Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Wizard (fiction)

2007-05-11T00:41:57Z

Trashbat:

Nicely done, but what happens to the Biblical refs? Someone will be unhappy.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]]

This is now a fiction article so I'd guess it is more appropriate to write about fictional wizards (Gandalf et al) rather than look at the Biblical verse forbidding wizardry. Can't say I know too many modern day wizards anyway ;-) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 20:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Witch

2007-05-11T00:38:40Z

Trashbat: Plan on writing an article on the Pendle Witches eventually - local history for me

{{expand}}
'''A Witch''' (sometimes spelled ''wytch'' as in the old [[English]] is a female practitioner of the [[occult]] or [[pagan]] rites. In the past many witches were burnt at the stake. In Exodus 22:18 the [[Bible]] specifically bans witchcraft under penalty of death. The famous [[British]] [[Pendle Witch]] trials of 1612AD are an example of the punishment meted out to witches by certain members of the [[Catholic]] church.

==Modern Usage==

The term "witchhunt" is also used to denote a political crusade against a particular group.

See also:
*[[Harry Potter]] characters, female

== References ==

* [http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=312664 Exodus 22]

Talk:Wizard

2007-05-11T00:16:50Z

Trashbat:

Other nearby Leviticus laws:

''If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.'' Leviticus 20:9

''You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you'' Leviticus 20:25

''If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'' Leviticus 20:16

Please stop trying to add in wizards being anything but fictional, without some sort of valid reference.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I fail to see what any of these Bible quotes have to do with wizards. The simple fact is that it is expressly condemned in scripture and taken seriously by many people. If you have some kind of problem with the Bible, Conservapedia is not the place to go on about it.--[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 19:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually have no problem with Leviticus. I just wish to point out that a prohibition against what are now know to be fictional beings is not that interesting. Perhaps wizards were more of a problem then. The other phrases are to give context to the prohibition. Leviticus has lots of laws, and perhaps some people think they can pick and chose, others do not believe you can. If the commandments of Leviticus are to be taken seriously, you must also look at Leviticus 20:9.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Think of it like this: Why would God specifically warn us against something that was fictional?
:Just because wizards are a popular feature in fictional stories, it doesn't follow that wizards themselves are fictional. That's faulty logic, especially when we have God himself telling us they aren't! --[[User:Pacman|Pacman]] 07:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

When "wizards" are referred to in Lev. it is not the pointy-hatted, harry potter thing. It is people claiming to use magics and invoking pagan gods to perform "miracles". It is a way to protect the Isrealites from getting 1) sucked into paganism, and 2) ripped off by snake-oil salesmen.
Leave the text however you wish, but it looks simply silly.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 07:10, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 20:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Because it kept being altered by people who think wizards are fictional.[[User:Livingston|Livingston]] 20:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Because some of this site's detractors keep vandalising it I guess. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 20:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T23:56:44Z

Trashbat:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Whisky

2007-05-02T23:50:27Z

Trashbat: more grammar

[[Image:whisky.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Scotch on the rocks]]
'''Whisky''' refers to a group of [[Alcoholic drinks|alcoholic beverage]]s (liquors) distilled from fermented cereal grains such as barley, rye, wheat or maize. The word derives from the Gaelic ''uisge beatha'' - water of life. (c.f. ''eau de vie'' for French spirits, ''aqua vitae'' in Italian, ''aquavit'' or ''akvavit'' in Scandinavian and ''okovita'' ([[vodka]]) in Poland and the Ukraine). The conventional spelling is '''whisky''' for spirits distilled in Scotland ([[Scotch]]), Wales, Japan and Canada while '''whiskey''' is used for spirits from Ireland and the USA.

==Scottish Whiskies==

Known as "Scotch" there are two main types, [[Malt]] and [[Grain]].

==Malt Whisky==

Malt whisky is made from malted [[barley]] and distilled in a pot still.

Malt whiskies may be [[single]] and come from one distillery (such as ''Glenfiddich'', ''Glenmorangie'' or ''Highland Park'') or [[vatted]] - a blend of malts from several distilleries (''Johnny Walker Blue Label''). Single malt whiskies are normally the choice of whisky connoisseurs with different regions of Scotland producing notably different styles and a range of complex flavours.

==Grain Whisky==

Grain whiskies are made from unmalted cereals and fermented in a continuous distillation process.

Generally grain whiskies are blended with unnamed malts to supply the cheaper end of the market (''Bells'', ''Teachers'', ''Famous Grouse'', ''Johnny Walker Red Label''). Blended whiskies are mostly used in mixed drinks, for example a "Scotch and American" (Whisky and dry ginger ale).

==Drinking Scotch==

Connoisseurs of fine malt Scotch will drink their whisky in a heavy based glass (usually lead crystal) either neat or with a very small splash of cold still water to help release the flavours. The addition of ice ("Scotch on the rocks") is frowned upon as it destroys the flavour.

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]
[[category:Scottish Cuisine]]

Whisky

2007-05-02T23:49:34Z

Trashbat: grammar

[[Image:whisky.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Scotch on the rocks]]
'''Whisky''' refers to a group of [[Alcoholic drinks|alcoholic beverage]]s (liquors) distilled from fermented cereal grains such as barley, rye, wheat or maize. The word derives from the Gaelic ''uisge beatha'' - water of life. (c.f. ''eau de vie'' for French spirits, ''aqua vitae'' Italian, ''aquavit'' or ''akvavit'' Scandinavian and ''okovita'' ([[vodka]]) in Poland and the Ukraine). The conventional spelling is '''whisky''' for spirits distilled in Scotland ([[Scotch]]), Wales, Japan and Canada while '''whiskey''' is used for spirits from Ireland and the USA.

==Scottish Whiskies==

Known as "Scotch" there are two main types, [[Malt]] and [[Grain]].

==Malt Whisky==

Malt whisky is made from malted [[barley]] and distilled in a pot still.

Malt whiskies may be [[single]] and come from one distillery (such as ''Glenfiddich'', ''Glenmorangie'' or ''Highland Park'') or [[vatted]] - a blend of malts from several distilleries (''Johnny Walker Blue Label''). Single malt whiskies are normally the choice of whisky connoisseurs with different regions of Scotland producing notably different styles and a range of complex flavours.

==Grain Whisky==

Grain whiskies are made from unmalted cereals and fermented in a continuous distillation process.

Generally grain whiskies are blended with unnamed malts to supply the cheaper end of the market (''Bells'', ''Teachers'', ''Famous Grouse'', ''Johnny Walker Red Label''). Blended whiskies are mostly used in mixed drinks, for example a "Scotch and American" (Whisky and dry ginger ale).

==Drinking Scotch==

Connoisseurs of fine malt Scotch will drink their whisky in a heavy based glass (usually lead crystal) either neat or with a very small splash of cold still water to help release the flavours. The addition of ice ("Scotch on the rocks") is frowned upon as it destroys the flavour.

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]
[[category:Scottish Cuisine]]

Whisky

2007-05-02T23:48:18Z

Trashbat: img.

[[Image:whisky.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Scotch on the rocks]]
'''Whisky''' refers to a group of [[Alcoholic drinks|alcoholic beverage]]s (liquors) distilled from fermented cereal grains such as barley, rye, wheat or maize. The word derives from the Gaelic ''uisge beatha'' - water of life. (c.f. ''eau de vie'' for French spirits, ''aqua vitae'' Italian, ''aquavit'' or ''akvavit'' Scandinavian, ''okovita'' [[vodka]] in Poland and Ukraine). The conventional spelling is '''whisky''' for spirits distilled in Scotland ([[Scotch]]), Wales, Japan and Canada while '''whiskey''' is used for spirits from Ireland and the USA.

==Scottish Whiskies==

Known as "Scotch" there are two main types, [[Malt]] and [[Grain]].

==Malt Whisky==

Malt whisky is made from malted [[barley]] and distilled in a pot still.

Malt whiskies may be [[single]] and come from one distillery (such as ''Glenfiddich'', ''Glenmorangie'' or ''Highland Park'') or [[vatted]] - a blend of malts from several distilleries (''Johnny Walker Blue Label''). Single malt whiskies are normally the choice of whisky connoisseurs with different regions of Scotland producing notably different styles and a range of complex flavours.

==Grain Whisky==

Grain whiskies are made from unmalted cereals and fermented in a continuous distillation process.

Generally grain whiskies are blended with unnamed malts to supply the cheaper end of the market (''Bells'', ''Teachers'', ''Famous Grouse'', ''Johnny Walker Red Label''). Blended whiskies are mostly used in mixed drinks, for example a "Scotch and American" (Whisky and dry ginger ale).

==Drinking Scotch==

Connoisseurs of fine malt Scotch will drink their whisky in a heavy based glass (usually lead crystal) either neat or with a very small splash of cold still water to help release the flavours. The addition of ice ("Scotch on the rocks") is frowned upon as it destroys the flavour.

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]
[[category:Scottish Cuisine]]

File:Whisky.jpg

2007-05-02T23:46:53Z

Trashbat:

Whisky

2007-05-02T23:46:39Z

Trashbat:

'''Whisky''' refers to a group of [[Alcoholic drinks|alcoholic beverage]]s (liquors) distilled from fermented cereal grains such as barley, rye, wheat or maize. The word derives from the Gaelic ''uisge beatha'' - water of life. (c.f. ''eau de vie'' for French spirits, ''aqua vitae'' Italian, ''aquavit'' or ''akvavit'' Scandinavian, ''okovita'' [[vodka]] in Poland and Ukraine). The conventional spelling is '''whisky''' for spirits distilled in Scotland ([[Scotch]]), Wales, Japan and Canada while '''whiskey''' is used for spirits from Ireland and the USA.

==Scottish Whiskies==

Known as "Scotch" there are two main types, [[Malt]] and [[Grain]].

==Malt Whisky==

Malt whisky is made from malted [[barley]] and distilled in a pot still.

Malt whiskies may be [[single]] and come from one distillery (such as ''Glenfiddich'', ''Glenmorangie'' or ''Highland Park'') or [[vatted]] - a blend of malts from several distilleries (''Johnny Walker Blue Label''). Single malt whiskies are normally the choice of whisky connoisseurs with different regions of Scotland producing notably different styles and a range of complex flavours.

==Grain Whisky==

Grain whiskies are made from unmalted cereals and fermented in a continuous distillation process.

Generally grain whiskies are blended with unnamed malts to supply the cheaper end of the market (''Bells'', ''Teachers'', ''Famous Grouse'', ''Johnny Walker Red Label''). Blended whiskies are mostly used in mixed drinks, for example a "Scotch and American" (Whisky and dry ginger ale).

==Drinking Scotch==

Connoisseurs of fine malt Scotch will drink their whisky in a heavy based glass (usually lead crystal) either neat or with a very small splash of cold still water to help release the flavours. The addition of ice ("Scotch on the rocks") is frowned upon as it destroys the flavour.

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]
[[category:Scottish Cuisine]]

Whisky

2007-05-02T23:43:12Z

Trashbat: Moved bits around...

'''Whisky''' refers to a group of [[Alcoholic drinks|alcoholic beverage]]s (liquors) distilled from fermented cereal grains such as barley, rye, wheat or maize. The word derives from the Gaelic ''uisge beatha'' - water of life. (c.f. ''eau de vie'' for French spirits, ''aqua vitae'' Italian, ''aquavit'' or ''akvavit'' Scandinavian, ''okovita'' [[vodka]] in Poland and Ukraine). The conventional spelling is '''whisky''' for spirits distilled in Scotland ([[Scotch]]), Wales, Japan and Canada while '''whiskey''' is used for spirits from Ireland and the USA.

==Scottish Whiskies==

Known as "Scotch" there are two main types, [[Malt]] and [[Grain]].

==Malt Whisky==

Malt whisky is made from malted [[barley]] and distilled in a pot still.

Malt whiskies may be [[single]] and come from one distillery (such as ''Glenfiddich'', ''Glenmorangie'' or ''Highland Park'') or [[vatted]] - a blend of malts from several distilleries (''Johnny Walker Blue Label''). Single malt whiskies are normally the choice of whisky connoisseurs with different regions of Scotland producing notably different styles and a range of complex flavours.

==Grain Whisky==

Grain whiskies are made from unmalted cereals and fermented in a continuous distillation process.

Generally grain whiskies are blended with unnamed malts to supply the cheaper end of the market (''Bells'', ''Teachers'', ''Famous Grouse'', ''Johnny Walker Red Label''). Blended whiskies are mostly used in mixed drinks, for example a "Scotch and American" (Whisky and dry ginger ale).

==Drinking Scotch==

Connoisseurs of fine malt Scotch will drink their whisky either neat or with a very small splash of cold still water to help release the flavours. The addition of ice ("Scotch on the rocks") is frowned upon as it destroys the flavour.

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]
[[category:Scottish Cuisine]]

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T23:20:32Z

Trashbat:

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-05-02T23:17:09Z

Trashbat: /* Simple Logic? */

== Abomination! ==

Could Conservapedia provide an article even more so minimizing the Divinity of Jesus Christ? Maybe if we work real hard at it, we can acknowledge him, along with all the other men named Jesus, as mere spokesmen? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==
I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to vandalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T23:07:40Z

Trashbat: /* "Socialist" Britain */

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T22:54:43Z

Trashbat:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T22:48:03Z

Trashbat: /* "Socialist" Britain */

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T22:05:51Z

Trashbat: /* "Socialist" Britain */

Talk:Socialism

2007-05-02T21:54:27Z

Trashbat: /* "Socialist" Britain */

Talk:Scotland

2007-05-02T17:24:14Z

Trashbat:

One thing; it's slightly disputed that Golf is a Scottish invention, just wondered if it should be in there... btw no offence to Scots genuine concern --[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

in scottland, the kilt(that spelled right?) isnt that like your family's colors? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes Will N, the kilt is a tradtional dress still worn at weddings and social functions that is made in the clan (think family) tartan. Each tartan is comprised of colours specific to that family.

And Ed Poor, please can you stop removing the kilt picture. It is incredibly disrespectful to the Scots to remove not only a picture depicting their National dress but also their First Minister. The kilt has nothing to do with homosexuality, which frankly, is a topic that is discussed far too often on this site. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 12:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Kilts ==

Kilts are an item of dress, it is the tartan that has an association with families, or more accurately, Clan. In addition many public bodies have their own particular tartan. In the picture, Jack McConnell is seen wearing a pin-stripe kilt as part of an effort to promote Tartan Day.

Kilts are often made from Family/Clan Tartans, though not exclusively - there are many designs that have no particular family affiliation (such as Regimental designs) - Kilts are aso worn with somewhat plainer designs as well, and have even been made from leather..
I think the map is more appropriate than the pic of Jack McConnell - he is an elected representative, and does not necessarily epitomise Scottishness (indeed - pending the outcome of the general election on Thursday 03-May-2007, he may or may not continue as First Minister.) --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 17:45, 01 May 2007 (BST)

I've replaced the picture with one more <s>dull</s> appropriate.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 08:49, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== homosexuality and the kilt - the link ==
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|A scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)]]'
em there is none - and I suggest any americans who visit scotland don't make suggest that linkage to members of, for example, her Maj's 51 (Scottish) Brigade. A frank and full exchange of viewpoints might then occur! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:This being Conservapedia, surely one would expect the description of Scotland by the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]], to be included in the article. He described Scotland as a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''"<ref>http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson/</ref>. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:57, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not in the lead. And not [[out of context]]. Also, a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid [[kilt]] makes more of a statement about [[homosexuality]], [[gender identity disorder]] or [[cross-dressing]] than it does about Scotland. Try to keep your mind on the purpose of this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::What? since when is a skirt and a kilt the same thing? Ed, you're way in the wrong on this one. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed, you are wrong - check out this website to see how the kilt is evolving - traditional kilts are only part of it [http://www.21stcenturykilts.com/home.htm].

::::Wrong about what? Please restate the assertion you think I have made. (The fashion photo you showed me of contemporary young people doesn't tell me what you mean.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: You asserted that "a photo of a man in a skirt rather than in a traditional plaid kilt makes more of a statement about homosexuality, gender identity disorder or cross-dressing than it does about Scotland." Whereas the link I provided shows that all kinds of non-traditional materials (denim, leather, camouflage patterns, tweed, pinstripe suit cloth, etc.) are being used to make kilts. The photo is of a man in a modern kilt. You assert that it is a skirt. Homosexuality and transvestisism are in no way associated with modern kilts. You assert that they are. To Scots, such words are particularly offensive.[[User:LordWhimsey|LordWhimsey]] 09:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Ed Poor|Ed]], even if the quote was [[out of context]] what is wrong with showing the conservative view of Scotland? Pro-Gaiety and homosexualism is rife in Scotland:
::*The repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/800673.stm</ref>
::*The legalisation of so called gay marriage <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4494882.stm </ref>
::*Allowing homosexuals to adopt children <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1356432006 </ref>
::*Allowing homosexual teachers to teach homosexual sex to children <ref>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=754672006</ref>
::*Open encouragement of homosexual soldiers and policemen <ref>http://www.gpascotland.com/050827.htm</ref>
::*The banning of pro-Christian opinions at sports events <ref>http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=387732007</ref>
::Those are just a few from the multitude of examples of how the [[homosexual agenda]] is permeating Scotland. Surely Scotland is a "''dark country full of [[homosexual]]s''" and this should be reflected here?
::[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 09:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Kilts are *not* skirts - the difference isn't subtle... it's interesting the connection some draw between 'cross-dressing' and kilt wearing; whenever I wear my kilt (especially in England and elsewhere) it usually attracts lots of attention from women...
'a dark country full of homosexuals' - I'm not even going to be drawn on that one, but featuring it prominently hardly does anything for the credibility of the article as a whole. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:03, 02 May 2007 (BST)

:Spin, your statement that a [[kilt]] is not a skirt disagrees with the caption Nick put on the image to our upper right. The words ''Scotsman wearing his skirt (known as a [[kilt]] in Scotland)'' imply (1) that the man was wearing a skirt and (2) that a skirt is known as a kilt in Scotland.

:Would the two of you please sort this out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I see your point. The article that Jack McConnell is wearing is a kilt. Skirts are not known as kilts - the two words are not synonymous. Although kilts are mostly associated with male attire, this isn't universally true by any means. --[[User:SpinnakerMagic|SpinnakerMagic]] 15:21, 02 May 2007 (BST)

Might be worth clarifying the whole kilt issue, either by adding to this article (Traditional Attire section?) or by creating a separate linked page for the kilt. Perhaps one of our resident Scots would be able to? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:06, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd be happy that the image be replaced with a piper but I'm having difficulty finding a fair use one. Probably worth noting that most images of pipers will be in full ceremonial garb (kilt, sporran, etc). Perhaps someone will have more luck than I finding a suitable image. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 13:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Scotland

2007-05-02T17:06:01Z

Trashbat:

Scotland

2007-05-02T17:03:03Z

Trashbat: Kilt photograph replaced with non-ambiguous caption

[[Image:Scotland.gif|thumb|right|250px|A map of Scotland.]]

'''Scotland''' is the second largest country of the [[United Kingdom]].
It is about three-eighths the size of its larger neighbor England, but is much less populous; most of the population lives in the ''central belt'', a band across central Scotland between the capital [[Edinburgh]] and the city of [[Glasgow]]. Other cities are [[Aberdeen]], [[Dundee]] and [[Inverness]].

Scotland includes the island groups of [[Orkney]], [[Shetland]], the [[Inner Hebrides|Inner]] and [[Outer Hebrides]], the islands of the [[Firth of Clyde]] including [[Arran]], [[Bute]], [[Cumbrae]] & [[Wee Cumbrae]] and various other smaller islands.

[[Ben Nevis]], the highest mountain in the [[United Kingdom]], is in the Scottish [[Highlands of Scotland|Highlands]], as are most of the nations highest mountains. Those with heights above 914m (300 feet) are eponymously named [[Munro| Munros]] after Sir Hector Munro, the first person to compile such a list.<ref> for a complete list of Munros see http://www.sol.co.uk/d/dickwall/munroes.htm</ref>

Scotland is predominantly Christian - the national Church is the [[Church of Scotland]].

==Union with England==
[[Image:Lion rampant.png|thumb|right|The Scottish Royal Coat of Arms- Better known as the Lion Rampant]]
After the death of Queen [[Elizabeth I]] of England in 1603, James VI of Scotland ascended to the Throne of England, becoming [[James I]] of England. He was the first monarch to call himself King of Great Britain. This is referred to as the Union of the Crowns. James was also at this time King of [[Ireland]].

The Parliaments of Scotland and [[England]] were not united until 1707 and it is this date that is recognized as the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This is referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. The formation of the [[Irish Republic]] in 1922 resulted in the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Scotland has its own Parliament of 129 members as well as sending 59 Members of Parliament(MPs) to represent its interests in the [[United Kingdom]] parliament which sits in [[London]]. Scottish MPs have historically been recognized for their political skills and appointed to the Cabinet in larger numbers than is proportionate. The current [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]], and expected future prime minister [[Gordon Brown]], is Scottish.

Relationships between Scottish and English MPs before [[devolution]] were sometimes tense because of what the former [[Conservative|Conservative Party]] MP, by then an [[Ulster Unionist]], [[Enoch Powell]] dubbed ''The West Lothian question''. The name arose in 1977 after [[Tam Dalyell]], Labour MP for West Lothian in Scotland, asked during a debate in the [[Houses of Parliament]] over Scottish and Welsh [[devolution]]:

<blockquote>''For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?''</blockquote>

He pointed out that he as MP for West Lothian could vote on matters affecting English constituencies but not his own constituency.

==Fame==
[[Image:JackMcConnell.png|right|thumb|First Minister Jack McConnell wearing traditional Scottish attire including a [[kilt]]]]

Scotland is famous for its disproportionate amount of inventions and discoveries (as immortalized in [[Wha's Like Us]]), its world class universities, the Scottish Enlightenment, being the first country to adopt English as its official language decades before England{{fact}}, being the one of the first industrial nations while still preserving some of the last great wildernesses of Europe, and being the home of [[golf]] and the [[Loch Ness Monster]].

The symbol of Scotland is the thistle. The Scottish flag is the Cross of St. Andrew, a white diagonal cross on a dark blue background. The design originated in the 9th century and it is the oldest national flag still in use anywhere in the world. Other things associated with the country are [[kilts]] ([[tartan]] skirts worn by Scotsmen), and the haunting music of the [[bagpipes]]. Famous Scottish products include [[pie]]s, [[haggis]], toleys and Scotch [[whisky]].

Scotland's motto is ''Nemo Me Impune Lacessit'' ("No-one provokes me with impunity")<ref>http://www.scotland-guide.co.uk/ALL_AREAS_IN_SCOTLAND/Glasgow/Areas/Centre/Mercat_Cross.htm </ref> which translates as ''Wha daur meddle wi me?'' in [[Scots]] and in [[English]] as ''Who would dare mess with me?''.

== Sports and culture==

The national preoccupation is football ([[soccer]]). Other diversions include [[rugby union]], lawn bowls, [[chanty wrassling]] (a native form of [[wrestling]]), [[pocket billiards]], shinty (similar to hockey), [[cricket]], curling, tossing the caber and, of course, [[golf]] - Scotland is the home of golf. The Royal and Ancient Golf Club at [[St Andrews]] is the governing body of world golf.

[[Scotland]]'s 'other' national drink, Irn Bru (formerly "Iron Brew"), is a bubblegum-flavored carbonated drink manufactured by A.G.Barr of [[Glasgow]], and claims to be "made in Scotland from girders". An advert for it uses the music and animation style of "[[The Snowman]]".

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Scotland]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Heathen

2007-05-02T16:34:44Z

Trashbat: Also used as a minor jibe in common parlance

'''"Heathen"''' is an old word in Northern European languages such as English. Its original meaning was probably "dweller-on-the-heath", similar to the original "country-dweller" meaning of the Southern European word "pagan". Some historians claim that, during the conversion of Europe to Christianity, people who lived in the countryside held on to their ancestral folk religion longer than those living in the cities or towns. Because of this, the meaning of these words eventually changed to imply simply "un-Christian".

In current usage, "heathen" usually means one of four things:

1) A person who does not follow of one of the [[Abrahamic religions]]: Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

2) A person who has no religion, often with an implication of immorality thrown in.

3) A person who follows the pre-Christian religion of Northern Europe, based on Norse or "[[Viking]]" mythology. This ancient religion has modern adherents, who use "Asatru" as the formal name for their religion. [[Asatru]] heathens object to Meaning (1), above, as too general, and to Meaning (2) as simply wrong. Asatru is a government-recognized religion in some of the Scandinavian countries. Estimates of the number of people who follow this religion vary widely, but "several thousand" is a good guess in the U.S.

4) A mild, usually friendly jibe used to describe a person perceived to be uncultured. For example, ''"What do you mean, you never read Shakespeare? You heathen."''

[[Category:Religion]]

Hadrian's Wall

2007-05-02T15:33:43Z

Trashbat: Will find out which buildings used stone from here later...

'''Hadrian's Wall''' was a wall built by the Romans across the centre of Britain in the 2nd century CE, to defend their northern frontier from [[Picts|Pictish]] incursions.

It stretched from [[Wallsend]] in the east to [[Bowness on Solway]] in the west, separating (approximately) England from Scotland, which was never conquered by the Romans, though a subsequent northward advance took them as far as the [[Antonine Wall]].

After the fall of the [[Roman Empire]], much of the stone from the wall was taken and reused building local [[churches]] and abbeys, not to mention housing and farmsteads. All that remains of the wall are small sections which constitute something of a tourist attraction.

[[Category:Ancient Rome]]
[[Category:Buildings]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Everybody Cares

2007-05-02T10:02:10Z

Trashbat: typo city ; )

'''Everybody cares''' is the recent name given to a recent socio-philosophical trend known in academic circles as '''neo-bathocism,''' or simply '''neo-bathos.''' The fundamental principle of neo-bathocism is that most, if not all people only 'superficially' do not "care" about anything; that they can and do, in fact, care deeply about certain issues; and that what they actually do care about is usually quite irrational so that their entire system of values and beliefs descends into ''bathos''; generally defined as an unintended meaning-shift from the serious to the trivial. The effect is to allow politicians and marketing executives able to identify these "trigger topics" to more easily manipulate public opinion and political discourse for their own purposes.

==Examples==

A defining moment of the trend toward neo-bathos may have been the United States Presidential Election of 2004, in which the issue of whether or not [[homosexual]]s should be allowed to marry each other became the "hot-button" topic that swung voters all over the country in favor of George W. Bush without critical analysis of Bush's record on other diplomatic, economic and environmental issues. This phenomenon essentially defined the principle of the '''reaction-to-importance ratio''' (RIR) as it applied to [[politics]].

So called [[green]] issues are proving to be a similar "flash point". Many people are focussing on the alleged "[[green]]" benefits of certain products and indeed, political candidates, due to the fact that this is an emotive subject for many. Whilst environmental concerns are of importance, the [[green]] message is potentially obscuring critical analysis of many other related and non-related issues.

Everybody Cares

2007-05-02T10:00:49Z

Trashbat: more typos

'''Everybody cares''' is the recent name given to a recent socio-philosophical trend known in academic circles as '''neo-bathocism,''' or simply '''neo-bathos.''' The fundamental principle of neo-bathocism is that most, if not all people only 'superficially' do not "care" about anything; that they can and do, in fact, care deeply about certain issues; and that what they actually do care about is usually quite irrational so that their entire system of values and beliefs descends into ''bathos''; generally defined as an unintended meaning-shift from the serious to the trivial. The effect is to allow politicians and marketing executives able to identify these "trigger topics" to more easily manipulate public opinion and political discourse for their own purposes.

==Examples==

A defining moment of the trend toward neo-bathos may have been the United States Presidential Election of 2004, in which the issue of whether or not [[homosexual]]s should be allowed to marry each other became the "hot-button" topic that swung voters all over the country in favor of George W. Bush without critical analysis of Bush's record on other diplomatic, economic and environmental issues. This phenomenon essentially defined the principle of the '''reaction-to-importance ratio''' (RIR) as it applied to [[politics]].

So called [[green]] issues are proving to be a similar "flash point". Many people focussing on the alleged "[[green]]" benefits of certain products and indeed, political candidates due to the fact that this is an emotive subject for many. Whilst environmental concerns are of importance, the [[green]] message is potentially obscuring critical analysis of many other related and non-related issues.

Everybody Cares

2007-05-02T09:59:58Z

Trashbat: typo

'''Everybody cares''' is the recent name given to a recent socio-philosophical trend known in academic circles as '''neo-bathocism,''' or simply '''neo-bathos.''' The fundamental principle of neo-bathocism is that most, if not all people only 'superficially' do not "care" about anything; that they can and do, in fact, care deeply about certain issues; and that what they actually do care about is usually quite irrational so that their entire system of values and beliefs descends into ''bathos''; generally defined as an unintended meaning-shift from the serious to the trivial. The effect is to allow politicians and marketing executives able to identify these "trigger topics" to more easily manipulate public opinion and political discourse for their own purposes.

==Examples==

A defining moment of the trend toward neo-bathos may have been the United States Presidential Election of 2004, in which the issue of whether or not [[homosexual]]s should be allowed to marry each other became the "hot-button" topic that swung voters all over the country in favor of George W. Bush without critical analysis of Bush's record on other diplomatic, economic and environmental issues. This phenomenon essentially defined the principle of the '''reaction-to-importance ratio''' (RIR) as it applied to [[politics]].

So called [[green]] issues are proving to be a similar "flash point". Many people focussing on the alleged "[[green]]" benefits of certain products and indeed, plotical candidates due to the fact that this is an emotive subject for many. Whilst environmental concerns are of importance, the [[green]] message is potentially obscuring critical analysis of many other related and non-related issues.

Everybody Cares

2007-05-02T09:59:39Z

Trashbat: Finished article - removed the copy/paste job I used for the initial structure.

'''Everybody cares''' is the recent name given to a recent socio-philosophical trend known in academic circles as '''neo-bathocism,''' or simply '''neo-bathos.''' The fundamental principle of neo-bathocism is that most, if not all people only 'superficially' do not "care" about anything; that they can and do, in fact, care deeply about certain issues; and that what they actually do care about is usually quite irrational so that their entire system of values and beliefs descends into ''bathos''; generally defined as an unintended meaning-shift from the serious to the trivial. The effect is to allow politicians and marketing executives able to identify these "trigger topics" to more easily manipulate public opinion and political discourse for their own purposes.

==Exapmle==

A defining moment of the trend toward neo-bathos may have been the United States Presidential Election of 2004, in which the issue of whether or not [[homosexual]]s should be allowed to marry each other became the "hot-button" topic that swung voters all over the country in favor of George W. Bush without critical analysis of Bush's record on other diplomatic, economic and environmental issues. This phenomenon essentially defined the principle of the '''reaction-to-importance ratio''' (RIR) as it applied to [[politics]].

So called [[green]] issues are proving to be a similar "flash point". Many people focussing on the alleged "[[green]]" benefits of certain products and indeed, plotical candidates due to the fact that this is an emotive subject for many. Whilst environmental concerns are of importance, the [[green]] message is potentially obscuring critical analysis of many other related and non-related issues.

William Shakespeare

2007-05-02T00:55:06Z

Trashbat: And back again, I should read more carefully ; )

[[Image:Foliou.jpg|right|thumb|Portrait of William Shakespeare on the cover of the First Folio (1623), the first collected edition of his plays]]
'''William Shakespeare''' (1564-1616) is regarded as the greatest English-language playwright of all time. Many of his plays are required reading in many U. S. school curricula; those taught in schools often include ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]'', ''[[Macbeth]]'', ''[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]'' and ''[[Hamlet]]''.

All tolled, Shakespeare wrote 17 comedies, 10 tragedies, 10 historical plays, and many love [[sonnets]]. All his plays are freely available on the internet.<ref>
http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/</ref>

Shakespeare lived in Stratford-upon-Avon and is sometimes called "the bard of Avon." Because of sharing the name "Stratford," the towns of Stratford, Ontario in Canada and Stratford, Connecticut have become the homes of Shakespeare festivals where his plays are performed on a regular basis.

Because Shakespeare was not a member of the upper class and did not become famous until late in his life, historians and biographers don't know very much about his life. There are only a few pictures of him, and nobody is sure how accurate they are.

The idea of an ill-educated (to his contemporaries) person coming among them and making a success was upsetting to the University-educated playwrights of the time. It is believed that the poet, Philip Green, was referring to Shakespeare when he wrote
"There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers
that, with his '''tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide'','
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse
as the best of you; being an absolute Johannes Factotum,
in his conceit the only ''shake-scene'' in a country."

The 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide' is a reference to one of Shakespeare's plays, ''[[Henry the Sixth, part III]]'', <ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare: I]], Edited by Mortimer J. Adler, 1952. </ref> while 'shake-scene' is a pun or play on words on Shakespeare's name.

His plays seem to show so much education and erudition that there are even theories that they must have been written by someone else, famous candidates being the Earl of Oxford and Sir Francis Bacon. Like Kennedy assassination theories, most scholars do not believe them, but there are enough questions that new books promoting new theories of Shakespearian authorship continue to keep coming out over the years.

A longstanding theatrical superstition holds that it is bad luck to refer to ''Macbeth'' directly by its name, and accordingly, actors traditionally refer to it obliquely as "the Scottish play."

Because Shakespeare's plays are so familiar, there are innumerable references to them in English literature. Sometimes his stories are recast into a different form. Audiences are expected to recognize the musical ''West Side Story'' as a retelling of ''Romeo and Juliet,'' and the classic science-fiction movie ''Forbidden Planet'' as a transformed version of ''The Tempest.'' The motion picture ''Shakespeare in Love,'' which won the 1998 Academy Award as Best Picture is not a history or biography, but is enjoyed for evoking a sense of what Shakespeare's time and place might have been like.

The reverence in which Shakespeare is held, and the language of his plays (which come from the same era as the King James translation of the Bible) should not obscure the fact that his plays were (and still are) fabulously successful commercial entertainment.

He is also famous for his one hundred and fifty-four [[sonnets]], short poems written in a very strict rhyme scheme. The sonnets fall into series or sequences. Most of them are usually read as expressions of romantic or platonic love; some appear to be written to a married woman known in the sonnets as the "Dark Lady," some to a young man known as the "Fair Lord."

In his will, Shakespeare wrote, "I commend my soul into the hands of God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ, my Saviour, to be made partaker of life everlasting."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-04-23&view=View</ref>

His tomb in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, England, reads as follows:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Good Friend For Jesus Sake Forbeare, To Digg The Dust Enclosed Heare. Blese Be Ye Man Spares Thes Stones, And Curst Be He Moves My Bones.

== List of Plays by Shakespeare ==

=== Tragedies ===
*[[Macbeth]]
*[[Hamlet]]
*[[Othello]]
*[[Romeo and Juliet]]
*[[Julius Caesar]]
*[[King Lear]]
*[[Titus Andronicus]]
*[[Antony and Cleopatra]]
*[[Troilus and Cressida]]

=== Comedies ===
*[[The Taming of the Shrew]]
*[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]
*[[As You Like It]]
*[[Two Gentlemen of Verona]]
*[[A Comedy of Errors]]
*[[Much Ado About Nothing]]
*[[Twelfth Night]]
*[[A Winter's Tale]]
*[[Love's Labour's Lost]]
*[[All's Well That Ends Well]]
*[[Measure for Measure]]
*[[The Merchant of Venice]]
*[[The Tempest]]
*[[The Merry Wives of Windsor]]
*[[Cymbeline]]

== Trivia ==
"Shakespeare" was spelled many ways before English spelling was standardized. Some of the more unexpected forms are "Shaxper," "Shaxberd," and "Shaksper."<ref>http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

-----

[[Category:Authors|Shakespeare, William]]
[[category:poets|Shakespeare, William]]

User talk:Emkay

2007-05-02T00:53:51Z

Trashbat:

==Shakespeare==

Why did you revert my minor edit? Shakespeare was known as Shaxberd in his time (and is referred to as such in Neil Gaiman's Sandman books). The link provided was also beyond reproach. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 20:50, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't take out Shaxberd. I just changed the sentence so it read better. I'm sorry...didn't mean to offend. And I loooove Neil Gaiman. Please don't hate me!!--[[User:Emkay|Emkay]] 20:52, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Heh, a fellow fan. Feel free to change it to whatever version you prefer. I'm just a little touchy as some of my articles keep getting revised with no good reason. I should probably get some sleep ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 20:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

William Shakespeare

2007-05-02T00:52:08Z

Trashbat: Reverting to more complete versio

[[Image:Foliou.jpg|right|thumb|Portrait of William Shakespeare on the cover of the First Folio (1623), the first collected edition of his plays]]
'''William Shakespeare''' (1564-1616) is regarded as the greatest English-language playwright of all time. Many of his plays are required reading in many U. S. school curricula; those taught in schools often include ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]'', ''[[Macbeth]]'', ''[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]'' and ''[[Hamlet]]''.

All tolled, Shakespeare wrote 17 comedies, 10 tragedies, 10 historical plays, and many love [[sonnets]]. All his plays are freely available on the internet.<ref>
http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/</ref>

Shakespeare lived in Stratford-upon-Avon and is sometimes called "the bard of Avon." Because of sharing the name "Stratford," the towns of Stratford, Ontario in Canada and Stratford, Connecticut have become the homes of Shakespeare festivals where his plays are performed on a regular basis.

Because Shakespeare was not a member of the upper class and did not become famous until late in his life, historians and biographers don't know very much about his life. There are only a few pictures of him, and nobody is sure how accurate they are.

The idea of an ill-educated (to his contemporaries) person coming among them and making a success was upsetting to the University-educated playwrights of the time. It is believed that the poet, Philip Green, was referring to Shakespeare when he wrote
"There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers
that, with his '''tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide'','
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse
as the best of you; being an absolute Johannes Factotum,
in his conceit the only ''shake-scene'' in a country."

The 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide' is a reference to one of Shakespeare's plays, ''[[Henry the Sixth, part III]]'', <ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare: I]], Edited by Mortimer J. Adler, 1952. </ref> while 'shake-scene' is a pun or play on words on Shakespeare's name.

His plays seem to show so much education and erudition that there are even theories that they must have been written by someone else, famous candidates being the Earl of Oxford and Sir Francis Bacon. Like Kennedy assassination theories, most scholars do not believe them, but there are enough questions that new books promoting new theories of Shakespearian authorship continue to keep coming out over the years.

A longstanding theatrical superstition holds that it is bad luck to refer to ''Macbeth'' directly by its name, and accordingly, actors traditionally refer to it obliquely as "the Scottish play."

Because Shakespeare's plays are so familiar, there are innumerable references to them in English literature. Sometimes his stories are recast into a different form. Audiences are expected to recognize the musical ''West Side Story'' as a retelling of ''Romeo and Juliet,'' and the classic science-fiction movie ''Forbidden Planet'' as a transformed version of ''The Tempest.'' The motion picture ''Shakespeare in Love,'' which won the 1998 Academy Award as Best Picture is not a history or biography, but is enjoyed for evoking a sense of what Shakespeare's time and place might have been like.

The reverence in which Shakespeare is held, and the language of his plays (which come from the same era as the King James translation of the Bible) should not obscure the fact that his plays were (and still are) fabulously successful commercial entertainment.

He is also famous for his one hundred and fifty-four [[sonnets]], short poems written in a very strict rhyme scheme. The sonnets fall into series or sequences. Most of them are usually read as expressions of romantic or platonic love; some appear to be written to a married woman known in the sonnets as the "Dark Lady," some to a young man known as the "Fair Lord."

In his will, Shakespeare wrote, "I commend my soul into the hands of God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ, my Saviour, to be made partaker of life everlasting."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-04-23&view=View</ref>

His tomb in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, England, reads as follows:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Good Friend For Jesus Sake Forbeare, To Digg The Dust Enclosed Heare. Blese Be Ye Man Spares Thes Stones, And Curst Be He Moves My Bones.

== List of Plays by Shakespeare ==

=== Tragedies ===
*[[Macbeth]]
*[[Hamlet]]
*[[Othello]]
*[[Romeo and Juliet]]
*[[Julius Caesar]]
*[[King Lear]]
*[[Titus Andronicus]]
*[[Antony and Cleopatra]]
*[[Troilus and Cressida]]

=== Comedies ===
*[[The Taming of the Shrew]]
*[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]
*[[As You Like It]]
*[[Two Gentlemen of Verona]]
*[[A Comedy of Errors]]
*[[Much Ado About Nothing]]
*[[Twelfth Night]]
*[[A Winter's Tale]]
*[[Love's Labour's Lost]]
*[[All's Well That Ends Well]]
*[[Measure for Measure]]
*[[The Merchant of Venice]]
*[[The Tempest]]
*[[The Merry Wives of Windsor]]
*[[Cymbeline]]

== Trivia ==
"Shakespeare" was spelled many ways before English spelling was standardized. Some of the more unexpected forms are "Shaxper" and "Shaksper"<ref>http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html</ref> as well as Shaxberd. <ref>http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name3.html#4,<ref>

==References==
<references/>

-----

[[Category:Authors|Shakespeare, William]]
[[category:poets|Shakespeare, William]]

User talk:Emkay

2007-05-02T00:50:30Z

Trashbat: Que?

Talk:Led Zeppelin

2007-05-02T00:47:13Z

Trashbat:

Can anyone sort out the formatting of the first album in the Discography. I can't work out what's wrong. Thanx --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 20:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Im most puzzled by this, cant figure it out. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 20:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Worked it out, its trying to link itself to the band page not to the album page, so its trying to link itself to itself and getting confused. Will need to be altered if the album gets it own article though. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 20:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Weren't the first 4 albums known as I, II, III and IV though? Adding this would remove the spurious link. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 20:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

William Shakespeare

2007-05-02T00:42:26Z

Trashbat: /* Trivia */

[[Image:Foliou.jpg|right|thumb|Portrait of William Shakespeare on the cover of the First Folio (1623), the first collected edition of his plays]]
'''William Shakespeare''' (1564-1616) is regarded as the greatest English-language playwright of all time. Many of his plays are required reading in many U. S. school curricula; those taught in schools often include ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]'', ''[[Macbeth]]'', ''[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]'' and ''[[Hamlet]]''.

All tolled, Shakespeare wrote 17 comedies, 10 tragedies, 10 historical plays, and many love [[sonnets]]. All his plays are freely available on the internet.<ref>
http://www-tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/</ref>

Shakespeare lived in Stratford-upon-Avon and is sometimes called "the bard of Avon." Because of sharing the name "Stratford," the towns of Stratford, Ontario in Canada and Stratford, Connecticut have become the homes of Shakespeare festivals where his plays are performed on a regular basis.

Because Shakespeare was not a member of the upper class and did not become famous until late in his life, historians and biographers don't know very much about his life. There are only a few pictures of him, and nobody is sure how accurate they are.

The idea of an ill-educated (to his contemporaries) person coming among them and making a success was upsetting to the University-educated playwrights of the time. It is believed that the poet, Philip Green, was referring to Shakespeare when he wrote
"There is an upstart crow beautified with our feathers
that, with his '''tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide'','
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse
as the best of you; being an absolute Johannes Factotum,
in his conceit the only ''shake-scene'' in a country."

The 'tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide' is a reference to one of Shakespeare's plays, ''[[Henry the Sixth, part III]]'', <ref> [[Great Books, Shakespeare: I]], Edited by Mortimer J. Adler, 1952. </ref> while 'shake-scene' is a pun or play on words on Shakespeare's name.

His plays seem to show so much education and erudition that there are even theories that they must have been written by someone else, famous candidates being the Earl of Oxford and Sir Francis Bacon. Like Kennedy assassination theories, most scholars do not believe them, but there are enough questions that new books promoting new theories of Shakespearian authorship continue to keep coming out over the years.

A longstanding theatrical superstition holds that it is bad luck to refer to ''Macbeth'' directly by its name, and accordingly, actors traditionally refer to it obliquely as "the Scottish play."

Because Shakespeare's plays are so familiar, there are innumerable references to them in English literature. Sometimes his stories are recast into a different form. Audiences are expected to recognize the musical ''West Side Story'' as a retelling of ''Romeo and Juliet,'' and the classic science-fiction movie ''Forbidden Planet'' as a transformed version of ''The Tempest.'' The motion picture ''Shakespeare in Love,'' which won the 1998 Academy Award as Best Picture is not a history or biography, but is enjoyed for evoking a sense of what Shakespeare's time and place might have been like.

The reverence in which Shakespeare is held, and the language of his plays (which come from the same era as the King James translation of the Bible) should not obscure the fact that his plays were (and still are) fabulously successful commercial entertainment.

He is also famous for his one hundred and fifty-four [[sonnets]], short poems written in a very strict rhyme scheme. The sonnets fall into series or sequences. Most of them are usually read as expressions of romantic or platonic love; some appear to be written to a married woman known in the sonnets as the "Dark Lady," some to a young man known as the "Fair Lord."

In his will, Shakespeare wrote, "I commend my soul into the hands of God, my Creator, hoping and assuredly believing, through the only merits of Jesus Christ, my Saviour, to be made partaker of life everlasting."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-04-23&view=View</ref>

His tomb in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, England, reads as follows:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Good Friend For Jesus Sake Forbeare, To Digg The Dust Enclosed Heare. Blese Be Ye Man Spares Thes Stones, And Curst Be He Moves My Bones.

== List of Plays by Shakespeare ==

=== Tragedies ===
*[[Macbeth]]
*[[Hamlet]]
*[[Othello]]
*[[Romeo and Juliet]]
*[[Julius Caesar]]
*[[King Lear]]
*[[Titus Andronicus]]
*[[Antony and Cleopatra]]
*[[Troilus and Cressida]]

=== Comedies ===
*[[The Taming of the Shrew]]
*[[A Midsummer Night's Dream]]
*[[As You Like It]]
*[[Two Gentlemen of Verona]]
*[[A Comedy of Errors]]
*[[Much Ado About Nothing]]
*[[Twelfth Night]]
*[[A Winter's Tale]]
*[[Love's Labour's Lost]]
*[[All's Well That Ends Well]]
*[[Measure for Measure]]
*[[The Merchant of Venice]]
*[[The Tempest]]
*[[The Merry Wives of Windsor]]
*[[Cymbeline]]

== Trivia ==
"Shakespeare" was spelled many ways before English spelling was standardized. Some of the more unexpected forms are "Shaxper" and "Shaksper"<ref>http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html</ref> as well as Shaxberd. <ref>http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name3.html#4,<ref>

==References==
<references/>

-----

[[Category:Authors|Shakespeare, William]]
[[category:poets|Shakespeare, William]]

London

2007-05-02T00:37:46Z

Trashbat: East India Company added

[[Image:Tower bridge London.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Tower Bridge in London.]]
'''London''' is the capital of [[England]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the largest city in [[Europe]].

==History==
London was founded by the [[Romans]] as Londinium, and became the capital of [[England]] (taking over from [[Winchester]]) during the reign of [[William II]]. It grew steadily during the [[middle ages]], during which period it became a major port, specializing in the export of English wool.

In the [[Renaissance]], London became a centre of learning and culture, though the rise of [[Puritanism]] soon put a stop to this.

During the period of the [[British Empire]], London was a key transhipment point for various cargoes, including [[tea]], [[slaves]], [[molasses]], [[jute]], and [[silver]], indeed, anything traded in by the [[East India Company]].

During [[World War II]], London was heavily bombed by Germany's air force as a part of [[Operation Sea Lion]].

==Popular Perception==
Although London is frequently depicted in the American media as a quaint and historic city perpetually shrouded in fog, the reality is that London is a modern city at the cutting edge of developments in architecture, transport, commerce, industry and entertainment, and fog is a rare occurrence. In fact London is considered by many to be the financial capital of the world, and one of the world's premier cities<ref>{{cite web | last = Z/Yen Limited | title = The Competitive Position of London as a Global Financial Centre | publisher = CityOfLondon.gov.uk | date = November 2005 | url = http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/131B4294-698B-4FAF-9758-080CCE86A36C/0/BC_RS_compposition_FR.pdf | format = PDF | accessdate = 2006-09-17}}</ref><ref>[http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citymap.html The World According to GaWC], GaWC, [[Loughborough University]]</ref>.

Notable landmarks include the [[Houses of Parliament]], The [[London Eye]], [[Buckingham Palace]] and [[Westminster Abbey]]. The [[London Underground]] (London's subway system, also known as the Tube) is the oldest in the world.

==References==
<div class="references">
<references />
</div>

[[Category:UK Towns and Cities]]

Pie

2007-05-02T00:36:33Z

Trashbat: Some grammar and clarity

'''Pies''' are a filled, baked pastry dish, distinguished from [[quiche]]s and [[tart]]s by the presence of a topcrust.

== Types of pie ==

Many things have been historically put into pies, such as "four-and-twenty-[[blackbird]]s", referring to the old rhyme of the same name.. Meat, fish, fruit, [[lard]], vegetables or even cheese, almost anything that is solid enough not to seep out during the baking process may be used.
*Steak and [[kidney]] pie is a traditional meat-based recipe.
*[[Pork]] pie is a traditional Northern English staple, generally served cold. It has a distinctively cylindrical form; most other pies are somewhat flatter.
*[[Mom's apple pie]] is a traditional American fruit-based form.
*[[Custard pie]]s are either pies of set [[custard]], or more often fake (and topcrustless) pies used in cinematic and theatrical [[slapstick]] performances as non-lethal missiles.
*Stargazy pie, a traditional [[Cornwall|Cornish]] dish is made with fish, traditionally with the [[stargazer]], an upward-looking, bottom-dwelling species.
*Shepherd's pies, despite their name do not contain agricultural workers, but instead are made with minced meat, historically [[lamb]].
*Cottage pies are similar to shepherd's pies, but contain [[beef]] instead of lamb. They do not contain small houses.
*Admiral's pies likewise do not contain high-ranking [[navy|naval]] officers, but rather white fish.
* Hairy Pie is a colloquial term in Great Britain for pie served on a bed of parsley, other herbs, or shredded cabbage or lettuce (depending on location and season). In [[Hebden Bridge]] these pies are usually served on a bed of parsley, two to a plate.
*It should also be noted that Scotch pies do not generally contain [[whisky]].

[[Category:Meat]]
[[Category:Bakery products]]
[[Category:Fast foods]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-01T23:36:20Z

Trashbat:

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete [[Homosexuality]], [[Heterosexuality]], [[Procreation]], [[Fornication]], and [[Bisexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to [[Bisexuality]] ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-01T23:29:47Z

Trashbat:

Talk:Chip shop

2007-05-01T23:04:46Z

Trashbat:

How can you not mention the fact that in renowned glaswegian chippies they offer such delicacies as battered pizza, battered mars bars and battered ice cream?--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1227_041227_deep_fried_mars_bars.html

[[Image:300px-Deep-fried mars bars.JPG | thumb | left]] Now doesn't that look delicious?
:Yes it does. Can you add the picture to the article? [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good point. We could have sections on the various differences in regional and national cuisine served in these establishments. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 03:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Will add it later if someone else hasn't done so by then.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 03:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Re: merger. I don't think this should be merged. The chip shop (or 'chippie') is a very distinctive cultural, as well as culinary, institution specific to Britain and Ireland.

How can anyone talk of merging this article. It;s probably the best one on Conservapedia. I think we should go for [[irony|featured status]]. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

"Fish Bits" are called "scraps" in Birmingham and Humberside. Also mayonnaise is offered in Birmingham chippies although I am unaware as to whether this has anything to do with Dutch or indeed Belgian immigrants. Not sure if any of this info is apposite. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 07:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We also refer to fish bits as scraps here in Yorkshire. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 07:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Merge article? ==

Absolutely not; the articles deal with two entirely different things.

Potato chips is the American term for what are properly called (in Great Britain, home of the English language) potato crisps.

Chip shops are purveyors of the much more substantial and wholesome British older relative of French Fries (which is a distant relative, at best). The importance of chips in British culture, and their incompatibility with French Fries (chips are always prepared from the finest locally-grown potatoes, and must be sliced on the spot, as opposed to being reconstituted, extruded and shaped in a factory like French Fries) makes it absolutely inappropiate to merge the articles. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the proposal to merge must have been made by someone unfamiliar with the use of the word chip in British English. As others have said before. Chip shops do not sell cold crisp thin slices of deep-fried potato (which are known in the UK as potato crisps), but rather piping hot finger-sized chunks of deep-fried potato.[[User:FriendOfDorothy|FriendOfDorothy]] 09:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I am really convinced that these folks here at Conservapedia are really benefitting from finding out about the delicacies of British Haute Cuisine. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 09:54, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

The chip shop is also culturally essential in addition to being of gastronomic import. Chip shop tradition is far greater than the sum of its peas, chips and fine, fine pickled eggs. And surely sharing of cultures and knowledge is the very essence of an encyclopedia. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 09:59, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree absolutely with Trashbat. Chip shops have a strong cultural significance which alone justifies a separate article; but in any case, to cnflate the (completely different) UK and US chips would be absurd. [[User:Volpone|Volpone]] 18:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Chip Shops merged with another subject? Go and wash your mouth out with carbolic, Poor Ed![[User:LateralQuercus|LateralQuercus]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Definitely don't merge, they're not even close to the same thing. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 09:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

What on earth has happened to this article? I am beginning to suspect an anti-British agenda. Chip-shops are a an integral part of British culture. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you MontyZuma, I have already tried to convince some of the administrators here about the importance of this topic and about the erosion of the British way of life. I'd rather the few British contributers not be driven away, particularly as some of us are good Christian Conservatives who wish to preserve our way of life too. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Shandy

2007-05-01T17:53:42Z

Trashbat: typo, wiki'ed

'''Shandy''' is a traditional British drink made from lemonade (Sprite or 7-Up) and beer normally mixed 50-50. Afficionados may prefer to have lemonade first or beer first. Traditionally the beer has been traditional [[English]] [[Ale]] but with the popularity of lager beers from [[Europe]] it is permissible to request a lager shandy.

The drink is a very popular refreshment during the summer months as it effectively dilutes the concentration of alcohol and therefore can be consumed in larger amounts. It is not normal for the drink to be served with ice but should be served chilled. Non-alcoholic or very low (<1%) versions are available in cans.

In the United Kingdom shandy served in a half [[pint]] glass (or "hand") is often a young person's first introduction to alcohol and is a traditional rite of passage.

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]

Shandy

2007-05-01T17:45:17Z

Trashbat:

Shandy is a traditional British drink made from lemonade (Sprite or 7-Up) and beer normally mixed 50-50. Afficianados may prefer to have lemonade first or beer first. Traditionally the beer has been traditional English ale but with the popularity of lager beers from Europe it is permissible to request a lager shandy.

The drink is a very popular refreshment during the summer months as it effectively dilutes the concentration of alcohol and therfore can be consumed in larger amounts. It is not normal for the drink to be served with ice but should be served chilled. Non-alcoholic or very low (<1%) versions are available in cans.

In the United Kingdom shandy served in a half [[pint]] glass (or "hand") is often a young person's first introduction to alcohol and is a traditional rite of passage.

Everybody Cares

2007-05-01T16:35:58Z

Trashbat: New page: '''Everybody cares''' is the popular name given to a recent socio-philosophical trend known in academic circles as '''neo-bathocism,''' or simply '''neo-bathos.''' The fundamental principl...

'''Everybody cares''' is the popular name given to a recent socio-philosophical trend known in academic circles as '''neo-bathocism,''' or simply '''neo-bathos.''' The fundamental principle of neo-bathocism is that most, if not all people only ''pretend'' to not care about anything; that they can and do, in fact, care deeply about certain very specific things; and that what they actually do care about is usually so trivial and pointless that their entire system of values and beliefs inexorably descends into ''bathos''; generally defined as an unintended meaning-shift from the serious (or "sublime") to the ridiculous. The effect is to allow political [[evil]]doers and marketing executives (who are, to be fair, the same thing) to more easily manipulate public opinion and political discourse for their own nefarious purposes.

==Why does everybody care?==

It is important to note that like neo-apatheticism (also known as the "nobody cares" philosophy), neo-bathocism has no serious ''proponents'' as such. Modern philosophers are almost unanimous in asserting that neo-bathocism is a negative, if not dangerous, social trend, and nearly all efforts to define its intellectual tenets and sociological underpinnings are undertaken for the purpose of ''criticizing'' it, if not for stopping it outright. Indeed, the ease by which neo-bathos can be used by politicians and marketers via the mass media is generally described as "alarming," "scary," and "just-plain goddamn sucky" by the handful of individuals who have published on the topic.

The defining moment of the trend toward neo-bathos appears to have been the United States Presidential Election of 2004, in which the issue of whether or not [[homosexual]]s should be allowed to marry each other became the "hot-button" topic that swung voters all over the country in favor of George W. Bush; despite Bush's miserable record on a wide variety of diplomatic, economic, environmental, and low-carb diet-related issues, and being himself a closet homosexual. This phenomenon essentially defined the principle of the '''reaction-to-importance ratio''' (RIR) as it applied to [[politics]]. (Some commentators have also referred to this as the "Bash Factor.")

This is not to suggest that neo-bathos is a new trend, however. Marketers and politicians have been using these tactics for many years, in some cases quite consciously. The selling of non-essential goods and services, as well as non-essential political leaders, has always depended on the manufacture of ''artificial need'' (ie. gas prices) in consumers and voters. Still, neo-bathos can be easily distinguished from other diabolically evil need-creation strategies by its use of "deceptive association," or the crass listing of genuinely significant issues along with those being "pushed." For example:

;Traditional Marketing: "Your floors will shine like new with Acme Floor Wax! Now available in Fresh-Scent"

;Neo-Bathos Marketing: "Your home is in constant danger from flooding, tornadoes, radon gas, faulty wiring, international terrorism, and dangerously scuffed-up vinyl flooring. ''Don't let your family die a horrible, meaningless death!'' Use Acme Floor Wax - now available in Fresh-Scent"

==How can you benefit?==

Job-market analysts predict that as neo-bathos further takes hold, individuals capable of identifying "high-RIR" political issues and marketing ploys will become exceptionally sought-after. The current apotheosis of the neo-bathos manipulator is, of course, [[Karl Rove]], President Bush's top political ''apparatchik.'' It is rumored that once the Bush Administration finally leaves office in 2016, Rove intends to build an institute for the training and support of right-wing neo-bathocists, in order to carry on his "legacy." (While the name of the institute has not been formally announced, Rove is supposedly leaning toward "Karl Rove's American Patriotism Institute for Freedom And Thought Control.")

As of now, salaries for neo-bathocists in both the consumer-product and political-managerial sectors vary widely, with some executives earning as much as $1M per year or more, while many neo-bathos-savvy "creatives" working for advertising agencies have received little or no added financial benefit.

==Why care about everybody caring?==

Experts claim that the danger of neo-bathocism is patently obvious, in that its effectiveness rewards those who are most cynically deceptive in their efforts to obtain what they want, while it punishes those who attempt to succeed by maintaining "outmoded" concepts such as honesty and integrity. Ultimately, they claim, the trend will lead civilization back into a [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] phase, resulting in widespread civil unrest, violent class warfare, apocalyptic mass destruction, and a general inability to find a decent [[sandwich]].

Even at the individual level, however, neo-bathos can be harmful, and even destructive. As methods of artificial need-inducement become more effective, most economists and sociologists agree that the risk of consumers being drawn into heavy spending and [[credit card]] debt will be increased, along with a corresponding ''decrease'' in personal saving and investment. Families operating under these stress factors may be less likely to afford medical care and higher [[education]] for their children, resulting in proportional effects in the areas of disease prevention, writing ability, and hand-eye coordination while staring in one direction for hours at a time. Moreover, neo-bathos as applied in the political arena may lead to unjust warfare and failure to prevent crime, which in turn may lead to [[death]] for individuals who might otherwise have led long, happy lives of peace and contentment.

==Can everybody be ''stopped?''==

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the spread of neo-bathos is the ease by which those nefariously taking advantage of the trend can use neo-apatheticism as a "mask" for their activities. If accused of attempting to cynically manipulate consumers or voters using neo-bathos techniques, these individuals can simply state that "nobody cares," and dismiss their accusers as "whiners." The popular media often encourages this tactic by reporting not on the nefarious activities being pursued by evildoers, but rather on popular ''reactions'' to them. Socially destructive argument positions are thus given "equal time" in the name of avoiding the outward appearance of [[media]] bias, usually with the result that the nefarious practices are validated, and allowed to continue far longer than they otherwise might; if not indefinitely. For example:
----
;Anti-War Protester: "It's time to stop sending our sons and daughters into a hopeless situation where they're just going to die horrible, meaningless deaths."

;Right-Wing Politician: "Nobody cares what these idiots are saying. It's time for us to stop listening to these whiners and start having more sons and daughters, so we can send them into more places where their glorious deaths will help us rake in more cash. Uh, in the name of peace and [[freedom]]."

Talk:Scotland

2007-05-01T16:16:48Z

Trashbat: Explained kilt

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-05-01T15:20:24Z

Trashbat: /* Arguments for regime change */ Surely "Kofi Annan"

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "coalition of the willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

==Background to regime change==

In the post-9/11 analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[Jihad|jihadists]], the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason. <ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Santions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Afairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirtieen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', refering to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found this,
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War <ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] programs which were credited with insuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millenium changed, Saddams top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Stategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>

==Arguments for regime change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

==Liberation from Ba'athist tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref>[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been caught in the middle of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. As the Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

==The Surge==
[[Image:Cuncil.jpg|right|thumb|Iraqi governing council as of July 15, 2003]]
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not suprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==
As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Opinion polls==
Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>[http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt Downloadable PowerPoint], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>.

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq"".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?" (See the Conservapedia entry "Opinion Poll" <ref> http://www.conservapedia.com/Opinion_poll </ref> for further elaboration on the importance of the phrasing of questions, etc.)

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign assistance is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref>

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a Nuclear Weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-milimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime intent===
The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a Chemiclal Weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded Chemical Weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref>

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

Coalition Troops

According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,300 U.S., and over 270 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 24,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>

Enemy Casualties 

Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, has calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

Civilian Casualties

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]

Fish and chips

2007-04-30T14:37:27Z

Trashbat: and typo...

[[Image:fishchip.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A portion of fish and chips]]

'''Fish and chips''' are a popular [[British]] fast food and are enjoyed across the world. The fish is a piece of common white fish (typically [[cod]], [[haddock]], [[plaice]] or [[skate]]) deep fried in batter. The [[chips]] are sliced deep-fried [[potato]]es similar to, but more substantial than, [[french fries]]. They are traditionally served in paper, seasoned with [[salt]] and [[vinegar]].

Fish and chips are traditionally associated with [[mushy peas]] but can also be served with a wide variety of [[condiment]]s and [[sauce]]s.

In the [[British Isles]], fish and chips are sold by [[chip shop]]s, one of the most popular [[British]] food establishments.

[[Category:Seafood]]
[[Category:Fast foods]]

Fish and chips

2007-04-30T14:37:01Z

Trashbat: image and link

[[Image:fishchip.jpg|right|250px|thumb|A portion of fish and chips]]

'''Fish and chips''' are a popular [[British]] fast food and are enjoyed across the world. The fish is a piece of common white fish (typically [[cod]], [[haddock]], [[plaice]] or [[skate]]) deep fried in batter. The [[chips]] are sliced deep-fried [[potato]]es similar to, but more substantial than, [[french fries]]. They are traditionally served in paper, seasoned with [[salt]] and [[vinegar]].

Fish and chips are traditionally associated with [[mushy peas]] but can also be served with a wide variety of [[condiment]]s and [[sauce]]s.

In the [[British Isles]], fish and chips are sold by [[chip shop]s, one of the most popular [[British]] food establishments.

[[Category:Seafood]]
[[Category:Fast foods]]

British Isles

2007-04-30T14:34:02Z

Trashbat: /* Culture of the British Isles */ no cultural reference complete without fish and chips

[[Image:british-isles.gif|right|250px|thumb|Map of the British Isles]]

==Overview==

The British Isles is an [[Archipelago]] or group of islands off the North West coast of continental Europe. The British Isles are comprised of [[Great Britain]], [[Ireland]] and a number of smaller islands including the [[Scottish]] Islands in the North and some of the [[Channel Islands]] in the South.

It is worth noting that the term "British Isles" is somewhat controversial in the [[Republic of Ireland]] and [[Northern Ireland]] for historical reasons and [[Irish]] nationalists may find it offensive.

Geographically, the islands stretch from the [[Isles of Scilly]] in the South, to [[Shetland]] in the North and from [[Tearaght Island]] in the West, to [[Lowestoft Ness]] in the East. There are over than 6,000 [[island]]s covering a total land area of 121,674 square miles.

Although the British Isles is comprised of over six thousand individual islands, there are but two [[sovereign state]]s located on the islands, the [[United Kingdom]] of [[Great Britain]] (which includes [[Northern Ireland]]) and the [[Republic of Ireland]] (abbreviated to ROI). Also part of the group is the [[Isle of Man]], a [[United Kingdom]] Crown dependency and notable [[tax haven]]. With the exception of the [[Isle of Man]], both states are members of the [[European Union]] (abbreviated to [[EU]]). Prior to 1922 [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]] were part of the ''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. In 1922 (following the [[Irish War of Independence]]), twenty six counties of Ireland left the [[United Kingdom]] to become the [[Irish Free State]] (from 1949 the [[Republic of Ireland]]). The remaining six counties remained part of the [[United Kingdom]] and became known as [[Northern Ireland]].

==Geography of the British Isles==

Of the six thousand islands in the group, the largest two are [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]]. Great Britain alone covers over half the total landmass of the British Isles, some 83,698 square miles. [[Ireland]] is located to the West of [[Great Britain]] and covers some 32,589 square mile. Other islands notable for their size are [[Orkney]] off the [[Scottish]] coast, [[Anglesey]] (Ynys Mon) off the [[Welsh]] coast and the [[Isle of Man]] between [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]].

The islands are low lying with Southern [[Great Britain]] being at particularly low [[altitude]]. [[Ben Nevis]] in the Scottish [[Highlands]] is the highest [[mountain]] in the British Isles rising to 1,344 metres above [[sea level]]. Although other parts of the isles are mountainous (parts of Wales, Northern [[England]] and parts of [[Ireland]]), few mountains in these areas reach more than 1,000 metres above [[sea level]].

Lakes on the islands are all [[freshwater]], the largest being [[Lough Neagh]] in [[Northern Ireland]]. The largest lake in Great Britain is [[Loch Lomond]] although [[Lake Windermere]] and [[Loch Ness]] are both notable. Rivers are a prominent feature on the landscape and were once an important form of [[transport]]. The river [[Severn]] and the [[Shannon]] are the longest but perhaps the best known waterway is the river [[Thames]]. During the [[Industrial Revolution]], river transport was augmented by the building of many [[canals]] linking trade towns to ports. The best known examples are the [[Leeds]] to [[Liverpool]] [[canal]] linking these two important trading cities, and the [[Grand Union Canal]] linking [[London]] and the [[Thames]] with the canal system of the industrial English Midlands..

The British Isles have a temperate climate with winters being cool and wet and summers milder and dryer. [[Rain]] is a common weather feature and is responsible for the long history of [[arable]] farming. Southern areas tend to be warmer than the Northern parts of the Isles and are thus more suited for [[arable]] farming. Northern farms are predomenantly [[Hill Farms]] concentrating on livestock.

==History of the British Isles==

==Culture of the British Isles==

The British Isles, being home to the [[English]], [[Welsh]], [[Scottish]] and [[Irish]] peoples has a very diverse culture. Perhaps the most unifying cultural aspect is the shared [[language]], [[English]] although there are a wealth of other languages spoken within the Isles. These include [[Irish]], [[Manx]], [[Scottish Gaelic]], [[Cornish]] and [[Welsh]]. It is worth noting that there are a great number of regional accents, dialects and variations of [[English]] spoken and that a [[Geordie]] (a native of [[Newcastle]]) will sound very different from a [[Cockney]] (a native [[London]]er).

The British Isles are predominantly [[Christian]] and are home to many beautiful [[Church]]es, [[Cathedral]]s and [[Abbey]]s.

A number of sports are popular throughout the British Isles, the most prominent of which is football (or [[soccer]]). [[Rugby]], [[darts]], [[snooker]], [[horse racing]] and [[cricket]] are also popular sports, both spectated and participated in by many.

The Public House (or [[pub]]) and the consumption of [[beer]] or [[Real ale]] is an important part of adult social life in all parts of the British Isles and pubs, along with [[church]]es, are the central point of many communities. The British Isles is home to a diverse range of foodstuffs and gastronomic traditions with the [[chip shop]] being found in all parts of the Isles and frequented by people from all walks of life. [[Fish and chips]] is the most well known dish traditional to the British Isles but has seen a decline in popularity in recent years due to the dwindling of [[North Sea]] fish stocks. Indeed, nearly all towns and villages will contain several [[pub]]s, several [[chip shop]]s, one or more [[churches]] and a football ground.

==Links of Interest==

http://www.the-british-isles.com/

http://www.geograph.org.uk/

[[Category:Geography]]

File:Fishchip.jpg

2007-04-30T14:26:44Z

Trashbat: For chip shop article

For chip shop article

British Isles

2007-04-30T14:20:45Z

Trashbat: Culture

[[Image:british-isles.gif|right|250px|thumb|Map of the British Isles]]

==Overview==

The British Isles is an [[Archipelago]] or group of islands off the North West coast of continental Europe. The British Isles are comprised of [[Great Britain]], [[Ireland]] and a number of smaller islands including the [[Scottish]] Islands in the North and some of the [[Channel Islands]] in the South.

It is worth noting that the term "British Isles" is somewhat controversial in the [[Republic of Ireland]] and [[Northern Ireland]] for historical reasons and [[Irish]] nationalists may find it offensive.

Geographically, the islands stretch from the [[Isles of Scilly]] in the South, to [[Shetland]] in the North and from [[Tearaght Island]] in the West, to [[Lowestoft Ness]] in the East. There are over than 6,000 [[island]]s covering a total land area of 121,674 square miles.

Although the British Isles is comprised of over six thousand individual islands, there are but two [[sovereign state]]s located on the islands, the [[United Kingdom]] of [[Great Britain]] (which includes [[Northern Ireland]]) and the [[Republic of Ireland]] (abbreviated to ROI). Also part of the group is the [[Isle of Man]], a [[United Kingdom]] Crown dependency and notable [[tax haven]]. With the exception of the [[Isle of Man]], both states are members of the [[European Union]] (abbreviated to [[EU]]). Prior to 1922 [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]] were part of the ''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland''. In 1922 (following the [[Irish War of Independence]]), twenty six counties of Ireland left the [[United Kingdom]] to become the [[Irish Free State]] (from 1949 the [[Republic of Ireland]]). The remaining six counties remained part of the [[United Kingdom]] and became known as [[Northern Ireland]].

==Geography of the British Isles==

Of the six thousand islands in the group, the largest two are [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]]. Great Britain alone covers over half the total landmass of the British Isles, some 83,698 square miles. [[Ireland]] is located to the West of [[Great Britain]] and covers some 32,589 square mile. Other islands notable for their size are [[Orkney]] off the [[Scottish]] coast, [[Anglesey]] (Ynys Mon) off the [[Welsh]] coast and the [[Isle of Man]] between [[Great Britain]] and [[Ireland]].

The islands are low lying with Southern [[Great Britain]] being at particularly low [[altitude]]. [[Ben Nevis]] in the Scottish [[Highlands]] is the highest [[mountain]] in the British Isles rising to 1,344 metres above [[sea level]]. Although other parts of the isles are mountainous (parts of Wales, Northern [[England]] and parts of [[Ireland]]), few mountains in these areas reach more than 1,000 metres above [[sea level]].

Lakes on the islands are all [[freshwater]], the largest being [[Lough Neagh]] in [[Northern Ireland]]. The largest lake in Great Britain is [[Loch Lomond]] although [[Lake Windermere]] and [[Loch Ness]] are both notable. Rivers are a prominent feature on the landscape and were once an important form of [[transport]]. The river [[Severn]] and the [[Shannon]] are the longest but perhaps the best known waterway is the river [[Thames]]. During the [[Industrial Revolution]], river transport was augmented by the building of many [[canals]] linking trade towns to ports. The best known examples are the [[Leeds]] to [[Liverpool]] [[canal]] linking these two important trading cities, and the [[Grand Union Canal]] linking [[London]] and the [[Thames]] with the canal system of the industrial English Midlands..

The British Isles have a temperate climate with winters being cool and wet and summers milder and dryer. [[Rain]] is a common weather feature and is responsible for the long history of [[arable]] farming. Southern areas tend to be warmer than the Northern parts of the Isles and are thus more suited for [[arable]] farming. Northern farms are predomenantly [[Hill Farms]] concentrating on livestock.

==History of the British Isles==

==Culture of the British Isles==

The British Isles, being home to the [[English]], [[Welsh]], [[Scottish]] and [[Irish]] peoples has a very diverse culture. Perhaps the most unifying cultural aspect is the shared [[language]], [[English]] although there are a wealth of other languages spoken within the Isles. These include [[Irish]], [[Manx]], [[Scottish Gaelic]], [[Cornish]] and [[Welsh]]. It is worth noting that there are a great number of regional accents, dialects and variations of [[English]] spoken and that a [[Geordie]] (a native of [[Newcastle]]) will sound very different from a [[Cockney]] (a native [[London]]er).

The British Isles are predominantly [[Christian]] and are home to many beautiful [[Church]]es, [[Cathedral]]s and [[Abbey]]s.

A number of sports are popular throughout the British Isles, the most prominent of which is football (or [[soccer]]). [[Rugby]], [[darts]], [[snooker]], [[horse racing]] and [[cricket]] are also popular sports, both spectated and participated in by many.

The Public House (or [[pub]]) and the consumption of [[beer]] or [[Real ale]] is an important part of adult social life in all parts of the British Isles and pubs, along with [[church]]es, are the central point of many communities. The British Isles is home to a diverse range of foodstuffs and gastronomic traditions with the [[chip shop]] being found in all parts of the Isles and frequented by people from all walks of life. Indeed, nearly all towns and villages will contain several [[pub]]s, several [[chip shop]]s, one or more [[churches]] and a football ground.

==Links of Interest==

http://www.the-british-isles.com/

http://www.geograph.org.uk/

[[Category:Geography]]

British Isles

2007-04-30T13:53:29Z

Trashbat: cat.

Talk:British Isles

2007-04-30T13:43:52Z

Trashbat:

The term 'British' was not used to describe the whole of the British Isles by the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks knew Great Britain as Albion, and the romans knew Great Britain as 'Brittania' and Ireland as 'Hibernia.' Would anyone mind if I changed the article to reflect this?

:That's not correct. The term Britanniae Insulae was used to refer to both Britain and Ireland by Classical geographers. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 05:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is correct. The Greeks knew Great Britain as Albion, and the ancient Romans knew Great Britain as 'Brittania' (It was one of their provinces) and Ireland as 'Hibernia.' (Which was not one of their provinces.) They would never have refered to a land which was part of their empire with the same name as a land which was not part of their empire. That would not make sense.
The term 'Britanniae Insulae' (Or British Isles) was used much much later, in relatively modern times, (16th century) by a Roman cartographer to describe the islands of Britain and Ireland. Even before the birth of Christ, the Islands were known as Brittania and Hibernia. The use of Brittaniae Insulae by some distant map maker in Rome 1600 years after the islands were first thrown into the light of civilisation is surely just the first instance of the incorrect term British Isles being used to describe the whole archipelago.

::Ptolemy, in his 2nd century book "Geography", had a chapter titled "Hibernia, island of Britannia", and the next chapter was called "Albion, island of Britannia". In the 1st century Pliny the Elder specifically describes Britannia as including Britain, Ireland, the Orkneys, and many other places. In fact, the true historical position is quite the reverse of what has been stated above. Britannia was a term that described both Hibernia and Albion. When the Romans took over most of Albion, they applied the name Britannia to the area over which they ruled, which is why some have mistakenly assumed that it only refers to that island. [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 04:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Have decided to greatly expand this article and include as many relevant links as possible. Perhaps some of our resident Brits could assist me in adding pages where there are dead links. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 09:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

British Isles

2007-04-30T13:40:55Z

Trashbat: /* Geography of the British Isles */ link