User talk:Anglicaneditor

Welcome to talk to me.

Nonsense of Template:Infobox Catholic Cardinal/doc
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox Catholic Cardinal/doc, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Infobox Catholic Cardinal/doc provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Infobox Catholic Cardinal/doc, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Referring your comments on the USNS Impeccable talk page

 * I would like to remind the President and people of the US to shut their mouths when spy ship of ANY country operates 75 miles near the Pearl Habour or any other naval bases of them, i.e. be fair and no more double standard please. It is obvious that you are biased in favor of the Chinese. And, on the note of spy ships, If there was one operating 75 miles off the coast of Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't be able to do anything about. The United States, unlike the PRC apparently, respects international law regard territorial waters. And please see WP:Civility, WP:How to be civil, WP:An uncivil environment is a poor environment and WP:Don't be inconsiderate. It seems rather rude to tell people to "shut their mouths" about anything. We were all, and still are, working to create a neutral page. No one was aruging about the fact that that ship was in the Chinese EEZ, or that it shouldn't have been there. But i suppose you didnt take the time to read it, you just decided to assume that we were in disagreement as to the right of the Impeccable to be near China. The dispute was if the ship was harassed or engaged. And could you please explain yourself on the double standard that you apparently think exists in this article. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be realistic that it is only your expectation that the United States respects international law. How can you explain the US sending troops to Iraq without agreement and permission of the UN Security Council, using the excuse of the mass destruction weapons over there but eventually nothing found. Please make reasonable predicts on if "there was one operating 75 miles off the coast of Pearl Harbor", don't hoodwink yourself and make sure you aren't biased before blaming others for having bias. -Anglicaneditor (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For "shut the mouths", oh sorry, I am not a native speaker of English, I just thought the words deliver the message directly and easily. haha. For the word "shut", I just mean "close", I have no negative meaning behind at all. -Anglicaneditor (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As the talk page says, If you believe that the page is biased, discuss what is wrong, reach a consensus and make the edits to fix it. I can, by the way, explain the US invading Iraq. There was reasonable proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He had, throughout the 90s, been searching for a steady supplier of Uranium. This, for many, was reason enough to invade him, probable cause and all that; Just because there were no WMDs found doesn't mean that there werent any. It is widely believed that any weapons were smuggled into Jordan and Syria shortly before the UN inspectors arrived, or while they were there.
 * Also, The United States did have an agreement with over 20 nations, the so called coalition of the willing. And my reasonable prediction is that we arent going to send several fishing boats to shoo a research vessel that we have no proof is spying. And if they were, they wont find much. American submarines are well known for being some of the stealthiest in the world ;). Thanks for editing, Ono (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Impeccable was not spying. Then you are once again hoodwinking yourself. If you think American submarines are well known for being some of the stealthiest in the world. Then you are underestimating the technology of many other countries in Asia (namely China, Japan) and Russia. Especially for China, as the whole world really know very little on what extent does her military force grow due to her extreme little transparency. If you help Mr. Bush to defend on the Iraq War. Then I would save my energy. Please see the following throughoutly by yourself.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war#International_opinion

And after several discussion with you, I just guess/think that you might have read insufficient news reports/analyses from Asia, Russia and Islamic world. You are quite able to explain the stance of the US govt in many issues. But I just want to suggest you looking more into the opinions of people in other countries especially those in Asia and Islamic world and think deeper about their reason for such opposition/concern/worry and their background and history if you didn't do so.

I just want to ask you one more question. From the time "God created the world" until now, what is the ratio of Iraqi people killed by American to American people killed by Iraq people, provided that the value of blood of Iraq and American people equal? I don't expect you to leave an answer here, you just think of one in your heart that is according and not disappointing to your conscience.

I don't know if the discussion here will continue or not, but I am really glad to have the discussion with people on the other side of the earth (or just next door) with different or opposite views on various complex issues. -Anglicaneditor (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not mean that the Impeccable was not spying, I mean that it was spying in an area that no nation is allowed to police by law. And I dont underestimate American nuclear submarine technology. They are most certainly some of the stealthiest in the world, on par with Russia subs. Chinese and Japanese subs, while quiet are not nessecarily as stealthy, because the majority of them are diesel electric, which must surface to recharge, get air etc. I am well versed in news coming out of Asia, Russia and the Middle East. I'm actually a journalist with a speciality in the happenings of Asia.
 * On the Iraq war: I can't defend the War in Iraq. I was simply stating that I, like many other Americans, believe that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Does that in any way excuse what is happening over there? No. Not bt any stretch of the imagination. And, if you werent aware, the US army isnt killing Iraqi civilians. Suicide bombers manage to do that just fine. The soldiers are hunting terrorist cells and suicidal islamic extremists that would rather blow themselves up, killing a hundred people that try to survive in the real world.
 * I can't speak for other Americans. These are my views, and mine alone. I know that the United States isnt a well like nation in the world, and I understand why. It is nice to speak to someone who doesnt immediately lash out at a person because they are American. I would like to continue to discuss this and any other issues, if you would like. Thanks, Ono (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)