User talk:DragonFly31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Nhprman - discussion on US-related issues, such as Patriot Act, Kyoto treaty, etc...

Most Americans are far from the stereotype many assign them -- particularly the educated and those who travel outside of their country, but this is true of any person no matter where you come from. I am not sure if the man with whom I speak fits in this category, since he is both educated and intelligent yet the ideas he holds are so ridiculous that he is an outrageous specimen of the human race. They are fundamentaly life-threatening, and stem from a kind of egoism that is necessary for human survival but certainly not for human existence; not only that, but they also jeopardize human life in the long term. None of what we speak about is rocket science, most of it is pure logical reasoning with sources to back it up. Nietzche once wrote: "a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position." I see this happening here, with another sheep in the flock, willing to follow the ideas of a dangerous ideal without giving thought to the reality around him and the possibilities of thought and perception. No man is to be more pitied than one who is condemned by his own reason.--DragonFly31 10:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


No one was "blindly" follows anyone in the United States, except a few die-hard partisans. There was no "Bush Youth" set up after 9/11 along the lines of the Hitler Youth, and we have never lived in fear of the secret police knocking on the door at 3 a.m. questioning our negative comments about Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld. Quite the contrary, many Republicans are the fiercest critics of Bush these days. So don't believe the Extreme Left's hype. As for the Congressman "sacked" after 9/11, I'm confused by that statement. We don't have a Party List here. Congressmen are elected individually in single-member districts for only 2-year terms, so Congressmen cannot be "sacked." Please give more details on that one. I have news for you on surveillance. A program to monitor every phone call and every email in the WORLD was started in the late 1990s by the U.S. Government (that was the Clinton years, by the way) and they share access to it with other Western nations. I believe they have a huge listening post in New Zealand, if I'm not mistaken. I'll do some digging if you're interested. As for the recent Terrorist Surveillance program, you're being fed misinformation by your media about it. It is used ONLY to monitor calls FROM known or suspected terrorist cells in certain nations INTO the U.S., and calls FROM the people they call in the U.S. TO other people in the U.S., for a certain period of time. These little details don't make the news when the extreme Bush-haters talk about the program. And a large number of Americans support monitoring terror cells' phone calls so we don't get hit with another surprise attack. Apparently, it stopped a number of attacks, one in Los Angeles, CA in 2002.
As for the USA PATRIOT Act, opponents cannot seem to find ONE CASE in which an American citizen not involved in terrorism has been arrested, detained or even questioned under that act. It extends to terrorist acts and suspected terrorist acts those laws already used against drug smugglers. I see no totalitarian designs here, but apparently you've been programmed to think otherwise. Nhprman 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Any act which allows a government "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity" is near a totalitarian approach (Provision 213 of the act). Under these searches, the person also doesnt have to be told he is under investigations; furthermore, the government has the right not to inform the individual under investigation if any belongings are taken from him under this provision.

What you say about the opponents not being able to find one case where the Act has been used "which an American citizen not involved in terrorism has been arrested, detained or even questioned under that act" is completely false. From the Wikipedia article:"It is not clear how many individuals or organizations have been charged or convicted under the Act. Throughout 2002 and 2003, the Department of Justice refused to release numbers.", and "Former Attorney General John Ashcroft in his 2004 statement [..] that there have been 368 individuals criminally charged in terrorism investigations, and later used the numbers 372 and 375. Of these he stated that 194 (later 195) resulted in convictions or guilty pleas." This means that a little less than half of the individuals arrested under the Act, no doubt most American in origin, were arrested, then released without any conviction. Please don't make statements that are outragously false.

One last point:"30,000 National Security Letters Issued Annually Demanding Information about Americans: [...] According to the Washington Post, universities and casinos have received these letters and been forced to comply with the demands to turn over private student and customer information. Anyone who receives an NSL is gagged - forever - from telling anyone that the FBI demanded records, even if their identity has already been made public."

That means the government has an incredible and virtually unlimited amount of access to information of their citizens. Did you also know that the Government collaborates with certain private companies in sharing these documents? That they are regularly used to help recognize potential US Army recruits?

The State needs, before ANYTHING else, to be very restricted in its rights and powers, and those need to be precisely defined. The more power a government has, the more control it exerces over a population; the less the population has "freedom". It is a natural law. Having lived in the US for three years during and after September 11, I can personally reflect on the dangerous control the government has over its population.

One last thing -- the CNN article you mention as a source (that cell phone monitoring stopped a CA attack) does NOT mention anywhere in it the use of monitoring cell phones to stop the terrorists--DragonFly31 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that government should be restricted, and that unlimited government can lead to tyranny. That said, there is still no evidence we have a government that is in any way as out of control as you believe it is. About your Patriot Act comments, you're still failing to make a point. "No doubt most [of those arrested were] American in origin" is not acceptable. Please use real numbers, and don't speculate on their origin. I do wonder, however, how many people were arrested, but not charged, in police stations around the U.S. in the same time periods you mention here. For that matter, I wonder about the rates of arrests without charge take place in the U.K., France or New Zealand by ordinary local police. Or, by their governments. I believe the U.K. has had far more powers to detain and question under their anti-terror Act (the name escapes me now) than under the USA Patriot Act.
I do wonder why the US is being singled out here. Why do the political Left turn a blind eye to far worse regimes (say, in Cuba) the really DO throw political dissidents in jail for Thoughtcrimes.
Anyway, my original point, that anarchy fails, stands and has not been shaken. I will grant that too much power in a state can lead to a represssion of liberty, but too much chaos in a state leads to anarchy, and eventually, to suppression. History has shown this over and over again. - Nhprman List 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe your government is out of control -- on the contrary, I emit the criticism that it is too powerful. When I said, "no doubt those arrested were American of origin", I was merely proving you were making a false statement when you said "...an American citizen not involved in terrorism has been arrested, detained or even questioned under that act". It was just such an outrageous statement. Britain's terrorist act was heavily critized when it came to debating it. There was considerable reluctance on the part of politicians to agree on the time a prisonner is allowed to be detained, under what circumstances, and there was disagreement all around. Originally, it was one of Blair's biggest defeat in his Parliament (I was in England when all this was happening). It was rewritten and then passed. As to the attrocities that are committed in 'communist' Cuba, North Korea, China, they are despicable. Any country that throws its dissidents in jail for 'wrong' thoughts, as it does happen in these countries and much worse, is discusting. No political party in its right mind would forget to critize what is happening there, whether it is socialist, right wing or center line. As a member of a democratic socialist party in France (the second largest party of this country), I can tell you your statement is unfounded -- no one turns a blind eye to these attrocities.--DragonFly31 09:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot for a while you are from France. That country has some of the toughest anti-terror laws in the world, perhaps the toughest outside of Israel. Time Magazine noted in a 2001 article that "Simply by citing "association with w[rong-doers involved in a terrorist enterprise," French police are able to arrest and detain any suspect in any crime whose goal, however remotely, can ultimately assist terrorist activity. That law shocks civil libertarians in the U.S. and Britain, but French officials retort that those countries' commitment to strict civil libertarian principles has made them havens where Islamist militants can plot terror with less risk of detection because of the legal restraints on techniques such as spot ID checks and information monitoring." - Nhprman List 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alhtough I concede that France's terror legislation is very extreme, and does infringe to a high level individual liberties, it would not be fair to judge those laws in France as more extreme than the US's at present. France's terrorist laws were due to the intense wave of terrorist activity the country sustained in the 1960's and 70's and even 80's, most famously due to Carlos the Jackal (amongst others). This prompted the country to pass very harsh and critized, as it was everywhere, legislation concerning this problem. The Time article says, "the legal restraints on techniques such as spot ID checks and information monitoring [shocks civil libertarians in the U.S. and Britain]." Surely this is not the case anymore, since 1) your country's scandal as to unauthorized email access to virtually anyone in the US (that was not authorized by legislative branches) proves the government has information about anyone 2) the Patriot act was passed quickly at the end of the year that article was published (which gave, as I said above, probably just as much power [if not more] to authorities as we have in France); the Act grants "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity" to authorities.--DragonFly31 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That last line "...upon a showing of reasonable necessities" is a requirement to seek a judge's approval. This is by no means an example of an Executive Branch (presidency) running wild and tearing up the U.S. Constitution. The judicial branch must sign off on the "surrptitious search" and issue a warrant. The fact that those being searched (suspected terrorists) aren't told of the search is not surprising, nor do a large portion of Americans fear such powers, as long as their is judicial review, which there is. The USA Patriot Act, with amendments, was renewed on March 2, 2006 with a vote of 89–11 in the Senate and on March 7 280–138 in the House. That means most legislators in BOTH political parties supported this.
I'm sure when suspected Muslim extremists' homes are searched in your nation, it is done under very much the same rules, and - since we're making assertions here - I'm sure most Frenchmen support such searches, since they remember those earlier waves of terrorism, just like we remember the Islamic extremist terrorism on Sept. 11, and those in London, Bali, Jordan, and elsewhere. As for unauthorized email searches, as I mentioned before, above, that's been a program since the Clinton administration, so I don't think this is "news" any more, nor is anyone very upset about it. - Nhprman List 18:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Around 2003, NBC or CBS did another poll that indicated 52% of Americans are concerned that their civil liberties are being infringed by the administration's war on terrorism." (taken from the Partiot Act article).

Well... If you're not upset about your government looking through your email, then fairplay. If you're not upset about your government's not urging for a cease-fire in Israel, then fairplay. If you're not upset about the refusal of the Kyoto treaty, the unauthorized and reported torture of prisonners of war (or alledged terrorists) without trial, the CIA flights in Europe, the death penalty, the Iraq war (more than 100 people dying per day for the past two months as a result of insurgency... Great!), the death of all these civillians and soldiers on all sides... This is why the world loves this government. The things it has done are genocidal at worst --DragonFly31 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert into a left/right argument over all others issues, partly because it's pointless to try to discuss such things with someone who has a clearly established bias. You need to learn not to hate, and your comments come from your bitterness and blind hatred of America. - Nhprman List 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! I dare you to identify ONE sentence in my little rant where it seems implied that I hate America. I critized some of the policies and actions of its Government. Your accusations are unfounded and ridiculous. I don't hate America (!!!); in fact -- if you read well -- I never employ the word 'America' but 'government'.

Plus, I am sure that you'll agree, even if my little speech is biased, that these issues are highly debatable at the least. For example, the US's refusal to call for a cease-fire has resulted in strengthening Israel's position in their attacks, which are killing a much larger number of civillians than soldiers (as usual, going against the position of the UN, of Europe and of the majority of the countries around the world). Or the situation in Iraq; it has been so out of control for the past two months that Bush, not knowing what to do to stabilize it, has announced reinforcement troops to arrive shortly.

As to the left/right issue -- you are wrong to attribute my disliking of these policies to a simple political bias. I admired the Clinton administration when it was in power. It is the current government specifically that I criticize; and this is true of all of our discussions on this page.

It is too easy to dismiss those who disagree with your Government's outrageous policies as haters of the US -- which is not the case, although I understand your labeling because of your shortsighted views on issues. It also links in with many people's unwillingness to express their opinions about the Bush administration in the US, afraid of being labelled as such. Furthermore, I believe your unwillingness to discuss any of those issues with me come from a simple inability to do so.--DragonFly31 08:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You say "I never employ the word 'America' but 'government'" That's not entirely true. You said: another poll that indicated 52% of Americans are concerned that their civil liberties are being infringed. You then mention "your government" when addressing me, and I believe I have identified myself as an American, and I KNOW you know this is true because you mention "your government" in relation to "The US's refusal..." etc. So you clearly are attacking America's policies. You may think it's clever to separate the people from the government, then attack the government, and that's fine, I'll play along, I guess. But American people PUT that government into place, just like the French put that pack of cowards and terror-sympathizers into office in your nation, so you can't separate the two. Having said that, it would be nice if American tourists didn't have to pretend to hate their nation when they visit Europe in order not to be harrassed by screaming Leftists.
As for the issues, I said I wouldn't get into specific back-and-forth because that's not the point of this page, and its not my job to defend Bush anymore than its your job to defend Chirac. Suffice it to say:
1. The US is refusing to call for a cease-fire because you can't have a cease-fire between a government (Israel) and a criminal gang of murderers who send rockets into civilian homes indiscriminately (Hezbollah). (Can the Israelis be more restrained in their attacks on Beruit? Sure they can. But they did what they did because they know how the terrorists operate.) And about the UN: It would be nice if the UN criticized Lebanon for not disbanding the gang of terrorists, as Resolution 1559 required.
2. Kyoto? The same treaty that allows the biggest polluters (India and China) to pollute for 50 more years, while destroying the West's economy with severe new restrictions? No, thanks. (That's not to say that a FAIR treaty wouldn't be seen in a much more favorable light here.)
3. You're not biased left/right, but you love Clinton and hate Bush? I don't believe it. Clinton was on the Left of the spectrum, Bush is on the Right. You're biased, and so am I. So what? These left/right terms originated in France, and they are very helpful in understanding politics. It's not my problem the left is often embarrased by such labeling.
4. Bush has NOT announced reinforcements. He's announced that the GENERALS have decided (at the request of the Iraqi government) to send troops from the half of the nation that IS STABLE to Baghdad, which has never been stable. It's a reasonable plan, and it calls for NO additional troops from the US. - Nhprman List 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I bet you've never left your country... Have you? And don't lie

OK: you assert that in fact I DO talk about Americans in general, and to support this you give two examples. The first is a statistic taken off wikipedia that says that "52% of Americans are concerned that their civil liberties are being infringed by the administration's war on terrorism." Here it is not Americans that are criticized -- as it is they who are polled -- but the current administration, and by their own citizens. I really can't put it any simpler.

Second -- and this makes me laugh -- when I say "your government", I mean " your government". I don't mean you, the American people, or anything else. And yes, I am attacking the US's policies -- created by THIS GOVERNMENT! The simple fact that you support and are keen on defending all of your government's policies shows that you are unable (or unwilling) to criticize it -- either way a huge mistake, that is all too common. You should not follow all of a party's ideals just because you think you agree with some (or even most) of them. Criticism of any government can only be beneficial, if it is constructive. Here we can go onto the subject of American politics in general -- one of the few in the world where there are only two main parties which have any chance of being elected, and it has been so since its birth. It doesns't happen anywhere else in the world.

Your attacking of my country's political leaders as "cowards" and "terror-sympathizers" is pretty stupid -- you said so yourself, France has some of the toughest terror laws in the world. And perhaps our descision not to send troops into Iraq was motivated more by pure logical reasoning than the ulterior motives (economical, political) the US government has been accused of possessing. Afghanistan, I understood -- even though I was a little weary of it. Iraq? It is only now the US is realizing the extent to which they were wrong. "Weapons of destruction" of any kind, which was the main reason they went into the country in the first place, were never found. My question is, why bother then? Under that cunt Saddam, things weren't great, but at least there was a relative peace. Does he deserve to be tried and executed? Probably. Is that enough reason to take our soldiers and resolve a conflict that isn't ours? To spend money, resources, lives, to gain... what? Over a hundred civillians dead per day for the past two months (www.metafilter.com/mefi/53114). Thousands of American and foreign soldiers dead. For what? Nothing -- except for the creation of unstability in the country and the region, and the fear (and therefore anger) that people in the surrounding countries will feel towards America as a result of it. What stops your government from invading other countries? Will you support it if it does? Where is the limit between reasonable defence and unjustified war?

As to the Kyoto treaty: "Greenhouse gas pollution from China and India rose steeply over the last decade, but rich countries, including the United States, remain the world's biggest polluters, a World Bank official said on Wednesday." (http://in.news.yahoo.com/060510/137/645vp.html) Why compare to other countries? The US need to take their own stand, it's in their own interest! It is simply in everyone's benefit in the long term. What if we loose some money over it, if it means we can live a few years longer!

When I said that Clinton was a much better president than Bush, it is keeping in mind that he was still much more to the right than my ideologies -- but this is not comprehensible to you. No one is afraid of left-right labelling. Why should we?

To conclude, with a government like the US's at present, it is understandable that US citizens should pretend they hate their government when they go to other countries. What can we say about a government that places more importance on corporate profit than on the environment or the welfare of its citizens?--DragonFly31 11:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In America, we call this a "pissing contest" and it's rather pointless, since you aren't going to convice me that my government is rotten to the core, nor will I convince you that your government is filled with naive bureaucrats intent only on "sticking it" to America, even if it means standing up for terrorists. So, au revoir. (PS. I've been to Europe. I loved the buildings, and some of the people.) - Nhprman List 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is unfortunate -- since there is much more evidence to support the first claim than the second one.--DragonFly31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden Democrats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Article

You seem like a reasonable person, and you have experience working in the edit conflict regarding the equally controversial Front National (France). So I ask you to interject your opinions regarding the edit conflict in the Sweden Democrats article, which is largely modelled after the FN article.

Basically, a member of the Sweden Democrats, SweHomer (talk • contribs), says that the article is extrememly biased against the party. He says that the sources are part of a media conspiracy, that the article slanders the SD, and that the editors opposing him are working for the anti-racist magazine Expo. He also says the SD's view is not fairly represented. He has edited only the "Response to the Controversy" section, as of now.

I and Liftarn respond by telling him that all we did was provide quotes from the party and include a chronological timetable of notable events within the party. This way, we hope that readers can draw their own conclusions. We used the Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles as the justification for our edits. We believe that his edits are blatantly not NPOV. We deny his ad hominem attacks.

Your opinion would be appreciated, and pretty soon we may be conducting a straw poll.

WGee 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SweHomer hasn't edited the article or the talk page for a while, so the dispute is pretty much over. But if you have any concerns with the article, please point them out. Thanks. ---WGee 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Drug free!

Often the term drug free means free from sustances such as cokane, cannabis and heroin, that are illegal throughout industrialised nations, with or without a few exceptions like the Netherlands, but the Netherlands is not an English speaking nation and this is the English language edition of wikipedia, so Enghlish-speaking countires are central. I therefore fear users that are "not drug free" becuase they might be up to no good (transgressing drug laws).Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

To be honest, Myrtone, the more I read your message the more I laugh at you. I know I shoudnt provoke you like that, but your arguments are so ridiculous. Let's start wityour statement that 'because the Netherlands is not an english speaking country' it shoudnt have its views represented here in the english speaking version of Wikipedia. You dig yourself into a hole. Wikipedia seeks to gain neutral point of view knowledge about everything and compile it in any and all languages, available to all. If someone in the Nethelands could speak english (should that miracle ever happen?), then should the version of the 'recreational drugs' page he views in Dutch be different than its English counterpart? NO!!!! Of course not! Secondly, it is OBVIOUS that users proclaiming to be not drug free are breaking international laws. However, just because that is a truth doesnt mean that a 'not drug free' user shouldnt be represented here on wikipedia, particularly on moral grounds. It goes, again, against Wikipedia principles.--DragonFly31 17:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Drug free

In the real world, it is often morally wrong to display illegal activity. It seems like a perfectly reasonable moral to me, as it is politicaly correct. The perception that an illegal activity like drug use is just the same sort of personal choice as being a level 2 singer is not really politically correct and is based on the loose morals inherent in US liberterianism and US style liberterianism elsewhere such as Canada and Australia. I have a perfectly logical reason for beleiving it. Why is it that so few wikipedians agree with this view even though in the real world such beliefs are much more common.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

You critize me by saying my beliefs are 'based on the loose morals inherent in US liberterianism and US style liberterianism'. How can that be since 1) I am a French citizen 2) My morals are very well set and I stick by them; they are simply more open minded and less 'politically correct' than yours, that I will agree. Political correctness should stay in the realm of politics and has no reason to exist in an encyclopedia, or in real life in general for that matter; the world, the real world, the world Wikipedia seeks to describe and learn about is not politically correct. I do not believe, and this is central to our argument,that it is 'morally wrong to display illegal activity' as you say. Because illegal activity happens, we cannot ignore it or turn a blind eye, wishing it to go away. Just because something is illegal, does NOT mean it is morally wrong... Although God is the law, civil law is not represented by God. I believe more wikipedians adhere to my view than your very short sighted one. Good luck!--DragonFly31 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"I believe more wikipedians adhere to my view than your very short sighted one" Why, given how my "short sighted" one is perfecty normal (in "real life," this is my expirience)? "Just because something is illegal, does NOT mean it is morally wrong!" In many societies it does especially in higher social classes, for example, in my social class (middle class) here in Australia.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

I probably shoudn't have called your view 'short sighted', but you sound so much like someone who has just arrived from the 50's or something. As to this: "Just because something is illegal, does NOT mean it is morally wrong!" well, I stand by it because it is a truth for me. If you go over the speed limit, do you consider it morally wrong, and slow down immediatly feeling an intense feeling of guilt? Where is the limit between legality and morality and their relationship? Although they are at the very least a little related, on the specific drug use issue, I certainly don't think that it is morally wrong to use drug recreationally; I live in Oxford, go to university there, we all use them quite often. In fact, most of the people I know use or have used them. So you see; depending on where you live, what you believe, morals vary and you cannot hold your own for universal.--DragonFly31 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"If you go over the speed limit, do you consider it morally wrong, and slow down immediatly feeling an intense feeling of guilt? Where is the limit between legality and morality and their relationship?" What, as if a driver a car, I'll tell you a true story, here in Australia drivers who are (deliberately) disabedient of road rules such as this one are often reffered to derogitarily as hoons and are considered socially innapropriate by practically all honset, innocent drivers. "you sound so much like someone who has just arrived from the 50's or something" Again, for me, it is still an untrue statement.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-(

You didn't understand the point that I was making. I was taking the example NOT of a crazy road-rage type driver, but rather a plausible example of you and I where we go over the speed limit by a couple miles per hour or kilometers per hour. We will both agree that 'hoons' as you call them are a danger to society and are socially not tolerated, it follows. Furthemore, if every single law is morally correct as you seem to imply, then how can we produce/cancel more laws? Our changing society must adapt quickly and thus be able to pass or cancel a law that is vital/not required anymore. Our moral standards are not set by the law; rather laws are set according to our ever changing moral standards. --DragonFly31 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a middle class Australian who found this discussion quite amusing (probably for all the wrong reasons) - you did a good job replying rationally to the points raised. Orderinchaos78 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest with you, even I am a little confused by this discussion; this guy is so ridiculous that it's hard to even explain to him what I believe; that is, to put it in a way he can possibly understand.--DragonFly31 13:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/a/User_talk%7EDragonFly31_fee2.html"