User talk:Giovanni33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the Talk page for discussing changes by Giovanni33
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia. You're encouraged to create an account and look at the Tutorial, but feel free to just jump in and be bold, if you don't have any frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 All set 2 Leif Ericson 3 Zionism article 4 Thanks for your message on Zionism. 5 Thanks 6 Problems with history section of Italy article 7 User notice: temporary 3RR block 8 Regarding reversions[2] made on September 22, 2006 to Zionism 9 You need to learn your punctuation 10 Zionism - links 11 Please consider joining me in filing an RFC over the Zionism links issue. 12 FYI 13 Al 14 Citizendium 15 Giorgio Orsini 16 Israel/Zionism 17 Christianity 18 Nazism and religion and Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs 19 Request 20 Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action 21 userlinks 22 gonna reply? 23 Yawn 24 Outstanding original quote award 25 3RR?

[edit] All set

I've archived this page again. 155 kilobytes moved to /Archive2 :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leif Ericson

I have removed but with some evidence suggesting the Norseman penetrated as far as Minnesota, either coming down from Hudson Bay or going west through the Great Lakes. from the article, please provide a source to make such a claim, as it standed it was more original research. Lincher 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. This claim can be referenced by William O Kellogg, who is former Head of the History Dept. at the highly esteemed St. Paul's School, in his texbook "American History th easy way,' 3rd Ed. ISBN 0-7641-1973-7, 2003. The actual section is on page 9 under "The Vikings." and page 8, "European Immigrants." Im sure if you researched this question, though, you'd find it in many other reputable academic sources.Giovanni33 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism article

I was not planning to edit more than the intro to that article. It is indeed a notorious example of 'propaganda by Wikipedia', but this can not be corrected by individual users. The systemic preferences of Wikipedia are to blame, for instance Wikipedia gives a sourced false statement priority over an unsourced true statement. I suggest avoiding the circular discussions at the articles talk page, you could try village pump. Paul111 09:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your message on Zionism.

I have been pondering an RfC or some other administrative appeal to address the frankly embarrassing level of bias on the Zionism page for some time. Any thoughts on how we should proceed on dispute resolution? BYT 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hallo Giovanni, thanks very much for your message. It gladened me especially since it came from you, with whom I have "fought many a battle".

To clear things up, I have not been officially banned from anywhere. It is just Jim making sniding remarks against me (and later also against Ann), answering any argument from my part with accusations of trying to whitewash. In this context he found out, by looking at my user page, that I was a Catholic, and he suggested that as such I couldn't legitimately edit on Catholic issues. And yes, the term "religious racism" is very polemic, being born out of a moment of ire: it's like "no blacks here, no Catholics here". Of course, he hasn't any means of enforcing this view. To protest against it, I have altered my user page for now.

Now, I know that you do not agree with all my edits, but in this case it was merely a disagreement of whether to include a "parade of critics" and their "name calling", which I considered bloating the section without giving substantial information [1] After all, there is a main article on this subject, where all these quote are covered in detail. Jim however chose to accuse me that I wanted to mute criticism against the Pope, whereas I have repeatedly stated that I wouldn't object to a summary of the Muslim objection being included in this place.

I have tried some admins to admonish Jim, but the ones that answered have chosen to ingore it based on the argument that it were a "content dispute". I will not pursue this any further.

Thanks for your offer but I don't think you can be of assistance. Anyway the conflict has calmed down right now. But thanks again for your kind words. All the best, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with history section of Italy article

Giovanni, I have the Italy article on my watchlist, and I reviewed the history section a bit more closely after your edits to try and straighten it out. Eventually I tracked the problems down to some unreverted vandalism on the 14th of September(!), I think I've now restored the affected paras to their last good state (which coincidentally was a vandalism reversion I performed then), with a bit of copy-editing as I was going through. Please have a look and see what you think (for the most part it's completely over-written your changes). David Underdown 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

Agreed, and thanks for only giving me 12 hours.Giovanni33 09:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, though, he did unequivocally admit it here, and probably would have self-reverted if he had been given an opportunity to do so. Anyway, 12 hours isn't too harsh! AnnH ♫ 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ann, but I'm happy with just 12 hours. I was just afraid of gettting a week! :)Giovanni33 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You need to learn your punctuation

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:

When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations).

One of the cited examples:

Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (Only a fragment is quoted; the full stop [period] is not part of the quotation.)

Next time, make sure your "corrections" conform to the accepted style, and especially avoid uncivil remarks such as accusing the person nice enough to clean up after you of ignorance. A.J.A. 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism - links

I don't think edit warring will help. There are too many of them, blindly subscribing to the same crazy idea. IMO, an RfC etc. is the only way to go. --Anonymous44 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that an edit war can be useful in some cases, but that would be the case if, for example, we were only facing A.J.A. and Hummus Sapiens. But what we have now is nearly every - what should I call them - pro-Israeli (?) editor on Wikipedia (including, sadly, an admin and ex-member of the Arbitration Committee), espousing exactly the same absurd view (the ideology of, well, POV segregation and cleansing of articles), as if it were something they learnt at primary school. They are inevitably going to be in the majority. People such as Jayjg haven't been - and apparently aren't going to be - influenced by the discussion regarding that matter on the talk page (either because they believe in their own arguments or for other reasons) and we can't expect them to give up before sheer force either, especially as we don't have sheer force anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that a continuation of the edit war strategy in such a situation can only weaken our position if anything. Formal Dispute Resolution could (and, I dare say, should) stop them; edit warring can't, in the long run. It's just a waste of time. --Anonymous44 08:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider joining me in filing an RFC over the Zionism links issue.

I'd like to keep this as narrow as possible, and focus only on the links section. If you're interested, could I ask you to provide me with:

a) a few diffs illustrating reversions on the article page that reflect bias on the part of career editors there

b) (if you feel like it) specific instances of incivility or bias you encounted on the talk page there.

Thanks, BYT 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASOPHIA&diff=78930244&oldid=76109703

[edit] Al

If it was integrity of the encyclopedia they cared about he would never have been banned. None of his severest critics ever tried the line that he was harming the encyclopedia as that would call into question one of the biggest problems with this project (and in my view the thing that will eventually kill it) - biased editing and protectionism. Some of the drivers for his banning have themselves been censured by the arbcom for biased editing and wheel warring but no action was taken against them. [3] Seems it's ok for some to violate procedures and abuse admin tools "in the heat of the moment" if they are editing a touchy subject. They don't seem to understand that wikipedia is full of "touchy subjects" with only those that edit them understanding the passions and problems raised. Either the rules are to be upheld or they are not. At the moment the rules are only applied if you have managed to get up the nose of someone influential.

You can follow this up if you wish but it will be wasted time as no-one cares and Al is doing just fine as he is. Sophia 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

She's right. See Centrx's response here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centrx&diff=next&oldid=80361530 06:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alienus was one of the most deadly edit warriors on Wikipedia. His response to any reasonable argument was to accuse his opponents of violating Wikipedia rules and edit warring from the outset, before they had even raised a point! His removal was a triumph for the organisation. There is indeed a God.

Deadly? I beg to differ, whoever you are. This disagreement is based on much interaction with the editor. Overall, his role was beneficial, esp. his edit warring--and his removal is, contrary to your point, suggestive that there is indeed NO god (which ofcourse there is not). Wikiepedia is better with Alienus than without him. But, he has never left. :) Giovanni33 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A prime example of what you can accomplish if you know how to do it. Good luck to him if he can manage to do it without drawing attention to himself. --Deskana talk 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

Thanks for that. Hopefully it should address some of the real issues here. It might be fun to get involved but I don't have much time at the moment and I'm very unsure about editing under my real name as there are some real cranks out there and I have kids. Sophia 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giorgio Orsini

Hi Giovanni

We have a problem with editing the article about famous 15th century Italian architect - Giorgio Orsini. If you are knowledgeable about this man or if you know people who know about him - please, be involved or ask other people to be involved in the discussion and editing of the article about him.--GiorgioOrsini 15:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel/Zionism

What do you mean by a national homeland? Please define what this would entail. And also, do you oppose Muslim states that have been created by conquest? Please do respond to this because I've never been able to hold a Chomskyite in civilized conversation for more than a couple of minutes and would honestly like to hear your point of view. No kidding here at all, I'm being serious I want to hear Chomsky's point of view up to debate as both him and Finkelstein refuse to reply to mail. I'm being honest-- logic will sway me. I'm not solidly stuck in my position about Israel, but using logic and avoiding emotional storytelling are likely to convince me if your view holds up.--Urthogie 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. First I'm not Chomsky or Finkelstein but their POV is similar to mine on many issues. But to explain my POV--and I hope I'm logical--I'm against all States. I'm not an anarchist, either; I see States as a necessary evil given the current state of human civilization. Some are better than others. None should ever be glorified, nor treated as an end, but rather as a means to an end, that end being peace, security for ALL, democracy, people before profits, equality ect (essentially progressive values). Note I'm an anti-nationalist. Nationalism, I hold as a reactionary ideology that doesnt service the best interests of mankind and leads to treating some people better than others. There should be no "me first" thinking on the individual or group level. They are all ethically repugnant and a prime ingredient to racism.

Of course States should never be supported when they rest on the oppresssion of others. I oppose all conquest and imperialism, past and present. As far as states created by conquest, what is important is current oppression, i.e. ending it,(esp. state-sponsored) that are in the bussiness of building based on conquest of others. This must be opposed equally in all cases, which a special responsiblity for those you can have the greatest effect in changing, stoping, i.e. if I live in the US, I have a special responsiblity to speak out against things this countries does (directly or indirectly as in the case of support for Israeli occupation).

As for the meaning of a national homeland, it could mean the country of origin and native land of a people who have a strong cultural connection and history within such a territory , a cultural geography. There are many ethnic groups who holds a long history and a deep cultural association different country or geographical regions, in particular where the national identity began. And, diffferent groups can live in peace side to side, with differenlanguage, cultures, co-existing with the same country, united under the common accepted cultural norms of democratic values. This does not negate a national homeland, only having it based on the oppression of others. Hence, I'm able to be for a national homeland for the Jewish people in the land of Israel while at the same time I'm anti-Zionist and advocate for a Binational solutionGiovanni33 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is your anti-State energy so focused on such a small country as compared to all of the countries around it which were formed by Muslim conquest. This is one part I don't understand. The histories of America, Australia, England-- they are not comparible to Israel. These are places that have commited genocide of millions. England had concentration camps. Australia wiped out certain tribal populations. Same with America.

I also find it strange that you think Israel is not very threatened by its neighbors. One of my biggest concerns is that Iran will develop nukes, and those nukes will fall into the hands of Islamist terrorists.

Also, I don't understand how your POV can be similar to Finkelstein, who supports Hezbollah, and at the same time claim that it's difficult to make a case against an Israeli state. If it's so difficult, why are you similar in your views to a man who supports organizations who want to eliminate the Jewish presence in the region?

Lastly, I think if you look at history you'll see there originally was a binational state (with UN approval), before Israel was attacked by its Arab nationalist neighbors from all sides. This was what everyone wanted-- binationalism (well-- to be specific it would be only one unique nationality as Palestinians weren't an ethnicity then) and a two state solution! The palestinians are actually not an ethnic group-- they are only a nationality because of the wars that have stemmed from the 1948 conflict. Israel originally wanted a two state solution, and now it is criticized by those who support its destruction. --Urthogie 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your not understanding, as you say, seems to be based on an acceptance of a false premise with your questions. For example, what makes you think that my "Anti-State" engery is so focussed on any one country, and why is size of the country even relevant? Actually, most of my "energy" has been against the US illegal invastion and occupation of Iraq. The logically relevant factors concern oppression that is current and on-going, and importantly, oppression in which one is contributing to directly, i.e. the country that im paying a large amount of taxes by living and working in (the US), which is directly contributing to the illegal occupation and oppression of a people, and thus doing so itself indirectly. This is not an academic question of history either. What you say about genocide committed by other colonialist and imperialist ventures in their formative period of nationhood is correct. That is history. Is it happening now? Does the US still have concentration camps for Native Americans? To bring it up, and point to them as if doing so implies that one can not oppose strongly what Israel is NOW doing (or anyone else for that matter), is to commit a logical fallacy known as "two wrongs make a right." They don't. Its also rather disturbing and weak to say others are doing this, so don't look at me (even if they were doing it today).

Not that I think it is relevant but I disagree with you that "Palestinians" are not an ethnicity. But, why do you think it even matters? This is what I find strange. An ethnic group is cultural (unlike race). That is, any human population whose members identify with each other, united by certain common cultural, behavioural, linguistic and ritualistic or religious traits, and have a name that unites them with that identity, which they claim as some cultural continuity over time. It is rooted in the idea of social groups makred by these attributes and affinities. Ethnographers and linguists use the term Palestinian as an ethnic group as well, to denote the specific Arab subculture of the southern Levant; in that sense, it includes not only the Arabs of British Mandate Palestine, but also those inhabitants of Jordan who are originally from Palestine and the Druze, while excluding both Bedouin (who culturally and linguistically group with Arabia) and ethnic minorities such as the Dom and Samaritans. In common usage, the Samaritans of the West Bank are usually referred to as Palestinian. Again, all this doesnt matter for me. People are people. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state; politically an ethnic group is distinguished from a nation-state by a lack of sovereignty.

I also think you are wrong about the history of Israel being origionally a binational state. It wasn't ever. Israel's native Arab population were displaced, and equal political rights was never granted. Read the article about this: Binational solution

Finally, if you don't see how my POV is similar to Chomsky and Finkelstien, I say look harder because I see the similiarities. I've read them and heard them enough to know my view points are quite similar indeed. Note that similar doesn't identical. With all the problems and reactionary religious ideology of Hezzbola, they stand in the right in their fight against Isreal given the important distinction between the oppressed and oppressors. As far as feeling threatened, I should say so, as should be the case against all criminal, rogue states, the US included. Oppression breeds resistence and it creates many enemies. This is to be expected, no? I think people everywhere should rise up against all such criminal states. I see Israel, though, as only an attack dog, a military outpost of US imperialism that is used to help to keep the oppressed arab people in the ME in check. Giovanni33 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

At first, I was going to respond to this reply with a point by point rebuttal of what I see as your extremely naive interpretations of history, current events, and politics. But then I recognized that would be too overarching a conversation. So lets focus on one issue, to highlight how misguided your views are. You say the problem in Iraq is US "oppression".

The United States is responsible for less than one third of the violent deaths in Iraq.[4] The Iraqis are killing each other in a brutal tribal and religious civil war not because of the presence of the United States, but rather because of the lack of presence of Saddam Hussein, and a weak government that exists as a result of poor planning by the US. Bush did a great job deceiving the American people into this stupid war, but did a horrible job planning it. It was of course an unwinnable war, because they don't actually want democracy-- they want to support their various tribes and religious sects.

By the way. I'd like you to define oppression. You use this word quite often and I doubt you actually have a very concrete meaning to it, aside from using it for emotional charge. It seems to be your way of saying that two groups are fighting and one has more power than the other. I honestly don't support the underdog in all fights, so I don't automatically regard an unfair fight as unjust. That would be extremely irrational.--Urthogie 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Its late and I'm tired so I'm going to make this very short. Occupiers are fully responsible for what happens. They have no right, only responsibilities. Its funny how you say its not because of the United States, its because there is no Saddam Hussein. But, how did that come to be? By an act of the people of the country itself? No. And, why is it that Saddam Hussein can do something and the most powerful country in the history of the world can't? Sorry, but all the bloodshed in Iraq lies at the doorstep of the US. Its not poor planning, and being stupid, etc. Who is the naive one here? This is not the first time in history. About oppression, I sugggest you read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression. Next I reccommend you look up Imperialism, another "charged" word but one that is quite real. I don't believe the underdog is always right, but I firmly stand with the oppressed against oppressors, even if the former are not always ethical in their own tactics. I don't blame the victim. And, we are not talking about just individuals here, we are talking about systems of oppression.Giovanni33 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The US can't control the population simply because it is not a brutal dictator, and actually has the false idea that the people there are ready for democracy. Both of us agree the US shouldn't have gone there-- but you seem to find a way to call the US oppressors nonetheless. That's ridiculous. The problem in Iraq is the lack of a very powerful opressor-- there is no tribal leader in power genociding the other tribes, which would keep peace. The US is not oppressing them-- the Iraqis are oppressing themselves in the absence of an evil dictator. They are not capable of living peacefully without an opressive tribal dictatorship in power-- you would claim that the problem is the "opressive" US, but in actuality the problem is the inept US, thinking it could succeed. Only the most naive understanding of military history could lead one to the opinion that having a powerful military assures success in peace once the war is one.

So is it the US's fault that Saddam isn't there? Yes. Is the US oppressing anyone? Of course not-- it's trying to do the exact opposite, and failing at it.

You still haven't given me your definition of opression. You just linked me to a wiki article. Please provide me, briefly, with the exact definition you use when you say this word.--Urthogie 14:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, so the problem is that the poor invader is just too nice, and the Iraqi people are just too much barbarians, not civilized, and that is why there is so much death and killing, eh? If only the US were more brutal then the country would be stabalized, again? This reminds me of the old Imperialists "white man's burden" outlook. You even say:"They are not capable of living peacefully without an oppressive tribal dictatorship" I disagree and find your thinking extremely naive as it pertains not noble but mistaken US motives and policies, and your view of the Iraqi people even bit racist. We agree we are talking about over 655,000 dead, constituting 2.4% of the population in Iraq. Using the same 2.4 percent on US population, it amounts to 6.72 million dead in the US. Yet, its because the US is being too nice? And, we do care?! Then why is there more torture in Iraq now (on an official level under the US puppet govt) than during Saddam's rule, if our occupation is not infact itself extremely brutal? The fact is the US didn’t care about security issues as it pertains the interests of the safety of the common people as much as they did care about securing control of the oil and establishing a base, as a test trial run invasion to maintain control of the M.E. It wasn't just lack of planning it was negligence according to priorities. The same reason why destroyed their safe drinking water and other basics, and even today its not up to the level it was during the pre-invasion conditions. This is indifference to things that didn't matter to them, such as the lives of the people. Much like how Israel will drop bombs on civilian areas. The US destabilized their country, disbanded their police and military, decimated through tons of bombs their infrastructure, and then neglected it and failed to put anything workable in its place--but its their fault their society is being torn part?

I do not believe that having a powerful military assures success. Imperialists are paper tigers and they don't have the ability to keep the masses of a country in revolt under their yoke for long. Empires are doomed to fail because they can't stand up to the spirit and determination of people to be free. And in the ultimate analysis, its people, not things, that are decisive. But, the question is, who is to blame for the violence in Iraq, including the sectarian violence? You blame the Iraqi's people themselves (like Bush). This is blaming the victims. I think this is backwards. The president try’s to blame the Iraqi people for their complete social breakdown the US destrucive forced destabilized the social fabric and basic infrastructure of the country? Not tenable. The responsibility rests with the occupation, and invasion, on the US for the bloodshed and continuing bloodshed. Just by looking the history and basis for the divisions, like other tribal divisions, we find the hand of colonialism implicated. Saddame Hussein’s own rule was the result of US imperialism (if you recall the CIA helped to put the Bath party in power in a coup in 1968, and involved in 1963), and supported the regime, esp. in the 80's. The current sectarian violence is also largely the result of the stage created by the US invasion. Sure, divisions and mistrust predates the US invasion but in the absence of a US invasion and in the absence of a dictator, we would not see the levels of violence we see today. This is because those who support the US invasion now become traitors. Before, families among different "enemy' tribes inter-married. Now they are divided as a result of the US invasion, with most Iraqi's wanting the US out, and saying that it’s worse off with the US there then without, including the sectarian violence. I'm sure you've seen the polls. A large majority of Iraqis -- 71% --want US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent. This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks. More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence. Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease. Some 78 per cent of all Iraqis think the US military presence provokes more conflict than it prevents and 71 per cent want US-led forces out of Iraq within a year. But, you know more than those who live there, right?

You will notice that I did not get into the details of the above arguments to support some of my claims with details, which will take more time that I have. However, you can find these details in arguments from the following articles: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3369 How the US set the stage for sectarian violence and encourages it: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11948 http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node/23750?PHPSESSID=b54265b1c98b367c670a9c1a70e94f60

As far as defining oppression, come on. Look at the first two paragraphs of the article on it, and then look up Imperialism. This is how I define and understand it. What objections do you have to these concepts as applied to this situation?Giovanni33 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"This reminds me of the old Imperialists "white man's burden" outlook. You even say:"They are not capable of living peacefully without an oppressive tribal dictatorship" I disagree and find your thinking extremely naive, and a bit racist, even."

It's funny how you were the first to bring race into the subject, and then accused me of being racist. No, the color of skin has nothing to do with a culture that is based on tribal divisions. But I suppose that accusing me of racism is a lot easier than actually arguing logically against my point. Anyways, moving on...

"We are talking about over 655,000 dead, which constituts 2.4% of the population in Iraq."

Do you really think I don't know how much they're killing each other because of our stupid failed occupation?

"Yes, its because the US is being too nice? Then why is there more torture in Iraq now (on an official level under the US puppet govt) than during Saddam's rule?"

Saddam has killed more people as a head of state than the US has killed in its entire war. That's a crazy fact: a leader who killed more of his own people than were ever killed by the occupier! Read: Human_rights_in_Saddam's_Iraq. There was more torture by Saddam's Iraq than by US troops. There was more killing by Saddam's Iraq than by US troops. Therefore, you have just lied: "Then why is there more torture in Iraq now than during Saddam's rule".

"The fact is the US didn’t care about security issues as it pertains the interests of the people as much as they did securing control of the oil and establishing a base, as a test trial run invasion to maintain control of the M.E"

This was likely their intention but they failed at it because of poor military planning. They have actually lost more control in the Middle East as a result of this war-- they have strengthened the religious tribal movements in the area.

"It wasn't lack of planning. It was indifference to things that didn't matter to them, such as the lives of the people."

OK, so lets take your position for a second. "The sole reason they're there is money and power." Then wouldn't it be in the interest of their greed to, I d'know, make money from a stable Iraq? To get power from a stable stronghold in the middle east that wasn't a stronghold of Islamic terror? The US wants submissive, oil-rich puppet countries. A full blown islamic mass movement, unrestricted by government, does not help US interests in the region. It's pretty basic logic. And I think your own reasoning counters itself.

"Much like how Israel will drop bombs on civilian areas"

What you fail to recognize is that states like Israel benefit from less terrorism. Why would they want to create a new generation of terrorists? Is there any concrete gain from bombing a civillian area? The poorer and angrier they are, the more likely Israel will be threatened. That's an established fact among counter-terrorists. You seem to have this myth in your head that randomly bombing citizens is what liberal democracies try to do, for apparently no reason but to create more terrorists. I can't blame you though, as you're constantly misinformed by the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein.

"Empires are doomed to fail because they can't stand up to the spirit and determination of people to be free."

In the abstract I agree with this statement. But I don't agree with extending its logic to everything an empire does. The individual Iraqi citizen surely craves democracy. But Iraq's population, as a whole, does not. People join tribalistic groups and kill each other to run away from the prospect of freedom-- its actually a scary concept when you haven't had it for generations. The nazis, for example, often praised hitler because he made them "free from freedom". Your understanding of human nature is overly simplistic, and incredible similar to the Bush doctrine-- everyone is ready for democracy. Yeah, right. <-- bullshit

"You blame the Iraqi's people themselves (like Bush)."

No, I blame America. I made this clear already. It was a foolish war to get into because the Iraqi people are not capable of democracy at this point in time.

"This is blaming the victims."

First off, you have to recognize that the real oppressors at this point are the militant Iraqis. They were a bunch of rattlesnakes kept in check by an evil dictator. The true victims-- the average Iraqi people who are not killing anyone-- deserve no blame whatsoever. Only the US, for opening up the country, and the insurgents, for ruining it with their tribal and religious conflicts.

"Sure, divisions and mistrust predates the US invasion but in the absence of a US invasion and in the absence of a dictator, we would not see the levels of violence we see today."

Yes. I already made clear I oppose the entire idea of the Iraqi invasion. But I also oppose your whole myth that the US is oppressing anyone.

"I'm sure you've seen the polls. A large majority of Iraqis -- 71% --want US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent. This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks. More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence. Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease. Some 78 per cent of all Iraqis think the US military presence provokes more conflict than it prevents and 71 per cent want US-led forces out of Iraq within a year. But, you know more than those who live there, right?"

Uh..this is the definition of a straw man argument. I agree compeltely that its a failed war and the US is making the problem worse. You wasted a paragraph, I don't know why. I'm sure the Iraqis would love to hear your theory about how Saddam's rule tortured more people than the US, though :)

"ZMag"

I don't read publications by the New Left or by neo conservatives (they're basically opposites). Convince me with mainstream sources.--Urthogie 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood your possition. But, since you blame the US for causing the increase in violence, sectarian violence included, then we don't have a disagreement on this point. However, your conclusion is that the US is not an oppressor even though they are to blame because it was not their intention but just incompentance in unleashing the "rattlesnakes." But, even if its just negligence and not intentional, is not culpability the same, esp. when one can reasonably expect this to happen based on intellgence reports? If I go into your house and open up a basket of deadly snakes and the snakes end up biting your family and killing them, but I was just careless and didn't think twice about the result--I just wanted to steal your goods in your house (and come back to steal more later), am I off the hook morally any less than if had I planned it? But, I will argue my original point, even though I can see how it seems contradictory. Imperialism frequently does backfire and usually has negative spill over effects based on some gambles but serves intelligent and purposeful imperialist goals, and does ultimately fail. They are doomed to fail, but they have their own logic and dynamics that drive them to their own grave. Right now I need to leave the office and go home and take care of things so making this case will have to wait.

About the articles, yes, they from the New Left, however they cite mainstream sources. I don't discount them off hand. The BBC article below is mainstream enough, which is where I had the impression that tourture in Iraq is WORSE then it was under Hussein. It makes this point and this is according to an even-handed senior UN official, who is the chief anti-torture expert, so its expert opinion. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1878099,00.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm I suppose you will counter that even though it may be worse, this tourture includes sectarian violance, and we are back to the original point of dispute.Giovanni33 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• "I suppose you will counter that even though it may be worse, this tourture includes sectarian violance, and we are back to the original point of dispute." Earlier you said, "Yet, its because the US is being too nice? And, we do care?! Then why is there more torture in Iraq now (on an official level under the US puppet govt) than during Saddam's rule, if our occupation is not infact itself extremely brutal?" It seems like you've switched your view somewhat... earlier, you were saying the problem was "oppression" and you were sarcastically claiming the US was being too nice. Now it seems as though you recognize the problem was the ensuing chaos of the insurgents as a result of our failed military operation. So I don't feel as though we're going in circles. Perhaps we're getting somewhere, and can soon move on to the more contentious subject of Israel, using this as a launching point for analyzing that issue.

Oppression is not defined as ineptitude, but rather as unjust squashing of one's enemy. This is what Saddam did, but not the US. The US just failed in its mission and ruined hundreds of thousands of lives through its ineptitude.

• "But, I will argue my original point, even though I can see how it seems contradictory." The reason you insist on arguing your original point despite it seeming contradictory is because you are tied to the idea that everything is related to evil imperialism, and can't recognize that sometimes the failed means of government have a bigger effect on history than the government's ends. As I said before, this is a microcosm in the flaws of your argument about Israel-- which, unlike the US is pursuing a program of security rather than expansion and wealth. The flaws that it makes in this process are entirely unintentional. Like the US, Israel needs serious criticism, but it doesn't need more of this vilifaction as "imperialist, colonialist" that you offer, adding nearly no insight whatsoever into the depth of the conflict, and the various shades of gray that characterize it.

• Your metaphor about the snakes ignores the fact of the dictator. I'd rather have you steal from my house if you're gonna kill the murderer that's there. Assuming you can deal with the snakes, of course. The only problem is that america couldn't deal with the snakes, and wasn't even capable of it, and therefore never should have gone. it's going was not oppression. was it greedy/evil? sure. was it an effort to oppress the iraqis? no-- just the opposite. And that is a good microcosm of the complexity of history, politics, and current events that is distorted by the interpretations of the New Left.--Urthogie 03:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think our disagreement centers on the concept of "inept" as it pertains to US military actions. So lets forget about arguing about what oppression means and imperialism (and other loaded, charged words) and try to focus on some practical points. I ask to consider the difference of an actor who engaged in a kind of reckless neglect and lack of concern/care for the cost to civilians vs. intentional klling of them? I agree, its not directly intentional in the way that someone who just wanted to kill the people for the sake of their death, but then again, its not innocent error, either. "Inept" in this circumstance is the kind of neglect that has predicable knowlege of the consequences, and thus, is just as bad as if it the people were intentionally targeted. Its an academic distinction without a difference when the lives of the people are concerned: dead is dead.

True, the law distinguishes between premeditated murder and accidental killing. But, consider a "mens rea" analysis of criminal law. To quote law professor Michael Tonry:

::"An action taken with a purpose to kill is no more culpable than an action taken with some other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a death will probably result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger is equivalent to blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and thereby to defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passengers will be killed. Both are murder. Most people would find the latter killing more despicable" (Malign Neglect, p. 32)."

And both are murder even if the bomber regretted the fact that innocent passengers had to die in the second example. Nor would the bomber be absolved if he expressed regret for the slaughtered passengers and then did the same thing again and again. Or say the bomber doesn't know that passengers will be killed -- the bomb may go off in the luggage hold before the passengers board -- but is indifferent to the passengers' fate. Knowlege and intent are both morally and legally cupable states of mind. Reckless abandon as the kind we saw with the US invasion of Iraq to the concerns of the welfare of the people of Iraq, even if caused by what you say is "ineptitude" is not innocent. They were warned that this could if not would happen and proceeded anyway, even criminally with respect to international law. Its not innocent error and there is no practical difference between it and death and suffering caused by direct design to oppress people with intent to do so.

Admittedly the U.S./Israeli military could easily kill more civilians if it wanted to. But that doesn't refute the claim that there is a morally unacceptable disregard for the lives of civllians (the basket of snakes being opened). Is it worse to kill a person eagerly than out of indifference? If I robbed your house but didnt care about the mess I'd cause, including leaving behind the deadly outcome of my actions (knocking over the basket of deadly snakes), wouldnt this be the same as if I had planned to release the snakes if I could be expected to have known that my actions would result in the same? When you look at the kind of war the US waged, the kind of weapons it used alone (no matter the military failure)--we have to conclude that it held the civilian population in low regard, and found "acceptable" a large number of deaths. The same goes for how Israel treats the Palestinian people its in state-terrorism aimed against the resistance fighters within the occupation terroritories.

So, let's assume that civilians are not being targeted. It doesn't matter. The first wave of attacks by the US reportedly consisted largely of "dumb" bombs dropped or launched from long distances, and even current "smart" bombs hit their targets only 70 to 80 percent of the time. So our leaders know full well that the bombs will kill innocent people, indeed admit as much. By the principles of our criminal law, they are therefore just as culpable for these deaths as they would be if innocents were targeted. For details of this point see: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/sep02herman.html Giovanni33 01:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You use several very deceptive metaphors. The US did not "blow up the plane" of Iraq. It simply attempted to defraud the insurance company, and then some crazy terrorists blew up the plane in the havoc that ensued. Now, on the surface, it's arguable that the US, with its multi billion (trillion?) dollar military budget, should have seen this coming in the planning phases. This view is not entirely unreasonable; it is in part supported by the obvious lies and misrepresentations that the US made to our nation and to the rest of the world as the Bush administration pursued the Iraq war.

However, what this view ignores is that the Bush administration is composed of people who are experts at misleading people, but who are utter failures when it comes to organizing a war. The Bush Administration not only stifled evidence that there were no WMD's, they also stifled views that clearly showed the Iraqi's would not welcome them with open arms. This is why I ascribe the situation to the inept pursuit of somewhat moral goals, rather than to the malicious pursuit of immoral goals. Although what you said was merely a metaphor, it exposes your prejudice when it comes to judging the US (and one can logically infer, Israel... but we'll get to that later, I suppose).

Now, about "robbing my house". If you want to break in with the plan of killing who ever has kidnapped me, go ahead. Go ahead and "steal" from me-- if by that you mean setting up a non-genocidal capitalist puppet government. It's a well known fact that stable puppet capitalist governments have a much better quality of life for their citizens than do stable genocidal dictatorships. The central issue, then, is of course the issue of stability.

Now, it's clearly not in the US's interest to have knocked down that basket of snakes. You might respond by observing how much it helps Halliburton or the weapons industry, but this is a very superficial and short term analysis. As far as power and money-- which is what the American government presumably wants-- the terrorists are extremely bad news in the long-term. I don't think I even need to explain why several Islamist mass movements gaining a huge amount of steam in the region is not good for our interests in the Middle East, or why having all of our troops stuck in Iraq makes it very difficult to flex our muscles at other foreign policy concerns like North Korea and Afghanistan (which seems to have been a failure as well).

It's simply a foolish mission that was poorly planned. That's what it comes down to. It had selfish goals that were actually also in the interest of the Iraqis. Poor military planning is what has caused all of these problems.

If the "dumb" bombs would have been part of a complex, comprehensive military strategy that would actually have toppled Saddam and brought peace afterwards, I would of course support them. In my view, a just war is one which minimizes civillian casualties. The "dumb" bombs, had they been part of a comprehensive, successful military strategy, would actually have saved more lives from Saddam then they had taken away from their explosions.

As you can see, a detached, logical analysis of the issue leads to a much more nuanced criticism of the situation and what led us there. What further disagreements might you have with my assesment of the Iraq war?--Urthogie 02:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Please stop the edit war as they never end nicely and any reasonable discussions get lost in the crossfire. Sophia 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazism and religion and Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You are already in clear violation of WP:3RR - take a break before you get blocked. - WeniWidiWiki 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me where I have violated the 3RR rule? I don't believe I have. I, along with others, are simply removing original research, which the other party keeps replacing. I have already discussed and made clear on the talk pages the reasons why the text in question is unacceptable per the norms and standards of Wikipedia, and the other party has not addressed the problems (only make a small word change). I think that NPOV and OR, V, are more important rules than edit warring, provided that the latter is in service of the former, and provided that I do not violate the 3RR rule. Unverified, and Original Research, and violations of NPOV, should always be removed to protect the integrity of the project, even if it entails some unavoidable edit warring.Giovanni33 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Diff1, Diff2, Diff3. It is always better to have an RfC in instances such as this to get outside feedback and consensus, especially since the section you are removing is sourced. Discussion takes more than a unilateral statement on a talk page and summary removal. You could argue that the placement is undue weight or a fringe idea, etc. If you take the time to start an RfC and both sides make a statement I'll definitely give my opinion - right now all I see is edit-warring. - WeniWidiWiki 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. This will be my next step to try to resolve this edit dispute. The the reverts are there, but I thought the rule was not MORE than three reverts. So, I don't think I violated the 3RR.Giovanni33 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joinging the straw poll and clearly stating your position. It is honestly appreciated. Vassyana 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe we should request an RfC or mediation. It seems like the consensus was that the topic should be minimized from the solicitation for opinions I posted. Or perhaps just politely point out on the talk page that consensus leaned towards minimizing that section. What do you think? Vassyana 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

See [5] and my request for you to follow that idea as well. Agathoclea 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I certainly agree with that idea. Thanks for pointing it out. It was getting crazy. :)Giovanni33 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] userlinks

You might want to use {{user5}} instead - less controversial. Agathoclea 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Giovanni33 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gonna reply?

If so, reply to what I said below this, so that the section doesn't get too long.--Urthogie 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no response.--Urthogie 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yawn

No. Because I agreed to keep the bit about him leading China. I made other edits in the meantime. As to the rest, you're being extremely petty if you want that trivial stuff changed back. John Smith's 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding original quote award

		The dialectial interplay of this matter-in-motion
		Awarded for outstanding original quote. El_C 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR?

No, I'm not. I reverted vandalism which does not count - you know this because you were told that when you commented on another report made against me. It's also on the 3RR rules page - so I've only made 3 reverts. Check for yourself on the CR page history. John Smith's 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)