|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: February 03, 2003 I am extraordinarily angry. -- "I think your site libelous. I certainly think your behaviour is grossly unprofessional. You have been reckless and may even have jeopardised the safety of my family as well as myself."
Reader Comments...
Here is the mail (edited to protect the innocent) that I received this morning :
I was horrified to be told by ****************** that I had "Come out You have placed your anti-war banner above more than 100 HCI professionals' If ********** thought I therefore supported your political campaign, then I am extraordinarily angry. I think your site libelous. I certainly think If you do not remove your anti-war banner from above the photographs of P.S. If you just remove your banner from above my photograph, or you just
Eh, it's pretty easy to just put up a message that says "above is a banner that is placed by the site's host and may not represent the opinions of people mentioned or referenced below." Plus, it's a polite thing to do. Posted by: Anil on February 3, 2003 04:51 AM
Simple. Remove his photograph. Then he has no case whatsoever. Once that's done, you're only presenting your own views. If you remove references to him, what's left? Posted by: MadMan on February 3, 2003 05:05 AM
There is a certain logical flaw in thinking that if your name and picture appears on the same page as a banner, then you agree with or endorse that banner. If the Times runs a banner ad for Microsoft on its home page, and at the same time runs an article on Saddam Hussein, does that imply that Saddam Hussein is heartily in favour of Microsoft products? However, just because a line of reasoning is logically flawed, doesn't mean that people won't follow it. (Insert obvious example of your choice here.) And just because someone is wrong doesn't mean they will be any less upset by whatever incorrect conclusions they arrive at. So you have to deal with this person's anger. If you want to antagonize him (I'll stick with the male pronoun for the moment), that's easy to do. Either do nothing, or point out that he's wrong. (Sometimes it's fun to piss people off. It gives you an outlet for your own aggression.) If you respect this person, or even if you don't, but think he can damage your reputation with people you do respect, then you ought to apologize, and find out what he would like done. It may be something as simple as putting a disclaimer above the page of people's photos (is this the usability connections page?). You could explain how you derived your statistics, and therefore why the people are listed. You could even write that if someone doesn't want to be listed, they can email you to have their name removed. Another aspect to consider is that you have shown this person's photo on your page. Speaking from recent personal experience, people can get very upset when their photos or likenesses are used in ways they are not happy with. Really, quite disproportionately upset. In my case, someone used a photograph of my son on their own web page, and claimed that this was a picture of their son. I think your correspondent is wrong in his conclusions, but he probably deserves consideration for his feelings. Posted by: Martin on February 3, 2003 05:44 AM
Addendum: I just re-read the email, and of course the correspondent has already said what he wants you to do: take down the banner. Don't do that. By asking you to remove your banner, he is effectively trying to force you to accept his political opinion. There are other ways to address his grievances without compromising either of your positions. Posted by: Martin on February 3, 2003 05:52 AM
Caught in a slight bind, here. On the one hand, he sounds like a self-righteous ween. On the other, I can certainly see myself writing *the selfsame letter* if Chris' banner had, for just one example, expressed support for war in Iraq. In this instance, I think commonsense and good faith - qualities with which Chris is abundantly endowed - counsel the addition of a fairly prominent disclaimer. Regarding the stated desire of the letter-writer. Though it is his wish to not express political views in public, and such wishes should always be respected, I myself find that silence is the voice of complicity. And where politeness and the discourse of soi-disant "professionalism" compel silence, they should be discarded, immediately and with no compunction. Posted by: Adam on February 3, 2003 05:59 AM
Bomb him Posted by: Anonymous on February 3, 2003 06:46 AM
I think the way the banner's presented may be the problem, it looks like it may be the page/section title, rather than some kind of site-wide banner. If there was a clear Usability Views strip across the top of the page with the Don't Attack Iraq stuff held within a clearly defined areas then there'd be less potential for confusion. Basically the anti-war banner needs to be visually associated with the site, or the site's owner, rather than the page and its content.
I've got ten pounds ready to start a "Free The Web Word One" campaign, should Mac get the 3am knock on the door. Posted by: glasshaus Bruce on February 3, 2003 07:55 AM
OK, I'll be honest with you: coming to the page the way I did, I had a usability problem, because I didn't know what I was looking at. Perhaps it's more obvious to someone who gets to the page 'organically,' that is, by following a link within your site, and what's there confirms their expectations. But for someone who comes to the page not knowing what to expect, it's not clear what the page is. This could well be how your offended party got there, and could be part of the issue. At any rate, if this link were shared with one person who got there 'non-organically', it could well happen again to others, through an email or by seeing the page come up in a search engine, any number of paths. My recommendations:
But I do not suggest removing your banner: your views are valuable. You just need to break the connection between the banner and the page content. Posted by: Frank on February 3, 2003 08:57 AM
Just to add one more thing about the connection between the banner and the page: If you were to look for a "home" button on the page, where would you look? Right where the banner is, I think — which makes it seem as if the site is about protesting against war in Iraq, and says something about the content on the page. I'm afraid it is about usability. (But you can take my views with a grain of salt: I'm not a usability practitioner, only someone who used to pay a lot for it and got well-read in the process.) Posted by: Frank on February 3, 2003 09:14 AM
Martin: Actually, the correspondent did not say removing his picture and references was what he/she wanted. It was indicated this would not be sufficient: "If you just remove your banner from above my photograph, or you just remove all reference to me on your web site, then I will not consider this satisfactory." More is desired. Posted by: Frank on February 3, 2003 09:23 AM
Sir Mac, Remove reference to the person, but do not change your views or perspective. As it is your own. Also quite like the idea of making the division clearer between the "userati" and "the banner" itself (as has been mentioned above) Posted by: daniel szuc on February 3, 2003 09:29 AM
Agree with Frank. It does look like the image is connected to the content. I honestly would remove it and put it somewhere in context to your own opinions not the images and names of others. Posted by: Cindy on February 3, 2003 09:30 AM
Simple. If anything, it should be an honor to be listed on the page. Remove all mention of the gentleman from the page. Posted by: Flaming Drag Queen on February 3, 2003 09:36 AM
Good call Flaming Drag Queen but the person posting could also be a "woman" ... ("two possibilities Mr. Smart" - Harry Hoo from Get Smart) Posted by: daniel szuc on February 3, 2003 09:41 AM
Oh no honey, I don't think so. I was being ladylike in referring to this person as a gentleman. My original wording conveyed my view that the author is a testosterone-filled brute. Posted by: Flaming Drag Queen on February 3, 2003 10:20 AM
It's a dumb page. The banner is dumb, the cryptic listing is dumb, combining the two together is even dumber. Posting a complaint to a list in order to get moral support, instead of thinking and fixing your design, is pretty dumb too. The banner has a typo, it should be "Don't attack, Iraq". The ceasefire from Hussein's invasion of Kuwait has been broken repeatedly, and the question now is how to stop his warring. Get it right. It would also be better if you changed the caption to "Resistance to tyranny is not futile." Or maybe even "Question Their Authority, Not Mine", that's a little more descriptive of the left these days. But your page? Fix it, it's dumb.
Thank you all for the comments (public and private). Especially the person who offered advice and support, even though they don't agree with my views. These sort of things cause me a lot of worry and upset as I hate to know that other people are thinking badly of me. I am not as confident in my views and actions as I may possibly appear, and very much appreciate the support from the webworders. I know that I could avoid any upset to myself by keeping my mouth shut, but I have spent too much of my life doing this and that is no longer an option for me. Here is the reply I have just sent off.
I would like to apologise for any upset caused to you because of my personal views on the war against Iraq that appear on my website. I have now changed the format of the pages concerned so that it is no longer possible for people to mis-understand whose views are represented. As well as changing the format of my anti-war banner, I have also added a link to a page which explains my actions. I have not removed any references to you from the userati list as you have not specificially requested this. If you would like to be removed from the list, please let me know and I will remove you as soon as I can. (Please note, that this may take two or three days.) Yours Sincerely, Chris McEvoy
I wonder if that was Jakob.. really... sounds like him.. "if you dont...." :oppppp Posted by: on February 3, 2003 04:31 PM
You should have posted both names in the email, though I agree that you shouldn't post the return email address. As for your solution: "May not represent" is a stock phrase, but it's rather misleading. Better to take sole responsibility for the banner and clearly state that it is not related to anything else on the page - the opinions of people listed on the page are irrelevant. What's the purpose of the page? How are visitors supposed to infer your intent? Placing that banner on a page with an extremely unclear purpose was a mistake. Too bad the author of the email (and the person who referred it) wasn't able to figure this out. Posted by: Ron Zeno on February 3, 2003 04:47 PM
I think this thread IS about usability. The link, banner, and disclaimer push the content of the site down pretty far, adding additional visual noise. Now that I know what the site is for, I can ignore this visual noise, but putting the political information in its own box to the right of the main content would preserve usability and also continue to give Chris a platform that makes him feel rewarded for offering this free service. And the apologetic tone of the dislcaimer makes it more than clear that Chris is responding to a specific concern by hacking, rather than re-designing. Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on February 3, 2003 05:06 PM
Chris, I'll echo what others have said here, but maybe I can summarize it a bit better. 1. Your site is damn amazing (in a good way) - I've often been fascinated by the neat data you've been able to highlight and wonder how you do it. 2. I intend to use the data to achieve world domination by the end of 2003. 3. Your site design needs some work. 4. The anti-war ad is kinda big, and placement is poor. Research shows it'll get more attention if you move it further down into the content. :) Right now, it doesn't really look like an ad - appears more like content at first look. 6. I'm sure there are a number of us who'd be happy to help. 7. While I don't necessarily agree with the anti-war message (it's not that simple in my book), I only wish there were enough people who cared about usability enough to generate enough traffic on your small rather new site, and that those people somehow cared enough about me and my views on politics to create any personal issues for me. I can see where someone more well known and more dependent on the usability community for their livelihood would care more though. (e.g. If I were Jakob or Jared or Don) 8. One of the first two points above are false. Visit my site to find out which one. (Yeah, that's a shameless plug, I know, so bomb me. :) Okay, maybe I can't summarize it better. Anyway, keep up the good work. And kudos for using this community and opening your site up for critique. Posted by: Lyle - War Monger on February 3, 2003 06:04 PM
Mac, why does the anti-war graphic feature a zeppelin in a death spiral? Posted by: Count Ferdinand on February 3, 2003 09:24 PM
It isn't Jakob, and I think it would be unfair to name names unless the other party makes some kind of public statement. Damn it, I am going to have to move that re-design and explanation pages up my priority list. I hope that the somewhat hurried changes I made yesterday make a confused situation a bit clearer, but I can see that there is still plenty of room for improvement. I think that the people who have said that this IS about usability are right on the money. I would love to be able to take the banner down as I never intended to have a message/ad banner anywhere on the site. I will take it down when I think that it no longer serves a purpose. I don't actually want the anti-war message to look like an ad, and I am happy for it to take up my most expensive screen real-estate. On a matter of principle, I would prefer to take my site down for the duration and replace it with one anti-war page, rather than remove the banner. I WILL remove the banner when the Iraq issue is resolved (one way or another). I am sincerely hoping that the host of large demonstrations around the world on Feb 15th will lead to a cancellation of plans for an invasion of Iraq, but I fear that Bush and Blair will go ahead with their plans no matter what. I do not like to force my political views onto other people, but this is the first time in my living memory that an anti-war movement has an opportunity to stop a war before it starts. Lyle, send me a photo and I will publish it on your page. As to including references to blog-posts on UV, I am definitely looking at that. Currently I am thinking about taking some RSS feeds from a careful selection of blogs (hint, hint) to produce a 'latest blog items' view. But as I only update the site twice or so a week, it would not always be up to date. It would probably be better if I produced some kind of combined index for some blogs, perhaps along the same lines as my WebWord one? Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 4, 2003 02:56 AM
Adam, this is no time to be mocking the president. Posted by: Shrub on February 4, 2003 09:48 AM
When is the right time to mock him? Posted by: JB on February 4, 2003 12:35 PM
I am going to have to move that re-design and explanation pages up my priority list. Don't make a big deal of it short-term. There are many, simple solutions that will give you most of the improvement you're looking for, such as placing a subtitle under the current title, "Userati - Connections", that explains what the page is. (I'm not going to take a guess as to what your purpose of the page is. If you'll explain it here in the commentary, then I'm sure you'll get many good suggestions on how to easily improve the page.) Posted by: Ron Zeno on February 4, 2003 12:49 PM
When is the right time to mock him? Maybe when the situation is more peacefulable. (hey, you folks voted for him. ;) Posted by: MadMan on February 4, 2003 01:54 PM
Hey, Mac, I didn't read all the comments on this, so I might be repeating what you have already heard, but my feeling is that you should probably take the banner down to be safe. The problem here is that the Userati site may be considered a participatory site by the people who visit. In other words, they might assume that the people on the list asked to be there. This could cause some confusion if an anti-war banner is posted. Keep your banner on your pages, the ones that have your views and commentary, but take it off of "community" pages. That said, I do like the line you put about views not being shared by those listed below, but if it were me I would take it off altogether just to be safe. Posted by: Lydia on February 4, 2003 03:30 PM
Mac, I respect your desire to promote your opinions on the topic of war, and also your receptiveness to a site critique (as you know, this is a tough crowd). I say, it's a personal site, so you should express your views as you wish - it adds color and personality to the site. When we talk about "usability", we talk in terms of particular site goals (or our assumptions of site goals in this case). War political content and usability community content are strange bedfellows. But hey, who says you have to color inside the lines? Warning - taking this off a usability topic.... In my opinion war is a necessary evil - unfortunately, there are times when it must exist in the world. "True Peace" - like "Perfect Design" doesn't really exist in this world. 'Times of peace' and 'designs' are usually negotiated, full of trade-offs, and therefore no one's ever totally satisfied with the results. Wars and battles are things you have to suffer through to get either peace or a final design. (Ok, how blatant was that attempt to swerve back on topic?) Peace, y'all! Maybe it'll take war to get there... Posted by: Lyle - War Monger on February 5, 2003 12:55 AM
I dunno, man. I was in the US Army for five years, four of 'em in special operations. I don't think war is much of an answer to anything. Preempt, prevent, isolate, undermine, marginalize, contain: yes. But by the time you're talking about major combined-arms operations, IMO you have failed and failed badly. Posted by: Adam on February 5, 2003 04:00 AM
Good call Adam. On a recent BBC panel discussing the current situation and possible war - "war is the result of politics not working and should not be used as a tool for politicians ..." something like that anyway. Posted by: Daniel Szuc on February 5, 2003 04:12 AM
I received this mail this morning.
Thank you. I was glad to see that this has caused Google to change its listings as well.
Onto the 'war'. I am by no means a wooly liberal pacifist (no offence intended), but I do believe that there is absolutely no justification for war against Iraq. Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 5, 2003 04:17 AM
In case of any confusion. The 'Thank You' mail did come from the same person as the 'I think your site libelous' person. I am glad that my attempt to respond reasonably (I know I'm a bit of a woos) recieved such a positive response, and I am glad that it didn't erupt into a big conflict kind of thing. Maybe we should send a copy of this thread to Bush and Blair? I would like to say "Thank You" again, to everyone who has helped me out with comments and advice. It has made a big difference to how I dealt with this situation. Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 5, 2003 07:05 AM
"...but I do believe that there is absolutely no justification for war against Iraq." Belief in war, or not, is nonsensical. Either there is evidence of evil, or there is not evidence of evil. If and only if there is evidence of evil, as defined by the powers-that-be, then action should be taken. The action might be nothing or the action might be war. There should be no belief in war, just as there should be no "belief" in evidence or evil. You have evidence or not, and if you do you act based on evidence. Then again, people could decide to be worthless fucks and kill without evidence of evil. Posted by: Kill When Necessary on February 5, 2003 12:58 PM
So I get to keep my ten pounds then. I'll save it for some beer on
Re: there should be no "belief" in evidence or evil. You have evidence or not, and if you do you act based on evidence. What counts as evidence -- testimony from a psychic? Eyewitness reports from political refugees? Satellite data that could very well have been photoshopped, captioned, or even cropped to emphasize the validity of a particular claim for or against war? Agreeing to assent to whatever the "powers that be" decide is vague -- do you mean a unversal divine moral constant, or do you mean the political powers that happen to be in charge at the moment? What if the powers that be tell you take their word for evidence? And what if they told you that at gunpoint and killed you if you dissented? We might be able to find evidence that Iraq has a certain cache of weapons; if so, it's perfectly fair to say that such a cache "violates a UN treaty" or "poses a serious threat to the stability of the reason" or even "will drive the cost of oil too high". While I'm far from a moral relativist, I think it's not too much of a stretch to recognize that what one person sees as a good, another person can see as an evil. If you reply to my questions with an item-by-item refutation, you're missing the point. All evidence has to be weighed by reasonable people -- it's not evidence unless it's perceived by an observer, who can then choose how to intepret it and whether to act on it. Mac has seen some of the evidence -- enough to make a judgment that, based on his understanding of the situation, he does not believe that war is necessary. So, "Kill When Necessary," I find your I'm waiting to hear what Mac has to say about Lyle's questions regarding whether any peace is automatically a good peace, or whether Mac might possibly admit that there would be a situation that might justify war. If Mac is a pacifist in principle, that's different from his claim that this particular war is unjust. Meanwhile, I shall laugh merrily at KWN's implicit claim that evidence merely drops down from heaven, absolving the perciever from resonding to it with credence or skepticism, as the situation warrants. Belief is an important part of human psychology; we are subjective creatures and we are fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz on February 5, 2003 01:31 PM
What if the powers that be tell you take their word for evidence? And what if they told you that at gunpoint and killed you if you dissented? I totally, completely agree with this statement... but I do have to ask, do we have evidence that they don't already do this? In my opinion, we have evidence that they DO! What is it supposed to mean "I don't care what the whole wide world has to say, if Saddam doesnt do exactly as I say, when I say it, the way I want it then I will give that as evidence that this man has nuclear weapons and I will attack!.." And I can't believe that people buy this *@#$&$#@%... To me there is nothing that can justify war. Absolutely nothing can fully justify war... Because Saddam is a piece of crap, does it mean that we should kill all the innocent people over there, even those who want to get rid of him? Please, I don't want to hear: "In war the innocent die.. nothing we can do about it.." That's absolutely ridiculous. Let's change the scale, drive by shootings, in the eyes of the gangs involved, can be viewed as war. They are trying to mark their territory and have their way, just as our "leader" is doing at the moment. When innocent people get killed during a drive by shooting, it's the gang's fault, and everybody looks at it and says "ridiculous, stupid, idiotic, an innocent life lost because of some suckers"... If you really do, I beg of you to please "enlighten" me of this situation and give me the logic. Because I am not following that I can't even see how this can be any kind of reasoning. Plus, why aren't they using one of those "super weapons" they've created where Bush can push the button while in the bathroom in D.C and chop Saddam's head off within minutes through GPS? Why not do that if our intention is seriously not to harm innocent people but save them? If there are nuclear weapons, why doesnt the possibility of Saddam launching it once we attack ever come up? Since it's at such a top secret location and we have no idea where it is how can we be so sure? It doesnt add up.. and it definitely does NOT justify war, if anything it unjustifies it.
In my opinion war is a necessary evil - Lyle I believe that this is the view of the vast majority of people towards the general concept of war. This is why I do not describe myself as a pacifist, as I can imagine situations where I would possibly 'join up' and take part in a war. But I hope that I would have done everything possible to help prevent a war in the first place. However, I think that 'War' has become a political acceptable tool to use in to project power around the world, and I don;t just mean the United States. Russia is using the 'war against terror' to pacify the Chechens. In my opinion, war should only ever be considered at all, when all possible alternatives have been exhausted and the reasons for war being waged are compelling. In the UK 84% of people are opposed to war with Iraq without UN approval and 44% opposed to war in any circumstances. At some point in history it was acceptable for us to see other races as inferior, women as property and working class people as sub-human. (Please Note: I am not trying to imply that I am in any way more 'enlightened' than anyone else because of my anti-war stance). During the last Gulf War I went on demonstrations carrying placards that read "Victory To The Iraqi People". In recent years I have been involved in supporting asylum seekers in the UK, including many from Iraq. I have talked to veterans of the last war, whose stories should turn anyone against war. This time around, many more people around the world are against this war, and they are taking action to try and prevent this one. I will be marching on the 15th Feb, and I would be more than happy carrying a banner stating "Justice For The Iraqi People". Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 5, 2003 03:16 PM
Good discussion. I wonder though, when can we say "we've done everything possible to avoid war?" What does that mean, really? Who do we trust? Powell was surprisingly pretty anti-war not that long ago - he was a big advocate of sending inpectors in and trying additional ways of working things out. Saddam has a history of using chemical and biological weapons against his own people, not to mention neighboring countries and enemy troops. I'll trust Powell when he tells me Saddam has WoMD rather than Saddam when he says he doesn't. Come on, they can't even prove what they've done with weapons they admitted to having in the past...they're hiding everything and not disclosing anything. Sure, they play hide and seek with the UN inspectors each day, but that doesn't mean these are honest people we're dealing with. Is Iraq the biggest threat in the world (to the U.S. or UK) - I don't think so. But should we take on the biggest bully right away or make an example of a potentially dangerous aspiring one? I trust that our leaders (and the thousands of experts supporting their decisions) are making VERY informed decisions. They have the 'best and brightest' at their disposal, and God knows geo-political issues aren't simple. Call me naive for trusting them to do the right thing. I also appreciate those people who push our leaders and question their decisions. Criticism is a good force in politics and in many other arenas -- it helps keep people honest, and keeps power in check -- watchdogs are our friends too. Saddam and Bin Laden are clearly not my friends - they would love to obliterate the United States from the face of the earth - resting on our laurels won't make people like them go away or leave us alone, they'd only get bolder and more dangerous. Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on February 6, 2003 02:41 AM
The last post reminds me of something that's bugging me: why are we always on a first name basis with Saddam Hussein? If we talked about Jacques and Tony and Vladimir all the time, would that be respectful? (I don't think we were on a similar first-name basis with Manuel Noriega -- Tito, perhaps, but he's pretty much dropped the Josef Broz gig). It can't be just to differentiate him from the Jordanians, can it? Posted by: Frank on February 6, 2003 09:33 AM
A friend asked the selfsame question of me the other day, Frank. My answer was that Saddam Hussein is known simply as "Saddam" throughout the Arab world, and has been since his Baathist insurrectionary days. It's not merely a flippant, disrespectful familiarity. Tho' as to pronouncing it "Sodom," well...I can't speak to that. You'd have to ask Colon. ; . ) Posted by: Adam on February 6, 2003 10:17 AM
I hope it's disrespectful to him, when we call him by first name.. I wouldnt want to show any respect to that a@#$%*e... Posted by: Just say No -- to War on February 6, 2003 11:01 AM
War should be a last resort. I have a basic distrust of the government, but if it's a choice between trusting the U.S. government and Saddam Hussein, it's pretty easy for me to choose the U.S. government. Everything in Hussein's character indicates evil. He is a thug in the clothes of an emperor. And, like Hitler before him, if you are not of his clan, you are less than nothing, certainly not human. Ask yourself this question: Would you want him to be your leader? Did the United States not go to war in Kosovo and Bosnia for even lesser reasons than this war with Iraq? Will someone please explain to me why it's more critical to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Eurpoeon nation and then build a new government than it is to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Mideast nation who also happens to possess chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons? I have been trying for a long time to make sense out of this whole situation with Iraq. Some people suggest that the United States wants Iraqi oil & would go to war for that reason. I doubt that is true. It would be a short-term solution in any case. And while we're on the subject, why does everyone assume that only the United States has self-interest? What about the other nations involved in this mess? Are they all acting altruistically? Will war with Iraq resolve the issue of terrorism? No. It is only a starting point: Take a dictatorship with vast military might behind it. Pull down that dictatorship and build up a country where people have the freedom to learn and find fulfillment in lives they choose for themselves, where they can begin to have a chance at a better life, a choice in their futures, hope for tomorrow. That nation becomes strong with a strength that comes not from military might but from wisdom from the people themselves. The people in countries around this "new" nation see the improvement in the Iraqis' way of life. They, too, desire this new freedom. It spreads to these other nations. It will not happen overnight, but when it does, that is when your cure for terrorism occurs. Iraq is not the end. It is the means. I do not like war. But short of removing the entire Iraqi government (just removing Hussein will not be enough) and then helping the Iraqi people improve their standards of living, I can't see the situation in Iraq changing. I have heard a great deal on No War With Iraq. I would like to hear some suggestions on improving the situation in Iraq--disarming, using the money that is currently going to support Iraq arms for improving the lives of its people, and an overall plan for dealing with terrorism. We are creative people. Instead of leveling criticism, why not offer suggestions? Posted by: jan on February 6, 2003 11:53 AM
1 - Did the United States not go to war in Kosovo and Bosnia for even lesser reasons than this war with Iraq? Will someone please explain to me why it's more critical to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Eurpoeon nation and then build a new government than it is to bring down a genocidal tyrant in a Mideast nation who also happens to possess chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons? ummm... When was US really interested in the wellbeing of the Bosnians during that war? Wasn't everybody saying that the reason we really weren't doing anything, except for saying "it's wrong, they shouldnt do that to Bosnians" for years and years, was that there was no oil in Bosnia? And that the country was mainly made up of muslims? 2 - Some people suggest that the United States wants Iraqi oil & would go to war for that reason. I doubt that is true. You have gotta be kidding right? I mean... I don't even know what to say to that... "I doubt that is true..." !!@#^#$^@!@$@$#% I'm totally and utterly speechless... So the United States has no interest in oil? huh? What? Have you even looked at Alaska... how we've managed to screw up the environment even over there, our own land, after the huge spill? How can you "doubt" that the US has interest in oil.. oil on every inch of the planet... Look at the current events, do you hear US getting involved with any country that has no oil? C'mon... please...
Noth Korea Posted by: on February 6, 2003 02:55 PM
Who do we trust? - Lyle We trust people whose objectives and motivations we understand. You do not have to agree with someone to be able to trust them. I do not trust Mr Bush. I do not believe that the interests of the ordinary Iraqi people are uppermost in his mind. What would the US gain from a victory against Iraq? I wouldn't feel any safer in my bed, in fact I would feel more at risk because it would then be clear to everyone around the world that you either buckle under and accept US 'influence' or start building up your arsenal for a big fight. *The USA spends more on weapons than the rest of the world combined. "All Bush wants is Iraqi oil. We must expose this as much as possible." - Nelson Mandela "Our Government has not made a case for a pre-emptive militsary strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe." - Jimmy Carter (Former US president) Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 7, 2003 03:49 AM
I read a quote from George Orwell yesterday which seems to me to be very appropriate here. In 1941, he said "The choice before human beings is not, as a rule, between good and evil, but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world; that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands." In other words, any contributor to the debate on Iraq must accept that their chosen option will have evil consequences. I believe that there are too many people, particularly on the pro-war side, who cannot see this. George Bush and his supporters see this as good-guys-in-white-hats-riding-to-the-rescue scenario. It isn't. You'll kill people, both within Iraq and outside. Is it a price worth paying? On the other hand, the anti-war lobby (which I lean towards) must accept that not going to war has evil consequences, for Iraq especially. In fact, I think the anti-war lobby does acknowledge this, by and large, but judges that the alternative is worse. Posted by: Alan Fisher on February 7, 2003 05:15 AM
It is immoral to oppose this war (like it would have been to oppose the way against Germany and Japan in WW II). Yes, it may make things dicey for US citizens and other westerners for awhile and yes, it may hurt our economy for a time. But if we don't do it now, it will only get more dangerous. Hussein is a murderer, a tyrant and power-hungry. For those of you who pretend to not see a difference between Bush and Hussein, you are either hopelessly demented or cowards. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edp-brown07020703feb07,0,450740.column?coll=orl%2Dopinion%2Dheadlines http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/54078.htm Posted by: Tom - Attack Hussein on February 7, 2003 08:18 AM
You touch a very good point there Tom. If Bush is going after this guy to prove he's more powerful and that Saddam can't do whatever he wants, and kills thousands of Iraqis in the meantime, not to mention even allies, "oops, it was an honest mistake I dropped a bomb on your men.."... Their attitudes are different. Saddam is known to like to kill and torture people he does it practically out in the open, without finding lame excuses... Bush on the other hand "awww my people, I am SO sorry, the army has made a mistake, but it IS war, a war that I want to prove my point is right, and innocent people will get killed so you better get used to it and even be ready to die..."
Hussein is a murderer, a tyrant and power-hungry. For those of you who pretend to not see a difference between Bush and Hussein, you are either hopelessly demented or cowards. 1. There are many evil people in this world. Specifically, there are many evil leaders in the world. Should the U.S. kill them too? Really? All of them? Where do we draw the line? 2. There are many power hungry people in the world. Bush is power hungry. Should we try to get rid of Bush because of this? The language used to describe people is not trivial here, and how it applies to various parties is not trivial. Being power hungry isn't always bad. It is like saying that ambition is nasty. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 3. Bush and Hussein are different. I'm different than every other person on this planet. Because I am different, should I be killed? I'm not just playing word games here. If we attack and kill because people are different, then perhaps we are evil. We must be careful about how we apply this argument. DISCLAIMER: My discussion here is not meant as a statement for, or against any action against Iraq. I'm arguing about argumentation, use of logic, and application of ideas to debates. Don't read into this too much. Thanks. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on February 7, 2003 11:12 AM
Do all Americans understand that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily want them to act as a global policeman? I would like to hear some suggestions on improving the situation in Iraq End the sanctions. These sanctions are killing thousands of innocent Iraqis every week. Saddam is using the effects of the sanctions to bolster his popularity. Stop supporting dictators around the world. Saddam was supported for years by the USA. One of the reasons that they know Iraq has weapons is because the USA sold them to Iraq and have still got the invioces to prove it. Stop bullying smaller countries. Talk to people who have fled Iraq, and give them as much support as you can. Take some responsibility for the actions of our leaders. Just because we vote for someone does not mean that we abdicate our responsibility for their actions. Make Feb 15th the biggest anti-war demonstation the world has ever seen. Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 7, 2003 12:24 PM
RE Site Suggestions : I have made a few more changes and started an About This Site Page Posted by: Mac - Dont Attack Iraq on February 7, 2003 03:53 PM
Mac: Where is the antiwar demonstration on Feb.15? Posted by: Just say NO -- to War on February 7, 2003 04:46 PM
MAC: Do all Americans understand that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily want them to act as a global policeman? >>> Americans don't want to be the worlds policeman either. However, when some country has a WMD and threatens to kill Americans or other innocent civilians, it is our right to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate that threat. The difference between America acting as it is and other countries not acting in the same way is that the other countries simply aren't powerful enough by themselves to be effectual. MAC: Stop bullying smaller countries. >>> Is not giving a country aid the same thing as bullying them? PLEEEEEZZZZEEE. Did Yemen think it was entitled to 70 million in aid? Personally I think the US should do that more often. We are interested in surviving and promoting freedom and independence to peace-loving nations (go ahead, and be cynical, now) - why should we give aid to countries that don't agree to that? JR: Bush and Hussein are different. I'm different than every other person on this planet. Because I am different, should I be killed? I'm not just playing word games here. If we attack and kill because people are different, then perhaps we are evil. We must be careful about how we apply this argument. >>> I think you've missed my point or did you want to miss my point. Of course, they are different. But that's not why we are after Hussein. The reason is, is that he is a murderer, a thug, someone whose poisoned and killed thousands of his own citizens, invaded other countries (FOR THE OIL), threatened other nations (Israel and Kuwait) and apparently is consorting with Al Queda. JR: There are many power hungry people in the world. Bush is power hungry. >>> Bush did not go looking for the war. 9/11 happened. We had to act to defend ourselves. The work is not done. There is evidence that attacks are being planned against the US and other nations by Hussein and Al Queda. Desiring power alone is not wrong. Violating the rights of free people are. JUST SAY NO: If Bush is going after this guy to prove he's more powerful... >>>> Bush is not going after this guy to prove he's more powerful. Surely you don't believe that. Bush is going after this guy because we were attacked and continue to be threatened. He is one of the biggest terrorists around and by evidently is continuing to create WMDs and consorting with terrorists. We didn't start this. Posted by: Tom on February 7, 2003 04:55 PM
Tom, I really appreciate your comments. What I like the most is that you are making a sincere effort to make your points without being a hostile jackass. Yes, I'm making a comment about the style, not the substance. The substance is fine; interesting. One thing that has generally bothered me about the hawk point of view is that the language used is abrasive. Not because I disgree with the point of view, but because the literal words, phrases and sentences are hostile. How do you feel about this? Do you think it is more difficult to take an aggressive point of view than a less aggressive one AND still remain calm? Posted by: John S. Rhodes on February 7, 2003 09:32 PM
I will always support any method that will help people have a chance at a *better life* Is war a path to help the *real people of Iraq* live better lives in the long run? I dont know. Is Democracy some of us live in, true freedom or perceived freedom? Is everything we see on the news, reality or a filtered reality? Has anyone posting here travelled to Iraq? Or seen the way people live first hand? Posted by: Daniel Szuc on February 8, 2003 05:23 AM
Good read as quoted above by "Tom - Attack Hussein": http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edp-brown07020703feb07,0,450740.column?coll=orl%2Dopinion%2Dheadlines This part is particularly scary: ["Saddam then took the podium and named 54 additional co-conspirators -- all of them sitting in the room. As each one's name was read out, armed guards walked down to him and led him out of the auditorium to meet his fate. Many broke down in tears and had to be dragged out by the guards. Many of those who remained began to sob uncontrollably as Saddam read the list of names. "The same day Saddam convened a kangaroo court of high-level officials to try and sentence the guilty. In the coup de grace of this macabre production, Saddam then ordered all of the other high-level party officials whose names had not been called to participate in the firing squads that dispatched the victims.]
Just Say NO: Here is a page of links to international sites, as I don't know where you are located. For information about 15 Feb specificially, there will be demonstrations all around the world in such places as Adelaide, Barcelona, Calgary, Dublin, Istanbul, Mexico City, New York, Reykjavik, Rome, Tokyo, and McMurdo Station (in Antartica) just to name a few. I will be going to the demonstration in London.
Tom : Your words send chills down my spine. Many people believe that the USA with all of it's WMD (or doomsday weapons as they used to be callled) is the biggest threat to world peace and stability. The plans and recommendations outlined in the current NPR are truly dangerous for U.S. and global security. The U.S. plans for developing battle-ready nuclear weapons, resumption of nuclear testing, and war planning to use nuclear weapons in conventional warfare can only lead to other nations ultimately following a similar path. This, most certainly, will lead us into a world ever more dangerous than that witnessed during the Cold War. Such plans will reduce, not enhance, U.S. security and could bring nuclear war out of the theoretical realm into reality. From - "Dr. Strangelove" Meets the Pentagon: The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review published by Physicians for Social Responsibility.
MAC: Your words send chills down my spine. Let me tell you what chills my spine... The idea that a murderous thug such as Hussein can kill his own people and yet supposedly intelligent folks in the west have the audacity to compare George Bush to him unfavorably. The idea that the US shouldn't take up arms against Hussein who is very likely to possess WMDs and quite likely has cavorted with terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to use them against us and others in the west. What? We should just lay down and say, maybe Hussein will be a nice guy. Or we should continue with this keystone-cop-type inspection? The fact that supposedly intelligent people on this forum believe (or want to pretend they believe - I don't believe they actually think this) that Bush and the US just want to do all this for Oil or personal aggrandizement after terrorists killed 3000 of us in a horrific act - they didn't kill soldiers, they killed civilians (children on planes and they plan to do so again). I actually believe this is political calculation on the part of many who opposed Bush in 2000 and simply want their party to regain power. Of course, I think it is miscalculation, but that's another matter. The thought that somehow the US shouldn't defend itself, the thought that we are the world's policeman, the thought that we don't have the right to take up arms against those that kill us. We should be clear about this (and I am not sure that Bush's administration always is) - we have the right to defend ourselves for our own sake, not for the sake of other countries, or even for the sake of innocent individuals at the mercy of Hussein. If this is what sends chills down your spine, then so be it. This however is what chills my spine. No one wants to have a war. (Apparently some of you believe Bush really does want to have a war for his own benefit. I think this is complete hogwash and he is pursuing this path only because nothing else will seem to end Saddam's rule and his proclivity to kill innocent people and bring terror to the world.)
Tom>>> I appreciate your comment (as I truly do appreciate all your work on Webword). I do get emotional but I try hard not to let it get the best of me. I hate to see our world coming to this, but the fact is that it has. It is simply required to deal with the facts at hand, as ugly as they are. In some cases, you must meet fire with fire. I respect many of the people on this forum as professionals in my field (so I try to remain calm). In my experience many people in the HF/Usability field are liberals (as I once was, believe it or not), having graduated from liberal arts programs which are a haven of liberal professors, many of whom are essentially socialists. So, I've gotten lots of experience having these arguments over a wide variety of issues. Posted by: Tom - attack Hussein on February 8, 2003 07:11 PM
Tom: You say that "Bush is going after this guy because we were attacked and continue to be threatened..." Were we attacked by Saddam? Or Iraq? Or Iraqis even? Are we threatened by Iraq or Saddam right now?
Sorry, that last post is mine. Posted by: Just Say No -- to War on February 8, 2003 07:22 PM
The fact that supposedly intelligent people on this forum believe (or want to pretend they believe - I don't believe they actually think this) that Bush and the US just want to do all this for Oil or personal aggrandizement after terrorists killed 3000 of us in a horrific act - they didn't kill soldiers, they killed civilians (children on planes and they plan to do so again). And they're going to stop planning to do so, after we go there and kill more of their innocent children and civilians? As we did 13 years ago? I think I missed the love shipment over to the west from the east after the first Gulf War. Can you please enlighten Tom? About your oil remark... I know it's tought to believe. I know it's hard on you... I know you would rather deny this than to accept it, but it's a fact of life. AMERICA IS AFTER OIL... I really don't mean to sound mean or sarcastic or anything, and I apologize, but please just look around. Tell me Tom, how many oil-less countries did we care about for so long and about the quality of life in those countries? oh pleaseee... Why aren't we doing anything about all the wars going on in Africa?
they *want you* to believe it's a war for oil. take a careful look at the ultra-right-wing ultra-conservative-christians bush has assembled around him as his advisors. what do wacky people who read the bible as the literal word of god want if they are granted control of the most powerful country on earth? could it be to bring about global annihilation and the prophesized second coming of christ? sound crazy? look at north korea. it's a country with nuclear weapons that is run like a cult -- a communist leader followed as if he is the son of god. is it so crazy that a handful of fanatics in the u.s. could slowly maneuver the world into an escalation that brings about global war? Posted by: Duped on February 8, 2003 11:21 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |