Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2739 times:
It seems that the debate Iraq is spinning out of control, both on A.net, and, more importantly, within the ranks of NATO. Both are becoming intolerable, although on here it is not a matter of life and death, simply strongly-held beliefs and emotions coming forth.
What can be done, on here, and in NATO, to find common ground, and to restore some order of civility?
First on A.net:
-It's time for a Cease-Fire in the back and forth name calling. It has gotten way out of hand. I have had a part in it, but that stops here. For Americans and Europeans to be constantly throwing verbal grenades at each other is pointless, and accomplishes nothing. Maybe it's more impressive to do so, but it serves no purpose. Perhaps we should spend more time looking for and talking about that that unites us, instead of divides us: our common heritage (among most of us) of being in free, independent, prosperous nations.
-Perhaps it's time to reintrouduce the "one-thread at a time" rule. The forum is just jammed with anti-Europe and anti-US sentiment right now, repeating the same old lines that all of us are painfully familiar with. Maybe I'll suggest that on Site Related.
-It's time for all of us-and I put myself at the front of the list-to just step back a little, and stop the name-calling. We all, by now, are aware, that we all have our own strongly-held, very passionate positions on here, but it's getting downright mean. That has to stop, if it can.
Now, for NATO/The UN
-It is quite obvious that the U.S. has NOT made the case for war. The case has not been made to me, as an individual, and it has not been made to the rest of the world. The U.S. should now work fully within the framework of what the family of nations desires-more inspections, with more inspectors, aerial overflights, and the like. The U.S. will not suffer any humiliation in this, I believe, but it will in fact help improve the U.S's standing among those that oppose conflict at this time.
-The U.S. should, however, insist that the military pressure upon Iraq continue. Without the threat of armed force, Saddam Hussein will simply fall back into his usual pattern of delay, deceit and threat, that has let him defy the United Nations for 12 years. If it is shown that Saddam is indeed hiding WMD's, or if he launches some crazy attack against Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Turkey, or Israel, then all bets are off.
-To this end, NATO and the UN should pledge to take up some of the burden within the buildup in terms of men and material. If pressure is to be kept up, it should be kept up by ALL nations concerned, not just by one or two.
-NATO should convene an urgent meeting to keep trying to resolve the outstanding difference between the member nations. It simply must solve this chasm if it is to have any credibility or purpose left in the world.
First and foremost, the parlimentary maneuvering over giving DEFENSIVE aid to Turkey should end, and Turkey's wish to have NATO help in simply planning for a worst-case scenario should be immediately granted.
-With this in mind, a Summit is needed IMMEDIATELY among, most prominently, the leaders of the United States, The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and other heads of State of NATO/EU nations. The air needs to be cleared between Chirac, Schroeder, Blair, Bush, and others. They ALL need to start acting like adults, and statesmen, instead of school boys throwing slushballs at each other out of spite. They need to have a free, frank, HONEST and sincere talk together-without their entourage of advisors-maybe just translators-and just hammer it out.
-Within that mindset, Bush needs to step on the toes, and kick a few testicles withing the Congressional leadership, and immediately snuff out this mindless nonsense of leveling sanctions against France or Germany or any other ally, simply because of the tiff in NATO, and the disagreement over Iraq. This is more schoolboy nonsense, and the President should quash that immediately. It only hurts his administration to have DeLay and Hastert making assinine comments like they have been made. Conversely, any assinne comments from European ministers needs to be dealt with just as harshly by those heads of state.
Maybe some of you have more to add. As for me, I'm done with the back and forth for now. Curse me if you want, applaud if you want. But it's just gotten way out of hand, even for a overbearing Yank like myself.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13448 posts, RR: 77
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2284 times:
Agreed, I think the humorous and mature exchanges between the French ambassador at the UN and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, spoke volumes, (and thanks Jack for your frequent use of Concorde recently, helps pay my wages!).
What would also help would be Rumsfeld being reigned in, he's Defence Secretary that's all, while his views are probably identical to Cheney, I do not remember Cheney having such a high profile during the 1991 war, maybe it's today's media but he seems to revel in the limelight, as for comments that US commanders should be like 'venture capitalists', say no more!
In 1990 France had a disaster of a Defence minister, totally against military action and head of the 'Franco-Iraq friendship society' but he was replaced well before the war started, when France played a significant military role, a role that was politically possible for them due to UN backing.
I'm not saying Rumsfeld should be sacked, but he needs to leave some work for the State Department to do!
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
This post is very good. I feel the same Alpha1, the case HAS NOT been made, and as Raffarin said "The game is NOT over". We have no need to be rushed into war like this, its stupid. Let the inspectors have more time, and gather more intelligence. Use new tools, like reconaissance overflights etc... Make it happen , get it crackin, but not with War.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21592 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
Alpha 1: Maybe some of you have more to add. As for me, I'm done with the back and forth for now. Curse me if you want, applaud if you want. But it's just gotten way out of hand, even for a overbearing Yank like myself.
Alpha, you´re exhibiting disturbing symptoms of sanity, recently... I´m shocked!
But seriously, I mostly agree.
There had already been a few previous threads about this crisis that actually tried to stem the tide and largely remained friendly and constructive. So another one won´t hurt.
In this spirit, I would still like to add a few constructive comments:
First: Indianguy, please calm down!
Alpha 1: -Perhaps it's time to reintrouduce the "one-thread at a time" rule.
I still don´t think so. This is the biggest - and most complex - crisis since the fall of the Berlin wall, and discussions about it should be allowed. Although name-calling and stereotypical insults certainly don´t contribute much, really. Especially not by repetition.
Alpha 1: First and foremost, the parlimentary maneuvering over giving DEFENSIVE aid to Turkey should end, and Turkey's wish to have NATO help in simply planning for a worst-case scenario should be immediately granted.
There was never any doubt about helping Turkey if and when they needed it. The point of contention was just Rumsfeld´s request to provide aid before a threat would actually materialize - as a possible iraqi response to the planned US-led attack. It appeared to be an attempt to nudge the allies past the "point of no return". So the "whether" was never in question, just the "when".
Alpha 1: -With this in mind, a Summit is needed IMMEDIATELY among, most prominently, the leaders of the United States, The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and other heads of State of NATO/EU nations.
That could get ... interesting, to say the least.
But I think such a summit might indeed be a convincing demonstration of unity that might help in achieving further progress. And it might help save some faces, if done right. So much for dreaming...
Alpha 1: It only hurts his administration to have DeLay and Hastert making assinine comments like they have been made.
Indeed... but after Rummy´s more colorful remarks, people over here have already stopped taking that stuff too seriously (sign on a twin baby stroller in today´s Berlin peace rally: "we are two 'old europeans'" ).
Alpha 1: Conversely, any assinne comments from European ministers needs to be dealt with just as harshly by those heads of state.
Of course. But apart from the earlier remarks by Herta Däubler-Gmelin (who lost her office for them), have I missed something?
JetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
Indianguy, this further proves that you are sad, bitter, little individual with an irrational grudge against America and her people. It is quite clear you are someone that is to be disregarded entirely (this reply notwithstanding).
747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
"...help would be Rumsfeld being reigned in, he's Defence Secretary that's all..."
-Yes, all should be reigned it, including Schroeder, Chretien and Chirac among others, especially in the rhetoric deaprtment. Namecalling, especially from Canadian ministers is especially childish. The appalling rhetoric is what is fueling the harsh feelings and blurring the real differences. (PS Alpha1, Blair, Bush and a majority of the leaders have chosen etiquette over shreiking and screeching. It is France Germany and Canada that have chose to roll around in the mud.)
-Non entities such as Mandela, Hollywood Stars, Flush Limpballs, slick Willy, Jimmy Carter, should all be ignored as well.
-Also, it should be realized that NATO is no loner apllicabe and that a new organization of striclky Eurpoean states be formed under UN auspices, with out US involvement--and that current events being debated in the UN should be addressed with that in mind, regardless that Nato is still in existance.
-The US must realize that Europe has made it known that they can operate on their own, form their own decisions and be responsible for their own defence. The US must allow the autonomy that Europe requires, since the cold war is over and the world is now a different place.
Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
Klaus: I dont think that Alpha1 here has any right to sit here and preach. He is one of the biggest culprits as far as name-calling goes. Just ask any of the members who have been at the receiving end of his rhetoric!
And even now he says that Europeans and Americans must not slang each other! Which means that everyone else is fair game eh?
For Americans and Europeans to be constantly throwing verbal grenades at each other is pointless, and accomplishes nothing.
Alpha1: You get back what you give out. Give respect, and you will get it back.
Once again:stop whining. The moderators are here to keep recalcitrant members in check. If you still cant take the heat, then...
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
Indianguy, you really are a pathetic individual. You are unable hide your hatred and vindictiveness, and when others are tired of arguing, you try to claim victory. I briefly considered requesting deletion of your post, but feel it's better to keep it there just for everyone to see what a fool you are.
Alpha, I agree with nearly all of your post, with the exception of one little thing. I don't believe that GW Bush, Cheney, Powell and others are themselves convinced of the need for war at this time. After all, if they were truely convinced, it would have already started by now. This is all an attempt to put the maximum amount of pressure on Saddam. It's a pity that most people only see in black and white.
But the clock is ticking. How many carrier battle groups are in the area now? Five or six? The US might be able to keep that sort of presence up for maybe a couple of months, but then they will start having to come home, and if significant progress hasn't been made by then, Saddam may feel brave enough to call the bluff, seeing some of the deployed forces go home.
Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
you really are a pathetic individual. You are unable hide your hatred and vindictiveness, and when others are tired of arguing, you try to claim victory.
There it is again: ANyone who disagrees with the "lords" is a fool, pathetic individual etc. Back to name calling again I see.
You have any right to suggest deletion of any message, so do that. You arent doing me (or anyone else) any big favor by not doing so.
Why has Alpha1 has started whining about name-calling? He is the MAIN CULPRIT behind this whole name calling business. Just look at his record. How many users here can stand up and say that they have been the target of verbal shit from this potty-mouth? I am personally in touch over emails with many of them, so i know there are quite a few.
So for this guy to turn around and ask for a halt to this is truly amazing! What do i say further, I am speechless!
Once again: Gove respect and you will get it back. If you resort to name calling you are going to get that back.
With regard to the debate on Iraq, we have been having perfectly valid discussions. It is this right wing brigade that comes in waving black flags and throwing verbal abuse at all the people who try to have a decent discussion on this.
Let me say this again: All members who post here, follow the rules of this board. They understand them and stick to them. We have moderators to ensure that discipline is maintained. Inspite of all this, if *some* members cant take the heat, then they can choose not to participate. What's the point of this kind of whiny-post?
NormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
"I don't believe that GW Bush, Cheney, Powell and others are themselves convinced of the need for war at this time. After all, if they were truely convinced, it would have already started by now. This is all an attempt to put the maximum amount of pressure on Saddam. It's a pity that most people only see in black and white."
Great observation, Cfalk. This is also the conclusion that I have come to. It think that most people, including those in the media and on this website, have very little understanding of GWB's actual strategy concerning Iraq. And I'm afraid that I'm no exception. Much to the media's chagrin, sensitive information is kept from them--and for good reason; they do not have a right to know everything. Bush is much more intelligent than his detractors would have us believe.
Anyway, this could possibly be one huge bluff. But to sell a bluff, it has to look real. In other words, it has to piss the Frenchies off (not that they don't have it coming.)
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1701 times:
Wow! Couldn't agree more. There are way too many friggin topics about Iraq and the conflict around it. They are all basically saying the same thing too! We really ought to limit it, because these political flame wars are what's bringing down the quality of this forum.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1699 times:
I believe starting one single thread is not a good thing.
First of all, because this subject is too complex. Taking into account the number of topics and their replies over the past couple of days, this would make 1 single topic very long and complex. As has happened already with particular topics on this subject, one would open a topic stating one thing and at reply # 12 the discussion had already taken a complete different turn and had nothing to do with the original topic. Try avoiding that with just a single topic.
Secondly, you only need one person to reply something completely off-topic and the whole thing would start over again. Scroll up and see what just happened with THIS topic. Indianguy says something, JetService replies to Indianguy, Klaus replies to Indiaguy, Indiaguy replies to Klaus, and none of this is on-topic!!!
Last, but certainly not least, the fact that this is a free forum (with some behavioural rules almost all of us know) should not in any way impose limitations on what we post here. If it would, I'd see as a kind of censorship.
Just my opinion...
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1693 times:
As for the single thread idea, it was done with the Middle East threads, and those have been relavitely kept in control. There hasn't been a good middle east flame war in quite some time. And its better that way.