I don't mind discussions about war as long as people can be civil about it

I think it's a tough question, Pete, and I'm glad I'm not in your shoes on this one.  Ideally, I think Simviation should be a place like the Olympics (should be), where people from anywhere in the world can come and feel welcome, and not be held personally accountable for the actions of their country.  I almost said a sanctuary, but I'm sure some would think that's going too far.

But, as some have said, the war involves all our lives.  Also, the subject is totally intertwined with aviation.  My interest in modern military aircraft has increased about 50-fold since Desert Storm, just from all the exposure in the media.  And I don't think we should or could exclude discussions of aircraft in the current news.

Then there's your usual policy of being unrestrictive and not hung-up with a lot of rules.....

But I think we need to remember that only a tiny fraction of the world's people wanted the war to happen at this time if ever, and a minority of people in English-speaking countries.  (But, now that it's started, I think the majority of English-speakers may support it.)  I think we should at least try to hold down the blood lust (I haven't seen any, haven't read all the war topics yet), see the broader picture, and be respectful of people from all countries (not saying we haven't done this).

This seems to be shaping up as a long-winded version of Andrew's answer .

P.S.  I left my PC in "Reply" mode and didn't see Hagar's response before posting this.  I'll gladly accede to whatever decision is made, and I think the votes of the wiser, older hands should be weighed heavily .

I think maybe we should ban it Pete, as I reported the Tornado being shot down incident as I thought this would be important for us as aviation fanatics, and people used it to turn it into an American bashing session, even though I'd put in the message not to.
Probably best to loose the war talk and get back to flying.

Mark

Ban them...it's that simple.  All political posts used to be locked in a flash...why should it be any different now?

I think the "historical" wars are okay to debate, as they are over and done with, and the issues resolved one way or another. Although I'm sure for people like Romulus (a Vietnam vet.) it can be difficult (as someone who survived the first Gulf War and Irelands terrorism problems, including my own family I know), and we should be sensitive to the fact that a number of people here are veterans of various wars, but on the whole I think our historical debates tend to be positive, and frequently educational. I am often amazed at some of the things I learn here!
The trouble is that the current Gulf War is just that, current, in a years time when its all over, the dust has settled, and people have had time to reflect and feel less passionate about what is happening, then I'm sure it will be a welcome topic here. I locked off my Tornado topic because it was upsetting a number of our American members, and it shouldn't have. I clearly stated that no-one was to blame. War has its cock-ups unfortunately. Believe me I've seen them with my own two mince-pies!!!

Mark

Quote:


Exactly. I remember the days back in november when a certain member (I won't mention his name, but he called himself after a hard shelled amphibious reptile) kept starting political posts which caused huge fights.

I made the point in the Cafe that because we all have mixed opinions about the war, we should keep our opinions to ourselves to not upset anyone. I also feel that people who are not directly related with the war (people of nations who chose not to participate) do not have the right to make comments as it is none of their business. However if you wish to report war updates, that is fine as long as they are unbiased and contain no personal opinions.

Quote:


I agree. Don't allow any discussions on the current war for a while.

And also, As long as we're civil, I think we should still allow topics on previous wars like WW1 & WW2 which are fascinating, because i've sure learned a lot!

I can't remember ever seeing a WW2 discussion get locked from a flame war, they're mostly locked from getting too big!

I don't think discussing the war here is a good idea.  This board has people on it from all over the world and it doesn't seem any good can come from it.  It seems more likely to cause problems in the form of arguements and could devide the forum into two groups.  I don't think its a good idea and have therefore choosen to avoid war topics.

Quote:


The serious and sober aspects of : "War vs. Diplomacy"  and the aftermath...have been made a mockery by the "news" networks. (I can't speak of the BBC as I haven't watched).

Fox is already planning Bush's spot on Mt. Rushmore, while CNN is building the case for his war crime trials.

They are both painful to watch.

Quote:


I wish the media would stick to facts and confirmed reports only. I'm getting tired of them speculating so much

Now if only all the discussion on the 'war' could be as considered as the discussion on this thread we'd have no problem

It seems the large majority so far want this to be a War free zone.

This aspect of control goes against my principles too (incidentally I think I've only ever locked one thread & that was about a year ago & by a member banned (also by common consent)) -

This will be a decision made not by me - but by us - users of this forum......

  it would be funny if the 'war' was over by the time we decided ... but alas I certainly don't think it will be....

The coalition forces are admitting things aren't going as hoped.  Bagdad is a huge city of some 5 million people - this is a big task ... I think - unless we see some kind of surrender - or SH flees or is assasinated (which I think is unlikely) this will be a bloody & drawn out war of some months. It fills me with horror to think of thousands of decent people & especially children being cruelly killed & maimed. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
I will believe this war was perhaps justified if Iraq ends up without many of its people killed & with government elected by the people & THE OIL RESERVES IN IRAQI CONTROL. Zero gain by the US of Iraqi oil will be acceptable anywhere on the globe - except maybe some places in Texas   ..... I divert....

Yes -  I think we should give this a few days then make the decision - together. Thanks.

Actually Brett your comment makes perfect sense to me. I know during the Vietnam war that American companies were working hard to improve the lot of the South Vietnamese, and a number of American organisations are now involved in work in Afghanistan, I view it not so much as profiteering, but as proving that we don't just wield the sword, but also carry a shield to protect those weaker than us, and help them, and maybe to show that we are not bad people. Sort of a belated hearts and minds.

Ozzy

Err Oso, both the Japanese and German economies are in recession at the moment. Okay so they own some stuff, but hey so do the Americans. I mean you got Hawaii, Alaska, McDonalds.
All we Britains got was every last umbrella factory, and a car company that was so bad in the end even the Germans sold it back to us!

The Shadow is rarer than rocking horse droppings, she is babelicious. I've never even seen one! And I'm a biking nut with an uncle who collected and restored Vincents. My grandfather had a selection of Triumphs, BSA's, Nortons, and AJS. I've only had Yamahas, Suzukis and Hondas (I'm a speed freak though).
Can you post some pics down in the autos forum Oso, teach the 4 wheel brigade what power and style really is?

Mark

you guys can talk about war stuff and politics if you want, i just wont have any part in it.
i come here to talk about flightsimming and such. i am also very big on politics, and i don't want people to treat me differently because of my political views, which are quite different from most of the people from my neck of the woods (California:Los Angeles i.e. hollywood).

like i said the decision is up to you, but if there is political discussions here, i will not take part in the thread (at least not under this name )

Sorry can't post any pictures - the key word is "Used" to have. Divorced and didn't get custody. But I do not have money problems.

Every time I get money - I get married - then divorced - money goes away, no problem.

Actually - I had to liquidate them along with my Baby Blue TR250A in the divorce. My favorite of the bikes was a '63 BSA 650 unit model - factory race team bike.

Saw the Vincent once - but the owner wouldn't let me ride it - not even touch it.  Remember the Triumph Trident that had the one piece fiberglass body - Hurricane I think they called it. My best friend had the BSA model of that. A Rocket 3 and I forget the name - some years back. He said there was only one ever made - I do not know if that is true, but it seemed reasonable to me. He said it was a prototype. Beautiful thing. The current styling of bikes can not hold a candle to it.

For those who do not know what classic Brit styling is - drool over this -

http://www.allenmuseum.com/shadow.htm

Brensec - read the article - an Aussie had a lot to do with this machine.

Brensec, the Ural boys are still churning out bikes! The story of them is at the end of the war the Soviets snatched as many German engineers as they could (I seem to recall the US got Werner von Braun, and the first man on the moon accordingly!), including a number of BMW motorcycle division chaps and their kit (the factory had just been moved from Munich to Eisenach so they could make room for more aero engines in Munich).
The factory has just released a new model the Wolf 750, I have to say they released a motorbike and sidecar combo a few years back and I nearly got it for a laugh!
Basically they are copies of 1930s BMW bikes, not brilliant, but better than a few things I could mention on 2 wheels.

Ozzy

Personally, as Hagar or Fozzer said, I come here to escape reality.  All this massive posting of "Gulf War II" related subjects has really put me off, and I'm starting to come two or three times a week, rather than daily.

Foz, my man,

I can understand anyone getting uptight and concerned over the amount of talk that has been (and still is to a lesser degree) going on regarding the Iraqi conflict.

I have voted, lest our forum become a less pleasant place to be for ourselves and visitors, to ban the postings regarding the current conflict.

But surely, you can't be serious about this:

Quote:


Many, many members of this forum are avid historians and have a great interest in past conflicts (especially WWII) and over a long time, countless discussions and threads have existed much to the enjoyment and education of all who participate.
Let's face it, WWII especially, is intrinsic to CFS1,2 & 3.
They wouldn't exist without it.

I, for one, have never witnessed an argument or fight (with nasty implication) in any thread devoted to discussion about  the War, aircraft and other interesting facets of the conflict or period.

To ban war talk all together would be the epitome of censorship and oppression. That would make the forum a far less enjoyable place to be.

The main reason I see for the concern over posting about the current conflict is the risk of remarks being meant or taken personally and, of course, consideration for those who have loved ones involved or would otherwise be distraught over discussion or opinions.

None of this now applies about previous conflicts and no-one I am aware of in this Forum would make any remark that could possibly still be hurtful (ie. anti-semitic, pro-nazi etc).

I hope you understand my defending our interest in History and the machines that made that history, rather than war itself.  

Hmmm. I think we have to distinguish between current events & history here Fozzer. I'm all for NOT discussing the current war until such time this can be done without causing offence to any member on this forum. Emotions are running high right now & some things are best left unsaid. IMHO
Due to voluntary restraint & common sense this seems to be working out just fine without the neccessity of an actual ban. I expected nothing else from my friends of all nationalities & political leanings in this wonderful community. Self-regulation & mutual respect is far better than censorship. This is what makes this hobby (the Simviation forums in particular) so unique & worthwhile in my eyes.

However, as an avid amateur historian I particularly enjoy taking part in the discussions on history, including past wars, that Brensec & Ozzy mention. I would not include these in the same category & we all learn a great deal from them. I think you will find these discussions are always conducted in a polite & respectful manner. If anyone did happen to unwittingly cause offence it would be followed by an immediate apology, I'm sure of that.

Until becoming interested in FS2002 I have always preferred CFS to the civil M$ sims. As a combat sim it's a tad difficult to play it without discussing war. This does not mean we are all completely mindless with an insatiable blood lust. (Come to think of it this does apply to some I could mention. j/k) It might surprise those without any knowledge of CFS that it actually promotes friendship between former enemies, not the reverse. It also demonstrates the horrors of war quite effectively to those, especially young people, who perhaps had never thought about it. Some of our younger members are experts on WWII history & know more than I do on the subject.

The CFS community is truly international & I'm proud to be part of it. I've worked with several multi-national & highly talented design teams on various projects in complete harmony. Their research has improved not only CFS but FS too, much as in real life. CFS also encourages an interest in history which can do nothing but good. IMHO

For the interest of those members who have not visited a thread which has been devoted to discussion about some aspect of a "past war", here is a quote from one of the many posts in a particular thread dealing with the "terror" of the Kamikaze attacks during late WWII.

Even while some who may still live, that experienced this terror, cannot bring themselvs to forgive and with our own feelings regarding the unfairness and utter cruelty of these (and other) acts perpertrated by the Japanese, we (we who wish to discuss, debate and learn of other conflicts) still have an understanding, decency and consideration to present our "potentially controversial" comments in this way.

This quote concerned the irony that reports of the overall ineffectiveness of Kamikaze attacks didn't get back to the hierarchy because of there being no survivors to report.

Quote:


We are obviously able to (and do) deal with sensitive subjects with only the greatest degree of consideration.
For those who may be unaware, and think that such discussions are some kind of "glorification" or "revelling" in blood and guts.

Quote:


What is that?

Yer not wrong there Will.
I did get some funny looks from my boss when I proposed bring back crucifixion for the non-production of homework! And death by being fed feet first to a crocodile for truancy.
I feel that both of these are highly motivational techniques for students to learn!

Mark

Democracy at work. It's good to see. Freedom of choice exercised by the masses of free thinking individuals, under no duress to support or reject any idea.

I'm proud that the system works

How can anyone, now say that those in this forum are not a conscienscious and considerate group who regard these things (which other forums disregard) as important and worth protecting.
I mean, 38 people who really care (5 of whom vote "doesn't matter"), can't be wrong. Thanks for your input all.

P.S. I may be naive or just plain stupid but I really do need someone to clarify the forum meaning of (or for) "politics". For instance, is the UN a political organisation, given that EVERY posting there is politically decided and motivated by GOVERNMENTS that wish the views of the people who elect them to be represented in the internatuonal forum (and rightly so).
Is the UN now a banned subject and also, as I pointed out previously, the susidising of wheat farmers in the U.S.  

Glad you like our meat Oso.................

I couldn' give a hoot about the US wheat subsidy. I'm pretty sure, neither could anyone else here. That's my point. It's pure politics but it's not likely to become a controversial subject, is it?

Hence the question.

If I was to post about, say, the starving millions in Africa and voice opinions with regard to the great work done by World Vision, Care International and such agencies, would my post be deleted or locked? It's more "political" than any war.

Anyway, doesn't matter so much I suppose. I am in agreeance with the banning of posts referring to the current conflict. In fact, I agree with banning (or at least deterring) any post which could cause upset or distress to anyone. Just let's not call them "political" because it's an expeditious way to have them excluded, deal with them each as they arrive. Anything else is oppressive. 

Well, I was probably not the only one offended by the US bashing. But I was one of the most vocal about it. I am a typical "Bullheaded Yank"!

I do not mind discussions about the right or wrong of American ways. For instance Bren brought up the wheat subsidies a couple times before i even responded - and only then because I thought I had a good smart ass comment to make. I did not take offense.

My point is that I for one, do not believe it is what is said - it is how it is couched. Most forget that in the written word voice inflection and volumn is lost. So that your opinion should be phrased in a manner so that the reader does not apply mistaken ideas about anger or insult. (Ozzy prolly could splain this better).

You want to tell me how low your opinion of Bush is? Ok. Just phrase it so that I realize it is in jest or in a friendly manner - rather than an attack. And do not take offense if I reciprocate.

I believe I am just trying to say - that among friends - anything can be said if all the proper rules of civility are observed and proper manners displayed. It is a hard thing to do and takes a true wordsmith to do it consistently. I am guilty of the same from time to time. But I think that is what smilies are for - to convey or attach inflection to a sentence or paragraph - to qualify the emotions of the statement.

Not that I am saying you folks are lacking in those graces.    But there were a few comments about Bush, the US, and several cartoons hammering home the same idea repeatedly without comment that made me think they were attacks. A couple of the posts were obvious yelling.

But I still love y'all anyway!  


BTW - I ask you - am I yelling in the above statement? Talking in anger? Frustration? Calm? Lecturing? Conciliatory(sp)? Flat statement? Can you tell my mood?

Let me tell you a little story about an experience I had regarding insulting another country's leader.

During Nam when I was attached to the Royal Navy in Hong Kong I was assigned to Shore Patrol. I walked a beat with a Brit sailor. We stepped inside the door of one Pub to check it out. The place was dead silent and full of drinking Brits, seemed odd. So I thought I would observe for a minute before leaving.

That is when I noticed a US sailor, very inebriated, using the bar a crutch and getting very loud and obnoxious. He had been silent when we walked in, but put his mouth in gear again.

He hoisted his glass to the obligatory picture of the Queen. I say obligatory as it seems every Pub has one.

Anyway, he raised his glass and tilted it towards to the Queen's image and angrily stated "(f word) the Queen".

Stone silence in the Pub. All the Brit patrons and my Brit partner turned to look at me to see what I was going to do.

What should I have done? I had options. I could arrest the offender. I could have taken the SP band off and defended him against all the Brits. There were 20 or 30 of them, even at that I was not intimidated, I have had my butt kicked by the best. Besides - the odds were just about right. 

So, what to do?

I knew they would not kill him. But was sure they would give him a beating that he wouldn't forget for a while.

I decided to step outside and have a smoke and think on the solution. It was hard to think with all the racket going on inside at that point. Then the  Sailor in question came flying out the door head first. All bloodied up - must have hit the ground hard or something. Probably tripped on the door sill. At that point I made up my mind and arrested him.

Should I have stayed and fought it out no matter what, back up my fellow American. In most cases yes - in this one no. He was a jerk and had it coming - the Brits had the right to do what they did.

Even though she is not my Queen - I still have the utmost respect and would never disrespect her to anyone else. She embodies all that is Britian and any slur would be insulting my Brit friends directly.

In other words he earned the beating.

I can't help myself..............................

There have been 3 topics posted regarding Meigs airport under this forum heading that have popped up in the last day or two.

The motivation, subject matter, complaints and most of the discussion have been POLITICAL. The act was even perpertrated by a POLITICAL figure, the Mayor.

It's controversial and POLITICAL in so far as the decision and action was concerned, but obviously not seen as a subject that requires banning or limiting comment on.  ???

Hey Bren. If you want a better understanding on what is going on with Daly - do a search on American "political machines". You will probably see the Daly name pop up more than a few times.

Pete, and All,

Perhaps I have been too pedantic in my quest for clarification. This has only been because of what I saw as people branding something as political simply because it was expeditious to do so (because politics had previously been banned), in order to get it banned.

I'm sorry for pushing it but I just wanted to demonstrate that a "blanket ban" or limitation on politics or such subjects will make it difficult to discuss many things which are by nature, harmless or of no consequence compared to the seriousness of this one "controversial" matter. The airport posts served exactly that purpose.

Thanks for clarifying Pete. I do apologise for any personal consternation.
I, personally, don't think you have to worry if flame wars are going on. Even with the war postings, there weren't any.

That's it from me> 

Please accept my genuine apology, everyone. I would seem to have lost sight of the fact that things can, indeed, get out of hand, even when the greatest care is taken.
I love the Forum and would never say or do anything knowingly to jeopardise it.

I also lost sight of the fact that this is a very stressful and delicate time for everyone, especially Pete, who has the added burden of concern about keeping all this up and running and protected from outside attacks of many kinds, during a time of world turmoil.

I am sorry. 

I am now going flying........................