencies in your logic? So you complain that nobody wants to change his/her opinion here, yet when we point out inconsistencies in your logic, you... well... complain? We do it to each other too. It doesn't mean we do not listen to what you have to say, just taking side notes.
And as Tarun says, so does the majority of the US population. The funny thing is, he says it like it's some sort of indictment.
Joe, you really need to do something with your reading skills. He gave an example of how "majority" can be wrong. Does that mean that majority is *always* wrong?
I am fiercely, unabashedly proud to be an American, and I don't really give a damn what the Gallup polls say about sentiment in the rest of the world.
That's not a very healthy position, but that's only my opinion.
[ October 27, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]