On 27 Oct 2004, at 17:53, Delirium wrote: With the possible difference being that a complaint that others are biased against you just sounds so much more convincing if you're not engaged in an illegal war at the same time. -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com

On 27 Oct 2004, at 22:56, Stan Shebs wrote: Huh? What nationalism thing??? And why should I be careful about it?? Let me say I'm talking from experience (secondhand experience actually, I'm not an octogenarian). Read [[Oradour-sur-Glane]]. As I recently contributed the German POV it really struck me as I typed how it all sounded so awfully familiar in terms of some more recent events. Oradour-sur-Glane may been much more outrageous than than any single killing of civilians in Iraq, but, well, what can I say? It appears that 60 years on the ''excuses'' are still the same. True, and both any sneering and the defiant "hurt pride" protest vote for Bush are unconsidered, immature reactions. However, IMHO Ed's initial post clearly shows that there are Americans who already are so much in defiant denial mode that they will perceive even factual NPOV points argued against "their guy" as "sneering". I mean. Ed's outraged initial post sounded as if there was an evil Democratic conspiracy to loot and kill. Did "liberals" make up this story? No. (They merely recounted and editorialized.) Does it really matter whether the explosives technically went missing under Iraqi or American watch? They were known about and sealed and accounted for before the invasion and went missing at some stage during the invasion, which may or may not have been before U.S. troops had a chance to properly protect them. But really. There are over 10,000 civilian dead and what Ed chooses to scream murder about is how unjustly it was claimed (wrongly or correctly; it's still far from clear) that the U.S. military (and by extension the current administration) could be faulted for them going missing. This is a theoretical dispute about whether or not this rather futile "blame pinning" exercise was grounded in reality. Don't we have more pressing things to worry about? Especially as regards Iraq? Or let me put it like this: It appears that in recent times the GOP got insufficient intelligence which they overexploited to illegally invade a sovereign country. It appears that more recently the Dems got insufficient intelligence which they overexploited to try and make Bush look bad. Ed chose to scream murder about the Dems trying to make Bush look bad. Words fail. Oh, and Ed: As regards international attitudes towards the US: You cannot tell somebody to f*ck off and then complain of them dissing you. Remember the famous "You're either with us or against us"? Now Bush said that to America's allies and old friends as they moved to indicate that they would not join the Iraq endeavour. In diplomatic terms said phrase was absolutely lethal because as said allies were indicating that they would not join Bush was effectively saying that he thus considered them opponents. In other words: "You don't wanna join us? Well f*ck off then. U R teh enemeh." That did not go down well with the international public, foreign governments and international diplomats (including U.S. diplomats, many of which have since resigned for being "unable to do their job"). And again, most people of most other countries now preferring to shun and defile the U.S. may not be the righteous thing to do, but it's a quite understandable human reaction to being told to f*ck off. So don't complain. You've got no one to blame for that but your own administration and its "diplomacy". Oh, but we are! We Wikipedians are actually talking. Which is ''way'' better than doing a "Freedom Fries" routine or accusing all Americans of being daft, respectively. -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com

On 28 Oct 2004, at 00:52, Stan Shebs wrote: I fail to see how your charge applies to what I did and I feel you're quoting me out of context. I wrote my above single sentence in reply to this: This concerned how the US as a whole is perceived and I did not set that scope. I merely responded to Mark. That said -- and this is just a ''general'' point -- yes, one may be opposed to what other people in charge are doing but attempts to claim exemption only go that far. There comes a point where a sufficiently nasty stain will rub off on everybody and like it or not unless one is actively resisting the associated wrongs, one will likely have to shoulder the collective guilt as well. I'm German born and bred so trust me, I do know something about collective guilt. Yes? And that way is? /me is sitting on the edge of my seat with both ears cupped. Well, I'm trying to engage in a discussion every U.S. citizen I can. I'm trying to spread the word among non-Americans that there's still a "different America" struggling to get out and that not all Americans support those U.S. politicians who are now widely regarded as ne'er-do-wells (to use a mild expression). I'm trying to be visible towards that end and I had a T-shirt for a certain candidate freshly printed very recently and am wearing it over my other clothing. All that's probably not much, but if you've got better ideas what I could do then PLEASE do tell me at the earliest possible opportunity. Because I have a stake in the outcome too -- 3/11 (Madrid) has shown that; we're a lot more exposed over here, especially in terms of geography, and it's very evident here how al Qaeda just grows more powerful the longer Bush is in office. -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php? collection=independent_news&collectionid=Mosh

Charles Matthews wrote: Agreed completely. I'm not alone in having a very tight schedule, and wading through a general debate about foreign policy is not really what we're here for. Everyone who is tempted to write about such matters, on all sides, should really try not to do it here. Write each other privately if you must. --Jimbo

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Delirium wrote: But it was Ed's phrasing that made me speak up in the first place. As I explained to him privately, his principal point was that the article was unbalanced or POV, & that this imbalance offended him. Had he expressed himself with those words, I doubt anyone would lack sympathy for him. However, using the phrase "anti-U.S." merely rubs salt into a growing division here within this country. A large group of people here believe that as president in a time of war, he deserves unquestioning obedience, & any languge to the contrary is "anti-U.S." Another group, equally large, believes that Bush has acted with a mixure of arrogance & incompetence, which has hurt this country materially & in reputation. It has not helped that Bush or anyone around him has failed to demonstrate an awareness of this growing rift, & attempted to address it. I could speculate why this is, but that would take me away from my point that this is a very contentious subject within the U.S.; & should Bush manage to win re-election, I would not be surprised if a significant number of skilled & educated people leave the U.S. because of it. I suspect this is an expression of what is called elsewhere "tall-poppy syndrome": people angry at the U.S. simply for being the most powerful country, which will persist whether the U.S. acts with restraint & justice or not. (And it doesn't help that we have a leader who has failed to.) I feel that the best course is to be patient, explain how unjustified bashing of the U.S. can hurt me, an individual who just wants to contribute to Wikipedia, & keep in mind that abrasive personalities tend not to last at Wikipedia. But the simple fact that I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on Wikipedia, & I end up dropping most exchanges concerning the U.S. due to either lack of time or the decision to return to making edits & contributions to Wikipedia itself. There are far too many disagreements currently on the Internet that will never be decisively resolved with the exchange of an email or two, no matter how well thought out they may be. Geoff (spelled with a G & not a J)