Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 August 22

Simpsons
Have there been any episodes of the Simpsons in which one or more of the Simpson five were not in the episode? Reywas92


 * Yes, occasionally Maggie has not appeared in an episode, including "The Last Temptation of Homer" and "Lisa's Date with Density". --Canley 00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oo, well-spotted! The best place to go for a comprehensive answer is SNPP.com; you could ask on their mailing list. Z iggurat 00:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maggie does always appear in the opening credits couch scene (except for in Halloween episodes), but I don't suppose you're counting that. And, of course, there are many episodes without Grandpa Simpson. StuRat 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in Future-Drama, Homer and Marge don't appear in their usual roles, just in roles as themselves in the future. Not sure if that counts.  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 

Woody Allen Movie
hello me llamo es Nacho the Woody Allen movie where he walks out of a screening of Casablanca_(film) and helps a driver parallel park, only to intentionally crash him into the car behind? (And oddly enough, it's not Play it again, Sam) Wjlkgnsfb 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've seen this, but I can't remember which one it is. If it helps, it's pre-1980 as that's all I've seen.
 * I think it was Take the Money and Run. Don't remember which movie Woody Allen's character had been watching though. Sluzzelin 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)---


 * I'm thinking Annie Hall, but it's been ages since I saw any Woody Allen flick. &mdash;Tamfang 07:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Woody Allen + (Diane Keaton or Mia Farrow??)
did Woody Allen and either Diane Keaton or Mia Farrow signal each other from the windows of their apartments across central park? Wjlkgnsfb 01:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean in a film or in real life?--Light current 21:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

why is it called Now and Then, Here and There
Why is the anime series Now and Then, Here and There called 'Now and Then, Here and There'?

I tried looking it up but couldn't find anything. --69.138.61.168 01:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's like asking what the names of Radiohead songs mean. Many of them are just aesthetic placeholders. Wjlkgnsfb 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Japanese name basically means "I am there now" (more literally/awkwardly, "Now, the me that is there"), there meaning specifically the place where you are, and since it doesn't sound nearly as cool in English to say that as it does in Japanese, they rearranged the words in what they felt was a cool way, and they were left with "Now and Then, Here and There". Then again, they may have been trying to say "There and Then, Here and Now". freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Okay. I understand. I just got fustrated because 'Now and Then' in English means 'every once and awhile', while 'Here and There' means that someone or something isn't in any one specific place. I couldn't understand how that applied to the story in Now and Then, Here and There. Your explaination makes sense of it, though. --69.138.61.168 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tingle
Is there any reason why Tingle from the Zelda series exists? I quote the following from Nintendo Power v207's Pulse: "If there's any mercy in the video game world, and Tingle is a playable character [in Super Smash Bros. Brawl], his only move will be to spontaneously combust." -- The Great Llama   (speak to the Llama!) 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He seems to be relatively more popular in Japan than elsewhere; a DS game even exists, so it is not unlikely he is seen as profitable for a reasonably sized part of the gaming population. Yesitsapril 07:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He appears as comic relief from Majora's Mask onwards. As Yesitsapril said, he is more popular in Japan, where an androgynous appearance and fairy references don't have the same implications as they do in the West. The same thing happened with Raiden from Metal Gear Solid 2.
 * Yeah, I read about that that Tingle game in NP. I just hope it's not quite as annoying as he usually is in that. -- The Great Llama   (speak to the Llama!) 17:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Zippo lighters
Will any sort of lighter fluid work in Zippo lighters?


 * Lighter fluid redirects to butane, which suggests there is only one kind. It is, however, only a fluid under pressure, which requires a closed container, which a zippo doesn't have. DirkvdM 04:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But if you look at butane there is a link to Lighter which supplies the correct answer, Naphtha. By the way the redirect is now a disambiguation as I could think of at least four different types of lighter fluid. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Outside of the USA, the Zippo type of lighter is called a "petrol" lighter, presumably a British term. I've heard them called "trench lighters". They work with any kind of highly flammable fluid, but the smell and residue of some would be unacceptable. What would someone from USA call a "petrol" lighter, since they do not seem to use the term there? A "gas" lighter for me would mean either one which is used to light a gas appliance, or one burning butane or similar liquid contained only under pressure. --Seejyb 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As you can see at Gas (disambiguation) under science (rocket science?), the word "gas" for a fuel is terribly ambiguous. --Lambiam Talk 12:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Butane lighters are pressurized, and it's a real bitch to try to fill them without sniffing a lot of fumes. The old lighters use a highly volatile fluid that is full of nasties, and is real close to white gasoline. Here is a link to genuine zippo fluid. Do not use it to light your barbeque! --Zeizmic 12:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In Cuba they use hairspray to refill lighters. Never knew smoking could be that unhealthy. :) DirkvdM 07:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info guys, but what I meant was, Zippo lighters have their own special lighter fluid and I was wondering if I could just fill it with any kind I buy at Walgreens or something.

Yes, it's all the same if you buy generic 'lighter fluid'. --Zeizmic 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The bottle in front of me apparently contains Solvent naphtha (petroleum), light aliphatic. --Howard Train 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

country code for West Indies
Hi,

Please help me to find the country code for West Indies. It is not available in search.
 * The West Indies is a name given to a group of Caribbean islands/countries, it in itself is not a country. If you are thinking of the West Indian cricket team (which incidentally was forced to split up into its separate countries for the 1998 Commonwealth Games), I think they are usually abbreviated as WI, WDI or WIN. – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he means the telephone dialling code. They are all listed at List of country calling codes.  As you say, though, there is not one code for the West Indies, but one for each island/country.  --Richardrj 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See West Indies. You need to choose between Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Netherlands Antilles, Puerto Rico, Montserrat, Saint Kitts, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Virgin Islands (possibly more!). --Shantavira 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you also have to choose between the U.S. Virgin Islands, whose dialing code is 1-340, and the British Virgin Islands, whose dialing code is 1-284. Other possibilities not listed by Shantavira include the Bahamas, Turks and Caicos Islands, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Barbuda, which shares a dialing code (1-268) with Antigua, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Aruba. Then there is the island of Saint Martin. The Dutch part shares a dialing code with the Netherlands Antilles.  The French part shares a dialing code with Guadeloupe.  If you are searching in List of country calling codes, you need to look under Zone 1 for nations with a history of British or U.S. colonialism, including Dominican Republic, Zone 2 for Aruba, and Zone 5 for the remaining territories and countries.  Marco polo 13:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You also didn't split up the Netherlands Antilles. And Sint Maarten is one of the Netherlands Antilles. That the French also lay claim is no fault of ours. :) DirkvdM 07:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There'll be water
A frequently said quote in the Dark Tower Series is "There will be water if god wills it". I am leaning towards this being a bible quote, but can anyone verify this?Cuban Cigar 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is anything like that in the Bible. In any case, it seems more like an Islamic sentiment than a Christian one.--Shantavira 08:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. See ان شاء الله. —Bromskloss 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well as it happens i'm muslim myself, and even though we say "if god wills it" a lot, never the specific phrase i mentioned at the start.Cuban Cigar 10:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was just something King made up himself, to show that generally people in his time and world are God-believing in some way, not purely absurdist and lost their religion. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)
 * See the Biblical story of Moses bringing water from the rock in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20, although this exact phrase doesn't occur.

No, it's not in the Bible. I'm very sure. BenC7 03:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The actual wording isn't in the bible, "There will be water(or there will be rain)if God wills it" but this quote as a truth is well supported in the Christian bible. 1 Kings 17:1 "....As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word." KJV and 1 Kings 17:14. Also see Joel 2:23 "..., and he will make the early and the latter rain to come down to you as in the beginning." KJV among other verses.

regarding Universities in USA
Could I get the top 10 Universities of USA which offers MBA?
 * Here on Wikipedia University you get free lessons, here is Googling 101: ;-) Weregerbil 13:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

stupid roads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I would like to know whether the stretch of the A46 between Lincoln and Newark in Lincolnshire, England is or is not duel carraigeway. I couldnt care less about it but it is annoying me because every map says a different thing!

Also why is the A74(M) in the Scottish Borders called the A74(M) and not the M74 as this is what it starts off like. Then magically in the middle of no where it changes into the A74(M) when it is the same motorway. I know why it changes at that point, they upgraded it to motorway in two stages, but why couldnt they call it the M74. Its annoying!

thankyou --84.65.15.59 11:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is a duel carriageway (as opposed to a dual carriageway) a place where people shoot at each other from horse-drawn carriages ? :-) StuRat 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No Stuart, we stopped doing that a long time ago.--Light current 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is actually a Wikipedia article about this: M74 motorway. The section "Numbering confusion" should explain a bit more about it. --Canley 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Google Earth and MultiMap satellite photos, the A46 is mainly standard single carriageway, but a short section between Newark and Winthorpe is dual carriageway. smurrayinch e  ster( User ), ( Talk ) 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Highways Agency seems to think it has upgraded the said A46 stupid road to dual carriageway: --Tagishsimon (talk)

Forex/currency question?
I understand from reading through web pages the value of a currency increases when interest rates go up, but on the last interest rate hike the European Central Bank made, the Euro fell against sterling( 12 July 2006 @ 1.44 - 12 Aug 2006 @ 1.48 not sure the exact day the interest rate increase was but it was sometime in between these 2 dates.). So if for example I had £100 I would get 144 euro in July but in Aug I would get 148 euro after the hike make sterling stronger/euro weaker. Is it just a one time thing or what is the norm when interest rates go up?


 * There is no ironclad rule that a currency's exchange value rises when its interest rate rises. Often, the currency's exchange rate will rise in anticipation of an interest-rate increase, and then drop slightly when the increase happens, because traders are taking their profits by selling the currency after the increase.  Also, other factors play into whether a currency rises in response to an interest-rate increase, such as whether the country is perceived to have stable or deteriorating finances, and how interest rates are changing for other currencies.

During the period you mentioned, the Bank of England unexpectedly raised interest rates on August 3. So there was not only an interest-rate increase for the euro but also for sterling. The interest-rate rise for the euro was probably already "priced in" by mid-July, because traders had already bid up the euro in expecation of the euro rate increase, which was widely foreseen. However, they had not priced in the British rate rise in early August, because the consensus was that the Bank of England would leave rates unchanged. When the BoE unexpectedly raised rates, sterling rose. The sharpness of the rise was probably partly due to short covering. See short squeeze if you want to learn more about how that happens. Marco polo 14:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Death Toll
Hi,

Is there any information about the 2752 deaths in the 9/11 terrorist attack that break down the deaths into religious groupings? I know there were 243 foreign people killed, but cannot find a religious split. My question comes from the view of many in the Moslem community that there was "not one Jew killed so the claims about 9/11 are doubtful".

Regards,

James


 * 9/11 conspiracy theories touches on this, as one might expect. On the nationality side, there were five Israelis killed (of whom four had dual US citizenship). For religion/ethnicity, various samplings of the lists of dead suggest 10-15% of casualties (~400) in the World Trade Center were Jewish (see that page for methodology) which correlates to what you'd expect from the demographics of New York. There's no overall breakdown I've seen, but claims like the one you mention mean that the Jewish percentage has been looked into specifically. Shimgray | talk | 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it were the case that no Jews died, the perpetrators can hardly take credit for that. It would have been impossible to control who died and who survived.  Such is the nature of terrorism - they never really know, or care, who their victims are.  JackofOz 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the idea that folks are referring to here was the anti-semitic claim that Israel perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and framed Islamic extremists in order to incite the US to go to war against Islamic extremism. It's complete nazi hogwash, of course, but anti-semitism is one of those funny poisons that humanity can't get enough of.  --Bmk 03:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was wondering about that. The question was not quite suitly emphazied. Which muslim community, by the way? There are loads all over the world and none I've met where 'many' would think something like that. And if 15% of New Yorkers are Jewish, that would be over 1 million. So 10% of the world's jewish population live in New York? Israel was started in the wrong place. :) DirkvdM 07:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused...
what is "my talk"? I is part of this website a message board??? I'm sorry if this is a weird question. --Sleeping Lionheart 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's kind of like a message board, but not really. It's intended as a way for other Wikipedia users leave messages to you about your contributions to Wikipedia. It's sort of like an e-mail system, only all the messages are publically viewable. You can also leave messages to other Wikipedia users on their talk pages. Please remember that all messages should be related to Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk pages are not a general Internet forum. J I P  | Talk 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres's Wikisocial if you do want to talk in a Wiki-format. — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)
 * So you can think of the "my talk" link you see on each page as "Message board reserved for communicating with Sleeping Lionheart". --Lambiam Talk 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See the help desk for more questions like this. --Bmk 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First mention of ZIP+4
I know that the ZIP+4 was first implemented in 1983 per the USPS web site. However, I want to know when it was first proposed to go with the +4 part. I remember programming in BASIC (1974) and my boss told me to map out an extra 4 for the extended ZIP. Nobody belives me, and I would like to be able to point to the legislation regarding this to make a point. Anybody? Joan Leftwich


 * "By the mid-1970s, however, it was clear that cheaper, more efficient methods and equipment were needed if the Postal Service was to offset rising costs associated with growing mail volume. To reduce the number of mail piece handlings, the Postal Service began to develop an expanded ZIP Code in 1978." USPS
 * "In 1978, the Postal Service decided to develop an expanded code of four add-on digits that would speed processing when coupled with new mechanization capable of sorting mail to small geographic segments, such as a city block or single building." about.com
 * Can't find any evidence for when they first started kicking around the idea, though - it seems 1978 was when they announced it, but the idea could well have been mooted earlier. Shimgray | talk | 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

American attitudes
I don't mean to be offensive and i also don't want to paint all americans with the same brush, but I've noticed that many Americans, and their government will support the U.S. when they send troops or agents to foreign lands to sort out what are often Domestic problems e.g. Iraq, Somalia and Chile among others. Even when troops are not required the Americans try to get involved, e.g. the northern Ireland peace processes, my question is to Americans and non-Americans who live, or have lived in America, Why do they do this? they are often not wanted and can create more problems than they solve. Does America see itself as some sort of World-policeman ,who has a responsibility to help when needed even if not rely wanted? Ken 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I think they do! (if the country in question has oil!)--Light current 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think articles such as American foreign policy, New World Order: Opposing Viewpoints, Pax Americana, and Wolfowitz Doctrine and links therefrom may be the best answers we can give. The topic is contentious, and unlikely to be settled, or even barely illuminated, by further debate here. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * At least people can leave their opinions here. Call it a straw poll--Light current 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Call it a mis-use of the reference desk, if you like. I really don't think this is the place for polls, even were there any worth in self-selected statistical data. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * THe ref desks are a collection of individuals' personal opinions anyway. Not fact!--Light current 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's your opinion, &c. Given that facts may be construed as collective individual personal opinions, I'm not sure where your remark gets us. I observe that a great many answers to questions involve the supply of these questionable fact things; entirely fewer questions and answers invite and involve opinion (save for my first caveat). You might refer to the rubric at the top, which has lines such as "# The Reference desk is not a soapbox. If further debate regarding a particular answer is needed, please move the discussion to the appropriate talk page." In my understanding, the reference desk is aimed at providing deterministic answers to suitable questions. We're not really in a position to debate the reasons Americans do or do not support their country's foreign policy. If anyone had pointers to good discussions of the subject matter of the question (such as the links above) then that would, for me, be legitimate. however if someone wants to natter with Americans about their views of foreign policy, I think there are 100 more appropriate websites. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Well TYO--Light current 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No one in America wants America to be the world's policeman. American politicians often make a point of saying they don't want that. However, many Americans seem to be OK with being part of an international campaign to "help" another country, as in the cases of the world wars. CIA involvement in Chile was covert and therefore not really a question of U.S. public opinion. The Somalia campaign was a US-led UN humanitarian mission that ran into unexpectedly fierce opposition on the ground. In Iraq, the Bush administration sought support for invasion by assembling the You Forgot Poland coalition, by getting exiles to call for the "liberation" of Iraq and by claiming Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Flimsy as those motives may seem, especially in retrospect, they were essential to getting congressional authorization for the war. Had Bush said, "We should go into Iraq as the world's policeman," no one would have gone along. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Historically, the US has been more optimistic about the world, feeling that, with the proper help, the countries of the world can all become productive, peaceful, democratic nations, tolerant of others different from themselves. There have been some major successes:


 * 1) Germany, Japan, and other genocidal nations have been transformed in just that way.


 * 2) Most countries in the Americas are now democratic, while most were totalitarian a couple generations ago.


 * 3) The Northern Ireland peace process seems to be going reasonably well.


 * 4) The former Yugoslavia no longer seems to be committing genocide against it's neighbors.


 * 5) Afghanistan isn't ideal, but does seem much better off than before.


 * 6) North Korea is still badly messed up, but South Korea seems to have been saved from that fate by US led UN efforts in the Korean War.


 * 7) The collapse of the Soviet Union brought democracy to many countries in Eastern Europe. This collapse was, at least in part, due to US efforts.


 * Some failures:


 * 1) Vietnam. Although, it isn't really much worse off than before US involvement.


 * 2) Somalia. Also still as messed up as before US involvement.


 * 3) Israel/Palestine. Same comment.


 * 4) Iraq. It might be too early to draw conclusions, but the early indications are that Iraq may actually be worse off than under Saddam.  We will have to wait and see what happens.


 * These failures, however, pale in comparison to what has happened when the US has failed to intervene:


 * 1) Rape of Nanking.


 * 2) Rwanda genocide.


 * 3) Darfur genocide.


 * The conclusion, then, is that, while US intervention isn't always successful, it has the potential to do a great deal of good, while only a limited downside for failure. Nonintervention, on the other hand, can be disastrous. StuRat 00:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There used to be the Monroe doctrine, but I believe WWII ended that. Also, the prime directive of Star Trek was probably inspired by this. One of the social criticisms in the series. So far that philosophy seems to have been appropriate in most cases.


 * StuRat, do you mean to suggest that those first seven points can be ascribed to the US? The US may have been involved, but there were more parties and/or whether that was for better or for worse is open to discussion. Also, you say that Vietnam is now 'not worse off' than before. I'd say they are (were) worse off in the sense that a few million died but better off in the sense that they now have their own independent country. They are certainly better of than they were before the French occupation, despite the US intervention. DirkvdM


 * Yes, I mean to say most of the first 7 points can be primarily ascribed to the US, with help from others. If Vietnam had been a thriving democracy prior to US involvement and was now as messed up as North Korea, then I would say the US had screwed up their country big time.  However, it's no worse off than before, so my point is, even when US foreign intervention fails, the long term results aren't usually all that bad. StuRat 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And following your last reasoning, the Netherlands 'failed to intervene' in loads of conflicts all over the world, so should we also participate in every conflict? Or is the US the only country with a right or obligation to do this? If not then all countries in the world would have to have military forces in all 'troublesome' countries in the world (by their own definition of 'troublesome'? - there would be lots of intervening forces in the US then). But suppose some of them have conflicitng interrests (which would obviously be unavoidable). like in Afghanistan right now, between the Netherlands and the US, should our countries then go to war with each other? DirkvdM 08:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much wish that Europe would intervene in many places, such as sending troops to Lebanon, preventing genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, etc. The failure of Europe to help unless led by the US (and many times even then) could have disastrous implications for the future of the world.  For example, if they "wimp out" and decide it's just easier to let Iran get nukes than worry about it, we may eventually get a nuclear war, as a result, between Iran and Israel.  As for Afghanistan, the US is on the side of the democratically elected government, are you saying the Netherlands is on the side of the Taliban and al-Queada ? StuRat 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I'm not American, I think it's not so much public desire, but more the people in power's desire. When you're the president (not directed at any particular one of course ;) ) of the US, you're the President of the largest economy in the world (except the EU, but you can only count that as a single entity in certain circumstances). Money is power. That makes you, in effect, probably the most powerful person in the world. But, I think, knowing that you're the most powerful person in the world, makes them forget that the world didn't chose them - the US did. But because they're the most powerful person in the world, they act as if the world chose them or that being in that position, gives them the right to fully excercise that position (which they shouldn't - they're the US's president, not the world's). I think they then try to sort out problems thinking it's easy and that no one has been smart enough to think of some simple solution yet, not fully understanding the situation. For example, in Iraq they obviously didn't realise the amount of power supports of Saddam had, and if they did, they certainly didn't factor that into plans. - Рэд  хот  14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Saddam supporters are a very minor portion of the current insurgency in Iraq (if not, you would see many hostages taken and threatened with death unless Saddam was released). The insurgents are a mix of foreigners, like al-Queada in Iraq, just trying to mess up Iraq so the US can't claim victory, and local Iraqis fighting for their particular faction, like the al-Sadr Martyr's Brigade.  As for the US thinking it's smarter, that's not it at all, but they do think they have the power and will, which other countries lack, to make real change.  For example, the solution to the problem of Serbia making war on it's neighbors and committing genocide was obvious, Serbia needed to be attacked by a superior military force until it agreed to peace with it's neighbors.  However, only a US led NATO effort could accomplish that, as the other countries lacked the military power and/or political will to do anything about the situation. StuRat 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat - I find your list of successes quite incredible! i know you're not an "American imperialist" but I do think you must have unconsciously swallowed some of their propaganda. Just one example. Latin America only had so many military dictatorships in the first place because of American support for military coups. That the first President Bush stopped doing that is great but it was only stopping a previous American interventionist policy (the hundred-year-long policy of stopping the normal left/right swing of the pendulum in Latin America by supporting military coups every time left-wing parties got too strong). Of course left to their own devices Latin Americans are perfectly capable of electing their own governments, alternating between left and right just like the rest of us, but it was principally US policy that prevented them doing so before anyway (ditto in Spain, Portugal for a long time). Jameswilson 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In some cases in the Americas, you are correct. But in other cases, like the removal of the dictator Manuel Noriega from Panama, US intervention had a definite democratizing effect. StuRat 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, what you said about Vietnam is a really weird reasoning. It was ok to kill millions because it didn't have any negative effects..... ? And of course it wasn't a thriving democracy before US intervention. It was a French colony, or rather just recovering from that. Give 'm a break. What's more, Ho Chi Minh asked the US for help first and even based the new country's constitution on the US constitution. Only when the US didn't respond (not a rejection, but no response at all) did he turn elsewhere. And neighbour China was an obvious choice. That did finally draw the attention of the US. Too late. The US could have had an ally in stead of an enemy at only a fraction of the cost of the bombs dropped on the country. This must have been one of the biggest political cockups in the history of mankind.


 * I'm just saying that the long-term consequences of US intervention failures, like Vietnam, aren't that bad, especially when compared with Soviet successes, like the occupation of Eastern Europe, which oppressed hundreds of millions of people for generations. (Incidentally, "instead" is a single word.) StuRat 10:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, say, the czechs are worse off than the Vietnamese? Given that the USSR presence in Czechoslavakia lasted 50 years and US presence in Vietnam lasted only 10 years one would certainly think so by your reasoning. But the per capita income is 6 times as high in Czechia as it is in Vietnam. DirkvdM 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, since the Czechs were much better off before the occupation than the Vietnamese. StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you say you wish that Europe would intervene in many places, and name a few. But Europe is present in Darfur (although the scale of the problem is just too big it seems) and is sending troops to South Lebanon, despite the US obstructing UN intervention. Europe also came with the only offers to Iran that they considered reasonable. The US was just being annoying and ignorant. If you think intervention in these countries is so important, then why isn't the US there? And concerning Afghanistan, the US is there to fight the Taliban, but that is not the goal of the Netherlands. The Dutch (UN) troops are there to build up the country. These interrests sometimes conflict. For example, the US destroys opium plantations, the livelihood of many farmers, which also reflects badly on the Dutch (the locals don't differentiate between foreign forces), making their job impossible. I wonder what would happen if Dutch troops would be helping a farmer and US troops then started destroying his crops. The Dutch would have to defend the farmer and therefore attack the US forces. Is that the kind of intervention you want? Also, the PvdA only agreed with the mission on the strict condition that no prisoners would be handed over to the US because that would make the Netherlands guilty of participating in torture. In other words, the US and the Netherlands (the UN) are both present, but not cooperating - more like getting in each other's way. Maybe if the US would stop interfering, Europe and the UN could really get something done. DirkvdM 07:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Europe has sent wholly insufficient numbers of troops in all the cases I mentioned. In Darfur, they aren't doing anything to actually stop the genocide, but are only running refugee camps for the survivors.  Why isn't the US in those places ?  Lebanon should be avoided, as the US supports Israel militarily and thus any US peace keepers in Lebanon would be a target.  The US could send some troops to Darfur, but is currently stretched so thin militarily that it would make more sense for other countries to do that. StuRat 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You say it. The US take sides for Israel and can thus only help by letting Israel 'win', and whatever that means in this situation, it is never going to happen. The UN try to stay neutral and that is the only road to actual enduring freedom. DirkvdM 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They aren't neutral, they are rabidly pro-Muslim/pro-Arab due to the much larger number of such countries in the UN. And "staying neutral" on Hezbollah will mean continuing to watch and do nothing as Hezbollah rearms, just as they did before, making another war inevitable.  StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The European offers to Iran were not seen as reasonable, but were rejected by Iran. They may say they are "considering a negotiated settlement", but that's just a delaying tactic so they can get nuclear weapons before Europe acts.  Apparently Europe still thinks appeasement is the best way to avoid war, amazing how little was learned from WW2. StuRat 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Now for your statement "Maybe if the US would stop interfering, Europe and the UN could really get something done". The US didn't "interfere" (by which I mean lead) in Rwanda.  So, what did the UN and Europe do ?  Absolutely nothing.  The US didn't intervene in Lebanon regarding Hezbollah control of the South.  What did Europe and the UN do ?  Passed a resolution asking Hezbollah to disarm, but didn't take any actual action to make that happen.  There are many other problems where the US has not intervened, and nothing has happened as a result, such as Zimbabwe.  Can you name a few problems where Europe and the UN has solved much of anything without the US leading the way ? StuRat 10:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely Lebanon, despite the US working against it. It's European troops that are going into the war zone, positioning themselves between warring parties that thouroughly hate each other. And fighting has stopped (although Israel is now starting again elsewhere). The US only take sides when they send in the marines (not entirely sure here, but I think so). Also, the US don't intervene in a lot of places because they are too tied up in Iraq. Which was one point of mine (although it got a bit lost). One can't be everywhere. So we send troops somwwhere and the media fcus on those countries and then we think that those represent the misery in the world. Actually, most of the misery in the world is not (directly) caused by military conflicts. And how many of the shitloads of countries where the US intervened have since experienced lasting peace? DirkvdM 07:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The US is "working against" Lebanon ? How do you figure ?  The US and France were cosponsors of the current UN cease-fire.  Before that, the US was instrumental in demanding Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.  As for "which countries where the US has intervened have experienced lasting peace", well, there's Japan, most of Western Europe, etc., we've already gone over all of this. StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And thanks for enlightening me that the purpose of Dutch troops in Afghanistan is to protect opium production. :-) StuRat 10:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. I supose you mean that in a ironic way because obviously it needs to be destroyed. But the UN troops rightly protect these farmers. It's your misunderstanding of the need of this that will also be present with US soldiers there. And they don't fight with words there, like we do. An 'incident' between US and UN troops is not unlikely given the conflicting interests. The best thing for Afghanistan would be for the US to leave so the UN can maybe gain the trust of the locals. DirkvdM 07:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say the UN is protecting opium production in Afghanistan. Do you have any sources or are you smoking something ?  If the US left, the UN would just let the Taliban take over again.  StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They gotta keep Amsterdam well supplied with drugs somehow! Hee hee. KeeganB


 * For the sake of fairness, I would certainly make the same criticisms against continual French intervention in their African ex-colonies, including Rwanda. I know this is not a messageboard for our personal viewpoints but.... (LOL) my problem is I just dont buy the idea that we have a mission to sort out situations like Darfur or Zimbabwe or the disputes between Israelis/Arabs or the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. If we can help arbitrate some deal between the participants, fine, but I cant see why we should raise the stakes and intervene militarily unless there is a compelling national interest of our own at stake. Otherwise, with so many crises around, we will be in a state of permanent war.


 * Part of the problem is that there has been some re-writing of the history of the Second World War to give the impression that we went to war with Germany because Hitler was a genocidal maniac. He was, but that wasnt why we went to war. We went to war to stop Germany expansionism in Central Europe as it had been British policy for generations to stop any one power dominating in Continental Europe - ie for reasons of Realpolitik not because of any moral mission.


 * An example of successful non-US-led military intervwention would be Sierra Leone, which undoubtedly saved hundreds of thousands of lives, although az I say I wouldnt personally have done that either. Jameswilson 23:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the nature of such conflicts to spread all on their own. For example, if France and England had not attacked Germany when it invaded Poland (even though they were obligated to do so under treaty), do you think Germany would have stopped it's expansion there ?  Definitely not.  And, if Serbia was allowed to wipe out the populations of all the neighboring countries through a policy of genocide, do you really think they would stop there ?  There is a very basic principle that it's best to attack an aggressor before they get too powerful.  If there was a way to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (militarily and/or by treaty), then this would diffuse much of source of future conflict in the world.  However, without a time machine, I see no way to solve it. StuRat 00:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "There is a very basic principle that it's best to attack an aggressor before they get too powerful." Too bad that hasn't been done with the US Some terrorists are trying now, but htey don't even make a dent. It's like fighting a grizzly bear with a needle. DirkvdM 07:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is a joke, it's in extremely poor taste. You appear to be advocating having terrorists kill Americans. StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * StuRat, I still cant agree with you. Not every aggressor is a Hitler or a Napoleon who wants to over-run vast areas of alien territory and rule the world and therefore needs to be stamped on as quickly as possible. From a position of extreme weakness where most Muslims lived under foreign rule, the Muslims have regained most of their lost territory over the past sixty years (north Africa from the French, Pakistan and bits of West Africa from the British, Central Asia from the Russians). But that doesnt mean they want to conquer London, Paris and Moscow (or Washington for that matter). They are just finishing off the remaining difficult cases of "Muslim land" they lost (Bosnia, Kosovo, Israel, Chechnya, Kashmir) and, whilst theres no such thing as a historical inevitability, I'm 99% sure they will succeed in all five cases. But so what really from a selfish western point of view? We (the West) started off the process by decolonisation in Pakistan (British), Indonesia (Dutch) and then umpteen other places, so obviously we had no objection in principle. Obviously the handover of the remaining few bits needs to be managed but thats as far as we need go.


 * I agree that "not every aggressor" is, but both Iraq and Serbia had attacked two or more adjacent countries, in short order, making it quite apparent their expansion aims were out-of-control. In comparison, the Tamils in Sri Lanka do not appear to have any goal of world domination, so the US is not involved in that conflict. StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reedited this several times, conscious that Jewish readers will object to my casual portrayal of Israel as "Muslim land" so let me clarify before everybody descends on me like a ton of bricks.

Like British and French politicians of the time I also believe the creation of the state of Israel was a big mistake - so unfair on the Arabs that they could never be reconciled to it and that therefore Israel could never perform its "function" of a secure homeland for the Jews.

But obviously my views are unimportant, the important thing is that Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who dont believe it has the right to exist either. Sooner or later they are bound to prevail. Its not just radical Hezbollah-types - its 99% of all Arabs, even the most moderate. If the Jewish religious home had been in Denmark, say, the Danes would never have accepted the loss of part of their country either. Nobody would.

So my argument above is based on the view that Israel as currently constituted cant survive in the long-term and that it is a queation of getting the best deal possible for a post-handover state. As for the whites in South Africa or the ethnic Russians in Kazakhstan. Jameswilson 00:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Israel should not have been formed, but they will never agree to leave, and, with nuclear weapons, nobody can possibly force them to leave. That leaves us with the 2 state solution.  StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, not all Jews are Israelites. It would be interresting to know how many Jews object(ed) to the creation of Israel. Secondly, most Israelis are born in Israel and thus now also have a right to their home country. And I think most Arabs (Muslim or not - that's pretty irrelevant)) will acknowledge the logic of that. If only Israel would withdraw from the more recently occupied territories and for example stick to the area assigned to them by the UN that would probably satisfy most Arabs, even the Palestinians, because they must all be tired of the fighting. And what you said about Denmark I recently said about New York (a bit closer to the original subject). About 10% of the Jews in the world live in New York. I wonder how welcoming the US would be to 16 million Jews claiming the island Manhattan as their independent country. New York has a population of 18 million, so that would fit nicely. Maybe they could also clean up the South Bronx (which in the 60's was almost purely Jewish). DirkvdM 07:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we could find a nice place, in Montana, say, for all the Jews of the world to live in safety. StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, Dirk. Incidentally its funny how left-wingers in the past were generally enthusiastic supporters of Israel whereas the right-wingers were more chary. Now it seems to have turned round. It would be interesting to know the underlying debate within Israel (as opposed to among Jews in the West who are in a more comfortable position). How many are gradually coming to the same conclusion as the Afrikaners that its better to share the loaf than end up with no loaf at all; how many want to go for "all-or-nothing" like the French colonists in Algeria or the Serbs in Kosove (never do a deal to share control of the land; if we cant have it on our terms, better to fight until we are thrown out).

I have my doubts about the viability of the "two-state" idea. It seems to me both sides are condemned to live together and they might as well start getting used to the idea.

If I was a religious Jew, I'd object to the idea that there were certain areas where I couldnt live. If I was a Palestinian, I'd be wary of any settlement that kept a specifically Jewish entity (to which refugees were not allowed to return) with a Jewish-controlled army, police force, judiciary.

The end of white rule in South Africa is a good comparison because the Afrikaners believe God gave South Africa to them, like the Jews with Israel, so more than anything they wanted to be able to continue to live there - they didnt want to wait to be defeated and have to migrate and live anywhere else. The Afrikaners flirted with the homelands idea (for themselves and the blacks) but then abandoned it. Better to share the whole country.

The Afrikaners had the wisdom to (belatedly) accept a unified black-and-white state (with no separate ethnic areas) and the conversion of their police/army into multi-ethnic forces in exchange for the all-important thing - getting the blacks to accept the Afrikaners right to continue to live there afterwards. I'm sure they detested having to get "permission" from the blacks to stay on their God-given land, and of course it was never referred to in those terms, but thats what it amounted to. The geopolitical realities of the region dictated it. Without black consent, there could be no long-term future for the Afrikaners there.

It seems to have worked well enough despite the whites fears. Jameswilson 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought South Africa was thoroughly messed up, as shown by the rate of juvenile violence there. StuRat 12:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (My last comment, I promise) The whites werent all murdered in their beds by vengeful commie blacks as they feared, I mean. And they are still top dogs economically. BTW I'm not disputing that the Jews need a safe place to live. Given their history, thats obviously right. Jameswilson 00:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A Survey
I would like to know who watches Hogan Knows Best on VH1. Please leave your username if you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.100.236 (talk • contribs)


 * Please dont!--Light current 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to conduct surveys here. They will get deleted.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I watch that show, hohan's knows best or whatever it's called. Username: Wjlkgnsfb.
 * -Wjlkgnsfb 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -Wjlkgnsfb 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Survey
I would like to know if there are any wikipedians who live in Peoria, Illniois. If you do, please leave your username and your real name (first and last). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.100.236 (talk • contribs)


 * Hmm. Google is always your friend in these situations. Quite why anyone should wish to give you their real names is another matter entirely. You'd be better off explaining what you're up to, than expecting such favours to fall in your lap. --Tagishsimon (talk)

People, I am not trying to scam you, I just want to know. I cannot do anything with your real names anyway except for maybe call you after finding it in the phonebook and discussing wikipedia with you and setting up a successful communication between you and I on wikipedia. The only way you would be in any danger whatsoever would be if you gave me your financial and personal information over the phone, which frankly would be quite stupid. I am just interested in knowing if there are any fellow wikipedians in my city, because for all I know they could be my co-workers or friends and I could have been talking to them here on this site for a very long time and never known it.


 * Indeed. And I've pointed to all of those who have already volunteered this information (assuming good google coverage of wikipedia). Your chances of doing better than that by advertising here is negligible. There are more than 2,000,000 registered wikipedians, most of them dormant. Of the active ones, I hazard a guess that perhaps a percent or a tenth or a hundredth of a percent will visit this page whilst your question is posted here. But yes, good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Not many people come to the reference desk, unfortunately. --Proficient 02:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I live in Peoria, my name is Ingrid Frankendeuce. Username: Wjlkgnsfb
 * -Wjlkgnsfb 02:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a weird (non standard) keyboard by any chance?--Light current 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Wjlkgnsfb lokks a bit difficult to type/remember on a qwerty one!--Light current 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Panthers
Have Panthers ever been captured or is there any documentation of a Black Panther in South Carolina? Dorothy


 * Umm, did you read the Black Panthers article for the first question? --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * The question appears to be about a large cat, while that answer is about an African-American militant movement from the US Civil Rights era. StuRat 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be Black panther (small p). Rmhermen 00:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd think you would get quite a large pee out of such a big cat. :-) StuRat 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it eats asparagus? :-) — [  Mac Davis ] (talk)