User talk:Khono

This is in response to the "Raggz 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2003_invasion_of_Iraq

As I mentioned in my previous post, "this logic (the same I felt I used in my example), is ridiculously oversimplified." And so, I do not agree with you that "if not for the American Army, Europe would be enjoying the Third Reich now."

The American Army created what Western Europe is today. You will find few if any historians that would dispute that the Third Reich would have dominated Europe without the American Army. 500,000 Americans died doing this, our gift to Western Europe and Northern Africa. My father is still crippled, after all these years.

What did we create? Democracies, we supervised them when young and then totally stepped aside. What Western Europe is today is exactly what Western Europe created of itself. Western Europe created itself, but the American Army released this creativity from the grasp of the Third Reich.

I think we agree on the United States' foreign policies, along with it's military, has had very great impacts upon the world. I do not think we agree, however, on what these impacts have been and whether they're good or not.

The US has made many mistakes, some very serious. On this we agree. That there have been no towering Human Rights successes (like the present state of Western Europe), perhaps we disagree?Raggz 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does international humanitarian law not matter?

Of course it does. The US applies with all applicable international law. There are debtes between lawyers as to what applies and what does not, as with all international law in all nations. Check the article. Raggz 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the US exempt from these laws?

No, would you like a reference? Raggz 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a democracy, the people are supposed to rule, yes?

Only in a democracy but not in a liberal democracy like the US. The Iraqis are currently confused about this. In a liberal democracy, tyranny of the majority is avoided. Raggz 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is public opinion in Iraq right now?

It depends upon the question. The American people hate the war, as does the President and the Congress. The answer depends upon the question, you can get a majority either way. Raggz 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read in Noam Chomsky's Failed States, the majority of Iraqis see the American army as an invading force.

One man heard from then. The US forces DID invade and did occupy. The Iraqi people are democratically inexperienced, they may not realize that their government may order the US out? They may not trust their government? Raggz 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a recent survey 6, the majority of Iraqis want the US led forces out within a year, as opposed to when the security situation improves. I could not find a question specifically asking if they consider the US led forces to be occupiers, however.

The United States Government relies upon the Government of Iraq to speak for Iraq. Raggz 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to 7 did not include sources (as far as I could tell, if you can find some please point them out). It has been said that the first casualty in war is the truth. An affirmation from the state in question that it is not 'doing bad things' is not particularly valuable.

The US Government is a "primary source" on this question, by WP policy no secondary source is required - unless you challenge it. Raggz 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Khono. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Khono. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]