User talk:GreatGatsby/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Niger

Hello, GreatGatsby.

Could you please stop changing the proper pronunciation of Niger to the nonexistent "nigh-ZEER"? It is either "nee-ZHAIR" or "NIGH-jer". Please read Talk:Niger. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:11, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits.

[1] (beneficial minor spelling correction) Hyacinth 08:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On that note, please don't change proper British English spellings in articles to their bastardised American versions. :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cummings

Hi, I didn't actually change the article, but I did intervene to try to get some kind of consensus and I did ask for page protection (being reluctant to do it myself because of my involvement). I will continue to try to get agreement, as I do not want to see anybody being blocked or leaving the project over this issue. If you are interested, most of my interventions are on Blankfaze's talk page and on AN/3RR page. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 07:34 (UTC)

GreatGatsby, since you were one of the users with direct experience on the question, feel free to stay keen of developments in the E. E. Cummings article as well as your disputes with Blankfaze. I mentioned the revert previously in the talk page of the article as (implicitly) evidence of his bad faith on the question; if you have more to add please mention it, or keep it in mind if the dispute needs to go further. --TJive July 1, 2005 02:55 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at Vanunu

Thanks for your supportive comments, but I actually made that comment back in July. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape cheats

Hi, thank you for helping control the vandalism, it's very appreciated. The article is under attack by the company JAGeX right now. Please help save the article by commenting in the talk page.Jonathan888 (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drug-free

Hi there Miborovsky, Im Moe Epsilon. I saw your name to the list of drug-free Wikipedians. I created a template and category for it at Template:Drug-free. You can add it to your babel if you want. Hope you use it! — Moe ε 23:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On the Catholic Church of Wikipedia

As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'll go get my flame-proof suit

So a thirteen year old thinks disliking France makes someone an idiot? Jeez, I should reexamine my whole life now. Thank you. And the Mac bias is laughable. I hope you're not a gamer. GreatGatsby 00:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All righty then, I'll delete that one and refer you to the one right after it. I'm just sick of people who hate France and don't know why. Just so you know, I dislike my three-year-old Mac, but I abhor my five-year-old PC. I'm POOR, and I'm happy that my computer is at least usable. Bias? I wouldn't call it bias, but no one listens to kids who care/ramble about technology. I game very rarely now - buy me a new computer and that might change. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 05:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I do dislike France for several reasons, chief being their historical ungratefulness for American's help (especially in the Second World War, which I am very interested in. I do not just dislike nations because it's "hip" or the "thing to do". GreatGatsby 13:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Message to Pro-Life Wikipedians

The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your note on MfD

Hi GreatGatsby. Apologies for the delay, but I only just saw your personal attack on me on the MfD for CCW. If I'd seen it sooner, I'd have said something sooner.

First, please read the Wikipedia policy on not making personal attacks as it will be useful to you. Making a personal attack and declaring it not to be a personal attack doesn't stop it being a personal attack.

Secondly, please consider not making breathtakingly inaccurate assumptions about me based on my user page. This is not helpful to anyone. I have declared my views (each of which was independently arrived at over a period of time and each of which has been thought through rather than arrived at by assumption) on my user page so that other editors can see my off-Wikipedia views and judge my edits accordingly. In the real world, this is called "declaring an interest" and is considered a good thing. Perhaps not by you, but by other people certainly.

Finally, I'd be interested to know what you felt you would achieve by attacking me. Did you hope to change my vote? Make me leave the Wikipedia? Or were you just slapping down someone who didn't agree with you? I ask purely for information as I find the thought processes behind such an attack to be a fascinating subject to consider intellectually.

Many thanks. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 20:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I read your page and wanted to make an observation (I didn't think my comment would change your vote, nor did I want it to). Your comment here brings some interesting things to light, but you'd probably also interpret those as some juvenile personal attack, so I'll keep my observations to myself this time (more for fear of you crying to some Wikipedia authority than anything else). GreatGatsby 21:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life Alliance

The article Pro-Life Alliance has been nominated for deletion. Chooserr

[edit] drug free wikipedians

The category is in danger of getting deleted, so please vote here, thanks. BlueShirts 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay rights in Iraq

You listed yourself as Roman Catholic so I thought I might bring this unencyclopedic total POV pushing article to your attention. It is currently up for deletion here. Chooserr 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life

The Pro-Life organization Student LifeNet is up for deletion. If you would like to contribute to the discussion in progress you are more than welcome to do so. Chooserr 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CAoW

Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball on Wikicities

Hello GreatGatsby, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 21:01, 4 January 2006.

[edit] Good point!

I found your personal page in Wikipedia by chance. And I would like to say that I agree with some critics you have made about Wikipedia. Some articles are very bad written and biased. In thesis, I am not against people who is left and I dont considere myself a liberal. However, I agree with you and I see that the main and the most severe problems are created by people who create articles with a very strong left wing bias. Also there are a lot of defamatory and wrong information in some articles. Unfortunately there is a lot of people who dont see that as a problem. --Carlosar 13:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My user page

I have not inserted any text or tried to leave a message. There was an anon IP editing your userpage and it looked like vandalism. Sorry if I misunderstood. --Ichiro 04:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your comments with TDC

Actually, there is no problem with "number four". Wars are not happy-happy joy-joy fun times. War brings out the best and the worst in people. As long as you're not as bad as the enemy, you're set. Should we ignore the Holocaust or Nanking because of Dresden? Hell, Chomsky's whole career is just him going "So? We've done worse!" The problem with the four points in that they were formed from a biased perspective (someone trying to defend Chomsky, and making justifications for him, ironically). I read TDC's lengthy post on your discussion page, and he does not justify My Lai (AT ALL) or Ri. In the first instance, he did discuss the disproportionate attention given to that event as opposed to the VC's atrocities. With Ri he discusses the take he believes is more valid (but I'm sure you'd see your take as the "logical" or "true" set of events). Furthermore, pointing out that the enemy has done worse is not illogical, it's a defense against painting with such a broad brush. What I hate with people like you is you pretend to use logic and reason but DON'T. You voice your own biases and then hide behind a Holy of Holies of reason. But once we lift the veil we see the empty space. GreatGatsby 05:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)here

I am very biased, I admit it readily, are you?

Lets take an example: I killed someone and got caught. I then defended the murder in court, arguing that "person x killed person y, and x got off scot free, so I should too".

If you were on the jury, how would you find me?

Guilty or innoccent?

This is exactly what many Americans do to justify the attrocities that we have caused throughout the world. I am not saying that the Vietcong were angels. They were brutal bastards, who should be persecuted for their war crimes. I am not downplaying any attrocities. But people who "point...out that the enemy has done worse...(as)...a defense against painting with such a broad brush." Do, all the time.

There is a very fine line between describing historical context and justifying attrocities. Unfortunatly many Americans do this all the time. There is one standard for America, and a completly different standard for everyone else. I simply argue that America is no better than many of the empires throughout history, and that we should judge our actions the same as we judge other countries--because otherwise, isn't that hypocricy?

American attrocities in Vietnam were no less or greater attrocious because of Vietnamese attrocities, and vice versa. Attrocities have occured in almost any country, but that does not lessen or increase our own culpablity (guilty).

Like a court of law, and my first example above, each case should be tried independently. This is an example why:

America defending the death of 30,000-100,000 Iraqis because Saddam killed 200,000 people doesn't justify America's actions.
Just as Saddam justifying killing 200,000+ people by saying America killed 30,000-100,000 people doesn't jusfify Saddam's actions.

I feel that my view is much more rational and even handed than American's such as yourself. Am I biased, hell yes. Are you biased? You tell me. The question shouldn't be who is more biased, but who looks at the situation more rationally and evenhandly, using reason to come to their conclusions.

Every county claims they want peace, the problem is they always want peace on their own terms. Which worldview fosters peace more effectively, mine or yours?

And by the way, I really have a love-hate opinion of Chomsky, and have lambasted him before. He paints world events in a simple, naive, brush, with no historical context whatsoever. Take Colombia for example. US culpability (guilt) is a very small part of the disaster there, but if you read Chomsky alone, you would think the US is 100% guilty for the attrocities and disaster in Colombia. He is often no better than those Americans who apologize for their countries attrocities, painting a one-sided narrow view of American history. Travb 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well your numbers are off (a more realistic maximum ceiling for deaths after invasion is 50,000, and only about one fifth of those were caused directly by America; Saddam's death toll is closer to a million). You fall into a mistake there with your comparison anyway. It may sound coldhearted, but there IS a difference between collateral damage and directed extermination. It's like comparing Hiroshima and the Holocaust.

I was agreeing that My Lai and other atrocities shouldn't be excused, I believe I said that the perpetrators of My Lai got off scot free (in terms of the punishment they should have received). 21:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's like comparing Hiroshima and the Holocaust. To me, dead is dead. One of the leaders of the US bombing of Japan said that if we lost the war, we would be tried as war criminals. I dont recall the name right now.

Did you know that the US intended to bomb and destroy civilian targets? That they had tests Utah on simiulated Japanese houses to see how the houses would burn with American arsenal?[2] The military used the same myth of "pinpoint accuracy" as the American military does today, for the same reason. To try and convince the American public that there actions are not indiscriminate killing of civilians. [3]

When the U.S. killed 672,000 Japanese through civilian bombing, even Secretary of War Henry Stimson wondered why:

“There has never been a protest over...such extraordinarily heavy loss of life. There is something wrong with a country where no one questions that.”

The Axis firebombing of other cities was roundly condemned by the Allies as barbaric. This critism was muted when and justified away when the allies began to do the same thing. Another case of blatant, barbaric hypocricy.

Please see this link for varification of the above and more information.

Why focus on Hiroshima and not the Holocaust? for the same reason this famous author focuses on America, and not Bin Laden:

Washington, D.C.: I'm asking you this question sincerely: Why don't you direct your hatred of George Bush toward someone more worthy of such venom, such as Osama bin Laden?

Answer: I don't recall having expressed any hatred for George Bush, though I have quoted people who expressed real fury at what he has done, and even compared him to the Japanese fascists who bombed Pearl Harbor: historian Arthur Schlesinger in this case. If what you mean is that I have criticized Bush's policies more than Osama's, that's because I take for granted, like everyone else, that Osama bin Laden is a murderous thug, who the current incumbents in Washington should never have supported through the 1980s, and who should be apprehended and tried for his crimes right now -- as I've written -- and don't see any point reiterating what 100% of us believe about him. But I am a citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US government policies, and assume that one of the duties of citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example.

Signed: Travb 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your idealism is codemnable, but the dead aren't the dead. In the real world there's a difference between Hiroshima and the Holocaust (I guess you didn't understand why I said that, Hiroshima killed less people than an invasion would've. I bet you belong to the ignorant school of "the Japanese were about to surrender anyway" thought. If not, I apologize.) I'm sorry if that sounds cold-hearted, but as I've said before, the world isn't a nice place. Hell, even the anti-war crowd focuses more on the 2000+ dead American soldiers than the 30,000+ dead Iraqis.

Had I realize that bailey livejournal was yours, I never would've entered into a debate with you, as it's an execise in futility. You seem to think any loss of life/any bombing/any attack is terrible. As a student of military history (and most specifically World War II) I understand motivation/strategy/tactics. I don't criticize the Germans for bombing London. I criticize unprovoked assaults (Pearl Harbor, though it was tactically sound; Poland). In terms of the Second World War, bombing civilian targets was a valid tactic in order to demoralize the enemy. Would you rather America only meet the enemy on the battlefield, even though that would lead to more death on the American side, a longer war, and cost more money? It's ok to look back now and say "oh that was so horrible what we did", but back then it was do or die.

Not only is that person's statement incorrect (it's a much-believed myth that we supported/trained Osama in the '80s), but Mr. Schlesinger Jr isn't an unbiased source, either. Hell, I've criticized America for things I don't agree with, even for idealistic reasons (shunning Denmark for exercising their right to free speech, for one). I tend to look at things from a realistic perspective, that wars are necessary, that people die in those wars.

And what the hell is with your quote about the media not reporting every bombing/death in World War II? That wasn't a bad thing. Had we heard that 700 soldiers died in the PRACTICE run for D-Day I doubt that would've got a lot of support. "War is hell" pretty much sums it up. If you want to criticize something, criticize the inexusable internment of American citizens because they happened to have Japanese blood. That was not only a miscarriage of justice, but it didn't help the war effort in any way, shape, or form, and in fact probably hurt it because we lost more than a few good men in those camps. GreatGatsby 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More of the same

Your idealism is codemnable

I doubt my idealism is codemnable (sic) (commendable?), especially with your tone, accusing me of being (possibly) ignorant in the very next sentence. You seem to despise people like myself, who do not fervently believe that America is the best thing to ever happen to this world. "Sure we make "mistakes" but...." Those who try and destory this delusion of America being a beacon of freedom and democracy are roundly condemned.

I would rather hear your true feelings about my beliefs, then this fake admiration. I have been booted on wikipedia for stating my true feelings about apologists. I don't want to be booted again, otherwise I would tell you my true feelings about how you justify the deaths of millions of non-Americans. I won't give you fake compliments, hiding behind diplomacy.

Did you mean "condemnable"? "bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure" in that case, I stand corrected.

but the dead aren't the dead.

That is sound logic (with a cynical voice). The word "dead" doesnt really mean "dead". It means something else?

How did you feel about the 3,000 dead on September 11th? Did you justify it away the way you justify away the deaths of Iraqis? You seem to justify the deaths of Japanese and Iraqis, but never justify away the deaths of Americans. Why?

I guess you didn't understand why I said that,

I have debated so many hundreds of apologists. I pretty much knew your response before you say it. I knew were you were going with your line of reasoning the minute you said "Hiroshima".

(I guess you didn't understand why I said that, Hiroshima killed less people than an invasion would've. I bet you belong to the ignorant school of "the Japanese were about to surrender anyway" thought. If not, I apologize.)

Simply because I may see the world different than you does not necessarily mean that I am ignorant. I am not going to get in a pissing match about our respective eduction. Why? Because that is completly irrelevent to the debate at hand. We are debating ideas, not our repective eductations.

How many Americans died in the invasion of Japan? I bet you can't tell me. Why? Because it never happened. Any idea would be a guess--mental masterbation. Its like speculating what would have happened if Hitler won world war 2. I love alternative history SF, but it has no place in debates.

How many people died when America dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets? The world knows that number.

Of course Americans would've been tried for war crimes had we lost the war. But you do know what a technowar or total war is, right?

Ah, the justification, first one of many in your arguent. You admit "Sure some Americans are war criminals", and then the typical "but". Can you say a sentence about American attrocities without the word "but"? I bet you can't.

I have never heard of technowar, but I am familar with the term total war.

You are correct that pinpoint accuracy is a misnomer (although not truly a myth). The death toll in Iraq (especially the blood on America's hands) is insanely low compared historically to campaigns of similar length/size.

More justification, "sure a lot of people died" and then the typcial "but". You can't argue with such twisted, dangerous logic.

Not only is that person's statement incorrect (it's a much-believed myth that we supported/trained Osama in the '80s), but Mr. Schlesinger Jr isn't an unbiased source, either.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, Mr. Schlesinger Jr did not write that quote. I have no idea who Mr. Schlesinger Jr is. Who is he? What statment are you talking about?

You never answered my question: are you unbaised? Who exactly is unbaised? Have you ever quoted Stalin or Hitler? I have. Does that make me a Communist or Facist? No. My point is that you should not limit what you read simply because it does fit into your worldview. don't dismiss someone simply because they are "biased" or "leftist" or "liberal". this is a lazy way to dismiss ideas. It is much harder to read those people you dispise, and then explain why their beleifs are falacious. Unfortunatly, most people simply label someone, then ignore what they say. You completly ignored the message, and attacked the messenger. this is a very common Ad Hominem falacy.

Hell, I've criticized America for things I don't agree with, even for idealistic reasons (shunning Denmark for exercising their right to free speech, for one). I tend to look at things from a realistic perspective, that wars are necessary, that people die in those wars...."War is hell" pretty much sums it up.

The very word realist in international affairs presupposes that everyone else is "unrealistic". Realists believe that States are inherently aggressive ("offensive realism"), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). So therefore, there is no other option but force. Force should be embraced because it is the only way that states acts. That is the central weakness in realist thinking. (Before this semester I didn't know what a Realist believes.) In some ways realism theory is fatalistic like marxism.

Had I realize that bailey livejournal was yours, I never would've entered into a debate with you, as it's an execise in futility.

So why did you debate me? I am open too new ideas, what are yours? Thus far what you have said is terribly generic. I would like to learn something from you, and be challenged by you, but thus far I have been disappointed. You seem to be losing interest, so it appears the next message will be your last.

What quote are you talking about. Sorry for not understanding what you are talking about.

So, this begs my question which I asked before: Which world-view fosters peace more effectively, mine or yours? (I fear I already know your response and justification, but maybe you will surprise me.)

If you want to criticize something, criticize the inexusable internment of American citizens because they happened to have Japanese blood. That was not only a miscarriage of justice, but it didn't help the war effort in any way, shape, or form, and in fact probably hurt it because we lost more than a few good men in those camps.

Why is it okay to criticize interment of American citizens but not okay to criticize the death of hundreds of thousands of non-american japanese who died in fire bombing in Japan, when you admit yourself it was a war crime? Is it because those people who were interned are Americans, and those who died in fire bombing were Japanese?

What I hate with people like you is you pretend to use logic and reason but DON'T. You voice your own biases and then hide behind a Holy of Holies of reason. But once we lift the veil we see the empty space.

I think the real reason you don't like to debate people like me is because "we" beat you in debates. I see little logic and reason in your argument, and a lot of preprogrammed responses that I could here from millions of Americans. Please surprise me and say something novel. I am having a severe case of de javu and growing bored of having a conversation with you that I have had a million times before.

Please start by answering my tough searing questions, and then ask me some questions too. Thus far I have heard a lot of justification, and little else original or novel.

By the tone of your last post, I think you are not interested in debating me, and are willing to label and categorize me a certain way, ignore my thoughts and ideas, and move on with your life.

"When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind." -- William I.B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, 1957

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity (clamness) opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. --Albert Einstein

Signed: Travb 23:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And you think what you say isn't generic? I went to a college where at least three quarters of the populace held your very ideas (although they parroted them just as a chance to bash America, you seem to be have more noble aims). And you do get it right, I do believe might makes right. The victor writes history, correct?

I'm tired of being beat by people like you? You're the only person I've debated who had anything to say that was actually supported, but like others you don't seem to get that your side is just that, a viewpoint. I didn't want to stop talking to you because you had new ideas (you've exposed me to none), but some of your critiques of things like Americanism seemed rather silly to me. I'm a weak libertarian, and even I like a healthy dose of nationalism.

And I'm sorry, an American death means more to me than the death of a non-American. It's not something I can help, it's an emotion. I had more a response to 9/11 than I did to the London bombing, Bali bombing, the daily bombings in Iraq, etc, because guess who died? Americans. At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, Americans are the lives I care about. there's also several other factors involved: the proximity to where I live, where the planes originated from, the fact America is never directly attacked, etc.

I guess you just don't get it when you ask why I bring up American citizens being interned and the deaths of the Japanese. One people are members of my country, another were the machine supporting the enemy (did you miss where I said I don't see anything wrong, in terms of warfare, with the Germans bombing London?).

Yeah, it's alternate history science fiction to look at the state of the Japanese populace, the strength of their home guard, the terrain, the death rate on the islands up till Japan, etc and then extrapolate a conservative estimate for deaths on both sides. "Since it never happened we'll never know." While true, it's disingenuous. How about you quote Einsehower saying he never wanted the atom bomb used?

Which world-view fosters peace more effectively, mine or yours? (I fear I already know your response and justification, but maybe you will surprise me.)

I was actually going to answer this until your high-minded quip you just had to add on there. Ah hell, I'll answer it anyway. Yours. But I'm not delusional enough to think peace is viable (there's been something like three decades of peace in the entirety of recorded history). But I would love to have peace, just like I wish socialism worked because it'd be the best for mankind.

That is sound logic (with a cynical voice). The word "dead" doesnt really mean "dead". It means something else?

Don't take everything literally, professor. I was obviously saying that, just as the living, the dead aren't equal.

I'm an apologist? So what? "A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution." Yup. That's me. You're an apologist for moral equivalence. Is that supposed to be insulting?

The major weakness with your entire position is you're logically dissecting war. Which, I think most students of it would agree, is an illogical (and irrational) venture. GreatGatsby 06:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments

I need to get ready for work. I will probably be late because I am writing you.

I was actually going to answer this until your high-minded quip you just had to add on there.

I will be the first to admit that I am an arrogant prick.

And you think what you say isn't generic?

No sir. What I say is depressingly generic. That in no way reduces the generic attributes of what you say.

History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies. --Alexis de Tocqueville

And I'm sorry, an American death means more to me than the death of a non-American.

I am glad that you will readily acknowlege it so quickly, that means you are less ideological than some of your conservative collegues, which is refreshing. I remember arguing with a childhood friend who was in the military, about all of the deaths America causes, and how he is part of this death machine (hell, I am part of this death machine, albiet less directly). After days of arguing and slowly destroying our friendship in the process, he admitted to me he doesn't give a fuck about how many people from other countries we kill. It was morally repugnant to me, but it was also a turning point in our discussion. There really wasn't much to say after that. He simply didn't care.

You're the only person I've debated who had anything to say that was actually supported, but like others you don't seem to get that your side is just that, a viewpoint.

thank you for your semi-compliment. Yes, my view is a viewpoint. The word I hate the most is "truth". The most misused word which has caused more death and destruction in world history. I guess it comes down to whose biased viewpoint is more supportive of world peace, which you readily acknowlege is my own. Albiet, and please correct me if I am wrong, as typically is the case with realists, you seem to feel my viewpoint is irrational and a fantasy. If America didn't have the largest military in the world, sell the most weapons in the world, and kill millions of people for its own interests, someone else would. Now, I am putting a lot of words in your mouth which you never said, so please correct me if I am wrong.

You're an apologist for moral equivalence.

Please explain, I am sorry I didn't understand.

Don't take everything literally, professor. I was obviously saying that, just as the living, the dead aren't equal.

Okay, so a dead Iraqi is not worth as much as a dead American?

Well, thanks for surprising me. :) That is refreshing. You are the first person I have ever met to admit they are an apologist. To most people it is insulting. I used to call people jingoist, ideolgues, and nationalists, but I have toned down my rhetoric here. I even promised a wikiuser I would stop using the word apologist less, but it is really hard not too. I think human minds are made to categorize complex ideas into simple boxes. This is both bad and good.

The major weakness with your entire position is you're logically dissecting war. Which, I think most students of it would agree, is an illogical (and irrational) venture.

Hmm...please elaborate. You have my interest.

But I'm not delusional enough to think peace is viable (there's been something like three decades of peace in the entirety of recorded history). But I would love to have peace, just like I wish socialism worked because it'd be the best for mankind.

So, peace is not viable so we should continue to selectively choose to wage war? Wars not of self-defense but for economic reasons? I find it facinating when I read the history of Europe, for example, how there were no highminded ideals in those wars. History explains those wars as wars for resources. All of the ideological justifications are stripped away. So historians will not write that the Iraq war was a war for democracy for the Iraqi people, historians will write that the war was for oil. America has intervened in 35 countries since the end of the cold war, and only one of them was a democracy 10 years later: Colombia.

Kennan summarised the private objectives of US policy clearly in 1948:

We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population.... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships that will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.... We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratisation. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better. --George Kennan, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948 (Washington, DC: General Printing Office, 1976), pp.9-29.

Anyway, I need to go to work.

People like yourself is the reason why there will never be any viable peace, ever. You forget the long periods of peace in this world, punctuated with bloody wars. My IR teacher said that all countries are at peace more than they are at war, look at the history of any country, and I think this will play out. Yes, wars are inevitable. Peace will never be possible. Christian and Marxist utopian predictions are pipe dreams. As I mentioned I think above, every country wants peace, but they want peace on their own terms. You seem to subscribe to Kennans view, which is a recipe for perpetual war, and the deaths of millions of more people at the hands of America.

I don't have time to address your Japanese contention, but I think I have given you enough to respond to and think about. Travb 16:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

How about you quote Einsehower saying he never wanted the atom bomb used?

Please refresh my memory--what quote. Again, the bottom line is the estimate is speculation, and will always be speculation, because it never did happen. you can use stronger words, estimate, etc. but we will never know. I don't know about Eisenhower saying he never wanted the bomb to be used--this is irrelevant because the bomb was used. I have hundreds of quotes and I am sure a handful them are speculative in nature. The underlying fact that the estimate is speculation which can't be debated. In the past while I have realized that debating "what if" theories about different futures that never happpened is pointless, because those facts cannot be proven or disproven one way or another.

What quote? That doesn't sound like Eisenhower. I don't care much for Eisenhower. If I recall-- He led a force against the Bonus Army and had a big part in the contined occupation of Haiti--maybe I am mixing my "great leaders" up. He was a ruthless bastard as most american presidents unfortunatly are. I did enjoy his prophetic last speech though about the Military-industrial complex. Oh wait Haiti was Roosevelt--he wrote the constitution for Haiti. It was Eisenhower and MacArthur who routed the Bonus Army.

The number of dead Americans is an estimate. It can not be quantified, because it never happened. No matter how much we debate Japan, the bottom line is that thankfully, one million Americans never had to storm Japan. Maybe the deaths would have been higher, maybe the deaths would have been lower. I don't know, no one knows. I think that we can agree, estimates can be wrong, and often are.

I do know, and the world knows, that the war ended with the bombing of 2 civlian cities, which caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese. Firebombing was barbaric, as our own newspapers said they were years before, those who ordered those bombings, and the firebombing before could have been tried as war crimes, as we both acknowledge.

I lived for two and a half years in Ukraine, in the former Soviet Union, my wife and son are Ukrainian. I remember wading in the black sea, surrounded by happy people and realizing how these people were never my enemies. I was lied too. These former soviets were wonderful beautiful people, who I miss dearly. I had closer friends in Ukraine then I ever had in America. During 9/11 I had Arab friends who were the most honest, noble, genuine, incredible men I have ever met in my entire life.

I don't know if you have ever lived outside of America and have ever become truly one with another culture--were you start to develop their way of thinking over your own. Very, very few ex-pats do. Of the 500 or so American i knew there, I knew maybe 2 or 3 Americans in Ukraine who adapted to the culture the way I did. So when you talk about how American lives are more important than the "others", it makes my sick to my stomache. Because you are saying that my son, and my wife, and my best friends in the whole world, are somehow less because they were not "lucky" enough to be born in the US. But I argue, in many ways they are so much more because they were not born in America. There is so much we seemed to have lost as a people, or maybe never had that I can now find in other cultures.

Your views remind me of racist fear of the "others" in the middle ages. Outsiders were viewed by isolated villagers with suspision and fear. I think I understand why you may think the way you do, in many ways I once felt the same way. I bought into the US propoganda of the Cold War, and I was scared of the "other", in this case the USSR during the 70's and 80's too.

Living in Ukraine though, I realized how much Soviets lives were filed with the same simple abitions, hopes and dreams as my own family, my own friends, my own neighbors.

Very few of my Ukrainian friend's black and white photo albums of the Soviet period had photos of Communist banners, in fact only one in a thousand had photos of the emblems of the USSR, and usually those emblems were in the far background. Just as many American families did not have American propoganda in their own family color photo albums of the same period. Instead, Soviets had simple, loving photos, of picnics and vacations, and simple family life.

So when you justify away the number of dead in Iraq, I think of my noble guy friends in Dubi and Oman, and my heart sinks and I get sick to my stomache. I can't easily forgive your lack of compassion toward the rest of the world, especially when, the "other" you describe is not only my family, but the "other" is now me too. Travb 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain, I am sorry I didn't understand.

You obviously adhere to moral equivalence (that all actions should be equally judged, while ignoring the motive/justification for said actions). It's the same thing people use when they say the IDF is just as bad as Palestinian suicide bombers, they both kill people, right?

What quote? That doesn't sound like Eisenhower.

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

You forget the long periods of peace in this world, punctuated with bloody wars

Worldwide, there have been three decades of peace (that is to say there was no warfare anywhere on the planet) in recorded history. I'm not saying peace for a specific country for a specific time is a fantasy, America's had such periods before. But to think that there could be a worldwide peace for any lengthy period of time is a fantasy. Even if all the "civilized" nations put down their arms, you'd still have countries/persons/entities who want to kill or gain power. I mean if we could alter human nature, I'd be all for making us all peaceful beings, but I don't see that happening in the near future. Historically, it's bloody warfare punctuated by short periods of peace.

I'm not really a fearful person, but if I were to fear any group right now it'd be Islamists. And now you'll probably turn that around and say I hate all Muslims and/or Arabs, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Hell, the only time I was ever afraid in my life was after the plane hit the Pentagon and I thought planes would keep falling out of the sky.

Hmm...please elaborate. You have my interest.

On a national level we come to a point where we shoot each other and bomb each other on a mass scale to settle differences? It really makes no sense. And then there's the fact that sometimes to stop violence you have to use violence, or to bring a peace you have to enter into war (WWII being the prime example)? It's all irrational. That one day we can go about buying groceries and taking care of our kids and the next we could be bayoneting another man or setting another on fire because two governments disagreed? It's ludicrous.

[H]istorians will write that the war was for oil.

So our children's children's textbooks will have even more inaccuracies than ours did? The war may be economic in nature (I think it's an unsupportable position, but this is a free country), but we're a few decades from the real oil wars.

Oh, you don't have to link all those things, either. Heck, I just finished reading a book on the Bonus Army the other day. Y'know, right after I read the latest Ann Coulter (sarcasm). GreatGatsby 06:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moral equivalence

Yes, in most cases I do. There are cases were murder is justified, but there are few cases. I think when one country invades another country, those people have a right to defend themselves. I think we were right to fight Japan. I think we were right to topple the Taliban. I think we were right to throw Saddam out of Kwuait. Are my views irrational, can there be shown cases were my logic is illogical? You bet.

I think many pacifists view of WW2 is highly naive, particularly howard zinn's were we should have let Hitler take over all of europe and let the people fight Hitler as guerillas. There is a lot of history behind those three wars I brought up, things that maybe could have been done to avoid those wars, but that is alternate sci-fi again, so there is no point in arguing this.

Interesting, thanks

I am not arguing there will ever be worldwide peace, as you say, human nature is such that we are an agressive race. I simply argue that you focus on the failures of peace, instead of the sucesses, to justify that it is in our best interest to be the bully of the world. I argue this realist mindset is a recipe for perpetual war. For one example, realists focus on the failures of the UN, a liberal institution, in an attempt to undermine the UN. Everyone admits that there have been failures in the UN. But I argue that in almost every case, those failures are enginered failures, the security council in certain cases wants the UN to fail. In otherwords, the UN is often engineered to fail.

As I argued in my International conflict resolution paper[4] :

The UN is under fire from realists just as government programs are under attack in America. In America, first conservatives starve government programs for funding, then conservatives site government ineptitude (caused by a lack of funding), and encourage the closing of these organizations.[21] Many America realists want the UN to fail, and strangle funding to make the UN inept, these same realists then turn around and show the ineptness caused by under-funding as a reason to close the UN. As was clearly the case in Rwanda, if the conflict does not involve the Security Council's interests, the UN is engineered to fail.

I have not talked to you about the UN, but I would hazzard a guess that you think the UN should be abolished. I argue, (as the author Sutterlin argues in Sutterlin, J. (2003).The United Nation and the Maintenance of International Security), that:

Unless countries begin to forgo their national interests for the better good of the world as a whole (which as history illustrates is a delusional fantasy) the UN, as the US policy toward the UN in the Iraq War showed, will continue to simply be a tool to be used when convenient, doomed to failure when the UN member-states best interests conflict with the UN.

My paper is aptly called: The United Nations: Doomed to Fail.

I'm not "a fearful person" but I am afraid? That makes sense (cynically). I think fear spawns hatred. Currently, you feel that an Iraqi life is not worth as much as an American one. I feel that is a pretty hateful, nasty thing to acknowledge.

In the 80's Reagan said that if Grenada was taking over by communists, that it was a short drive to Texas. This is absurd. Grenada, a tiny third world country would somehow invade America. The fear engineered in the domino theory cost the lives of 3 million people. WMD fears cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The wonderful book "Stalingrad" discusses how the Nazis dehumanized the Russian people, and made the German population fear that Russia would invade them, so they had to premptively attack Russia. Americans did the same thing with the Japanese (dehumanized them). I watched some cold-war American advertising propoganda yesterday. "A missle can hit you at anytime" the black and white video screamed... I quoted an author in my paper who states that the "discontinuity thesis."

The "discontinuity thesis" states that the international post-Cold War policy is different from the earlier Cold War period. The author argues forcefully that the "discontinuity thesis" is flawed. The author contends that post-US Cold War policy, a highly realist, zero sum view of the world, is no different from earlier Cold War policy.

The author further argues that the Cold War was never about East-West tensions, but it was always about North-South tensions--i.e. control of third world natural resources. In otherwords, the American policy is the same today as it was during the Cold War--control natural resources in third world countries by supporting regiemes that are favorable to America's national interest (i.e. the interests of the elite, who run this country).

After the Cold War, America attacked and invaded countries under the pretext of the War on Drugs. 9/11 allowed America to change its rational: to the war on terrorism. A great example of this is Colombia, as the author argues, and as I have learned for my classes (I am doing three papers on Colombia for three classes). The suppression of left wing movements, including labor unions and those groups that threatened the status quo, were supported by the United States under the guise of the Cold War and to stop communism. After communism was defeated, the aid to Colombia did not stop--because the natuaral resources in colombia did not suddenly cease to exist in Colombia--instead the justifications changed, to a war on drugs. Now after 9/11, Colombia has become an important battle ground on the war of terror. The justifications have changed, but the reason America is there has stayed the same: the explotation of Colombia's natural resources at any cost.

Part of this war on terror/drugs/communism, also involves a propoganda war at home. The elites must convince the population that there way of life is threatened-- when people are afraid they are willing to do anything to stop that fear. Thus if I asked you ten years ago what you were afraid of, it would be the war on drugs, twenty years ago, it would have been communists. The boogeyman changes, but the rationalization behind those boogeymen stays the same: the explotation of resources no matter what the human cost.

So in otherwords, you fear of muslims, an engineered fear which in many ways is irrational, is indirectly a threat to world peace, or regional peace, or America's peace.

I need to go to work...best of luck. Wish i had time to write more.

signed: Travb 16:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So in otherwords, you fear of muslims

I already said I'm not afraid of Muslims, just that you would take my fear of Islamists (which is a political ideology) as a fear of Muslims. It has nothing to do with propoganda, but I guess people can't think for themselves in this world, eh?

You are correct, I think the United Nations is a ridiculous organization. One of its primary reasons for creation was to make sure a Holocaust never happened again. Just like your belief that sometimes murder is justified (for the record, not all killing is murder, but I won't use scare quotes around the word because I think that's childish in a debate with someone), I am an idealist about some things, and genocide is one. That might be surprising considering my other statements, but systematic extermination does boil my blood. My major problem with Clinton was his turning a blind eye to Rwanda, a case where I wouldn't have minded losing American lives to ensure the slaughter ended. It's an issue almost totally ignored here in the States, and in relation to the United Nations. (It's also my main problem with Bush, his ignoring of the Sudan "crisis" - I use scare quotes there, because it's obviously a genocide.) It has to do with the motives behind the killing, I think, that makes me so angry/upset. We killed far more Vietnamese with bombs than the soldiers did in My Lai, but My Lai is the one that pisses me off. The Japanese killed 3000 Americans at Pearl Harbor, but the Rape of Nanking gets me more upset. And don't get me started on the Holocaust, there's no words to describe my feelings for that crime. I could probably find more instances where the deaths of non-Americans upset me more than Americans, but none pop immediately to mind.

Oh, and I forgot to say this in all my other replies, but I'm not a realist as it applies to that school of geopolitics. I meant that I usually realize that my ideals are sometimes ridiculously out of line with how the real world functions. Personally, I think the realist worldview is abhorrent, and I couldn't be one anyway. They don't support Israel, or any other country that doesn't help America out. GreatGatsby 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A good place to end, where we agree more than we disagree. Ever watched the PBS video on Rwanda? The triumph of evil? A few years after watching that video Clinton grabbed my hand in Kiev while I was trying to fumble with the camera for my girlfriend and I felt like I should wash it immediatly. A neocon I know brings up Clintons failure of Rwanda for the reason for being a neo-con. Anyway, I have way to much school work. Nice to talk to you. Good luck. My aplogies for my incorrect assumptions (you are a realist, you care less about American lives than non-American lives in all cases, etc., etc. etc.)Travb 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of fair use images from your user page

GreatGatsby; I removed the Boston Red Sox logo from your user page because having fair use images on your userpage is a violation of Wikipedia Board of Trustees policy and quite possibly a violation of copyright law as well. You reverted my removal of the logo. I will not remove it again, but it needs to be removed. Also, the logo for Opera needs to be removed as well. For the policy that outlines this, please see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to remove those images from your userpage. Thank you, and all the best, --Durin 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi GreatGatsby - Brookie here - can you post a response to the point raise by Durin please? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, did he go telling everyone? GreatGatsby 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He left a note at the administrators' noticeboard. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool. GreatGatsby 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Durin is correct, images uploaded to Wikipedia under a claim of fair use may not be used on user pages, but only in articles. I'm removing the Boston Red Sox and Opera logos from your user page; please do not replace them. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At least you did it and commented (and also put placeholders for me). Durin just deleted the image and didn't say anything (I don't check the history on my userpage). GreatGatsby 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He left a pretty clear edit summary here. Checking any page's history when something has been changed is always a good idea. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And I addressed the very point about why I don't leave messages on talk pages when doing this sort of work. :) User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images#You_could_have_explained_your_actions_on_my_talk_page.21, which is on the page referred to in that edit summary. Also, I address the point about replacing the images with something usable at User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images#You_could_have_explained_your_actions_on_my_talk_page.21. I wasn't attacking your userpage GreatGatsby, I was just working to fix copyright violations on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What I assumed when I went to my userpage after the change was that the image had been removed totally from Wikipedia, which made perfect sense. I didn't assume someone had removed it from the page. I did check AFTER a message was left on my comment page and saw the edit. It doesn't matter that you have that linked message, as I'm not going to check everyone's userpage just because they happen upon mine. GreatGatsby 22:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You can do as you wish of course. I have a link to that page in the edit summary to further explain the actions. For the vast majority of cases, this has worked quite well. I'm sorry it did not work as well this time. --Durin 12:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)