Wolf, I agree with you that there is a need to find a solution for all parties involved, but just look at the discussion in this forum and you will realize it is virtually impossible to do so. We dont have to agree, we are not going to change our minds just because somebody has great argumentative skills and offer us the best insight on the issue or has anybody offered a solution and I have missed it!

As I said in a posting in another thread, I am far from being an expert in international politics, so sometimes I get lost with all the information you all provide and I admit you all have great argumentative skills. Congratulations!

From what I have read so far my views are very similar to those expressed by Thijs, that is why I have to say I dont agree with this at all:

this is not about who is with whom, it is about people's ideas and not about team work. The only thing that guy Genova, Thijs and I may have in common is that we oppose the war. From what I read about Genova in your postings, this is the only thing I have in common with him, aside from belonging to academia, but I dont feel in any way that he is one of 'ours', opposing the war is not a club membership such as it is not being for the war. I refuse to make myself responsible for other people's thoughts, so dont make me responsible for this guy's thinking because it is not fair and I think it is taking a generalization too far. I think we should all understand that people think differently and we should look at things in a flexible way not in a black and white scheme. I refuse to hear anybody say that just because I support peace and some other person in Columbia who says a lot of crazy stuff does as well, he is my responsibility, I DONT THINK SO! It is a very simplistic view I am afraid. I dont feel represented by Genova, despite being for peace and belonging to the academic community.

Does freedom of speech ring a bell here? I guess anybody can have whatever ideas they have, as twisted as this case is, living in democracies allow us freedom of speech, which does not insure that it will always be wise and sensible, so as a downside of freedom of speech we have people saying twisted things, nobody said the world is a perfect place! But, should we fire somebody bc of his ideas just because they do not agree with those from the establishment? is that legal? I believe it to be against the constitution at least in Spain.By the way, I AM NOT supporting Genova, just thinking out loud. How do freedom of speech and being fired because you are too radical co-exist? I wish somebody could explain that to me.

One could argue that he may influence his students in a bad way, but we should also give his students the credit to discern what is important and what may be the professor just talking nonsense. We are talking about people who are intellectually mature an therefore have an ability to question anything they are told in the classroom, at least mine do and speak their minds when they do nto agree with something, of course they are never going to be punished for thinking differently.

I would also like to add that I have seen reflected in this post a dangerous trend that I have seen reflected in the media in general. It is this black and white scheme of things: you are with us or against us and I dont believe it represents most people. I am against the war, but I am not against Americans, I hate Americans to die in Iraq as much as I hate Iraquis to die and I personally feel much closer to Americans for many reasons that to Iraquis, but I doubt this is a question of 'I want my enemy to die'. I hate the thought of people dying unnecessarily and I am and have always been pro-American and I dont have a problem in defining myself as that, but at the same time I dont have a problem saying that I dont agree with what is going on at the moment. Does it mean I love and respect my American friends any less? Does it mean that I dont like the USA as a country and I am thankful for the opportunities I have been given there (I dont live there or ever have but have been there frequently in different status)? NO, it does not mean that, I dont have to agree with everything, but it does not make me evil or Geneva-like.

As for the first hand experience in these things, I think it is always very valuable and it offers you a unique perspective but we also have to understand that our friends may not represent the majority of the population. In fact, all my American friends disagree with the war...mmmm...I suspect I have found myself in the middle of the pseudo-intellectual left!!!!!

Mr. Carrin writes: That is very dishonest of you Mr. Carrin. I am very saddened, because I enjoyed your beautiful Asturias posts, and the webpage. Are you Asturian , or was that a story too? How can I believe you now, if you come up with a new personna to back your arguments, that's very sad tht you lack so much confidence in yourself! For all I know, you may just be playing with us. You may be a member of the counterpunch.org group and not spanish at all!

I am curious, why did you create a woman's personna, why not a man? That was a mistake. You know, I always knew that Carmenn was not a woman and I told one of the members too, because of the way she expressed herself, too masculine.

Booklady:
If you check my posts you will find I expressed the same points of view under both nicks were exactly the same. I have been honest all the time.
But I thought the discussions were getting personal, and I just wanted to expose my views somehow detaching them from myself. If I had anything twisted in mind, I wouldn`t have confessed, don`t you think?
Anyway, I have realised it was not a good idea, things got to the same point in just a dozen of new posts...
Why a woman? I thought it would be harder to relate both nicks.

Hey, Wolf, have a look at this:
from http://www.idleworm.com/index.shtml
This Condon is "one of yours", isn`t he? And he works in the media, therefore he represents pro-war journalists...along with you, Wolf as you said.
It is interesting that you disliked being labelled as some TV Preacher, claiming for the new Israel (US) to save the world and prepare the Second Coming. How come? You are a Christian, after all, ain`t you? Then, if you can insist on my being a Communist, why can`t I infer your ultra-protestant denomination?
I have thoroughly read your posts, and I think you have said the invasion will provoke a civil war in Iraq. And yet you are pro-it? Please explain...
If you want to bring it to the personal field, well...
My granny`s brother was a priest, in Uvieu, in 1934, when the socialist miners took the city. They hung him.
And an uncle of mine was in Cuba when Castro arrived...let`s say he had to move to Tampa and convinced me not to read El Che`s poems.
See? We all have an interesting background.
And I have a classmate from Guinea Ecuatorial, and the tales he tells me about African politics, and the influence of Western powers there, don`t differ much from the reports I read in "communist propaganda leaflets".
But I wonder why should I meet exiled fellows from any country before I can express an opinion on their country. The Iraqui emigrants from Jordania that have been returning home, these latter days, in order to resist the invasion, maybe wouldn`t agree your acquaintances.
You want me to consider "other sides", while you have not accepted one only thing that I have said all this time. I often have provided you facts, Wolf, that you simply have refused to respond. And yet you dare to tell me that I am "one-sided"?
And don`t think my opinions on this issue are expressed in a light manner. I have reflected on this. I regard it as important.

Mr. Carrin writes,
No sir, you have not been honest with me. You have been Mr. Carrin, the nice Asturian man that writes lovely stories about Asturias. Carmenm never wrote about Asturias.

Also, I believe that many people write under your name because when you are carmenn you write differently using differnet syntax!

I am very disappointed in you Mr. Carrin. There's no need to take on other personas, I am a woman, I have the courage of my convictions, I have taken quite a licking from both men and women on this board, many agree with me, and many disagree, that's ok, that's life, but I don't become Bookman to back up my arguments when no one else will.
That's not honest.

Jonsoniana,

The purpose of academics is to teach the truth, and when there are issues that can be interpreted both ways, produce a program where students see both sides of the issue. If I read you correctly, you're telling me that it's okay for a Professor to teach from one side of an issue because it's within his rights? Sorry! It isn't. If you take on the mantle of a teacher, you should act like one, not use it as a forum to teach your own ideological points of view. When a teacher begins to believe they are a demagogue, it's time for them to be removed from the system.

As for Genova's statements, in a time of war, his remarks might be interpreted as treason. In regards to the idiot "on air" personality, his statement is totally without justification. He should be fired from his job as well. You do not incite people to violence.

So your friends all agree with you? That's nice. So what is that supposed to tell me? That you're right, because you're all bright? My guess is they are all involved in academia. I can put up a group of academics that would say the complete opposite of what you are saying... so it's a dead heat.

Wolf

Cristobo,

You have never presented one fact on this board.

You labeled me as something specific, I indicated who I was, to show you how far off you were. I'm actually a liberal who knows right from wrong, and can make an honest evaluation based on facts, and will accept realities, not wrap myself in a cocoon of far left wing rhetoric.

Conversation with you has become boring. You have never offered any proposals that are of value, just anti-American, and anti-capitalist sentiments. No substance, and no foundation for anything that remotely resembles truth.

By the way... which of Che Guevera's poems is your favorite? Or maybe it's the way he handled torture for Castro that appeals to you more?

Wolf

Thanks!

Bookie,

I guess we're too busy trying to deal with reality. Some people love their dream worlds. I owe you a cafe con leche.

Go figure!

Wolf

thijs,

I admit it. I don't understand the phrase "static and humanistic viewpoints and morals." But I do understant "disgusting and revolting." No problem. I don't express or evaluate views based on their popularity. I base my views solely by their rationality. Yes, that would be extremism from your point of view.
Booklady. Do you think Ms. Rand would be proud of me?

Indeed, Gazpacho, I believe Ms. Rand would applaud you!

I don't want to give any lessons (I'm the less indicated person in this board since I've taken part in some of the hotest debates...) but in my humble opinion, it adds nothing to the debate if we start to label each other leftist, rightist, or whatever.

So what if any of us is leftist or righist, catholic or protestant? We all live in democratic countries were we should be able to state our opinions whatever the party we vote (unless any of us does apology of a crime), whatever the religion we have.

Just my thoughts... and excuse me, I repeat I'm perhaps the least indicated person in the board.

Fernando