Wikiversity:Help desk/Archive 3

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Return to the Archive Index


dismissal letters

i would like a sample of a dimissal letter in the category of business.plz and i would really appreciate if the sample was written so i can see what to work with thanking you in advance

I don't have an answer for you but you might get better results if you posted here: w:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous. StuRat 03:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you try searching Google on the string: "letter of dismissal"? I found the following as one of the first hits:
http://www.hr.uconn.edu/samdisms.html
... and another here:
http://eap.ucop.edu/common/Forms/dismissal_sample-letter.pdf
Of course real world examples should consider a number of factors:
* what is the cause of the dismissal?
* what are the organizations policies regarding termination and what sorts of management and HR review procedures must be followed prior to "firing" someone? Are there required probationary periods, counseling or other remdiation efforts which might or must be pursued first?
* what are the local legal implications? Is this action likely to result in litigation or other consequences? Might it be construed as some form of wrongful termination?
* are there trade union or other contractual obligations which have to be fulfilled?
In some jurisdictions and in some market segments the dismissal of an employee "for cause" can be almost as involved as a criminal prosecution. Given the likely hostilities it can frequently carry the risk of litigation or formal complaints filed to various government agencies. In some cases the perceived risks and costs of these consequences can be so high that some organizations will tolerate a surprising degree of incompetence, negligence, and even harassment or petty theft rather than incur them. (Note, however, that the political and legal climate in the United States has largely made tolerating "harassment" ... particular "sexual harassment" a greater risk than most disciplinary actions that arise from it. I personally know of one case where a company desperately wanted to terminate a manager's employment for reasons related to his performance, but found it far more expedient to do so based on a rather dubious sexual harassment complaint)
JimD 21:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran-U.S. War

If Iran and the US were to go to war would it be likely for Iran to win?? And do you think russia or china will side with Iran or would they just stay out of the conflict(if it occurs) — 71.98.86.190 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree that, while the US could prevail in the initial ground war, as in Iraq, occupation would not work, unless the US was willing to resort to genocide, as it did during the Philippines occupation, to end the resistance. The logical conclusion, then, is that the US should conquer Iran, destroy all their weapons and weapons programs, destroy the airports and remove all airplanes and helicopters, take all Iran's gold reserves, take all scientists who might work on weapons programs, radical politicians and radical religious leaders as prisoners of war, then withdraw, except for retaining control of the borders and pipelines at the borders. They can then demand that Iran agree to pay reparations, allow continual UN inspections of all sites in Iran without notice, etc. Iran will, of course, refuse, so no peace treaty will be signed and a state of war will exist permanently, allowing the US to keep the POWs permanently, as the war is still officially on. If, at any point, it appears that Iran is rebuilding any weapons programs, the US, still being officially at war with Iran, can then bomb or invade, as necessary, and repeat the process. While nasty, this may very well be the only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (which will lead to the entire Middle East getting them) and supporting terrorism against Israel and in Iraq. StuRat 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
War is a nasty business. And when individuals are willing to sacrifice their own lives, as well as the lives of other innocents (who may be the same nationality/ethnicity/religion as them), war in this transhumanist age becomes even more dangerous—should nuclear weapons find their way into the Middle East, it would likely be only a matter of time before one ended up exploding in Israel. And then how could the world react? Retaliation if the bomb could be blamed on terrorists? Who does the world nuke? Or is atomic warfare immoral and never justified? Do we simply allow such attacks? The questions are endless.
StuRat has an important point, however. At what point is the cost of prevention greater than the cost of nuclear proliferation? Is it worth destroying an entire nation to prevent a nuclear attack? What if Saudi Arabia were to also decide to persue nuclear technology? What if Israel? At what point do we draw the line? The Jade Knight 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Although they don't admit it, it's a virtual certainty that Israel already has nuclear weapons. They have shown restraint in not using them in their various wars and terrorist attacks, but I can't imagine this restraint would continue if they were hit with nuclear weapons themselves. Thus, we would have a nuclear war. StuRat 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidently, I don't think Russia or China would dare intercede and risk war with the US. Particularly Russia, which is no longer a military power that could remotely match the US. The Jade Knight 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In answer to Jade's question, to me the problem of drawing the line isn't nearly as difficult as you seem to make it. Iran certainly is in no shape to have nuclear weapons, as it's shown every indication it would be willing to use them. Less so, but still problematic would be Saudi Arabia. Israel on the other hand, has (or has probably had) nukes for decades, but with no offensive or expansionist ambitions whatsoever, their existence is 100% for deterent effect. Where should we draw the line? Easy. Name me a non-nuclear country and I'll tell you how I'd feel about them having nukes. If, say, Sweden or Canada were to decide to develop nukes, I'd say: "go ahead, be my guest, though I really have know idea why you'd want nukes, I trust your intentions, whatever they may be, so if you want them so badly, ... go ahead". Loomis 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point. Up until now we've set the official goal of keeping anyone else from developing nukes and also getting rid of nukes in the countries which have them. A better goal would be just to keep them out of the hands of the evil countries, such as those which support terrorism, remain in a state of war with their neighbors, or have dedicated themselves to the destruction of another nation. StuRat 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Very well said. The only problem with your argument is that it seems to imply that the identification of "evil countries" would be a rather simple task. Well, between you and me, I'm pretty sure we'd agree almost entirely on which countries are "evil" and which are not. (Perhaps the better term would be evil regimes, as even Iran isn't an "evil country", rather it's controlled by an "evil regime".)
Take for example GWB's now infamous "axis of evil", consisting of Saddam's Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Putting all other criticism of the man aside for the moment, you have to admit that he at least got that one right (or for the cynics among you, his advisors and speechwriters got it right). Nonetheless, this "axis of evil" has since been rejected as a ridiculous concept, for purely ad hominem reasons. Basically, many people are convinced that the guy's a moron and a liar, which is of course their prerogative. However they then resort to specious logic and conclude that since he's a moron and a liar, the only logical extention is that anything and everything he says must by consequence be either moronic or a lie. Makes perfect sense, no? Of course not, it's nothing but specious logic at its worst. You can feel whatever you want about the guy, but as they say, "even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day". Again, putting all other sentiment concerning the man aside, how many among you actually feel that the classification of the three above-mentioned regimes as consisting of an "axis of evil" of sorts was yet another moronic lie cooked up by GWB?
What I'm getting at is that all of those logically challenged moral relativists among us can't even agree to accept that the regimes of Iran and North Korea are evil, and remain part of an "axis of evil". Now if some of us insist that it's a completely unacceptable breach of "moral relativism" to label the Iranian and North Korean regimes as "evil", then how the hell can we possibly be expected to deal with all those other countries that fall into that enormous "grey area"? Lewis 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I firmly agree that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had evil regimes, but that doesn't mean it was smart for Bush to say so publicly. The result seems to have been to make NK and Iran even more committed to getting nuclear weapons. Then the military attack on Iraq was the worst possible choice. The Afghan war needed to be finished first, and bin Laden killed, before the US considered such an "optional" war. And, even then, Iraq should have been low on the list of threats, relative to Iran and NK.
Treating countries differently based on them have good records or bad makes sense, but also requires that we abandon a UN approach, because such a large portion of those countries have poor records, even some on the UN Security Council, like China. NATO should be used instead to attack those evil regimes that try to get nuclear weapons. Although, apparently, we first need to convince some weak-willed Europeans that keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of people dedicated to our deaths is worth fighting for. NATO should also be expanded (and renamed) to include Australia, Japan, etc. StuRat 00:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
With the possible exception of the wisdom of publicly referring to evil regimes as just that, evil regimes, and with a few other relatively minor exceptions, we seem to almost completely agree. However, I disagree with you to the extent that I believe you're underestimating the influence of that great mass of mostly leftist, terribly misguided, pseudo-pacifist, moral relativist westerners. To me, THESE are the people that are at the core of the problem, even moreso than those insane ridiculous dictators of Iran and NK. Without this great mass of misguided western sympathy, these regimes would have collapsed a long time ago.
Let's say, for example, either the US or Israel decided enough was enough and "unilaterally" went about on an "illegal" violation of airspace and sovereignty, completely obliterating Iran's nuclear capabilities, and unfortunately, in the process, having to live with the tragedy of several hundred casualties due to "collateral damage".
Do you honestly believe that such smart-ass pseudo-pacifist moral-relativists such as, for example, Michael Moore, Bill Maher or Jesse Jackson would approve of such a flagrant breach of "international law"? Of course not. They'd just continue with their tiresome incoherent whining, throwing in as many red herrings as they can think of: "It's all about Oil! If the Iranians want nukes, we have no right to stop them, besides, Israel's got nukes, right? Why the "double-standard"? Then there'll be those hyper-pseudo-pacifists, boarding planes bound for Tehran with the intention of acting as human shields by holding hands and singing "Give Peace a Chance". Oh, and I almost forgot, we all know that any strike against Iran is obviously meant entirely to serve the interests of Haliburton, right? Lewis 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A few nutjobs don't bother me, but I get the impression the majority of Europeans aren't willing to go to war to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Heck, many aren't even willing to impose strict sanctions.
I do have to say, however, that I'm mighty suspicious of Haliburton. We get into a war with Iraq, apparently on Cheney's faked evidence, then a no-bid contract is given to Cheney's old company, Halibruton. That's just not right. There should never be a no-bid contract in the first place. That's an obvious invitation for politicians to give away money to their associates. StuRat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the real reason why anyone would declare war with Iran be the fact that the country is ruled by an evil regime, no matter whether this regime wants to have nuclear weapons or not? a.z. 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here is invited to keep discussing this at War and Iran! a.z. 06:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a huge number of countries ruled by evil regimes, more than we could hope to overthrow. Most only pose a threat to their own people. For example, the governments of W:Zimbabwe and W:Myanmar, while evil, don't threaten the West. It would therefore be next to impossible to get people to agree to fight and die to remove those governments. StuRat 04:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you should move that page to User:A.z./War and Iran, or it will likely be deleted. Even here I think they have restrictions on where you can create talk pages. StuRat 04:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked about it on the colloquium. a.z. 04:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Education

Is the education system headed in the right direction ? 61.95.191.49 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. There have been major changes in society with which education has largely failed to keep pace. For example, information used to be difficult to obtain, but now is readily available online. In chemistry, for example, if you didn't know the boiling point of benzene at standard temp and pressure, you would need to look it up at a library. This would make it important for a chemistry major to memorize such info. Today, however, such info is readily available on any computer with an Internet connection, so memorization is less important. This applies to all fields of knowledge. So, if time no longer needs to be spent on memorization, where should it be spent ? I would argue that learning how to think logically, argue a point persuasively (and politely), and creatively invent novel solutions to problems are far more important than rote memorization of facts.
How does education need to change to teach such skills ? First off, we need to make it "bottom up" instead of "top down" education. Instead of having teachers say "the solution to problem X is solution Y", we should have them say "in the past, solutions A, B, and C have been tried, which of these do you think is best or which alternatives would you suggest ?". The solutions proposed should then be discussed. Some may have merit, some may not. For example, if the problem is kids setting fires for thrills, "having everyone pee on the fires until they go out" is not a good solution, but "create a place where kids can indulge their instincts to play with fire in a safe environment with adult supervision" may very well be a good solution which adults haven't thought of before. StuRat 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I would also say no. StuRat has some interesting thoughts. I'm sort of fed up with the US education system, at least at the K-12 level. The Jade Knight 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Another no. I teach at the post-secondary (undergraduate) level. Most of my colleagues still use the stick approach or are too lazy to teach much, and certainly not well. Instead of teaching the students how to find things, how to think about things, and how to engage with the changing world, the students are forced to memorize irrelevant or easily retrievable data. I actually had a student tell me that my class is the only interesting one he is taking (out of 5). This makes me incredibly sad, especially because this student is very intelligent and extremely diligent. The belligerence that the tenure system has engendered is itself an enormous problem.
My big challenge with Wikiversity is the need to keep some kind of version control when using this for the classroom. For example, I cannot assign a project activity and have the thing being rewritten before the students complete it. I can assign these based on the particular version, but if I wanted to make a change to that version, for clarification, etc., I would have to wipe out any intermediate changes that I did not want to use. Some kind of support for massive forking and merging (while scary) would really help out with adoption. As it sits for now, I will build out my own private wikis on the topic material (but use much of Wikiversity as a nice organizing rubric). --jeffmcneill 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think forking is much of an option now, since that would increase the number of versions dramatically and make it even more difficult for anyone to find the "best" version. I wonder if Wikiversity will do something like Wikipedia 1.0, where they put clean versions of many of the articles on a CD, for those who don't want to deal with constant changes. StuRat 04:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Clean versions won't work so well, because lecturers need to be able to make changes to "their" version. The idea of one best version and no ownership is the sticking point here. For Wikipedia, that is great, in fact keeps the momentum going through lack of ownership. For lecturers who need to be able to accept or reject changes and change their own version, that is not so good. Maybe there could still be one version, but the idea would be that users could have their own edits that could exist on top of the one version. So the different edits "on top" would exist in a user space. The user could then always accept merging the latest version into their own version. Something that could compare a latest version, an earlier version, and the modified (user-edited) earlier version could allow for acceptance of sections. jeffmcneill 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that's not just needed for Wikiversity, but for all online docs. I often need to print out a hardcopy just so I can make corrections and add notes in the margins. You can do that here by copying the best version of the article you can find to your area, as User:Jeffmcneill/my_stuff, for example, and changing it until your heart's content. StuRat 01:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Salts

What are the effects of sodium chloride and calcium chloride on plants?

I'm not sure about calcium chloride, but plants, just like animals, tend to have a fairly narrow range of NaCl they can tolerate. Ocean plants, for example, aren't likely to survive in fresh water and vice versa. Most land plants can't take high sodium levels, either, with a few exceptions, like mangroves. StuRat 01:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As a graphic example of the effect of sodium chloride .... in the olden days armies used to salt the fields around defeated cities to create a lasting economic disincentive to for enemy cities to be rebuilt. In more recent times it has been discovered that improper irrigation techniques can lead to a build of salts and reduced fertility of the irrigated fields.
Good example. Did multiple armies do that ? I'd only heard about the early Romans doing that to Carthage after the W:Third Punic War. StuRat 01:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Open to Suggestions

Hypothetically, lets suppose that I live with a family member who for practical purposes displays obvious signs of unhappiness with his job and his life. Lets further suppose that he runs his own business, but it is in financial trouble because the mans unhappiness with his job has resulted in serious slide in business. Those around this person believe that he probably suffers from clinical depression, but the man in question refuses to believe it and, having a background in medicine, would likely know how to spot and stop any attempt made to treat such a condition. Furthermore, lets suppose that his coworkers, friends, and family are trying to help him, but are not sure what should be done to get the man back to his former self. Would anyone have any suggestions about what should be done? I'm desperate here, so I'll take any advise I can get. 70.254.22.164 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that a change is in order. The man might need to pursue a new career, a new hobby, or (unfortunately for his wife), a new romance. Of course, only he knows what part(s) of his life have become meaningless to him, but there might be some clues. For example, if he hates to go to work, the problem may be there. If he hates to go home, it may be there. StuRat 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest a new career, but this guy is stubburn as hell. I hate to think that this is somehow my fault, since I technically qualify as a person in the home, but I can not rule out something at home either. Thank you for advise, BTW, I apreciate it. (I wish I could say it was under better circumstances). 70.254.22.164 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, and good luck. StuRat 02:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Just how serious is global warming ?

That depends on where you are. Some countries, like W:Bangladesh, may be almost completely destroyed as a result of flooding, while others, like W:Canada, may even benefit. In Canada's case, the opening of the W:Northwest Passage to commercial vessels could be quite a benefit. StuRat 06:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is, of course, assuming that global warming is having the effects we think it is. It's also not just a matter of where you are, but what you do—if you own a de-icing company in Canada, global warming is bad for you. If you own a life-vest company in Bangladesh, you may even benefit. The Jade Knight 11:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Before this thread is taken any further, it should be noted that 'global warming' is a misleading term... more suitable is 'climate change', as it is a more accurate description of what will and is happening. Climate change is of course a very serious subject, as the changes and consequences forecast will necessitate many changes in the way human society is organised, and will also cause massive changes in global and local ecosystems. The most recent chapter of the report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) is entitled "Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability" and a summary can be downloaded from the IPCC website - google will find it no worries, (click on the climate change result and not the property and casualty result - you'll see what I mean - yes this is kind of stating the obvious)

True, there are some areas that will cool, even though the overall trend is warming. Still, "climate change" sounds just like normal variation. Perhaps "severe climate change" would better convey how serious the situation is. StuRat 01:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Much more research is needed on what it was like on earth about 1000 years ago. Today's warming is widely acknowledged to be a recovery from the cold of 400 years ago. So, what was it like in Bangladesh 1000 years ago? Much evidence it was warmer then than today! As noted above, the climate is always changing. People rarely have the humility to admit that we don't actually know much about why it changes or how much we impact it. (Those who are as alarmist about this as Y2K have many new discoveries to reflect on, such as the warming on Mars, the demonstration (with improved measurement resolution) that historically CO2 change comes after temperature change, and the fact that 20th century warming models are based on the fallacy that urbanization does not warm the local climate.) MrPete 10:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Police brutality

What do you think about police brutality ?

I think it is far more serious than simple assault, as this can lead to a total breakdown in the W:social contract where the majority of people trust the police to protect them from criminals. Once the police become the enemy, people will organize other ways to protect themselves, which involve carrying weapons and joining gangs. Eventually, this can spiral into rebel groups battling government forces with killings of civilians on both sides. StuRat 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think professionalism is something extremely important in matters such as this, and in the military, which also comes to mind. It is all about that for me. In the end, I think they should "get off easier," if something they did was mildly questionable in terms of "brutality," and I think no special distinction at all should be made by race. Mac Davis 02:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the idea that they should "get off easier". If a civilian (non-cop) hits someone, they can just hit the person back. If a cop does that the same response could get the victim killed or imprisoned. This makes it a much more severe crime I would call "abuse of authority", not just simple assault. StuRat 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rawfoodian Etiquette

What do you do if you are attempting to adopt W:Raw foodism and you would like to attend a social outing at any of your typical "greasy-meat-only" restaurants with family and friends. I don't want to give off any attitude of judgment, and I don't want to be accused of being a cheapskate by bringing my own food to the restaurant with me and eating that instead (even though it is cheaper). What do people do in this situation? NoClutter 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say compromise is in order. Perhaps they have salads and some whole grain rolls ? This might not be quite as healthy as what you normally eat, but it's probably far better than what everyone else at the table is eating. StuRat 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Stevia

Hi I read the article about Stevia on Wikipedia and it mentioned that the FDA only approved it as a diet supplement not an actual food additive. I am a bit confused by this. Does that mean if you wanted to make a cookie for example and sell it in the mass market and you wanted to use Stevia instead of sugar that you could do that if it was marked as a diet cookie or you can't do that? How does that work precisely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.120.225.24 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Some have suggested that stevia is so classified to prevent it from competing with W:saccharin, W:NutraSweet, and other artificial sweeteners. The problem is that US companies have made a major investment in those artificial sweeteners, and the FDA feels the need to protect US businesses from competition. This is not what the FDA was designed to do, they are supposed to protect consumers from bad products. There is plenty of evidence that artificial sweeteners are harmful, and W:stevia is safe, but the FDA just doesn't seem to care about that when so much money is involved. Stevia should be labeled as a food, using the Generally Recognized As Safe classification. StuRat 04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How to separate?

How can I separate barium sulfate from a mixture of barium sulfate and copper(II)sulfate?

I don't have an answer for you, but suggest you might get better results by posting detailed technical questions like this at the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. StuRat 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I bet a table of solubilities will help. Try this one [1]. I imagine you will add water and then filter. Nimur 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Barium Sulfate (BaSO4) has a solubility of <1% in water. Copper Sulfate (CuSO4) is completely soluble in water. Dissolve and filter. Barium Sulfate will be the white solid that remains in the filter. The Copper Sulfate can be recovered by evaporating the water. Note that unless it is heated to above the boiling point of water at whatever given pressure you are at, you will no longer have Copper (II) sulfate, but rather Copper (II) Sulfate*pentahydrate. (CuSO4*(H2O)5)

Distance between earth and moon

What is the distance between the earth and the moon?

This would be a good candidate for the Astronomy Help Desk, but I'll answer anyway. Take a look at our W:Moon article, which lists the range from 363,104 km (perigee) to 405,696 km (apogee). StuRat 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are parrots so damn messy when they eat ?

Give my W:lovebird a handful of peanuts to snack on and after shelling the nut (okay, legume!), she'll crunch it in her bill and drop about two thirds of it onto the floor, then go straight onto shelling the next one, ignoring the fragments from then on. Yep, she's wasting food and making a mess of my carpet at the same time. Give her a piece of apple/orange/banana and she seems to shred and fling more than she eats. All the psittacines I've ever owned have been the same. Question: why are these birds so wasteful with their food? I can't imagine food supplies being so plentiful and regular in the wild that they can get away with doing that all the time (yet, according to the parrot documentaries I've watched, wild birds seem to eat in pretty much the same way)... --Kurt Shaped Box 10:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess their beaks are designed for cracking large nuts, which makes it difficult for them to do the fine detail work of separating good food from the rest. I imagine that, in the wild, they could manage to find all the food that fell out of their mouths and eat it, if they were still hungry. However, if they have excess food, why should they bother ? There might also be a benefit to spilling fruits and nuts, in that it causes those food plants to grow where dropped, thus increasing the bird's food supply in subsequent years. StuRat 13:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
My general observation would be that in parrots' natural habitat - forests of the tropics and sub-tropics - food is generally in abundance, so therefore they can afford to waste such amounts. Dunno, though.. Cormaggio talk 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Government - the cyclical pattern in historical governments

I read somewhere that a theory exists defining how government has changed throughout history. This theory explains that forms of government seem to be changing in a circular pattern, which persists, and eventually whatever form of government we have today will eventually change into a form of government we have experienced before.

I don't know any specific terms, so I've had a hard time of finding what I'm looking for on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate any leads to an article here, or to external documentation. -- Secondary Ed. Undergrad 19:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this must happen, but can. In particular, many third world nations toggle between radical socialism and unbridled capitalism. The radical socialism causes economic problems with a lack of investment due to a lack of potential profits. This then leads to unbridled capitalism, which causes the overall economy to improve, but the distribution of wealth to become unacceptably tilted toward the rich, eventually leading back to radical socialism. The way to break the cycle is to settle on something midway between capitalism and socialism, which most of the First World nations have done. StuRat 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for a way to apply it to the civic education of students discussions. I'm writing a paper on the topic, and also working on a speech to persuade individuals to involve their children in their communities. I think if I could apply this theory, it would greatly help me in defending the need for civic participation in American democracy. I would hopefully be able to use it to show the potential for undesireable change in our society. -- Secondary Ed. Undergrad 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd focus on the economics. The industrial economy which led to the growth of the middle class has now ended, leaving mostly low-paid service jobs (waiters, secretaries, etc.) with a small number of high paid jobs. This will lead to a wide economic disparity where a very small portion of the country controls almost all the wealth. This is the type of situation which has led to socialist revolutions. However, if the poor can be helped to obtain social mobility, as in past generations, this may provide a safety valve for the pressure which would otherwise build up. Here is where volunteers could come in. Poor people need the following services to try to improve themselves:
1) Child care.
2) Rides to jobs, college, job training, grocery stores, health care, etc.
3) Tutoring in English and other subjects.
4) An advocate/ombudsman.
You could argue that providing such services on a volunteer basis would be good for the country in the long run, and good for your particular area immediately. StuRat 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What you're saying makes some sense. Unfortunately it stretches a little too far away from the central ideas of my work. This is an entire semester's effort, so I can't go so far out of the way I've already paved for myself.
If I can't manage to find this theory, I can still use some of John Ward Studebaker's work from the 30's to prove precedence. -- Secondary Ed. Undergrad 00:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, good luck ! StuRat 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What's an example of "unbridled capitalism" (as distinct from crony capitalism, where non-cronies remain bridled) in the Third World? —162.119.64.112 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Employment question

I want to work with them, they sent me an agreement, have anyone worked with them ?

<quote>Gecco Logistics Company is looking for new candidates for the shipping manager position. We are the world's largest global transportation company, operating in more than 18 countries and territories and employing 20000 people worldwide. Many Internet auctions and stores in the US do not ship the products overseas. As the result thousands of customers in Europe and Asia are not able to access the large market and purchase high-quality merchandise at so low prices. Our service is in the ever-growing demand. Today we have more then 80 merchandise managers on the territory of the United States and Canada but quantity of our customers increases and we plan to expand. As a part-time employee, you'll have access to the following benefits: - $3,100 per month - You need 8-10 hours free during the week, not more - $36,000 per year - Free UPS shipping - Comprehensive medical and life insurance for you and your dependents - Weekly paychecks - Direct deposit - Set work schedule If you are interested in our offer send the following data to our e-mail resume@gecco-logistics.org - Your full name - Your contact e-mail - Your phone number Thanks </quote>

This comment was originally added elsewhere by User:84.16.235.197

It sounds mighty suspicious to me, the pay is just too high, around $80/hour. Be especially careful if they want you to send them any money, for any reason. Chances are they will keep that money and never pay you back. StuRat 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've found that it appears to be a German company:
Gecco Logistics Services
Gewerbering Süd 2
97359 Schwarzach
I'm still suspicious of any company that offers jobs that pay that much over the Internet. StuRat 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is very likely that the actual job is to be an intermediary for goods ordered from overseas with stolen credit cards or with stolen e-bay accounts. They would ship those goods shipped to their employees (US)addresses, and then the employee would ship them to the overseas address, possibly taking a cut, or beiing scammed as well. I would suggest to stay away from them and to report to suspicious offer to the site where you found the job offer.
A common scam (I hear) is to say they need someone in the USA to handle international transfers of funds: you receive checks drawn on foreign banks and pass on (say) 85% to them. Apparently there's a law that USA banks must make the funds available to you in N days whether or not the check has cleared. So: you check your balance and see that the foreign check has been duly credited to your account; you send off your check for 85%; a week later you learn that the foreign check was bogus after all. —162.119.64.112 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

non-combatants/civilians in war

Hi, I have read all the relevant pages on wikipedia about civilians in war but i really need some academic opinion or articles to read on te extent of non-combatant immunity in war.

My thinking is that this principle is not absolute for the following reasons;

1.It cant be avoided that civilians will be killed, even if not directly targetted (for e.g. due to weapon malfunctions etc.

2.Civilians may be in/around military objects, and becuase these constitute a means of winning the war with their destruction there cannot be an absolute ban on the targeting of such objects. Here i would bring in the principle of double effect probably, stating how as long as it is proportional then it is ok for cvilians to be killed.

Are these the types of issues i should be looking at or am i missing some of the main points??

I also need to be reflective and critical about these exceptions-how do i do this??

I'm very greatful for any help you can give me.

xx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.48.230 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

On your first point:
1) I agree that in modern warfare a certain number of civilian casualties are unavoidable.
2) In "classical warfare", however, where two opposing forces clashed on a field of battle and the war did not extend beyond the battlefield, it was possible to avoid all civilian casualties. I don't believe this was an accident, since, under feudalism, if warlords wiped out each other's civilian populations, both sides would have been so weakened that they would then be conquered by others.
On your second point, I believe some principles exist (often unwritten) which justify the targeting of civilians:
1) Utility: "Without targeting civilians the war can not be won, with targeting civilians the war can be won."
2) Lesser of two evils: "Targeting civilians can bring the war to a quick end and thus reduce total civilian casualties."
3) Vengeance: "Once the other side targets civilians, we can, too."
4) Necessity: "If you can't distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians, it is permissible to target them all." This can occur when attacked by those in civilian clothing, either alone or in addition to those in uniform.
In the case of the US use of nuclear weapons to target Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all four played a role (although, on bullet one, it was whether the war could be won with an unconditional surrender), and also the fact that the Japanese attack on the US was prior to the declaration of war. StuRat 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
One form of the "Utility" rationale is that bombing civilians will make them so eager to end the war that they'll turn against their government; see, for example, Britain's swift capitulation after the London Blitz, or the triumph of anarchism in New York after 9/11. —162.119.64.112 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Conjugal Visits

I don't even know if I'm posting this in the right spot, so if I'm not, I'm truly sorry. I have a question about Conjugal visits. Why is it that only 6 US states allow them? I would think they would work well in a lot more states. Just curious and if anyone has the answer please let me know.

I can think of some reasons:
1) The public wants prison to be a punishment. As prisoners already get better treatment in many ways than they did before imprisonment (like free room and board, medical care, exercise, equipment, education, etc.) conjugal visits are seen as the "last straw" in making inmates lives enjoyable, thus eliminating whatever deterrent still exists in the prison system.
2) Conjugal visits create the possibility of pregnancy, either in an incarcerated female or a female whose husband/boyfriend is in jail. In neither case does this pregnancy bode well for the resultant child.
3) Conjugal visits create the possibility of spreading venereal disease, either out of the prison or into the prison.
4) Such visits increase the likelihood of contraband items (like drugs and weapons) being smuggled into the prison. StuRat 05:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that's only somewhat true.
1) It's a myth that prisoners get better health care. Just look at the California system which has been ordered into Federal reciever-ship. Room and board I'll give you that one. Exercise ?? If you mean that they let you out of your cell to go to the yard then that's true. If you mean having a gym then that's another myth. Most prison gyms are now full with three tier bunks for prisoners. Equipment ?? Again a myth ?? Even on the so-called soft yards you can't even get horse-shoes cause of the potential for the items being used in a riot. Don't get me wrong, prisoners brought on many of the sanctions themselves. Education, that's the biggest myth. The only places where the education is anything but GED level is in the Level 4 prisons where most if not all of the prisoners will NEVER see the light of day to use those skills.
You're other points, 2,3,4 are right on though...Jwwicks 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

300 more birthdays

hey, today *out of all the days lol* i was just wondering. what are the chances that science will grant us the technology to live an additional 300 years; *assuming it can be done* with like stemcell or whatever other means. and will this be possable sometime during my lifetime or is this kind of technology far away?. Lets not forget affordable. if this tech does come in my lifetime will it be afordable lets say a middle or lower class person? thanks for yout time User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say no, not that much of an extension in your lifetime. Going beyond, say, 150 seems to require that we abandon our biological bodies and copy our intelligence into a computer. This probably can't be done for many generations yet. StuRat 19:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that this would only mean that we would die and a copy of us would still exist inside a computer... a.z. 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I suppose having a copy of you is better than nothing, though. StuRat 05:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You should look into Transhumanism. The Jade Knight 07:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer the last question first, consider how many products have gone from luxurious to ubiquitous in living memory: telephones (okay maybe not living memory), television and related toys, various safety features on cars. I see three main possibilities:
  • Life extension is made available on the free market, first to the rich and eventually to nearly everyone.
  • Government takes over, to prevent long life from becoming a privilege of the rich, and
    • long life becomes permanently a privilege of politicians and their friends.
    • life extension is declared an entitlement, becomes an ever-growing drain on the public budget, and eventually is rationed in various camouflaged ways; see previous.
162.119.64.112 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought of a twist on the last one: treatment is made available "free" but only to those who need it most, i.e. those who have already lived longer than most poor people ever do. —162.119.64.112 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How long does a it take for a spacecrft to travel 20 light years

see question please thx

A light year is about 5.8 trillion miles, so it's going to take a very long time. Today's spacecraft would be totally unsuitable to make such a trip. The W:Cassini probe, for example, has a speed of around 11,700 miles per hour. At that rate, it would take some 500 million hours to go one light year or 10 billion hours to go 20 light years. That's 417 million days or 1.14 million years. If we imagine future spacecraft, perhaps we could travel near the speed of light. It would take about a year at a comfortable acceleration of 1 g (normal Earth gravity) to get up to the speed of light, during which the spacecraft would fly about half a light year. Just the reverse would be happen during deceleration, so that would be 2 years to travel one light year. The remaining 19 light years would take 19 years at the speed of light, so it would be 21 years total. However, due to time dilation, those on board would only see about a year of total elapsed time. StuRat 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[2] --Remi 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What are the things you can do with Vinegar?

I keep reading about health benefits of Vinegar. I can't seem to find anyone that has any information unless I pay for the information. I can't help thinking that there is simple explanation for the uses ,but why do I want to pay?

You can eat it as salad dressing (particularly W:balsamic vinegar), in cole slaw, in pickles, etc. It is also sometimes used by women as a W:douche. Try doing a google search on "vinegar" "recipe". I found lots of free recipe sites, like this one: [3]. StuRat 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's also great for cleaning retainers & dentures, no joke! And my grandmother used a vinegar-soaked rag to "wipe up" smoke. The Jade Knight 07:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq conflict

Sensibly speaking, what's going on in Iraq right now doesn't really strike me as being a 'war' per se. Is there a more accurate descriptor? -- the best I can come up with is 'drama'. When I think of a war I think of two countries at each other's throats, but in Iraq, the majority of citizens seem quite happy with the US's presence. Vranak

I don't agree with "quite happy". Most Iraqis correctly see the US invasion and poorly handled aftermath as the source of the current violence in Iraq, but also realize that the violence will likely get much worse when the US withdraws. However, it seems to me that a civil war is now inevitable, so I'm not sure if delaying it (and thus delaying the eventual solution, which I think will be a three way split) really helps anything. StuRat 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is the best approach to use in forming and developing the East africa economic co-operation?

What do you think is the best approach to use in forming and developing the East africa economic co-operation?

I would suggest a free trade region be created, to avoid the harmful effects of import quotas and levies. Also, tax free W:enterprise zones should be created, ideally in border areas, to maximize the economical potential of capitalism. Next, a trading block should be created to boost economic clout when dealing with other nations. In addition, for long term growth, I think a priority should be placed on birth control, to keep the population down to a sustainable level. This will prevent the type of tensions which led to the W:Rwanda genocide. Also, with fewer people this will allow more resources to be spent on each, much as happened as a result of China's W:One Child Policy, leading to a higher education level, which will be an engine for economic growth. StuRat 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Economic cooperation for East Africa can take two major approaches,to take into consideration the best ways to enable each partner state to make optimal use of the expanded market for its products,to allow free and equitable movement of knowlege and technology amongst the partner states,free movement of expertise,skills and experiences in various economic fields with a primary objective of building a common and stronger one East African economy ready to face the broader and rude world market with one East African voice.To my opinion this is where we have to put emphasis in order to prepare our co-operation to advance towards the ultimate goal which in my opinion is geared at creating a situation whereby we can command a significant portion of the world market on say tourism,mining,fishing[Lake Victoria]etc.It is only until we address these fundamental benchmarks that we can put our selves on the right track,otherwise we will be crambling amongst ourselves trying to share the very little within our boarders rather than look for something bigger which can certainly come from the global economy.[Mapambazukoleo]16.24,August2007.

Earth Science

What is the effect of increasing particle size on:

a)percent of pore space
b)water retained
c)rate of infiltration
I would speculate that larger particles would increase all of those. That is, with larger particles the gaps between the particles will also be larger, allowing more water to infiltrate more quickly. StuRat 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The amount of pore space depends, it seems to me, on the range of particle sizes (and on their shape). A packing of equal spheres will never fill more than 3/4 of the volume, whatever their size, but if some spheres are small enough to fit in the holes left by the bigger spheres, more space can be filled. —162.119.64.112 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Life insurance

Is it legal to get life insurance for your husband or some1 else (in your family or not) without his knowledge, or without his consent (in which case the benifciary would be paying the premiums)? Cause you know how some people don't like getting life insurance (especially really juicy policies) because its like putting a bounty on your head? It wouldnt be fair if some1 else can put that "bounty" on your head, right? I'm mainly concerned with Canada. What about the U.S. and other countries? 209.53.181.69 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that only those who have a financial interest in a person should be allowed to be named as beneficiaries in life insurance policies. I would also limit the benefit to the actual financial loss suffered from the death of the individual. For example, since the only financial cost of children's deaths would be the burial costs, insurance policies should be limited to those. Also, any adult with an insurance policy on them should be notified and required to give their approval. This would prevent someone they don't trust from insuring them anonymously. Unfortunately, I get the distinct impression that these sensible precautions are utterly lacking in many jurisdictions, as I occasionally read about a murder committed to collect on a secret insurance policy. StuRat 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are often significantly greater costs with respect to a death of a child than just burial costs. The death of a child can be fantastically expensive when all costs are included. Those can include: time off work for parents, counselling for other children, counselling for parents (sadly, the divorce rate for parents whose young children die is astronomically high - over 90% in Canada - but counselling can reduce that rate), and in the case of a homicide, time off work for the trial (up to six months in some cases), security measures, even relocation. The small girl who lived across the road from us was murdered about 30 years ago - burial wasn't in the top ten expenses that family had. --70.72.18.246 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

W:Atlantis

What is your opinion on the existence of Atlantis? Do you think a super continent existed in which Atlantis resided? Do you think that the Altantians had a hand in the Egyptian Dynasty? --Juliet 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I go with the W:Thera eruption theory. That is, the ancient Greeks who lived there evacuated prior to the eruption. That was a small Greek island, not a continent, was in the Mediterranean, not the Atlantic, and they weren't an advanced civilization, they didn't even have writing. However, with time and many exaggerations, the story grew to what it is today. I also believe the people who escaped were first known as the W:Philistines and later became the W:Palestinians. Philistine art that has been recovered from the regions appears to be Greek. StuRat 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Newts: friend or foe?

I found a newt in my garden, under a piece of wood, together with some slugs. (With no lake or pond around anywhere.) What do they feed on? Do they eat my seeds like the slugs do? 84.160.200.176 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Some Newts are evil, other Newts are not. Our W:newt article does warn that you should wash your hands after handling them, though, as they can secrete a toxin and carry salmonella. StuRat 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design, my wagon!

Please explain to me the evolutionary history of hair on the behind... what purpose does it serve other than to stick to the exit crowd and cause a lot of pain?--Kirbytime 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.skidmore.edu/scope/spring2004/features/hair.html David D. (Talk) 02:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
An article on anal hair from Skidmore ? How apropos. StuRat 03:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well what do you know, funny and educational. Win-win :) David D. 03:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we used to be hairy all over, for warmth, I assume. We've lost most of our hair, actually, so it's not that hair on the behind serves a specific purpose, but instead it hasn't been detrimental enough for it to be selected against. Wait a few hundred thousand years, and maybe butt hair will be gone. ;-) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
They actually have a scientific name, you know: perianal hair (which we don't have an article on, unsurprisingly). Rockpocket 05:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
We used to have that article, but apparently W:Peri Gilpin objected. :-) StuRat 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the page on building a pc

Somewhere on this site, I found a page related to building your own computer. Further contributions were asked for to clarify and expand on the instructions. I know someone who has extensive knowledge on the subject and would like to add their own contributions to the article. However, I have been unable to find the article, despite retracing my activities and using all the available means to search for this article. Worse, I can't even remember the exact title; it's something like How to build a computer or Build your own computer. Please can someone tell me how to find this article or point me to the correct page. Originally, I found it through the Browse or School pages, but haven't been able to find the exact page; the subject was amongst pages like how to make armour and so on.--Decheron 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • There was a book being drafted on Wikibooks on how to design and build your own PC. Perhaps you saw it there or it has been relocated there.

History

What books,articles,websites can i find that would tell me the united states history with mexico?the current relationship between the US and Mexico in diplomatic,military,and economic terms? Please let me know asap at starfire61190@yahoo.com

See W:NAFTA, W:United States-Mexico history, W:United States-Mexico barrier, W:United States-Mexico border. StuRat 04:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... books usually require some time to read, and the "asap" seems to indicate you may want only an overview. If you're interested in reading an entire book, I would suggest "Distant Neighbors" by Alan Riding as a good starting point. That book helps explain some of the cultural and political motivations that might not be apparent from raw data. 152.16.59.190 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

United Nations

Just wondering what people's opinions is on the question: Is the UN capable and competent of keeping the peace in the post-Cold War order?137.166.4.130 11:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Helena

I would say no. The basic problem is that many nations in the UN, and even permanent members of the Security Council, like China and Russia, simply don't care about preventing genocide. For example, China gets oil from W:Sudan, so vetoes any measure to prevent the genocide now occurring in W:Darfur, in return for favorable trade terms from the genocidal government of Sudan. The few cases where the UN has intervened, such as during the W:Korean War and in W:Afghanistan, seem to be as a result of being pushed by the US, with most troops provided by the US, as well. On the other hand, without the US taking the lead, the UN does nothing, as in the W:Rwanda genocide. IMHO, hope lies not with the UN, but with W:NATO, which is still mostly composed of nations which care about human rights (although they still require leadership by the US to do anything, such as in W:Kosovo). --StuRat 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Help For book access.

Help me how to get your free book access. --213.55.65.130 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean W:Wikibooks ? If so, click here: b:Main_Page. If you want access to public domain books, you might try W:Project Gutenberg, here: [4]. StuRat 13:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget Wikisource, either! The Jade Knight 07:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

primary education

--82.34.239.98 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)i want to register my child with watershed primary school

--213.55.95.4 07:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC) IS THERE ANY SCHOLAR SHIP PROGRAMME FOR POST GRADUTE STUDENTES?

We can't answer your question because we don't know where that school is. Can you give us the name of a city and country ? We still might not be able to answer, but would at least have a chance with that info. StuRat 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of uploaded files

In the course of preparing material I have updated some of the media files I have presented, but can't figure out how to delete older versions?

Is it possible to delete previously uploaded media files?

If so, how? if you can leave me a message on my personal page it would help.

Thank you in anticipation. --Kittybriton 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied at your talk page. --JWSchmidt 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How can I stegthen my brain?

How can I stegthen my brain? What are the best excersises.--71.130.221.190 06:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I advocate games to increase brain power, as this makes it fun and likely that you will continue. Which games depends on what you are trying to strengthen. If you want to improve your memory, I suggest the card game W:Memory (card game), if you want to increase general knowledge, I suggest watching shows like W:Jeopardy! or playing trivia games, like W:Trivial Pursuit. If you want to increase knowledge of a particular area, there may be games specific to that area, like W:Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego? for geography. StuRat 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
There's also W:Brain Age, which is fun too. The best way to exercise a brain over the long term is probably a complex strategy game, such as W:Go or W:Chess. I second the suggestion for memory, however use websites that have memory for different things, such as [www.genkijapan.net Genkijapan.net], where the memorization is Japanese kana, or something that interests you. --W:User:Feba23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Legality of Child Selling

Strictly speaking, in the USA, would transferring custody of a child in exchange for currency be legal, as long as they weren't being put into some illegal situation, such as sexual abuse or slavery? -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not if you called it a payment for the child, no. However, if it's called an "adoption fee", to be used to "defray costs of the adoption agency", then it's perfectly legal. This is similar to how a credit card company can't let you borrow $1000 for a year and charge an additional $1000 in interest, as that would be usury. However, they can charge the $1000 so long as they call it (or some $800 of it) something else, like "processing fees". StuRat 03:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In Canadian courts, fees of any type are counted into the interest. If the resulting APR is over 60%, its criminal. Many cheque-cashing/payday advance companies get away with it on a regular basis simply because nobody presses charges. 209.53.181.168 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a good first step, but 60% is absurdly high. I'd limit the rate to something like 30%, and then only for small, short-term loans. StuRat 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Outlawing a service because you don't like its terms does not magically make a better service spring up: it makes the legitimate service go away, and its customers turn to the gangsters or (as in the case of housing) do without. —162.119.64.112 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

software application 1/microsoftword

--210.213.170.68 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. StuRat 19:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there could be a version of Word processing challenges just for MS Word. --JWSchmidt 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Inorganic Chemistry: Radial distribution functions of hydogenic orbitals

Question: Which orbital, 3p or 3d, gives an electron a greater probability of being found close to the nucleus? I know that the answer is 3p, but I don't know how I can explain this correctly. Can you help me with that?

Alchemist 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why it matters? The diagrams at w:Electron configuration might help you. --JWSchmidt 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You are right - the answer is 3p. The radial distribution function for the orbitals 3p (n=3,l=1) and 3d (n=3,l=2) are very different. Take a look at the one for 3p and the one for 3d. It's too bad that these are not drawn to scale though. See how the 3p orbital has two humps, whereas the 3d orbital only has one? The first hump in the 3p graph is closer to the origin than the first hump of of the 3d graph. Roughly speaking, this means that the 3p orbital has a little bit of electron density that penetrates closer to the nucleus than the 3d orbital. This should answer your question. This makes sense - heuristically, in a hand-waving way, the d orbitals have to accommodate more electrons than the p orbitals. Electrons can't all crowd around the same place, so the natural thing to happen is for the d orbtials to expand outwards and become more diffuse (spread out more). Take a look at w:Hydrogen-like atom and w:Particle in a spherically symmetric potential for how to solve for the radial equations. The plots are not up yet though. There are two heuristics you can use if you are asked to determine whether orbital X has electron density closer to the nucleus than orbital Y. The orbital that has the lower principle quantum number n is closer. If n is the same, then look at the angular momentum quantum number l. The one that has the lower angular momentum number is closer. Why does this work? Imagine that lower quantum numbers means lower energy, and lower energy means closer to the nucleus. Hope this helps, and feel free to come back if you have more questions. --HappyCamper 16:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Want to learn Psychology.

--Krishna Tadepalli 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'm Krishna and I want to take up psychology course. Is there any instructor to conduct the course? or Is there any learning project related to this?

Regards, Krishna

Please have a took at School:Psychology. The Jade Knight 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


War and Iran page

Welcome to War and Iran!

This page is for a discussion that started on the Help Desk as the result of a question about War and Iran.

Iranian victory

If Iran and the US were to go to war would it be likely for Iran to win?? And do you think russia or china will side with Iran or would they just stay out of the conflict(if it occurs) — 71.98.86.190, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

may be they go with iran , just as a silent war partner and help iran to fight against US
I agree that, while the US could prevail in the initial ground war, as in Iraq, occupation would not work, unless the US was willing to resort to genocide, as it did during the Philippines occupation, to end the resistance. The logical conclusion, then, is that the US should conquer Iran, destroy all their weapons and weapons programs, destroy the airports and remove all airplanes and helicopters, take all Iran's gold reserves, take all scientists who might work on weapons programs, radical politicians and radical religious leaders as prisoners of war, then withdraw, except for retaining control of the borders and pipelines at the borders. They can then demand that Iran agree to pay reparations, allow continual UN inspections of all sites in Iran without notice, etc. Iran will, of course, refuse, so no peace treaty will be signed and a state of war will exist permanently, allowing the US to keep the POWs permanently, as the war is still officially on. If, at any point, it appears that Iran is rebuilding any weapons programs, the US, still being officially at war with Iran, can then bomb or invade, as necessary, and repeat the process. While nasty, this may very well be the only way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (which will lead to the entire Middle East getting them) and supporting terrorism against Israel and in Iraq. StuRat 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
War is a nasty business. And when individuals are willing to sacrifice their own lives, as well as the lives of other innocents (who may be the same nationality/ethnicity/religion as them), war in this transhumanist age becomes even more dangerous—should nuclear weapons find their way into the Middle East, it would likely be only a matter of time before one ended up exploding in Israel. And then how could the world react? Retaliation if the bomb could be blamed on terrorists? Who does the world nuke? Or is atomic warfare immoral and never justified? Do we simply allow such attacks? The questions are endless.
StuRat has an important point, however. At what point is the cost of prevention greater than the cost of nuclear proliferation? Is it worth destroying an entire nation to prevent a nuclear attack? What if Saudi Arabia were to also decide to persue nuclear technology? What if Israel? At what point do we draw the line? The Jade Knight 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Although they don't admit it, it's a virtual certainty that Israel already has nuclear weapons. They have shown restraint in not using them in their various wars and terrorist attacks, but I can't imagine this restraint would continue if they were hit with nuclear weapons themselves. Thus, we would have a nuclear war. StuRat 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidently, I don't think Russia or China would dare intercede and risk war with the US. Particularly Russia, which is no longer a military power that could remotely match the US. The Jade Knight 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
In answer to Jade's question, to me the problem of drawing the line isn't nearly as difficult as you seem to make it. Iran certainly is in no shape to have nuclear weapons, as it's shown every indication it would be willing to use them. Less so, but still problematic would be Saudi Arabia. Israel on the other hand, has (or has probably had) nukes for decades, but with no offensive or expansionist ambitions whatsoever, their existence is 100% for deterent effect. Where should we draw the line? Easy. Name me a non-nuclear country and I'll tell you how I'd feel about them having nukes. If, say, Sweden or Canada were to decide to develop nukes, I'd say: "go ahead, be my guest, though I really have know idea why you'd want nukes, I trust your intentions, whatever they may be, so if you want them so badly, ... go ahead". Loomis 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point. Up until now we've set the official goal of keeping anyone else from developing nukes and also getting rid of nukes in the countries which have them. A better goal would be just to keep them out of the hands of the evil countries, such as those which support terrorism, remain in a state of war with their neighbors, or have dedicated themselves to the destruction of another nation. StuRat 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Very well said. The only problem with your argument is that it seems to imply that the identification of "evil countries" would be a rather simple task. Well, between you and me, I'm pretty sure we'd agree almost entirely on which countries are "evil" and which are not. (Perhaps the better term would be evil regimes, as even Iran isn't an "evil country", rather it's controlled by an "evil regime".)
Take for example GWB's now infamous "axis of evil", consisting of Saddam's Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Putting all other criticism of the man aside for the moment, you have to admit that he at least got that one right (or for the cynics among you, his advisors and speechwriters got it right). Nonetheless, this "axis of evil" has since been rejected as a ridiculous concept, for purely ad hominem reasons. Basically, many people are convinced that the guy's a moron and a liar, which is of course their prerogative. However they then resort to specious logic and conclude that since he's a moron and a liar, the only logical extention is that anything and everything he says must by consequence be either moronic or a lie. Makes perfect sense, no? Of course not, it's nothing but specious logic at its worst. You can feel whatever you want about the guy, but as they say, "even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day". Again, putting all other sentiment concerning the man aside, how many among you actually feel that the classification of the three above-mentioned regimes as consisting of an "axis of evil" of sorts was yet another moronic lie cooked up by GWB?
What I'm getting at is that all of those logically challenged moral relativists among us can't even agree to accept that the regimes of Iran and North Korea are evil, and remain part of an "axis of evil". Now if some of us insist that it's a completely unacceptable breach of "moral relativism" to label the Iranian and North Korean regimes as "evil", then how the hell can we possibly be expected to deal with all those other countries that fall into that enormous "grey area"? Lewis 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I firmly agree that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had evil regimes, but that doesn't mean it was smart for Bush to say so publicly. The result seems to have been to make NK and Iran even more committed to getting nuclear weapons. Then the military attack on Iraq was the worst possible choice. The Afghan war needed to be finished first, and bin Laden killed, before the US considered such an "optional" war. And, even then, Iraq should have been low on the list of threats, relative to Iran and NK.
Treating countries differently based on them have good records or bad makes sense, but also requires that we abandon a UN approach, because such a large portion of those countries have poor records, even some on the UN Security Council, like China. NATO should be used instead to attack those evil regimes that try to get nuclear weapons. Although, apparently, we first need to convince some weak-willed Europeans that keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of people dedicated to our deaths is worth fighting for. NATO should also be expanded (and renamed) to include Australia, Japan, etc. StuRat 00:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
With the possible exception of the wisdom of publicly referring to evil regimes as just that, evil regimes, and with a few other relatively minor exceptions, we seem to almost completely agree. However, I disagree with you to the extent that I believe you're underestimating the influence of that great mass of mostly leftist, terribly misguided, pseudo-pacifist, moral relativist westerners. To me, THESE are the people that are at the core of the problem, even moreso than those insane ridiculous dictators of Iran and NK. Without this great mass of misguided western sympathy, these regimes would have collapsed a long time ago.
Let's say, for example, either the US or Israel decided enough was enough and "unilaterally" went about on an "illegal" violation of airspace and sovereignty, completely obliterating Iran's nuclear capabilities, and unfortunately, in the process, having to live with the tragedy of several hundred casualties due to "collateral damage".
Do you honestly believe that such smart-ass pseudo-pacifist moral-relativists such as, for example, Michael Moore, Bill Maher or Jesse Jackson would approve of such a flagrant breach of "international law"? Of course not. They'd just continue with their tiresome incoherent whining, throwing in as many red herrings as they can think of: "It's all about Oil! If the Iranians want nukes, we have no right to stop them, besides, Israel's got nukes, right? Why the "double-standard"? Then there'll be those hyper-pseudo-pacifists, boarding planes bound for Tehran with the intention of acting as human shields by holding hands and singing "Give Peace a Chance". Oh, and I almost forgot, we all know that any strike against Iran is obviously meant entirely to serve the interests of Haliburton, right? Lewis 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A few nutjobs don't bother me, but I get the impression the majority of Europeans aren't willing to go to war to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Heck, many aren't even willing to impose strict sanctions.
I do have to say, however, that I'm mighty suspicious of Haliburton. We get into a war with Iraq, apparently on Cheney's faked evidence, then a no-bid contract is given to Cheney's old company, Halibruton. That's just not right. There should never be a no-bid contract in the first place. That's an obvious invitation for politicians to give away money to their associates. StuRat 03:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It surprises me that this section is entirely filled with anti-Iranian and pro-American users. So, perhaps it is good to here from a totally different perspective, namely me. I am not a pacifist. Sometimes war is necessary to preserve human dignity and justice. Only with justice, worldpeace can be reached. The biggest enemy of justice at the moment is the USA. I hope the Americans will retreat to their country, or else i fear for a Third World War, in which the world is united against the USA.

I don't agree with the left-wing opinion that America declared war on Iraq for oil. I believe that America in its self-righteous believe of being good as opposed to the Axis of Evil, tried to bring goodness to Iraq. Instead of the 'evil' dictatorship of Saddam Husein, a real democracy had to be installed by the Americans who supposedly are democratic. Present Iraq is good example of how democracy can fail royally. The Iraqis voted for their ethnicity (Kurds) and religion (sunnis and shiites). The shiites nearly got a majority. The ministry of interior came into the hands of a shiite extremist, who gave shiite death squats military and police uniforms. These death squads are now randomly killing thousands of sunnis. American soldiers are refrained from interphering, because they are obliged to cooperate with the Iraqi government. Under the dictator Saddam Husein there was peace in Iraq.

The democratic nature of the USA is dubious. The republicans stole the elections of 2000, by excluding several voter groups, like prisoners and blacks. President Bush was finally elected by the supreme court, which is not democratic at all. Furthermore, America suffers from a large autocratic sub-group, the orthodox calvinists, who vote what their ministers want them to vote for. The media is not critical about the American regime. I would say that America is semi-democratic instead of democratic, similar to Iran. Iran is dominated by religious extremists, but America is dominated by them as well. So, there is not a large difference between the states. If there is an anti-democratic axis of evil in the world, which include the conservative semi-democratic Iran, than the USA is part of it as well.

Lets look at the amount of danger that comes from Iran and the USA. Iran is a weak country, who doesn't have an atomic bomb yet. While the USA has plenty of atomic bombs and a desire to dominate the world. I think the only way to stop those evil Americans is a third world war, or hoping for a cultural change in the USA. Russia has threatened the USA with a new arms race. China is building missiles to knock out American satelites, so the preliminaries for a third world war has already started. I will not be neutral when the time comes, but i will be anti-american, together with the majority of the worldpopulation: 1.3 billion Chinese, 1.3 billion muslims, 500 million Latin Americans, most of the Europeans. But lets hope it will not come to this.

You can forget about European help for an American atack on Iran. It would be more likely that Germany and France would support Russia and China versus the USA, than that they will support the USA versus Iran.--Daanschr 11:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem of bringing democracy is that democracy is impossible in a way. Prove of this is that the USA is fighting for its self-interest, while in my opinion it would be more democratic to consider the interests of citizens in different countries. Neoconservatives in the USA believes that it is the American duty to dominate the world. This can't be democratic, because people outside the USA don't have the right to choose the American president, only americans have this right. Inside America, the claim of democracy is dubious due to the election fraud and the lack of critical press. The American foreign policy is dictatorial instead of democratic, because the world didn't have the right to choose for the direction of the American policy which is aimed at killing and dominating non-Americans. Ahmedinejad's Iran is more democratic than the USA, because Iran is hardly interphering in other countries, while having a same kind of semi-democratic system.--Daanschr 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Under the Dictator Saddam Hussein there was peace in Iraq" .... except for a decade of war with its neighbor Iran, an invasion of Kuwait which was defeated by the U.S. in the first Iraqui-U.S. gulf and violations of the terms of surrender which provided adequate pretext for the Second U.S. Iraqui Gulf War or Invasion and Occupation ..... not to mention the occasional use of chemical weapons on Iraqui Kurds when they irritated the Dictator. A very model of a peaceful society the rest of the world should be happy to have attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. 71.161.11.44 08:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
In 2003 there was peace in Iraq before the Americans (who have killed far more people than the Iraqis did) found it necessary to spread their 'principles'.--Daanschr 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I just saw a special about Iran on the Dutch television. There are 60,000 suicide bombers ready to defend Iran when the American army occupies the country. Iranians are very angry about the shah regime and the American supported Iraqi atack on Iran. I think an American atack on Iran really will become a Third World War, because Russia and China will (hopefully) never accept the willfully destruction of a nation of 70 million people by the Americans.--Daanschr 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Saddam was anything but peaceful, using every opportunity to attack his neighbors and ethnic and religious minorities, and killing millions, particularly in the Iran-Iraq war. While there was very limited US support for Iraq (mostly in the form of preventing Iran from severing the oil supply that flowed through the Persian Gulf), had the US offered full military support, including bombing of Iran, Iraq would have won the war. As for Iranian's being angry about the Shaw, he was gone before most Iranians were even born. The US has also done Iran an absolutely huge favor by removing Saddam, their main enemy in the region, from power and allowing the pro-Iranian Shia majority to take control. The US also removed their enemy of the other side, the Taliban in Afghanistan. Despite this, Iran continues to support insurgents in Iran and terrorists in Lebanon (Hezbollah) which threaten Israel and also threaten to undermine the government of Lebanon. Religion is much less of a factor in US government than in Iran, where every candidate must be approved by the Shia Muslim religious leadership. The US, on the other hand, has had a Catholic president (JFK) a Jewish candidate for VP (Lieberman) and has a Muslim Congressman. Bush was within a percentage point of winning the 2000 election by any count, so it's not like he "stole" the election. And blacks are allowed to vote in the US, I don't know where you got your info. Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, all the Sunni nations in the area will feel threatened and get them too, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Since Israel already has them, this will inevitably lead to a nuclear war in the Middle-East, which may very well spread. And the Iranian president holding a conference discussing whether the Holocaust ever happened is about as insulting as if Israel had a conference discussing if Mohammed ever existed. StuRat 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the shah and the Iraq-Iran war, i was referring to what Iranians think about America. Last year i saw a documentary about Venezuela and i now understand more why these two countries are such good friends. At first i was surprised, because Iran is conservative, islamist, with a president that want to fight against all non-muslims. Venezuela on the other hand is moderately christian and ultra-left-wing. Actually, the the countries are fairly similar. They are both in the first place aimed at ending American imperialism. Venezuela feels being mistreated by the Americans because the Americans supported the exploitation of the labour class by the Venezuelan elite. While Iran is anti-american because America implemented the exploiting regime of the shah and supported Iraq in its war with Iran. The main pain for the Iranians is the Iraqi use of weapons of massdestruction which killed 500,000 Iranians. Iranians believe that America delivered these weapons to Iraq. The death-toll of this war was so severe that anti-americanism is very popular, much more than in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, i guess that the amount of American deaths in a future invasion would be much higher. America will not be regarded as liberators.
Several voting groups have been excluded in the elections of 2000, especially the prisoners. The American prisons are mainly filled with blacks. Blacks are discriminated in the American society and now the black criminals can't vote anymore. In my country, the problem of criminality would be solved by improving education, neighbourhoods and job opportunities, instead of puting enormous amounts of people in prisons where they have to do slave labour.
Sunni-countries would be more fearing of Israel having atomic bombs, than Iran having them. And Israel already got them. Here is what muslims and non-muslims in the Middle East think of America.
The inheritance of the holocaust is being abused by Israel and the USA at the moment, so i agree with Iran in this issue, allthough i believe that the holocaust did happen and was wrong. But it also happened in the past. At the moment, it is very wrong to use the memory of the holocaust to start a massmurder.--Daanschr 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What mass murder are you talking about ? By far, most Muslim deaths are caused by other Muslims. The biggest mass murder would happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons and uses them against Israel, who would respond with theirs. The Sunni nations know Israel isn't going to attack them with nuclear weapons, as Israel has had them for years and hasn't even threatened to attack using them. Iran, on the other hand, constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. StuRat 20:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Deaths are not only the result of fighting. Bad medic healthcare and lack of food and clean drinking water should also be seen as real deaths. Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army are primarily aimed at getting the Americans out, so most deaths in Iraq are caused by the Americans.
You are confusing what they say with the truth, which have nothing to do with each other. Al-Queda very much wants the US to stay in Iraq, as that allows them to stir up Arab "outrage" and get more recruits. The W:Mahdi Army, and it's leader, W:Muqtada al-Sadr also have been huge beneficiaries of US involvement in Iraq. The US removed Saddam, who killed his father, W:Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr. The US allowed Sadr to gain power through terrorism, and they also gain recruits and support for their terrorism from Iran as long as the US remains there. If Sadr really wanted Americans out, he would attack them, but most attacks are aimed at rivals for power inside Iraq, proving that what he really wants is power. StuRat 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In 2001, i was in Egypt and heard that the Israelis had threatened to blow up the Aswan dam, which would result in a giant flood wave with would kill most Egyptians in a single day. But this would never get on the American tv, i guess.--Daanschr 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't make it on US news because it's propaganda from the terrorists, like that 9-11 was really done by Jews. Israel has peaceful relations with Egypt, and has since W:Anwar Sadat made peace decades ago, so there is absolutely no reason to think Israel would threaten that peace. If the Israelis wanted to commit genocide, they would kill off the Palestinians, but don't, despite the fact that they easily could. This shows they don't want to, unlike the Hamas-led Palestinian government, which is dedicated to killing all Jews and destroying the state of Israel. StuRat 16:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The real reason

Shouldn't the real reason why anyone would declare war with Iran be the fact that the country is ruled by an evil regime, no matter whether this regime wants to have nuclear weapons or not? a.z. 04:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lewis's response

I tend to agree in principle, yet the Iraqi experience is proof enough that taking military action against an evil regime, even an evil regime with a track record of using WMD's and a complete refusal to account for their supposed "disposal", is now not only considered a strategic mistake (a position that I disagree with, though still one I can respect,) but actually considered "morally wrong".
Sure, the Iraq invasion may have lacked solid strategic coherence with regard to the larger war on terrorism (another position I largely disagree with, but one I can respect nonetheless) and its logistical planning may have been a mess, but I still believe the war to be a just one, WMDs or no WMDs. What has always frustrated me about the Bush approach, though I agree with the ultimate choice to invade, was his continuous overuse of the WMD card. It even frustrated me then, as it was a clear case of pandering to the UN's ridiculous requirements. Though this may make me sound like an armchair general speaking in hindsight, please believe me that these were my very thoughts AT THE TIME. WMDs weren't really at the top of my mind at any point. If it were me, I would have downplayed the whole WMD thing, citing it as but one of the many reasons the rest of the world had a moral obligation to topple Saddam. I would have downplayed the "Al-Qaeda-ties" part as well. Saddam obviously played no direct or even indirect part in 9/11. Yet he did help in lending great legitimacy to terrorism.
I would have placed largest emphasis on the most factually evident aspects of his regime: Saddam was a bloody murderer; he attacked Iran, Kuwait and even gassed his own people; he indeed did support terrorism, perhaps not Al-Qaeda, but rather in the form of the $25,000 cheques he issued to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers; during the '92 gulf war he launched scud missiles at population centres in Israel with absolutely no provocation on Israel's part. Sure, it might have been a good strategy indeed to provoke Israel into retaliating and in doing so breaking up the coalition, yet still it was completely morally unnaceptable of him to launch missiles at the largest population centres of a country that played no active role whatsoever in the war. (And it was equally wise and disciplined of Israel to resist responding despite the fact that it had every right to do so).
Basically, what I'm saying is that in placing far too much emphasis on the whole WMD issue and the implication that Saddam was somehow tied up with Al-Qaeda, GWB, with an entire stack of far more solid evidence to indict Saddam and justify his removal, played all the wrong cards in that stack. Saddam's proven track record was reason enough.
Had Bush steered away from all the WMD speculation and opted for the more terse "Detective Joe Friday" approach of focusing on "the facts, ma'am, just the facts", and spun the whole thing as just the next logical step in the dismantling of regimes that promote terrorism, I believe that Saddam's rap sheet on what everyone agrees he actually did do would have been long enough to justify an invasion to topple him. The man was obviously an incredibly dangerous malignant tumour in the heart of the Middle East and as such he just had to be removed, whatever the cost. Had the war been "sold" that way, I believe there would be be far less resistance to it today. The decision to place such central emphasis on the whole WMD thing was an unfortunate blunder. The WMDs were never found, and though I'm still not satisfied as to what actually happened to them, and still strongly believe that Saddam pulled off yet another shell game by perhaps transferring them temporarily to Syria, dumping them in a deep whole in the middle of nowhere in the Iraqi desert, or whatever, it was just plain dumb to place so much emphasis on them that they essentially became the raison d'être for the war.
Of course now that the WMDs were were never found, to a large part of the world the invasion was therefore completely illigitimate.
I'd just like to add that despite all the above, I consider myself to be a pacifist. Yet I never participate in peace rallies or anti-war protests of any kind whatsoever, no matter how well intentioned they may be. This is only my take, but it's my firm belief and I'll finally make it clear right here: Peace protests in the vast majority of cases simply do not help in bringing peace about. In fact, as bizarre and counterintuitive as this may sound, I firmly believe that they can actually serve to encourage violence and war. All they ultimately accomplish is the demoralization of our own troops, while at the same time boosting the morale of the enemy. Think about it. A marine turns on a TV and tunes in to CNN at his base somewhere in the desert, only to see Maria Hinojosa and others reporting on all the massive anti-war demonstrations going on in practically every major city in the world. Smart asses who couldn't fight even if they wanted to because they're just so grossly obese that they'd never be allowed on the battlefield, guys like Michael Moore consider you a fool and a stooge. Not only had the marine originally believed that he was risking his life for his own country, for the Iraqi people, and ultimately for all of humanity, now he's being told that mobs and mobs of people across the world, worst of all including his fellow Americans, consider his mission to be entirely illegitimate, and perhaps even a war crime. Quite the morale booster, eh?
Now send that marine into battle and don't tell me that now, having been completely demoralized, his performance is not affected, and the odds of him being killed in action haven't increased dramatically.
As for the enemy, try to picture some Iraqi insurgent watching that very same telecast with absolute glee. "Praise be unto Allah! All of attempts at resisting the cowardly American infidels is indeed paying off! Day by day the cowardly American infidels are losing their stomach to fight, growing more and more tired of the war and more and more of them are demanding their government admit defeat and bring their troops home! We'd better just keep at it and eventually we'll have completely broken their will to fight! Allah Akhbar! God is great! And he is indeed proving his greatness by showing us that the faithful, depite being far more poorly equipped than the cowardly American infidels, with the help of Allah, praise be unto him, and through our faithful devotion to him, we're actually managing to win a war against the mightiest of miltary forces: The Great Satan and his massive armies! How much more proof do we need that Allah, praise be unto him, is watching over us and guaranteeing us victory? The Koran indeed teaches love, compassion and peace for all of humanity, so let us naturally observe these noble principles and join together in saying: Death to America! Death to Bush! Death to Israel! Death to Antarctica! (wait a sec, that last one made no sense at all, I suppose I just got carried away with all the love, compassion and peace that Allah, praise be unto him, has instilled in my heart). Needless to say, just as always, the next time I hear of yet another "peace rally" being held in Montreal, no matter how much I genuinely despise violence and wish for an end to all war, I sure ain't gonna be there! Lewis 10:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people may agree that there is an evil regime in Iran and they may believe that this should be dealt with by governments of other countries, and despite not being against ever going to war, they may think that war is not the right choice right now. They may think that the best way to deal with a specific evil regime is to impose economic sanctions. Is this a respectable position in your opinion (no matter how stupid you may find it)? a.z. 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

StuRat's response

There are a huge number of countries ruled by evil regimes, more than we could hope to overthrow. Most only pose a threat to their own people. For example, the governments of W:Zimbabwe and W:Myanmar, while evil, don't threaten the West. It would therefore be next to impossible to get people to agree to fight and die to remove those governments. StuRat 04:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Daanschr's response

The amount of evilness is hard to detect. What strikes me is that poor countries tend to be less free and democratic, than rich countries. Only hard measures like population control could make an end to poverty and to dictatorship. At the moment, i think that the USA is the only real evil country in the world, because the Americans are trying to force the world into a Third World War. If this world war really is the result of the American policy, than i will be an enthusiastic supporter of the opponents of the USA.--Daanschr 11:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would the US possibly want a third world war ? That makes no sense at all. Al-queda and similar terrorist organizations, on the other hand, want just that, and are trying to provoke such a war, with the 9-11 attacks and many others. They reason that they will get more recruits during such a war than they can while peace exists. StuRat 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Al Qaeda is small and is losing support given the reduction of suicide bombings outside Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda doesn't want a Third World War, but a worldwide rise of muslims and establishment of a new khalifate, which didn't happen. There are no similar terrorist organizations. Many organizations that are described as being similar to Al Qaeda are not similar at all. Hezbollah is a political organization for Shiites in Lebanon that only atacked Israel last year to liberate prisoners. Hamas supports Palestinians in the occupied territories who want to recover the territory which they lost in 1947 and 1967.
I don't believe that the USA wants a Third World War, but their arrogance surely brings it closer. A Third World War is inevitable if America keeps believing in the fallacy of being a superpower that has the right to interphere in the affairs of other countries by invading them with a huge army.--Daanschr 19:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Al Queda's method of getting recruits for the "worldwide rise of Muslims and establishment of a new Khalifate" is to goad the US and Western nations into war, hoping to get as many Muslims killed as possible in the process, so Muslims will be willing to fight against the West. There are many other terrorist organizations with similar, or at least compatible, goals. There was W:Al Queada in Iraq, there is the organization that bombed the night club in Bali, there is the organization that bombed the trains in Madrid, there is the group that attacked the buses and subways in London, etc. There are also Muslim terrorist groups dedicated to a single local cause, like Hezbollah and Hamas dedicated to the murder of Israeli civilians. StuRat 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9/11 is now 6 years ago, the bombings in Madrid 3 years. Al Qaeda is doing a pretty bad job and is probably very small. Israelis are occupying the Palestininian territories and have killed far more Arabs, than that the Arabs killed Jews. In the 1990s i saw an interview with the Israeli minister of water supply. The interviewer asked the minister why colonists were cleaning their swimming pool every day, while Palestinians nearby had not enough water to take a shower. His response was that the Israelis had won the war in 1967 and could do whatever they wanted. Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting against this injustice and i support their cause of killing Israelis.--Daanschr 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There are many reasons for Palestinian poverty, most of which are the fault of Muslims:
1) Muslim nations, which easily have the oil wealth to make huge improvements in the Palestinian economy, instead send only weapons and bombs.
Muslim countries are less to far less developed compared to the west, only the small state the United Arab Emirates has a wealth comparable to that of the Scandinavian countries and the USA.
You seem to be "pleading poverty". That is, your saying none of them (except the UAE) has the money to help. That just isn't true, look at these figures:
Saudi Arabia: US$374 billion GDP, or US$13,800 per person.
Kuwait: US$ 52 billion GDP, or US$21,600 per person.
Oman: US$ 44 billion GDP, or US$14,100 per person.
Qatar: US$ 26 billion GDP, or US$29,400 per person.
UAE: US$129 billion GDP, or US$49,700 per person.
Palestine: US$ 3 billion GDP, or US$ 2,050 per person.
Any one of those countries could certainly manage to donate US$ 3 billion to double to Palestinian economy, if they wished. If they each did that, the Palestinian economy could increase sixfold ! Then, there is also the case of less wealthy countries which donate to terrorism, like Iran and Syria, which support Hezbollah, and the former Iraq under Saddam which paid US $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber. If they can find the money to do that, they could find the money to actually help a peaceful Palestinian economy instead of escalating war. StuRat 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
America tries to remain rich and gives hardly anything to the world except for a fist of steal in your face. So, why should poorer countries solve problems that America doesn't want to solve? America is deliberately helping Israel by vetoing resolutions of the UN, of which only the USA as a permanent member is against.
The US and West don't want to give money to the Palestinians because of diversion of those funds for weapons. Arab nations obviously aren't worried about that since they give weapons directly. They just don't want any money to be used to promote peace, since eternal violence between Palestine and Israel serves their purposes. Namely, any anger from their populations aimed at those dictatorships can be redirected against Israel. StuRat 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2) Whenever Palestinians are given control of their borders, seaports and airports, they then use that access to bring in more weapons and bombs. Thus Israel needs to restrict such access.
There was peace in the 1990s, which ended when Sharon walked under the Temple mount.
"Peace" doesn't mean the Palestinians weren't stockpiling weapons. And somebody "walking" would only start a war with the Palestinians. If they want peace they need to learn to allow their enemies to "walk". StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Just like the Jews who poisened the wells during the Black Death, or the fascist Germans that sabotaged the fields to reduce the output of grain.
"Jews who poisoned the wells during the Black Death" ? Where did you pick up that bit of anti-Semite propaganda ? StuRat 18:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
3) Whenever Palestinians are given unrestricted access to Israel, they use it to murder civilians. Thus access must be controlled and the wall is necessary.
Most Palestinians use the unrestricted access to work in Israel and now both the Palestinian and the Israeli economy are wrecked. There are many holocaust survivors who hardly have anything to eat.
Most, yes, but it only takes a few suicide bombers to make the cost of allowing in Palestinian workers to be much higher than the benefits. The Israeli economy isn't "wrecked", either. They have a US$ 140 billion GDP, or US$26,200 per person. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The nazis killed 50 people, or exterminated a whole village when they lost one soldier who was killed by 'terrorists'.
And the Israelis don't target anybody except those who actually attacked them, unlike the Palestinians who target Jewish civilians. StuRat 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
4) Palestine's most talented engineers, instead of working to improve the economy, instead make rockets and suicide belts.
I don't think that there are many intellectuals left in the Palestinian Territories. I suspect that the most talented Palestinian engineers live in the USA or Europe.
Probably because, if they remained in Palestine, they and their families would be threatened with death if they didn't build weapons for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist groups there. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, evil guys always do that. That's what you got with enemies of the people.
But these enemies of the people (Hamas) are elected by the people, showing that Palestinians are their own worst enemies. StuRat 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
5) Palestinians have an unsupportable high birth rate. They basically live in the desert (as do many Israelis), yet still have so many children there is nothing for them to do but blow themselves up.
That is the strange effect of poverty. Rich people get extinct and poor people recreate. In Jordan and Algeria, the governments try to end the desire of blowing oneselfs up for islam by giving good education and job opportunities. they see it as the only way to combat islamist extremism. President Mubarak of Egypt believes that his country could be destroyed by islamism.
The Palestinian "education", on the other hand, seems to encourage people to have as many children as possible, to supply more suicide bombers. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Strange how radical people can become when they are occupied. By whom are you occupied? Liberalism? Pornography? Homosexuality? Mexican immigration? Big government? Atheism?
The US isn't radical, unless you consider opposing terrorism to be radical. But then, that's what I suppose I should expect from someone who supports a nation with a terrorist government, like Palestine. StuRat 18:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
6) Surrounding Arab nations that could cede land to the Palestinians to give them more living space refuse. Those that take in Palestinian refugees treat them as second-class citizens, locked away in refugee camps, instead of working to integrate them into their society.
It depends no the country. The majority of the population in Jordan are Palestinian refugees. They now dominate society and politics and Jordan is an American ally.
There are only 1,835,704 Palestinian refugees in Jordan, according to UNRWA, out of a total population of over 6 million, so not a majority. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
More than 50% of the population is of Palestinian decent, so that makes a majority.
You said "Palestinian refugees" in your original response, not "those of Palestinian descent" (does that include even partial descent ?). Using your definition, the US is 99% full of European refugees, African refugees, Asian refugees, etc. LOL. StuRat 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
7) Palestinian education (and much of Muslim education in general), instead of teaching multiculturalism and skills needed to improve the economy and live with others in peace, teaches hatred and the value of martyrdom.
That is not very dissimilar of America. And still the Palestinians voted Abbas in office instead of Bush.
No, the US teaches multiculturalism. Just look at TV shows for children, like W:Dora the Explorer, W:Go, Diego, Go!, and W:Dragon Tales which teach that Hispanics (the largest minority in the US now) and the rest should be bilingual and work together. Look at W:Sesame Street and W:Postcards from Buster, which teach multiculturalism. You won't find a single TV show for kids that teaches "America is for whites, and everyone else should leave". You will find many Palestinian shows, however, that teach "Palestine (which, to them, includes Israel) is for Palestinians and everyone else (Jews) should leave or be killed. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You exclude foreign countries and nations.
I do not. Many Hispanics in the US are of foreign origin, and those shows, particularly W:Postcards from Buster, feature minorities from all over the world, like the W:Hmong, W:Kurds, etc. Similarly, the character W:Grover, on W:Sesame Street travels all over the world to teach acceptance of other cultures. StuRat 18:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
8) Palestinians, when offered the right to control their own territory, refused.
That has never occured. There are millions of refugees from Israeli occupied territories who don't get the right to return to their homes. They are forced to live in other areas and can't return to their home towns anymore.
They refused to agree to the W:2000 Camp David Summit, which would have given them control of most of Palestine (not including Israel). StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The Arabs want a solution for the refugee problem.
They Arab nations could easily accommodate all Palestinians refugees if they would allow them to be integrated into their societies. The real reason for the rejection was that peace might have threatened Arafat's hold on power. His cancellation of elections, corruption, and support of terrorism would be called into question had a peace agreement been signed. In a continual war, however, he managed to remain popular until his death. StuRat 18:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
9) Palestinians, when given the chance to elect a peaceful government, instead elected terrorists (Hamas), which, of course, led Western nations to stop donating money to the (now terrorist led) government.
That is the problem of warzones. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have the tendency of radicalizing. It is reminiscent with Northern Ireland and will take decades, maybe even centuries to resolve.
It's just another example of how Palestinians, when given the opportunity to improve the situation (by electing somebody who would work for peace), instead are their own worst enemy. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Voting for moderates doesn't necessarily improve your situation. Peace in slavery is no peace at all. Peace is only possible with respect and justice, something very impopular in the USA at the moment.
Voting in moderates would definitely improve the situation. How could voting in a terrorist gov possibly help ? There is no way Palestine could defeat Israel militarily, and provoking Israel will do nothing but bring the Palestinians more trouble. Palestinians are in no way "slaves", unless you consider the Israelis asking them not to blow themselves up to be "abridging their freedom of expression". StuRat 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
10) Funds donated to Palestinians by charities and Western governments to improve the economy were instead diverted to buy guns and bombs and/or to line the pockets of corrupt officials. StuRat 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The economy can only be improved if Israel and the Palestinians cooperate. Western money can only have a benefit if the Israelis and Palestinians are peaceful to eachother.
The Palestinians need to stop attacking Israel, yes, and then Israel will no longer need to fight back to stop those who fire mortars, build rockets, launch suicide bombers, etc. In the meantime, there's no reason why donated funds can't be used to build roads, hospitals, and schools, and teach children proper values, not how to be a martyr. Instead, they steal the money and/or use it for killing. StuRat 11:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
America has the death penalty. America neglects large parts of the population who can only earn a living by killing people in Iraq. I don't agree with the admiration of martyrdom in Palestine, but morally speaking the Americans are no better than the Palestinians.
You are using the death penalty as a sign that a country is evil ? The Russians who you so admire have executed millions, mainly for political reasons (versus only thousands in the US, and for criminal reasons). They are discussing ending their current moratorium on the death penalty, which they only put in effect in 1996 under pressure from Europe. The US had a similar moratorium for decades. Many other nations have the death penalty, too, like China, which executes far more people than the US. And nobody in the US starves if they don't join the military. StuRat 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are exaggerating in the same fashion as the nazis and stalinists used to do, by dehumanizing others.
What specifically am I exagerating about ? Or do you just like to call people names ? StuRat 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This post is dehumanizing. This kind of people-bashing is similar to what the stalinists and the nazis did. By choosing the words that you did, you are condemning the Palestinians to death. If you change the word Palestinian by Jew or enemy of the people, than you will get nazi or stalinist texts.--Daanschr 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Which of the points do you disagree with ? For example, do you deny that the Palestinians elected Hamas ? Do you deny that Hamas has an official policy of murdering Jewish civilians until Israel is wiped off the face of the Earth ? If you tell me which points you disagree with I can likely provide evidence for each point. StuRat 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is a Jewish site, which is against the support that is being given by the Americans to Israel. This site is referring to a Dutch documentary which i saw on the Dutch television. There were Israeli Jews in this documentary whom have started a lobby against AIPAC, because they were afraid that Israel would lose support around the world once America stops supporting Israel. I am wondering what your opinion is about them.--Daanschr 09:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
StuRat is American. Do you think he is trying to force the world into a Third World War? a.z. 23:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The country USA is doing that. Individual Americans have too little power.--Daanschr 06:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Americans do have political power. Evidence of that is that they were able to remove Nixon from the Presidency. If the US was the dictatorship you suggest, once a president got into office, nobody could ever get him out. The US press is also quite negative on Bush now that he is unpopular. StuRat 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that America is a dictature, i say it is semi-democratic. There is a huge voters block of the christian right that does anything that its leaders want them to do, which is absolutely not democratic. Many news media, government agencies, including the office of president are occupied by the christian right. It is this group that excluded the black prisoners and wants to wage a total war versus terrorists, crazy enough supported by some Jews and liberals who call themeselves neoconservative.--Daanschr 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-democratic is the continuous agressive bashing of all people who don't conform to the American dogmas. The AIPAC, that tries to test the loyalty of democratic and republican senators every week. A conformist media that uses the words made up by neoconservatives to distort the truth in a way which would be impossible in Western Europe.--Daanschr 09:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If the Christian right has such total control over the election process, why does the US now have a majority of left-leaning liberal Democratic in both houses of Congress ? I would expect the next President (elected later this year) to be a Democrat or, at the vary least, a moderate Republican, definitely not another conservative. Blacks are not excluded from voting, I don't know where you get your misinformation. Evidence of this is that, in my city (W:Detroit), as in many other major cities, the last 3 mayors, the majority of the city council, the Chief of Police, most of the school board, and most other elected officials, are black. Most of the media is quite liberal. For example, W:NPR. There are only a few conservative news stations, like W:Fox News. StuRat 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"The country USA" can mean different things to different people. You'll have to be more specific if you'd like me to understand you. When I read your first post, I thought you were saying that the US citizens wanted to drive the world into the Third World War. Now you are referring to an abstract entity that could mean anything: who are those people that want the Third World War to happen? And how do you know they do? a.z. 16:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Iraq and Iran are also abstract entities. Why should they be atacked and occupied if Iraq and Iran can mean different things to different people?--Daanschr 06:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No vague idea of an entity should be attacked, only concrete threats like people with a lot of power that are willing to use it to harm other people. a.z. 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Given StuRats opinion of the Palestianians, than i know who i should regard as a threat. Putin has already threatened the USA with another Cold War and it appears that a majority of the worldpopulation is living in countries that would support Putin without any doubt. That would exclude my country Holland. But, Belgium and Germany most definitely would support Putin, meaning that Antwerp, a city some 80 kilometres from my home could be the target of an American nuke.--Daanschr 07:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Your reading of global political alliances is tragically flawed. Belgium and Germany are members of W:NATO, in an alliance with the US, not Russia, no matter what politicians may say. If they were really switching sides, they would leave NATO and join Russia in a military alliance like the Warsaw Pact. Germany, in particular, isn't likely to forget that half of their country was kept hostage by Russia for decades after WW2 and would fear a repeat of that without NATO protection. StuRat 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If a new cold war between the USA and Russia really is the result of the present situation in worldpolitics, than it is beyond a doubt that Germany will side with Russia instead of the USA. In the last German elections, the right-wing parties were doing best in the polls. The socialist candidate Gerhard Schröder managed to win the elections for the left solely by playing up the anti-american sentiments in the German society. Present foreign minister of Germany, Steinmeier is outspoken anti-american and pro-Russian. Chancellor Angela Merkel keeps a strict policy of neutrality between Russia and the USA, knowing that her own christian-democratic party is very scepticle about America. At the heart of the German resentment to the USA is that the neoconservative retorics is in multiple ways equivalent to that of the nazis, which becomes apparent if you read your own opinion about the Palestinians.--Daanschr 07:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You confuse what politicians say during an election cycle (anything against anyone unpopular at the moment, like Bush, to get themselves elected) versus long-term strategic alignments, shown by agreements like NATO. Again, if there has really been a permanent fundamental shift in the alignment of Germany, then why on Earth would they remain in NATO instead of withdrawing and closing all the US bases there ? StuRat 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Germans want to stay in the NATO, but they also want the USA to do something positive in the world instead of bringing the world at the brink of a nuclear war. Now, they are still part of NATO, but that could change.

Schröder used anti-americanism for his own selfish reasons. He couldn't stand that the social-democrats were losing the elections while he was chancellor. Still, he didn't create anti-americanism, he used it. Anti-americanism has little to do with German politics and more to do with the German public opinion, with the way Germans are raised by their parents, taught at school by their teachers, by the kind of newspapers they want to read.--Daanschr 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I see another characteristic in which your opinion is similar to that of the nazis and the stalinists. The first similarity is the dehumanization of those who are seen as your enemy in an absolute fashion, comparable to the Jews in Nazi Germany and the enemies of the people in the Soviet Union, even making up arguments when confronted with critic, to ensure that you will always keep your enemy with an absolute evilness. A second similarity is thinking that people are your ally or friend when they most definitely aren't.

Last year i was writing a paper about the stalinist prime minister of East Germany, Walther Ulbricht. In the late 1940s, when the Cold War wasn't there yet, he held a speach in Nuremburg in the American sector, aimed at fighting dollar-imperialism. Stalin thought that the West German workers would rise against the Americans, but they didn't of course. The West German workers were pro-american and voted for the social-democrats. Strange is that Ulbricht even tried. His speech wouldn't be a succes, it would only weaken his position. Why trying something that stupid?

It is similar to the tour of Bush to Latin America, which strengthened the left-wing opposition of course. Every step Bush made would have made the Latin-Americans more angry. I liked the speech of the conservative president of Mexico. It made sure that the Americans can't even count on the Mexican right-wingers.

Another great example is president Franco of Spain. Germany and Italy had send troops and airplanes to ensure that Franco won from the left-wingers and start a fascist regime in Spain. During WWII, Franco remained neutral. Hitler was very angry about it, calling Franco a traitor. He even thought about marching through Spain to Gibraltar, but the German armies were too much occupied on the Eastfront and in the Balkans. Franco was smart. He remained the dictator of Spain untill the 1970s and Franco's supporters still have a major say in Spain, while the nazis have lost nearly all of their support in Germany.--Daanschr 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange is that America is supposed to be christian, while moderacy, making an end to pride and promoting love instead of hatred are the essence of christianity. In Holland we have truckloads full of expressions based on the bible, which could apply to give a good advice, like 'arrogance comes before the downfall' (hoogmoed komt voor de val). I could add some expressions of Nietzsche: 'He who fights monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.' I think this discussion is starting to reach a stalemate, or am i wrong?--Daanschr 13:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Not a stalemate, exactly. I make logical arguments, and, rather than coming up with logical responses, you just call me a Nazi or Stalinist. I suppose there isn't much point in continuing a debate when you make personal attacks like that. StuRat 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a stalemate. I don't want to continue a debate with a warmongering extremist like you. I am disgusted by the arguments you make. Dehumanizing a whole nation. Not open to any kind of moderacy. A self-righteousness without any barrier. Even claiming that people support you and are your friends, who are disgusted of you. I should leave this discussion because i fear of becoming a monster.--Daanschr 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You bandy about racist accusations that medieval Jews poisoned wells to spread the Black Plague and call me that ? But, since I've now disproven all of your points, this would, indeed, be a good time for you to leave. StuRat 21:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Your idea that the Palestinians were stockpiling weapons e 1990s is very similar to my opinion to the medieval idea that Jews were poisining wells and the stalinist idea that Germans were sabotaging fields to reduce the output of grain.--Daanschr 06:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Jews had no reason to poison any wells, as they never wanted to kill off the gentile population of Europe. On the other hand; Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the other Palestinian terrorist orgs remained dedicated to the death of all Jews in Israel during that time, and have said so publicly. At most, they agreed to something like a "temporary cease fire". Also, the absurdity of saying Jews spread the Black Plague by poisoning water is quite apparent now that we know it isn't a water-borne disease, it's a blood-borne disease spread by fleas on rats. You can't get it by drinking "infected water". Unfortunately, there is nothing absurd about Palestinians stockpiling weapons, as the stockpiles are used against Israeli civilians or uncovered all the time, as in the recent Lebanon crisis. StuRat 06:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
These stockpiles don't exist. I had the impression that Palestinians are using rocks to fight the Israeli soldiers armed with machine guns in an occupied area. If there were stockpiles full of weapons, than the Palestinians would have used machine guns as well. It is America that is giving lots of weapons to the Israelis in order to kill Palestinians. And the stockpiles of weapons are similar to the poisoning of the wells by Jews in the Middle Ages.--Daanschr 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No weapons stockpiles ? Are you insane ? They launch rockets at Israel all the time. Here's an article full of pics of them actually launching rockets at Israel: [5]. StuRat 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't care much anymore. I will stay anti-american for the rest of my life, knowing that i am supported by hundreds of millions of other people around the world, far more than there are Americans. Every impopular action that America takes from now on will bring lots of people over the threshhold around the world of becoming anti-american as well. The Dutch right-wingers are about to crack. Which is strange, because the Dutch right-wing used to support America for 60 years without any doubt untill say 2004 or something. I don't know why you want to defend a group this impopular.--Daanschr 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your pro-terrorist attitude considering how soft the Dutch are on terrorism: [6]. I guess it will take a 9-11 or Madrid or London or Bali for you to finally figure out that letting terrorists go will eventually get your own people killed. StuRat 01:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Point to be adressed on Lewis's response as to "the real reason" (or the doubts of a foreigner)

I have to say there are things on Lewis's response that I did not understand or that I'd like to comprehend better. Well, I'm here to learn, so I am going to ask the questions, no matter how silly they might look.

"Yet the Iraqi experience is proof enough that taking military action against an evil regime (...) is now not only considered a strategic mistake (a position that I disagree with, though still one I can respect,) but actually considered 'morally wrong'." (Lewis)

This sentence actually strikes me as very confusing and ambiguous, but this is probably because I am not a native English speaker!

When you say "a position that I disagree with, though still one I can respect", what is the position you are referring to? Is it the position according to which the military action is a strategic mistake or is it the position according to which the right thing to do is to take military action? To make it clearer: are you saying that "taking military action is a position that I disagree with (because I think it is a strategic mistake), but still one I can respect" or are you saying "considering military action against an evil regime to be a strategic mistake is a position that I can respect, though one I disagree with"? a.z. 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its the second of your interpretations that is the correct one, but I really can't be sure as now you seem to be confusing me! I guess I should just try and clarify my post.
I was simply separating and drawing a distinction between two completely different anti-Iraq-war positions.
I disagree with both of them, but I can only respect one, and not the other.
The first anti-Iraq war position is the position that military action is NEVER legitimate, no matter the circumstances. This one I completely reject. I consider it to be both ignorant and naive. I believe in the just war philosophy, that being that though war may be a terrible thing, there are certain times when it is necessary to confront evil, even if it requires violence, if it's absolutely necessary for the greater good. The best example would be WWII. If the Allies had been absolutely anti-war and refused to resort to violence to stop Hitler, Hitler would have taken over the world, and succeeded in not only killing 6 million Jews, but in actually exterminating every last one of us, leading to our complete extinction. This form of "ultra-pacificism", that being the opposition to the use of any form of violence under any circumstance, is one that I not only disagree with, but one that I have absolutely no respect for.
The second anti-Iraq war position, the one that I disagree with, yet have complete respect for, is pretty much the position taken by Stu. He apparently agrees with me and believes in the just war principle; that being that as much as we may hate war and violence, as a last resort, when dealing with evil, there are certain situations where war is unfortunately necessary for the greater good. However, he apparently believes that the Iraq war was a strategical error, and he's against it, not because he believes that war is unaceptable under any circumstance, but much more simply because this particular war was a stupid mistake. Of course he agrees that Saddam was evil, he just seems to believe that invading Iraq and removing him was a stupid mistake, because in the larger war on terrorism, it did more harm than good. This is where I disagree with him, while still respecting his views. It all boils down to a very simple and relatively non-contentious disagreement. I personally believe that the Iraq war was a good decision, not only because getting rid of Saddam was a worthwhile cause, but because I truly believe that the war's consequences for the Middle East are positive ones. He disagrees. (Though I don't want to put words in his mouth) it would seem that he basically believes that the Iraq war was a bad decision, not because he's against the idea of confronting evil with force to achieve the better good, but simply because in this case, confronting evil (Saddam) with force was completely unnecessary, and in fact distracted us and weakened our ability to confront much greater evils (Al-Qaeda), and now, the Iranian regime.
Our disagreement has nothing to do with principle and all to do with strategy. We agree on principle (i.e. that it's morally acceptable to confront evil with force), all we seem to disagree on is strategy. I believe that from a strategic standpoint, invading Iraq was a good idea, whereas he believes it was a bad one. I can respect those who disagree with me on strategy. I just can't respect those who disagree on principle.
I just hope I haven't put words in Stu's mouth, but that's at least how I see our disagreement. If I've misunderstood you Stu, please feel free to correct me! Lewis 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope I clarified for you what I meant, A.Z.! Lewis 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Clarified it is! Your way of putting it the first time was really confusing to me. I could interpret it in many ways. Well, I read the whole post again and now that I understood the beginning, everything seems to make sense. I think there are no more problems of comprehension and I can actually address the issues themselves now.
But let me just further clarify everything, since you now wrote that your opinion is the second of the two that I wrote. In fact, I did not realize that by saying "strategic mistake" you meant to separate "strategic though not fundamental mistake" from "complete and fundamental grave non-respectable error of principle". So, it's actually none of those two options what you meant. It was really good that I did ask what you meant, or else I would not know by now what it was that you were talking about and we could have continued the discussion actually talking about two different things.a.z. 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that it's all a lot clearer now. But what about you? I'm really curious as to your position. Is it mine? Is it Stu's? Even if it's the first one that I said I have no respect for, I respect you, so tell me anyway. Perhaps you may convince me to rethink the whole issue. Lewis 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran and Iraq

Perhaps if Iraq and Afganistan can be stabilized, and stable democracies can be put in its place, then there will be no war with Iran. Stable democracies in the region with citizens who have and understand freedom seems to be the scariest thing possible for the theocratic autocracies in the region.

The U.S. could use over whelming military might to have another three week war, and perhaps, if something was done to Iran like was done to Iraq, there would be another messy reconstruction... but the American people don't want that.

So hopefully, there won't be a war with Iran. Hopefully, they also won't get nuclear weapons so they can't follow through with their promises of the "one bomb solution" to wipe Israel off the map.

Perhaps the best thing the world could do to neutralize the threats of Iran has made is to foster some democracies in the region and collapse the price of oil. If the hysteria the media creates about oil can minimized, then perhaps traders in the futures market won't drive up the price, and these regimes won't have the funds to run their unsustainable governments and funnel money to terrorist groups. If Iraq and Afganistan can be stabilized and they can enter onto the road of becoming as prosperous as post war Germany and Japan have become in the last half century, then oppressed people in theocratic autocracies may see and demand an alternative. --Remi 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets not forget that Iran had a moderate president for years untill 2005, Khatami. Khatami is conservative, but also peaceful. He was democratically elected in the 1990s. Ahmedinejad is getting more and more unpopular and could very well lose the next elections. If the moderates are voted in again, than the war versus Iran would have been pointless.
Prosperity and democracy doesn't necessarily have to do something with eachother. Senegal and Niger are democracies, but these countries are very poor, with hardly no hope to become as wealthy as Germany and Japan. Singapore and Chile were dictatorships, that became rich nonetheless. Also, China is becoming richer and richer, while having a communistic government.--Daanschr 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There are exceptions, but, in general, democracies are wealthier than dictatorships, because only dictatorships can destroy their economies to the extent of W:Zimbabwe and W:China's W:Great Leap Forward. In democratic governments, anyone who adopted such idiotic policies would be thrown out of office. StuRat 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A functioning democracy requires a strong middle class. That is a sign of wealth. The increase of wealth brought the industrialised nations democracy.--Hillgentleman|Talk 03:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Third World War?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov carried Putin's message to the NATO meeting in Oslo, accusing the Western alliance of 'continuing the search for an enemy' in the post- Cold War era.--Daanschr 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing is inflammatory, but the idea is correct that W:NATO needs to redefine itself and find a new purpose, since the old purpose of preventing an invasion of Europe by W:Warsaw Pact nations, clearly no longer applies. The greatest current military threat appears to be terrorists getting WMD and using them on their enemies, including most of Europe, the US, Russia (over Chechnya), and China (over Uyghur separatist movements). NATO can likely help in some of those cases, as they did in removing al Queda and their Taliban supporters from Afghanistan. StuRat 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the main threat to the world is the American attempt to conquer the world. Russia is in favour of maintaining international law, so i support Putin and will vote for an anti-american political party.
There already is a terrorist with WMDs, and that is America. I don't know of any other terrorists, do you?--Daanschr 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The chances that the next attack in Holland will come from Muslim terrorists is about 100 times greater than that it will come from the US, so your priorities are seriously misplaced. Has the US ever attacked Holland (other than Nazi occupied Holland in WW2) ? StuRat 02:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice to hear something like this from a 'neutral' source like you. Germany had never atacked Holland before 1940, but that didn't stop them.--Daanschr 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So you don't believe that judging the potential for future actions based on past actions is appropriate ? Based on that, we should let all murderers go, because, just like terrorists, them having murdered people before is no indication that they will continue to do so in the future. StuRat 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In Holland we don't have the death penalty and only a limited amount of life long sentences in jail, which means that nearly all murderers are gone free after a bunch of years in jail. Yet our muder rate is much lower than in the USA. In my socialist view, society should try to make life better for everybody instead of focusing on chasing those who did something wrong. Crimes should be prevented instead of punished. Countries with a socialist system, like Denmark and Sweden are outperforming the USA in nearly every social-economic way, thanks to the socialist discourse.--Daanschr 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)--Daanschr 21:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
But the terrorist W:Mohammed Bouyeri got life without parole for the murder of W:Theo van Gogh. I'm glad to see somebody in your country has some common sense. StuRat 05:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Mohamed Bouyeri belongs to the limited group of murderers with a life-long sentence. I don't agree that common sense means doing the same as those who do the worst. That means that society is as bad as a murderer. Why punishing murderers for murder, if society murders as well? That is moral corruption. Instead, it is better to arrange society in such a way that people can live a life of the best quality possible. That is what i call common sense. The main reason for being anti-american for me is to prevent moral corruption from contaminating society. That was my opinion in the 1990s and the rise of neoconservatism in all its pathetic low-level depths has proven my point. Allthough, i am surprised to how low-level America was able to go. I used to be negative about the American politics, economy and society but positive about the American culture. At the moment, i have lost nearly all my sympathy and i don't know if this sympathy can ever return. America stands for an enormous worldwide security hazard to me.--Daanschr 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The neo-conservatives are rapidly losing power. They have already lost both houses of Congress, and will lose the Presidency in elections later this year. The new President will either be a Democrat or a moderate Republican. I don't equate executing a murderer with murdering an innocent person. For those countries which decide to ban the death penalty, I'm fine with that, as long as they don't condemn those nations which don't agree. StuRat 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the death penalty is one of the signs wether a country is capable to the kind of crimes that the neoconservatives commited. I don't think that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will get the death penatly, so why should persons who only were responsible for the murder of a few people instead of nearly a million be convicted to death?--Daanschr 10:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on your examples, I feel that "some guilty people go unpunished" isn't a justification for eliminating or reducing the punishments for other guilty people. StuRat 22:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to sound too socialistic, but i have the impression that the dissabled and blacks in the USA are far more punished than those white folks who are responsible for the American policy, despite the fact that they make far more casualties at the expense of the American tax payer. And that while the American poor are not helped at all by society. They are required to pay their taxes and suffer. I am glad i live here!--Daanschr 07:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The US has a W:progressive income tax, meaning lower income people pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes. Those at the bottom incomes don't pay any income taxes due to the personal exemption allowance and deductions for dependents. Poor people do receive substantial free services, as well, such as free education for their children, free food, free housing, and free medical care. So, poor people are net recipients of government money. The W:Americans with Disabilities Act provides for rather substantial protections for the disabled, such as ramp access to buildings and special parking in front. Disabled people may also collect Social Security payments, and, if they were injured on the job, will receive disability compensation, as well. Blacks benefited from W:Affirmative Action programs, such as preferential admission to universities and preferential hiring and promotion policies on the job, although some of those programs are coming to an end now. It is true that the military is disproportionately composed of blacks and Hispanics, but it is an all volunteer military, and nobody needs to join the military to survive in the US, so this is their choice. Many minorities, such as W:Colon Powell, see the military as a route to a promising future. StuRat 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In Europe the social conditions are much better. The USA will reap the consequences in the long run. It will affect the US-economy negatively, and that in a time that huge parts of the third world are becoming as rich as us. Especially the christian fundamentalist movement will have a huge negatively impact on the US-economy.--Daanschr 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the per capita income is higher and tax rate lower in the US than in most European nations (particularly Eastern Europe), leading to more disposable income for most Americans. You also consistently overestimate the power of Christian fundamentalists. They have never been able to get their own candidates (like W:Pat Robertson) elected to much of anything. Some Republicans, like Bush, somewhat sympathize with some of their positions. However, even Bush didn't try to push much of their agenda. For example, had he tried to ban abortion, he would have failed, so he didn't even try. Also note that the former President, Clinton, didn't sympathize with them and the next President, whoever it may be, likely won't, either. So, this perception that the US is controlled by them is just wrong. StuRat 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The American foreign policy is the prove of something completely distorted that is in control. I don't know what it is. It is fundamentalistic, but if it aren't the christian fundamentalists, than i still want to put the label fundamentalist and destructive on it.
Economy is more than income. Eastern Europe is a bad argument, because the Eastern Europeans have the inheritance of decades of fanticism behind them. In the USA the fanaticism started only in the 1980s, so we have to wait for another couple of years to see the devistating results of it. Allthough, the effects are already visible.--Daanschr 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
But the US economy is also stronger than most Western European economies. Why would that be if the US has been in decline for decades ? StuRat 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. GDP is about money and money can be manipulated. Several Western European countries have suffered from bad socialism, but they are not trying to implement the anglo-saxon style of economy. The superior kind of economy is the Scandinavian one, combining a free capitalist economy with a large non-overly bureaucratic government. Teachers and docters in Scandinavia get a loan from the government and have self-responsibility. High taxes guarantee the best quality of education and health care, making the Scandinavians superior to all others. France and Germany had too strong bureaucratic states. Trade unions and employees had too much power, thereby suffocating the economy. The solution now is neoliberalism, but that means feasting now and suffering the consequences of bad education later on. America is an extreme example of the last thing. GDP may be the highest in America, but money is only money, what really counts is the ability of the common citizen to be usefull for an employer and society. Something that is excellent in Scandinavia and getting more and more pathetic in the USA. There are leading American thinkers who agree with me: Jeffrey D. Sachs, Noam Chomsky. These two are not negative about the American economy, but very very very negative. Itulip can teach you some things about the American economy and the way people with power and responsibility are ignoring a disastrous outcome. I don't care if Europe is better than America or not. Europe is doing pretty well, but we can do a lot better. The European integration is a painfull progress. That should be the main theme for me. And the world is in chaos thanks to America.--Daanschr 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that "the world in in chaos", most of it is quite peaceful at the moment. Those areas that aren't generally have Islamic terrorism/genocide in common. For example, the school bombing by W:Chechens had absolutely nothing to do with the US or US policies, and neither does the genocide in W:Darfur. StuRat 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When i refer to the world in chaos, i mean Putin starting a new cold war, Chavez calling Bush the devil, Bush saying that there is an axis of evil. The words give a forcast of what could be coming next. That is what the header 'third world war' is about. I am having some domestic problems, so the discussion is finished, allthough you could continue it with somebody else.--Daanschr 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If a bunch of politicians posturing is the worst thing we have to worry about, I'd be happy with that. I believe both Bush and Putin and due to leave office soon (although who knows if Putin will actually go), so we should hopefully have more reasonable people on both sides soon. Chavez can just be ignored. StuRat 23:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the life-long sentence for Bouyeri. Allthough, it also makes me sad that someone can get these kind of fanatic ideas. He is like the RAF-terrorists and the South Moluccans, who commit terrorist atacks at a moment when people believe in them. But in a few decades, muslims will probably lose their tendency to be terrorists and Bouyeri will be the living relic of a deviant past.--Daanschr 06:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)