Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:I appreciate your vote of confidence :) However, assuming all my suggestions were followed would the article then be ]? (Also what's the rule on just fixing it myself?) ] 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:I appreciate your vote of confidence :) However, assuming all my suggestions were followed would the article then be ]? (Also what's the rule on just fixing it myself?) ] 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
== 4RR on ]==
You are not such a greenhorn that I would have to warn you. But I do anyways. ] 05:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've considered changing my name to just "Hybrid" in the past, but it doesn't roll off the tongue as well, and I am THE Hybrid ;). Cheers, TheHybrid05:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I do think that just Chronic sounds better, mainly because it bothers me that chronic is an adjective, and thus shouldn't be used with an article specifying it (weird reason to dislike something, eh?), but as far as my name goes I think that it sounds better with The in front of it, but to each his own. So, how are you, Anynobody? TheHybrid05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much the same for me as well. I've just "graduated" from physical therapy meant to bring down the inflammation around my rotator cuff, so I get to go talk to my surgeon whenever he has a time available. Other than that life is pretty much normal. WP:PW looks like it will be shaping up soon. I've just secured MiszaBot for its use, so hopefully we will be able to improve project communication and keep everyone informed of the goings on. This should dramatically speed up to "Reformation" taking place. So, how's life on the 'pedia? I noticed that you were recently involved in an arb comm decision. What's that about? TheHybrid06:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It was weird, started out about a group of editors using Scientology IPs to edit Scientology articles; Ended up forcing one of em to change their user name, and that I had harassed another Scientologist editor. Frankly I don't think the arbcom was paying attention, given the WP:COI implications of sanctioning such editing (might as well allow Microsoft, the BBC, etc. to do the same thing). The harassment deal is funny because the supposed victim would never actually cite a time he had been harassed. I'm not making a big stink about it because if he couldn't point to any situation, then as I had said all along I never harassed him...therefore I can actually prove the arbcom wrong by not changing anything. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's impossible for me to have harassed him because like all humans I'm not perfect. However when an accuser can't/won't cite an actual case the accused has no way to know what behavior to change.) It really is a funny situation, and I don't mean it in a bitter sense, I'm talking in a comedic sense. Anynobody06:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was weird. You don't seem like the kind of person who would harass people. Well, I'll just take this strange circumstance as proof that any kind of bureaucracy sucks, and it should be shrunk to the smallest possible form while still preventing chaos. I think that people were misunderstanding the situation between the two of you. After your editor review and chaotic RfA I would occasionally check in on you two, and to me it just looks like two people with similar interests but differing views getting into conflicts. If a conservative and a liberal keep getting into disputes on articles related to FOX News, that isn't harassment; that's just two people running into each other constantly and coincidentally because they are interested in the same things. I think that it's pretty much the same deal here. The dispute didn't branch off into other topics, did it? TheHybrid06:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think I've ever run into him outside two articles. (You are correct about bureaucracy, the experience is actually in an odd way gratifying... I've been saying for years bureaucracies breed problems like this.) The main irony is I don't even care about Scientology that much, since I fixed L. Ron Hubbard's military career I feel obligated to help with the rest of the article.
The only other article kinda-sorta related to Scientology is Barbara Schwarz who deserves an article here despite what Scientologists (and one other guy, unrelated to the CoS "issue") say. Personally I think they are trying to get rid of her article because mental illness doesn't exist in whatever they study, but her (Schwarz) actions seem to shoot that theory down. (I think she deserves an article because she's a non-us citizen taking advantage of FOIA and the government in a pursuit for evidence which doesn't exist at the expense of tax dollars and time. So I'd be editing her article regardless of which religion she affiliated her delusions with. I don't mean to sound hostile to her, I actually feel incredibly sorry for what life must be like for her.) Anynobody07:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll post my reply tomorrow, as I have to go to bed. It's late where I am, and I have plans in the morning. Cheers, TheHybrid07:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't sleep D,: Anyway, there really isn't much to say. Your isolated experience with him drives home the point that I made before about it not being harassment, but two editors with similar interests. Anyway, just out of curiosity, exactly where do you swing on the political compass? Peace, TheHybrid09:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
All over the place, trying to sum it up in a liberal/conservative sense is tough. I would say independent but that's what people who refuse to accept their liberal/conservative nature tend to call themselves, so lets just say I'm unique and can vary by issue. Anynobody00:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I fit the definition of a libertarian pretty well. I'm generally socially liberal, ie legalize gay marriage and marijuana, do not limit free speech for any reason, etc. I am fiscally conservative, so I say lower taxes as much as possible, do not limit international trade, the idea of a welfare state is terrible, and such. The only time that I really stray from libertarianism is on abortion, but even then I'm just conservative enough to alienate the liberals and libertarians while still being liberal enough to alienate the conservatives :P. TheHybrid00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I too manage to alienate everyone, for different reasons but similar causes. I know enough about the military to make liberals think I'm pro-war, but because I'm not and think the administration is frankly fucking up how the world sees us, I REALLY alienate conservatives. (Also, and I find this amusing, I put off a surprising amount of liberals because I believe a bunch of guys from Saudi Arabia executed a plan conceived and funded by Al-Queda rather than a false flag operation by the Bush administration. Aside from all the obvious stuff such people refuse to acknowledge is the fact that the Bush administration hasn't really gotten anything right...giving them credit for such a bizarre and difficult conspiracy makes no sense to me which doesn't exactly impress conservatives.) Oddly, I prefer being alienated. Anynobody00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally, someone who understands me, sort of. Being educated on something doesn't mean that you support it; it just means that you wanted all of the information before making a decision, rather than just assuming that someone was correct because of their party affiliation and following them like a sheep. For example, I was flabbergasted back when I first met you on the Bill O'Reilly talk page, when that one guy got pissed off, because he (basically) said I like O'Reilly and that's why he doesn't like me. I hate O'Reilly. He's an uneducated loud-mouth, and I can barely stand to hear his voice, but he's moderately entertaining to watch when nothing else is on. I was just trying to be fair with the policies, and give a relatively new user some advice on not offending people in disputes. I hate it when people jump to conclusions. TheHybrid01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I do understand, and agree, I really dislike O'Reilly but if you play by the rules here you have to write about the WP:RS which back him. (Doesn't mean that you do, just that you understand NPOV.) I also agree with you on people jumping to conclusions, I guess I wouldn't mind so much if people were equally quick to realize their mistake. I have similar issues with the two Scientology related articles I mentioned above, because Time calls them The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, and I used their article as a source, I must be anti-CoS. Anynobody02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, knowing both sides of a discussion seems to anger those who are too close-minded to educate themselves on the side that they have taken. I find that younger authoritarian liberals (socialists IMO) are more guilty of this than anyone else (this surprises me since you'd think the religious right would be more venomous; I guess that's only when they congregate). The older ones are far more tolerant of other views, but the younger ones tend to be rather militant, and will even call you an evil racist right to your face for not supporting socialized medical care. After the experience on O'Reilly's talk page I decided that I wouldn't ever edit articles related to politics on Misplaced Pages actively. I'll occasionally chime in on a discussion, as I did once on the article about Media Matters, but not over anything major. For that I just put someone's comment in different words because I thought that they were correct, but I'm not interested in starting up new discussions or attempting to resolve disputes or anything like that. Politics really bring out the worst in people. TheHybrid03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah they do, but you might consider not letting others opinion of you matter as much. I know it's easier said than done, but once it occurred to me that their "slings and arrows" proved two things, I found it easier. 1) They want you to feel bad 2) They have no counter for whatever point you're making, which is why they resort to labels/insults/etc. Handling point one; Why should you feel bad just because someone you'll never meet wants you to? Point two means that as long as you're able to maintain a cool head, and keep on subject, you have a real chance disproving their argument. (People don't like to be proven "wrong", so the closer you get to doing that the more likely they are to become hostile.) The point is, you did a good job on the O'Reilly article, don't let somebody's idiocy keep you away from something you're interested in. Anynobody04:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I generally don't let it matter to me, especially in the past two months. The car wreck, my shoulder injury, and a previously unmentioned wrist sprain that canceled out the progress I was making in physical therapy showed me that getting angry about things you can't control just makes everything worse. Nonetheless, dealing with illogical and angry people isn't something that I enjoy. Since this site is just my hobby I'm not really interested in trying to deal with them. (If the past sentences sounded strange it's because they were all one sentence that made no sense, so I divided them up :P) Trolls are easier to deal with than these people since you can just block a troll, but these people are editing in good faith, and there isn't a policy against being an idiot with anger issues. I may join the fray again someday, but at the moment I don't have any plans to. TheHybrid06:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
(Responding to your last post first), I do like it, he's right too. :)
That's cool, there's a difference between not feeling like dealing with angry people and being afraid to (especially considering your situation). I haven't been editing there or Ann Coulter for a while since I get enough angry people with the two articles I mentioned earlier. (However if one or the other says something really stupid that supporters try to cover up, I might be inclined to get involved there before I finish either article).
A wrist injury sucks, actually any injury interfering with use of hands makes typing such a pain in arse. if you have the means you might look into some kind of naturally speaking system so you can just talk what you want to type. Anynobody21:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the means :(, but I have an acceptable tolerance for pain, so it isn't that big of a deal. As far as Coulter goes, I don't understand why anyone supports her. I can understand not violating the unspoken code of honor by actually attacking another party member, but as far as actually supporting her goes I just don't see it. Her attacks damage the entire party's credibility; I don't understand why more of them don't denounce her. Cheers, The HybridT/C23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Eh, that's another reason I don't affiliate with a party; I would speak out against members of my party if they were stupid or intolerant (otherwise I'm tacitly condoning their stupidity/intolerance). On the other hand, I'm sure she has her uses to the GOP we aren't aware of as we fall outside her "demographic". Anynobody06:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Lights made it for me in his signature shop. Yeah, I know that some people enjoy reading her books because apparently she's a bit of a comedian, but I don't understand how calling John Edwards a fagot helps the party. Anyway, that's all that can really be said about her. What are your thought on Glen Beck? The HybridT/C07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Never heard of him before your link. This quote sums him up for me:"Either you think that we should have never gone there in the first place and we should get out immediately, or you're like me and you think we should finally start fighting this with everything we`ve got." I think he's a dickhead, who obviously has no idea what the situation in Iraq is. (Fight who with everything we have, Sunni militias, Shi'a groups?) People like him are why Bush won twice... Anynobody07:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, wait until you hear this. On his show I heard the greatest argument for pulling out that anyone has ever presented. He played a clip on his show where a spokesman for Hezbollah stated point blank that their strategy for defeating the United States is to funnel money out of the US economy with the Middle Eastern oil, and get the US into wars that they cannot win until they just collapse financially, exactly like we did to the Soviet Union. I forget how, but somehow he turned the fact that the US walked right into a trap and is continuing to be weakened by that trap into an argument to stay in the war. I watch his show because in his attempt to defend Bush's foreign policy he provides damning evidence against it that no one has ever seen before. He's so stupid that he makes people smarter :P. The HybridT/C08:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(Uhm, try to imagine a tone of voice conveying "it's even worse than you think" but in a darkly humorous way when reading this.)
It's a good point, and we should remember it before going into anymore "pre-emptive" defensive actions. Thinking the only options are pulling out or fighting is a false dilemma. We never should have gone in the first place, but since we did and made a big mess, we ought to clean it up before leaving. Otherwise history will record that we went in, ousted a despot looking for weapons we knew they didn't have, opened Pandora's box and then bailed. (Al-Queda formed because bin Laden had some issue with American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, nevermind that the Saudis asked us to come. Now we are in two Muslim countries, can't forget Afghanistan though Bush seems to have, and innocent people are dying every day...Bush doesn't realize it but when, yes when, a nuke goes off somewhere in the US the people behind it will cite our actions in those two countries.) Anynobody08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the situation over there is terrible (understatement of the century), but the economic state that we are in is worse, IMO. We are legitimately at risk of falling apart like the USSR soon, sooner than anyone realizes, and it is time to go into self-preservation mode. What people over here seem to think is that the US is invincible if it has smart leaders, but it just isn't so. There is a reason that Dick Cheney said that defeating al-Qaeda would be like the war on piracy; it will take the entire industrialized world chipping in, and it will still take an eternity to finally pull it off. This will be incredibly expensive, and we can't afford to foot the bill for both Iraq and this. We are now $9,000,000,000,000 in debt, and honestly, it isn't all Bush's fault. War is expensive, and even if we hadn't gone into Iraq we would still be trillions in the hole just from fighting al-Qaeda. Since there isn't a country called al-Qaedia for us to fight them in, we will be spending the next few decades chasing the leaders around the Middle East and probably India, and trying to prevent attacks around he World. If we don't start saving as much money as possible as soon as possible, then we will collapse, and the majority of the public will never see it coming. Does it suck that we would be abandoning the Iraqis? More than can be stated. However, until the European Union fuses politically, if America fails then the World has lost the most important beacon of democracy the World has. What kind of message would it send to have the World's only superpower toppled by a theocratic fascist minority group who could barely even infiltrate the country that they toppled? The HybridT/C09:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify, there's what I'd do and what I think Bush is capable of. Realistically I don't think Bush and his team could pull off a salvaging of the situation. However if it can be salvaged, the monetary concerns would actually take care of themselves based on the one thing they have gotten right about Iraq possessions, oil. I'll write more later, I'm usually in the middle of stuff while I'm on here and it's worse than usual today. Anynobody23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that al-Qaeda will ever let us stabilize Iraq, and I do believe that they have the ability to prevent the stabilization on their own, even if the insurgences are defeated. We will only be able to get at the oil after al-Qaeda is defeated, so I say we should stop putting so much focus on Iraq, and shift our focus to al-Qaeda itself. Since al-Qaeda is currently in Iraq, I don't support pulling out entirely until al-Qaeda pulls out. We need to change the mission back to defeating al-Qaeda, and put all other missions on hold until we've succeeded. The HybridT/C03:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Al-Qaeda isn't as big a problem as the sectarian violence between armed groups. It's like a Muslim version of The Troubles, only with oil and control of a country at stake. The militias want us out so that they can "win" their wars (American troops won't let battles and ethnic cleansing happen because they tend to show up when the shooting starts. I'm not saying we haven't caused our share of innocent deaths, but that wasn't part of the plan like ec.) This makes it hard for the Sunnis to eliminate Shi'a and vice versa. If/when we leave the violence will get worse until one group dominates. I think the Shi'a will win, which would just be sheer irony since Iran will end up thanking us for doing what they couldn't do in the 80s AND Al-Qaeda will get kicked out of Iraq by other Muslims (since they are a Sunni group). Anynobody04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
(It really is all Bush's fault, by that I mean him and his A-Team. Like most Americans, the man probably couldn't find Iraq on a globe by himself. The reason it's his fault is that the military knows war is expensive, there are papers, books, projects, etc. discussing all aspects of war. Those that do never recommend it, yet the administration ignored this and made up excuses to "effect regime change in Iraq". That's another irony, Bill Clinton inadvertently gave Bush a mandate by calling for just that in 1998 or 1999.) Anynobody04:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kicking al-Qaeda out isn't that simple. Pakistan can't pull it off, Britain can't pull it off, and we are failing to keep our own pockets from forming in the US, if they haven't already. That is because this isn't a war with people; it is war with an idea. It is a war to keep Muslims from becoming radicalized. As long as Islam exists, there will be radical fundamentalist Muslims, just like there are radical fundamentalist Christians. This is because the so-called moderate stances are in direct contradiction of their religious texts. The Bible says that homosexuals should be stoned, so a true Christian would believe that, while a moderate Christian would not. The Qur'an states that all infidels should be killed, so true Muslims believe this while the moderates would not. As long as the religious texts exist, there will always be a pocket of adherents to that religion who read their holy book religiously, no pun intended, who radicalize themselves, and work to radicalize others. That is why kicking a group out isn't just that simple; you literally have to wage war for the hearts and minds of the population caught in the crossfire. Keeping in mind that they realize they wouldn't be in the crossfire if we hadn't invaded, who do you think they are more likely to side with? The HybridT/C04:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Pakistan and the UK are very different than a Shi'a run Iraq would be. Pakistan has a broader cross section of faiths than Iraq, so Al-Qaeda has places to hide, plus they have a rather unique tribal section of their country where the government actually has no ability to enforce anything. The UK is a tolerant multicultural country, just like us, Al-Qaeda will have no problem setting up terrorist cells for operations here or there.
As I said, the Shi'a want us out, and since Al-Qaeda attacks could help make that happen, the Shi'a tolerate them. As soon as we're gone, the Sunnis will be taken care of, including Al-Qaeda.
Islam is not the problem, groups like Al-Qaeda are no different than the Army of God, both look to get their way through subversion of religion and violence. (I should probably explain that I'm agnostic). Sunni and Shi'a are just like Catholics and Protestants, for some reason they believe most of the same things, but really let the little stuff divide them.
There is a real chance of al-Qaeda coming out on top. While the Sunni are the minority, they still make up 20% of Iraq's population, so that in addition to control of oil is the reason for al-Qaeda to focus a tremendous amount of their forces on finally overthrowing Pakistan's government. With control of the Pakistani military, they would have a real chance at preventing the ethnic cleansing of their brethren, and taking control of Iraq instead of Iran. They are already successfully subverting the Pakistani power structure, and are legitimately a threat of being able to declare themselves rulers of the country before the decade is out. I think that al-Qaedia would be much more dangerous than Iran, so I say we simply pursue al-Qaeda mercilessly an without distraction to prevent the overthrow of the Pakistani government, and then worry about Iraq. We should do everything we can to keep Iran's claws off of the oil, of course, but al-Qadea is more dangerous than anything since they don't have a capital to protect. I say let the ethnic cleansing take place so al-Qaeda doesn't already have their foot 20% of the way through the door, secretly encourage an Iran-Israel war so we can finally be rid of the pesky Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei, and set up Pakistan as the regional power, while helping India reach superpower status to make sure that we have a close (geographically, not emotionally), more powerful ally when (not if, when) Pakistan chooses to turn on us. The reason that I say pull out is so we can go back in later with things a little more smoothed out, though the mass loss of life is a hard pill for some people to swallow. I, on the other hand, do not see that as a major drawback, since we know there isn't any way to win without massive loss of life. The HybridT/C07:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep not agreeing with you, I'd say disagree but I don't think we're quite that far apart. The thing is Al-Qaeda isn't trying to take over Iraq or any other country; if they were they'd be attacking Shi'a groups and begging the US to stay like many Sunnis are. (They're actually attacking us and screwing their Sunni brethren at the same time.) If they somehow got hold of Pakistan it would actually hurt them since they'd be making a transition from terrorist tactics to those of an actual nation. The US could probably count on India to help take out an Al-Qaeda regime there (for certain concessions of course, Kashmir being one I imagine) since nobody wants to see nuclear armed terrorists in their backyard. (That said, in such a situation I could also foresee China helping take care of a Pakistan under Al-Qaeda).
Pakistan also lies east of Iraq, after Iran and Afghanistan, so getting troops to Iraq could be a challenge since I doubt NATO (who's in Afghanistan) would let them make it. If NATO couldn't stop them, I know Iran would.
Whatever happens, I can agree with you completely that massive loss of life is now unavoidable no matter what. (And that's why I hate the Bush administration so much, they've started something that will not end until countless innocent lives are lost. If he had a shred of competence, this would have been something he knew. Instead he set up an Office of Special Plans to cherry pick scary sounding intel to justify the war for him.) Anynobody02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I blame Dick Cheney more. H.W. Bush wanted to do this during his presidency when it wouldn't have been a preemptive strike, but then-Secretary of Defense Cheney told him no even though we could have had the World and the entire Middle East on our side. It would have been one thing if he had just told him no, and then told our Georgie-boy no, but to tell Dubya yes after all this time even though nothing had changed except that we wouldn't have the World and the Middle East on our side is just stupidity. I don't hold malice towards them like you do, though, as I don't think they are evil. Anyway, we know that al-Qaeda is subverting the Pakistani government, and I can't think of any other reason for them to subvert it other than to get a hold of their weapons. I didn't put emphasis on the Pakistani nuclear weapons like I meant to in my last post. I also made another mistake in my statement, which I will often do when I type faster than I'm thinking. Making it to Iraq isn't the issue; it is having Iran surrounded and invaded. They don't have to get through Afghanistan; Iran's major borders are with Turkey, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If al-Qaeda comes into possession of the Pakistani nuclear weapons, well, need I say more? Iran is tolerating al-Qaeda setting up base in their country since they have both taken an anti-American stance on the US being in Iraq, so with Pakistan at their disposal, and positions in both Iraq and Iran, the Middle East or at least the area around the Persian Gulf will just erupt into Shia-on-Sunni chaos. This is why we have to go after al-Qaeda, and abandon Iraq temporarily. If we pull out (keeping the Iran-Iraq border sealed of course), then the Shia will drive al-Qaeda out of Iraq, Iran will drive al-Qaeda out of their country, and we will be able to focus our forces on preventing the overthrow of Pakistan, completely foiling al-Qaeda's plans. Then, we can turn our attention to setting up a stable government in Iraq independent of Iran, maybe even allowing Israel to go to war with Iran so we don't have to worry about them anymore. The HybridT/C03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify, Cheney is part of the administration (and problem), I don't think GWB is evil, I just think he's made many (MANY) stupid mistakes. (After all Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. is what I'm doing. It just turns out that by doing stupid things, thousands of people can be killed.) Like you said, in 91 the world may have supported toppling Saddam, but they sure didn't in 2003. Iran is only a "threat" because Bush (like I said, when I say Bush I mean the whole admin) lumped them and North Korea into the "axis of evil".
There is more to Pakistan than Al-Qaeda, Pakistan is an entirely different issue. It sounds like you think it is in imminent danger of takeover by Al-Qaeda. I agree that if someone succeeds in killing Pervez Musharraf that country will probably fall apart. However for Al-Qaeda to "win" they'll have to deal with Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and other religions as well as different ethnicities. Anynobody04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)File:Pakistan ethnic 80.jpgThis map is pretty old, but it does illustrate the diversity of Pakistan.
I believe that anyone who denies the holocaust in addition to stating that their goal is to destroy Israel with the nuclear weapons they are building is a threat. I believe that anyone who has committed countless acts of war against this nation, such as laying siege to our embassy, and killing our Marines without provocation is a threat. I believe that anyone who captures unarmed UN workers and holds them hostage is a threat. As far as Pakistan goes, al-Qaeda doesn't need to conquer the country; they just need to determine the locations of the nuclear weapons, and seize them and the launching mechanisms. As you pointed out before, they have no intentions of conquering a nation, since that type of warfare would be to their disadvantage. The HybridT/C06:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying they haven't caused problems, but really when it comes to big stuff the aren't a threat. Here's an illustration I made for a family member, to explain exactly this point. Anynobody06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's really the pivot of our disagreements. I think that al-Qaeda can pull almost anything off if we give them the time to do it, and you don't. As far as Pakistan goes, I don't think that they need the support of the people like they do elsewhere, since they are already successfully subverting the government and the military. All they need are the computer records to tell them where the weapons are, and some time to gain physical possession of the weapons. For that they just need some spies on the inside, which they are acquiring with great success. The HybridT/C07:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job on the illustration, BTW. I'm quite impressed. I think that I will print myself a copy to tape to my wall next to my world map. The HybridT/C07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to minimize Al-Qaeda, it's just that since 9/11 their prominence has actually worked against them. They weren't in Iraq before we were there so their overall affect is minimal. The thing about Pakistan and nuclear proliferation is more a question of information leakage than missing warheads. (Could a warhead be stolen, sure, it'd just be really hard considering how much easier it's getting to build their own weapon. Building a bomb is not as hard as it used to be, getting the fissile material is the hardest part.) I guess I've already resigned myself to accepting that someday nuclear weapons will be accessible to anyone (in a terrorist/national sense not you and me) because of advances in technology and knowledge. For example, it was once thought that only certain Uranium and Plutonium isotopes could sustain a nuclear chain reaction, aka Fissile. Now it is believed other element's isotopes like Neptunium could be used too. Frankly the bigger worry would be them buying Pu or U from North Korea and building a crude bomb, but that's a whole other conversation.
Everyone knows how to build a bomb; they just need to come and read Misplaced Pages ;P. Like you said, the problem is fissile material. I think that they want to get it from Pakistan, and bring the rest of the bomb with it. Even if they can't steal the bomb, they could just take the material from the bomb. Either way, the effect is the same, and we need to do everything we can to keep Pakistan from being overthrown. What I'm saying is by temporarily pulling out of Iraq you've foiled their plans across the board. The HybridT/C22:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Al-Qaeda could be fought more effectively, and that Pakistan could be a weak link in countering nuclear proliferation. However, if we leave, I should say when we leave without fixing Iraq they'll have more manpower for other operations elsewhere. (One thing is for sure, invading Iraq wasn't the right move in fighting them.) It's a pretty crappy situation all around. Anynobody02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but if we can stop nuclear proliferation before it starts, and pit our Shia enemies against our Sunni enemies more effectively, then we should. Increasing the majority the Shia have in Iraq would also help us to stabilize them when we returned, assuming Iran provokes Israel to war in that time, or the al-Qaeda cells formed within Iran already put up a fight when Iran tried to force them out, causing Iran to have its own internal problems that would hinder their ability to stand in our way of stabilization. The HybridT/C03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Returned? Once we leave we should be gone, going back would be another invasion. Going into Pakistan to get Al-Qaeda wouldn't do any good for two reasons; 1) They can simply escape to another country(or shift their center of gravity as it's known), 2) The Pakistanis are bound to have a problem with us just waltzing into their (albeit not under their control) territory. Al-Qaedainfo from Globalsecurity.org, Islam info from the Army (I feel sorry for people who write stuff like this, since policy makers don't read it they may as well not have written it in the first place). Anynobody03:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Barbara's article
Hi Anynobody/Anyeverybody. Do you think it might be possible to come to some agreement on a couple changes in this so that we both could free up our time for other things? Thanks. Steve Dufour13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
A bit of a random thought: on Misplaced Pages, there are people who give it a great deal of time and effort, and those who treat it more as a hobby.
If you give it a bit of time, and you're not a complete idiot, by the law of averages you are going to start collecting DYK and (possibly) FA boxes on your User page.
Problem: if you've got enough time to spend on Misplaced Pages doing constructive work, you've also got enough time to start involving yourself in the petty politics. And this is when the problem arises: the good work that you do is seen and noted by Admins, who then become reluctant to pull you up when you're being unconstructive, hurling allegations of bad faith about, and basically being a pain-in-the-arse.
One need not be productive in order to earn protection from that particular person. Unfortunately whether the protected are productive or not calling them on unconstructive behavior will likely incur action by their friend. That's pretty frustrating because you know who is so popular that most everyone assumes they are right without even reading others arguments.
I have a question about The Troubles though, does Ireland want Northern Ireland back? I've been trying to figure out if the IRA could be called partisans instead of terrorists. (If Dublin isn't trying to get the territory back then they should be called terrorists since they aren't fighting for anything but themselves. If Ireland feels like the land is occupied, they may be more akin to French, Polish, or Russian partisans in WW II.
Iraq is indeed a horrible mess, I feel sorry for everyone involved... the Iraqis, our troops, your troops. I know he isn't "human" enough to understand what he's done, but I hope George W. Bush never gets a good nights sleep again. If I had the amount of blood on my hands that he does, I may contemplate suicide to escape the guilt I'd feel.
Well, when I edit Misplaced Pages, I increasingly view my own involvement as a sociological project. I just find the dubious logic of 'he's had an FA, therefore he's not going to be censured for his behaviour' rather ridiculous. That's as far as I want to go!
I'm sorry about your own ArbCom judgment. My own, rather too extensive, dealings with lawyers have persuaded me that the majority of them are rather idle. Judges often throw a carrot to the losing side; eg. 'although we find for A, B has produced a thorough and convincing case and has valid grounds for complaint' (translation: although A's won the case, we're sweetening the blow for B). I rather suspect that your sanction falls into this category. "In war, there is no substitute for victory".
Regarding Ireland, you need to see the Belfast Agreement: the short answer is that up until 1998 the Republic of Ireland's constitution included claims to the whole island, ie. including Northern Ireland. Since 1998, these claims have been abandoned and the IRA has similarly 'abandoned the armed struggle'. The likely truth of the matter is that by this time (from the early 1990s onwards) the IRA was so well penetrated by informers that it was impossible for the organisation to pull off a proper armed campaign and it was limited to separate, distinct, bombings in London, which never really rose above the nuisance value. The real root of the issue is that after the separation of Ireland (1921) a de facto process of ethnic cleansing took place, with Protestants moving North and Catholics moving South. However, the Catholics remaining in the North have a higher birth rate than their Protestant neighbours; you therefore get the problems associated with an indigenous population (subscribing to its own identity) gradually becoming a minority in its own homeland (see also: Fiji and Serbia/ Kosovo). I'm afraid that the whole issue of the Troubles has aroused the interest of a series of nutters - you've probably seen that I've been dragged into an ArbCom. Frankly, I think one can only laugh - see here ('32' having its own connotations) - otherwise we'd all go howling mad!
Your comments about George Bush almost exactly mirror comments made to me by a friend of mine about Tony Blair. It seems astonishing that after an effective military campaign - which was a 21t. century version of the Battle of Omdurman - such chaos was allowed to follow in its wake that, within a short period, a worse situation had been created than previously existed. Almost all of the blame, I suspect, must lie with Paul Bremer, in particular his mad decisions to disband the Iraqi army, purge Ba'athists, and impose immediate free-market reforms. It's extraordinary to me that, given the successful experience of denazification and the Occupation of Japan, such a mess has been made in Iraq. Anyway, there's an interesting book review here (it's one of the instances, I suspect, of the review being more interesting than the book).
Polska I find a very interesting country. From the late medieval period (when Jews were permitted to settle in Poland) onwards, it was a multi-ethnic/ multi-religious country with (although there's a lot of rubbish written about it) a high degree of tolerance (there even remains a small Muslim minority who represent the high-water mark of Genghis Khan's invasions). However, because of the war, most of the Jews were killed (and those left later emigrated), and the Protestants (associated with Germans) left/ were expelled, and so the country has become, for effectively the first time in its history, homogeneous: Catholic, Slav, speaking Polish: in other words, almost completely the opposite of the British and American experience. The influence of the English language is considerable; and if you're the sort of person who has some spare $ to invest, I'd suggest Poland!--Major Bonkers(talk)14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more about FAs buying one "immunity", it's just that kind of logic which sums up the problems here. It's quite human not wanting to tell a friend they are screwing up, so either we tend to overlook their behavior or rationalize what we know to be wrong. In this case, it reminds me more of a "teacher's pet" situation.
Interesting point about my arbcom results. I had thought they simply weren't paying attention. Whatever the actual reason, it doesn't bother me much.
I once respected Tony Blair, but he has indeed earned some sleepless nights too. The problem was that the higher ups assumed the Iraqis would act according to their script. (The irony is that there are studies by CIA and DoD pointing out that Saddam had his hands full keeping Sunni/Shi'a issues from flaring up. One likened an overthrow of Saddam as like a rapid decompression and all hell would break loose, which people like Bush and Bremer evidently didn't read.) I agree Bremer made some shocking errors, but he seems to typify the kind of person Bush appoints to do important jobs. (Like Mike Brown and the religious guy he appointed to NASA.)
I felt much like you did before plunging in and doing my first GA review, but I encourage you to be bold. The comments you made on your request for a 2nd opinion seemed perfectly reasonable; the article clearly isn't there yet.
So give the editors your feedback, and work together with them to sort out the problems. The review shouldn't be a "them and us" experience, it should be a "how can we work together to make this article better" experience.
I appreciate your vote of confidence :) However, assuming all my suggestions were followed would the article then be WP:GA? (Also what's the rule on just fixing it myself?) Anynobody03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
