I'm sure that few posters would support the concept of a major power starting and indulging in an unecessary war to obtain peace.

But some do support exactly this concept on our forum.

The all-out attacks on individual named posters that are publicly mounted by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, (some of) his known and his unknown 'moderators' is this concept.

That in order for our 'moderators' to somehow enable 'reasonable discussion' - this end is achieved by selective imposed 'silent deletion', thread closures and by encouraging other posters to take part in witch-hunts.

All ways of inhibiting the posting of reasonable discussion rather that ways of encouraging it.

That in order for them to prevent conflict - it is OK for them to be seen to constantly to indulge in conflict. Not too surprising that when expected to make a choice - that many posters choose to pick what looks to be the winning side or at least the side with all the weapons and which is so willing to fire them.

Is all this open conflict really proportionate to the size of the problem?