leonardcohenforum.com

Paula, the 'virginity' comparison speaks far more volumes than my previous attempts to highlight the ravages which any/every war brings.

I do love the English language for its ability to inform and educate with nuances which are transcendental in their meaning.

In fact, there are three times as many more words in the English language than any other language on the planet.

For those who require chapter and verse on my source for this information, I direct them to any good language department in any good university in any country in the world.

I do hope that is enough of a route map for them to follow.

But I'm not holding my breath!

Your prayers parallel mine, Paula. Thank you for expressing it so well.

~ Elizabeth

Well, you most certainly are by me, tom.d.stiller.....though as Byron has well pointed out, and as I've always thought, it is the function of a group to organize itself, not to be done by outside elements. That quite well shadows previous rounding-ups of people, to which Byron has also already made reference.

eeey ~

Your condescending tone and comments undermine anything of relevance to be said......and my particular beliefs and suspicions are not mutually exclusive to intelligent discussion. It's that kind of polarization, that you are demonstrating in your post here, that speaks to a much more dangerous phenomena and dynamic.

~ Elizabeth

Paula and Byron ~

Paula ~
"Virginity" and "knee jerk reaction" distills the Goliath personae here very well. It seems, from what I've heard but have been unable to find on any of the news sites just yet, that we may have awoken a very real giant by the name of China. The quiet, powerful one.....and apparently not on the U.S. side in this. When David calls for back-up, one never knows who might just show up. Arrogance is not the tact to be using.

Byron~
Thank you for all your heartfelt and well-considered words and presentation of issues, facts, and feeling. As a spokesperson [for our informally-gathered selves] in this, you cover all the ground.

~ Elizabeth

Turkey allows overflight, but no landing even for refuel, of Allied planes. Interesting!
Turkey votes itself into a military position to walk straight into the land which the Northern Kurds have been quietly administering for a decade. Very, very worrying!!
Turkey's soldiers meet Kurd soldiers meet US soldiers meet Iraqi soldiers. Who shoots who, where and when??
Welcome to the reality of war.

The expected "sudden shock and awe culminating in a quick resolution and victory," are now matters which, "may take some time, and indeed, may not be concluded for days, or weeks, or months".
Welcome to the reality of war.

"US, UK, Australian and Polish troops now engaged in the conflict," have somehow become transformed into, "43 willing countries in this coilition".
Welcome to the realities of war.

I didn't want this war. I could not stop this war. Therefore, I fully support my country, right or wrong. I prayed for a quick victory. "Days, weeks or months," is not the answer to my prayers.
Welcome to the reality of war.

I continue to pray for a quick victory. All of Europe's ancestors, over centuries of fighting, over lands and seas and power, prayed for quick victories.
Welcome to the reality of war.

Brothers, fathers, sons, cousins, (and their mothers) in every civil war in every country prayed for a quick victory.
Welcome to the reality of war.

I want to wake up tomorrow and find that peace has broken out. But I think I will be welcoming the reality of war.

Byron,

I did not "freely and willingly" take Linda. She was assigned to me by Lizzytysh. I merely returned the favor and gave Lizzytysh her own "alignment".

I did not make a "list". I made a joke. So cut out the crap about concentration camps. The implication that I am a Nazi-in-waiting is absurd.

eeey

Lizzytysh,

Thank you for "aligning" Linda with me. I happen to like Linda. Almost everyone on the forum sneers at her because she holds an unpopular viewpoint. And you most of all. I think Linda has been rather restrained in her comments. Particulaly when compared with the firestorm of hysteria by her detractors. And why don't you castigate Byron for dissing Linda in the third person? According to you that is the sin of the century.

And as for your statement, "my particular beliefs and suspicions are not mutually exclusive to intelligent discussion"....Oh, yes they are. Anyone who believes that George W. Bush blew up the World Trade Center is delusional.

If you do not want me to point out the sheer idiocy of your statements...Don't make them.


eeey

Visit this website: http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html

While you are at it click on the down arrow in the white box and read what else he has to say. Was there some connection with Charlie Daniels and LC at some point in time?

Oh, Lizzytysh you mention Rush Limbaugh, who by the way I think has much too big of an ego, but LC is listening to Rush's radio program on a shot of LC in his room on MT Baldy.

Hmm, eeey....

Several ways I could approach this response to you. First, it appears we again have a/nother self-appointed arbiter ~ the other one either left or went silent ~ on this site. One delusional [your own word coming back at you] enough to feel rational and qualified enough to determine the validity/idiocy/delusionality of another's views.

While I remind you that you are in no position to make these kinds of assessments or determinations regarding me or my thinking, I will also remind you that I'll continue to make whatever statements I wish. How you choose to entertain yourself or roil with them is entirely your choosing. It has no impact ~ short or long-term ~ on my life, health, or well-being.

Conspiracy does not suggest that "George W. Bush blew up the World Trade Center." You missed the complicity explanation perhaps, or don't know the meaning of turning a blind eye, or aren't willing to consider that this mealy-mouthed occupier of the highest office in our land is desperate for popularity.

While we speak of delusional, I invite you to revisit your own words [italics mine, just in case you again miss your own words]: "P.S. As far as allies go, I'll take Linda and you can have Byron, Margaret, SongKathy, tom.d.stiller, Andrew McGeever, Robert, Georges and the entire nation of France." Not only did you apparently feel the right was yours to divide up and assign the "chattel," but as Byron has accurately pointed out, you "freely and willingly" took Linda.

Now, let's revisit my original statement of observation [not assignment]. Again, the italics are mine, just in case you again miss my own words: "We probably couldn't be any more at odds, eeey....and you and Linda couldn't be any more closely aligned. I prefer where I'm at." Align means "to array on the side of or against a party or cause." If I had to choose an appropriate word for what's being discussed here, I wouldn't be able to find it. So, if your reaction to my observation, based upon your and Linda's comments, is to not only feel, but accept the "assignment," that I foisted her upon you, rather than your "freely and willingly" taking her [enter "stage left" again your own words, "I'll take"], then you'll do well to guard your conversations. Your personal power is easily given away.....and you're apparently too delusional to remember what you say.

Your second sentence sums it up, "I happen to like Linda." Contrary to common, teenage mentality, this is not a popularity contest. This is about issues, serious issues of life and death for the world's population, with serious differences of opinion. Whether you like or don't like Linda is irrelevant. Being in the minority on an issue ["holding an unpopular viewpoint"] does not necessarily make a person unpopular. Personally attacking others for theirs, however, certainly can.

Ironically, elazar [who initiated this particular thread with his poem] and I are quite at odds regarding this war issue. However , we speak to each other with respect and are able to intelligently discuss our differences, and we still like [since that seems to be the acid test you're using] each other. My history with Linda [as just stated to her], as with others, has been to ~ as much as personally "possible" ~ proffer personal respect, and stick with issues over personality. Something which you appear to be lessening in your ability to do. The forum sneers and me most of all? [Enter "stage left" your own word, delusional.]

"Firestorm of hysteria" ~ certainly misapplied, but a great phrase, nonetheless. Perhaps I'll use it sometime, when it really does apply. How hysterical do you suppose the Iraqi mothers are right now as they try to shield and rescue their big-brown-eyed children from bombings and fire? Now, there's a good place to start applying that phrase accurately.

Byron "dissing Linda in the third person?" Byron was directly responding to you about a comment that you made about Linda, as well as others, including himself. With my comment regarding Linda [you Linda], she introduced me into a conversation with you, in derogatory fashion. Italics again are mine to emphasize some interesting points: "I also feel the discussion does no good other than generate hatred. But also I would like to say if you like go back and look who starts it every time."

Hmm. So, discussion generates hatred. And does no "good" ~ "other than" ~ "generate hatred." By implication, that would suggest that hatred is also a "good." However, I won't hold Linda [you Linda]to that one. But, that discussion only generates hatred, I will. There's not a person on this forum that warrants my hatred.....and discussion would be the last thing to bring it about. Shall I take my bows now or later for generating hatred via discussion. Enter, once again, "stage left," your word delusional.

You're really attached to hyperbole, aren't you, eeey? Perhaps projection plays into your conclusion that others are incapable of intelligent discussion. My assessment of what would constitute "the sin of the century" would have to go at least one step beyond dissing someone in the third person. "Sheer idiocy".......eeey, eeey, eeey. Stop while you think you're ahead. You're naieve as to the complexities, corruption, and complicities of world politics......and all the possibilities, therein. Ever heard of the CIA? Interpol? New World Order? USA? One day, you may realize the true meaning of the word delusional, in a political context.

Unfortunately, not a thing did I find in your post to me, nor in your post to Byron, that even bordered on intelligent discussion. I do see, however, that you've become quite defensive. Trying to defend an indefensible "position," with strings of hyperboles, can do that.

Linda ~

I just saw your two postings which I had previously missed.

On first missed post: Of course I will not "at least drop" my "political agenda" for awhile. And give "passion" a "break"? That in itself shows you don't understand the dynamics of what's being said. However, those are pretty good attempts to undermine/minimize/discount/invalidate the importance of what is being talked about here.

On second missed post: Leonard used to live on Hydra and go on reconnaisances to gather material for his songs. Now, with programs such as Rush Limbaugh, he only need turn the dial and he's there. The foregone conclusion of his listening is not that he agrees....it does serve as an excellent barometer of "Middle America," however. Is "ego" the only problem you have with Rush? Or, is that a rhetorical question?

I read Charlie Daniels' letter and scanned the topics in the box and see that he's very pro-war and is saying many of the same things I've heard other pro-war people say. Now, what does "Was there some connection with Charlie Daniels and LC at some point in time?" have to do with anything? A previous connection of any kind, casual or intense, does not [assuming a healthy individual] imbue one with the opinions of another. As for me, it wouldn't matter whether it was Leonard's name at the bottom of Charlie's letter, I would still feel the same about this war.

More food for thought on this 'debate'

Reality Check: A New American Century
CBC News Online | March 17, 2003

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_anal ... 30317.html

Could this conflict have been avoided? As the CBC Reality Check team found, the current course of events has been carefully planned by a powerful group of men, beginning even before George Bush assumed the U.S. presidency.

George W. Bush, presidential candidate, said on Oct. 11, 2000.
"I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, 'We do it this way, so should you.'"

One of Bush's more recent speeches is somewhat different: "The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder... By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty."

So, what happened? After the terrorist attacks on September 11, Bush had to rethink. But for many of those around him, there was no need to. Long before Sept. 11, influential neo-conservatives wanted to see America as an enlightened ruler, unchallenged, astride the world. Long before Bush was elected president, they got together and they wrote down a manifesto.

The document was effectively a charter of the Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank in Washington.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says, "In essence it's a call for an American empire, for what they call Pax Americana ... it's basically saying that the United States has to take responsibility and to enforce peace around the world and enforce what they call American principles and American interests."

The founding members included Vice-President Dick Cheney; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz of the Defence Department; Richard Perle, head of the defence advisory board; Louis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff; John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control; and Elliot Cohen of the defence policy board.

Much of what these men wanted is coming true: They urged that the U.S. abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty. It has.

They wanted establishment of more permanent U.S. military bases abroad. That is happening in the Philippines and in Georgia, and will likely happen in Iraq.

They urged regime change as a goal of foreign wars, and not just in Iraq.

They wanted the U.S. as a global "constabulary" – their word – unburdened by the United Nations or world opinion, preventing any challenge to U.S. dominance.

But, they wrote a year before Sept. 11, such aspirations are unlikely to be realized without "a catastrophic and catalyzing event. . .like a new Pearl Harbor."

William Kristol, a leading neo-conservative and director of the Project for a New American Century, believes such goals are good and right, and he's delighted with all this success, but says there is more to do.

"We haven't persuaded the Bush administration of everything… I think we need to spend more on defence, I think they need to re-think their policy toward Saudi Arabia, I think the administration kicked the can down the road on North Korea, but that remains a threat…"

It's America as Gary Cooper in High Noon, say the critics. Standing tall, all alone, building a new American empire in a new American century.

"Kristol has used the term 'benevolent global hegemony,' which to me says empire, but I suppose if you put the word benevolent in front of it, it makes it OK," Bookman says.

It's been a long time in the making. And wise people will not underestimate the determination of its proponents.

"The point of view from here is a really attractive agenda of governing. We never thought of ourselves as simply intellectual thought experiments," Kristol says.

End of article.

Here are a few more articles on the US Manifest Destiny

Manifest Destiny - It Is Now The Whole World by James Glaser
July 3, 2002
http://www.jamesglaser.org/2002/p20020703.html

The Bush Doctrine: Globalizing Manifest Destiny Through the War on Terrorism
http://www.secondmagnacarta.com/bushdoctrine.pdf

Manifest Destiny? By Will Baker
http://together.net/~wbaker/manifest_destiny.htm

More to follow.

More from CBC News Online

War In IRAQ F.A.Q.
CBC News Online | March 14, 2003
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/talkback/faq.html

Q: Can your experts give us any idea of the preparedness of the Iraqi army?

A: Eric Margolis, foreign affairs analyst: It's a very weak and demoralized force that's waiting for the Americans to drop on it now. Regular army, 340,000 men, poor morale, likely unable to move once the Americans attack, unable to communicate, blinded, paralyzed.

The real power of Iraq is 100,000 Republican and Special Republican guards troops, fairly decent equipment. They're not being concentrated around Baghdad. They have no air cover. Their communications will be cut. They're considered fairly loyal to Saddam but they have almost no offensive power. Iraq has no air cover. Its air force will be totally destroyed within the first night of operations so really what Iraq has is the ability to dig into the cities and defend from there.

It's at less than 50 percent of its strength and fighting capability compared with 1991. Today it has only about 1,000 obsolete tanks. It's low on ammo, low on spare parts. There are two concentric rings that have been formed around Baghdad because the Iraqis won't be able to move once the fighting begins and they'll have no communications. Their idea is to wage what Saddam Hussein has called a 'Stalingrad in Baghdad' and hope that world public opinion will intervene.

There will also be a civil war going on at the same time.

Q: Why has Saddam Hussein never been indicted with crimes against humanity for his well documented use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people?

A: Eric Margolis, foreign affairs analyst: Two reasons. Some of his worst crimes occurred during the 1980's and when there was no international mechanism for indicting such criminal acts and in fact the United States even today refuses to go along with a criminal court for such crimes. The other reason is that Iraq was an ally of the United States and Britain in its war against Iran. And so long as it fought Iran, the west was happy to hush up the crimes that have been committed by Saddam. And by the way I must add that the infamous gassing of the Kurds may have been done by the Iranians and not the Iraqis, so says the CIA desk chief for Iraq.

Peter Mansbridge: Most people accept the belief that it was done by Saddam Hussein himself, partly on the testimony of the people who were there at the time who survived the gas attacks.

Margolis: Well, the Kurds were caught in a battle between the Iranians and the Iraqis both of whom were using chemical weapons so it's a moot point.

Q: If Bush, Blair and their officials are so certain that Saddam Hussein has somehow hidden weapons of mass destruction which both sides say they have intelligence reports to confirm, why do they not pass on their intelligence to Drs. Blix and el-Baradei?

A: Ewen Buchanan, UNMOVIC spokesperson: We are getting intelligence and it's a useful tool for the inspectors. We need to know where to go to look in Iraq. It's a large country. We cannot just amble around aimlessly. So we are getting intelligence from the Americans and others are putting it to good use. But clearly we don't know what they're not giving us.

We would hope that anybody who has real timely intelligence that's credible would give it to us so that we can act upon it. And we don't know what we're not getting because we don't know what the governments have access to. Intelligence information may come from defectors. It may come from people who are sitting inside Iraq as we speak. And therefore we can understand that they might not want to release stuff to us which might endanger the sources.

Eric Margolis, foreign affairs analyst: Well we hear leaks from the UN that they're not getting adequate intelligence or that there isn't the intelligence that the British and the Americans claim to be. The famous British list that was published showing all the sites where Iraq was hiding things was inspected. Nothing was found.

Q: How many times has the United States exercised its veto at the United Nations?

A: USSR/Russia 120; United States 76; United Kingdom 32; France 18; China 4-5.

Defying the Security Council
CBC News Online | March 14, 2003

Is Iraq the only country in the world alleged to be out of compliance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, and if so, what other countries are out of compliance and what actions are being taken to force them to comply?

As the CBC's Reality Check team discovered, this is far from the first time the Security Council has been defied.

The authority of the Council is being invoked daily and with deep respect in the current crisis. The U.S. says there's no question, Iraq has defied the Council.

"We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced," President George W. Bush said before the war.
"The United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world."

One authoritative study shows at least 88 UN Security Council resolutions are currently being ignored by a dozen countries. There are a handful of principal offenders – Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia and Armenia.
And there is a common factor, according to Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco's Department of Politics.

"These have been allies of the United States and the non-enforcement has been a direct consequence of the U.S. support for these governments," Zunes says. "So I would argue that the United States probably more than any single country has compromised the credibility of the Security Council and has been doing so for quite a few years."

Most of the 88 resolutions pertain to occupation
· Israel's occupation of east Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank.
· Morocco's occupation of western Sahara.
· Turkey's invasion of Cyprus.
· Indonesia's predations in East Timor.
· Armenia's actions in Azerbaijan.

The U.S. has not hesitated to subvert votes it didn't like. It's instructive to examine the actions of Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the UN in the 70's.

"After Morocco invaded western Sahara and Indonesia invaded East Timor," Zunes says, "he (Moynihan) bragged that the task given to him by the State Department was to make the United Nations as ineffective as possible enforcing these resolutions."

"To be fair, the United States isn't alone on that," says David Malone, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN. "(France's) President Chirac, who's very keen on public opinion supporting him internationally today, didn't worry much about international public opinion when he was testing nuclear weapons in the south Pacific."

There are hundreds of other Security Council resolutions, but judging whether they're being complied with is nearly impossible. They are written deliberately in the ambiguity of international diplomacy, designed so the compliance becomes a matter of interpretation. The UN itself says it doesn't keep track of offenders.

Vern,Silver.

Your piece about The Project for a New Century was one of the more important topics covered on British Television Channel 4 on the 16th February 2003. Amongst points made about the Report in the programme, were that "the removal of Sadam is to be US Foreign Policy".

Also, "there was no mention of terrorism".

Also, "the Twin Towers would seem to have been the opportunity used, with no valid connection with Sadam whatsoever".

The programme also included a background 'chant' at one stage which went, "What do we want? 'Sadam out', When do we want it? 'Now".

The programme went on to say that there were 18 signatories to the report, and that "most were now in high positions of power in the Bush camp and are now running the show(sic)".

I hesitated to bring this Report to this Forum at the time because we were still in a fluid situation about UN discussions and sanctions etc.

I know it sounds silly now, but at the time the British public were more concerned and angry with our Government which had banned the anti-war march in London from using Hyde Park, because the Government Minister claimed that so many people in a march "Would damage the grass". True, that's exactly what she said!

The programme went on to cover other matters of concern but I'm not going to rehearse them here and now. Suffice to say, that we are at war and any such matters can be discussed after the whole sorry slaughter has been concluded.

To those who still require chapter and verse, they can find corroboration of Vern.Silver's piece in my piece herewith and also in the recent archives of a highly respected British Television Channel.


On a more personal note, I take no pleasure in reading Vern.Silver's piece and even less pleasure in presenting mine.
But as I have written elsewhere in this Forum, the truth always hurts when those you put your trust in, are found to have been less than economical with that truth.

Perhaps those who cannot understand my cynicism about the current American Foreign Policy will now have some idea as to why I seem to be 'against' you. I'm NOT against each and any of you personally, but I am deeply concerned about those people in power and their motives for all and any actions which they take in your name.

eeey,

I now understand that you wished to make a joke. I did not see it as a joke. I hope the others on your funny 'list' have a better sense of humour than I.

eeey, you said you'd take Linda.

eeey, whenever I've made a funny remark to someone which they have taken badly, I have always apologised for being insensitive. I apologise for upsetting you over Concentration Camp remarks. It has upset you. I apologise.

I did not realise that references to genuine, historical, factual details, in support of an hypothetical discussion would be taken as a personal attack. I am sorry for touching such a raw nerve.

Linda,

I realise that you have had personal contact with war victims. I genuinely sympathise with your feelings of loss and pain. Please understand that the historical facts I was presenting could have been done with more clarity.

The women and children I refered to in the 1939-45 war who suffered and died under The Blitz, had not travelled overseas to some foreign land.

The men you mention were drafted and went to their suffering and deaths in theatres of war.

The women and children I refered to had not gone to any such place, but were in fact, at home, in their own houses, next to their own kitchen sinks, sofas, carpets, toilets, family, friends and neighbours.

I was trying in my own clumsy way to help you to envisage how you, yourself, personally would feel if you knew, for a cast iron certainty, that for the next 12 months, or even longer, that for every night from now on, hundreds of enemy planes would fly directly over your own home and continually disgorge their cargo of death with the sole purpose of shredding your body to pieces. (night after night after night)

I know this sounds and reads like some sort of gory, Steven King novel, but that is exactly what happened all over my country.

Paula's use of the words 'loss of virginity' encapsulates far better, the imagery which I have been attempting to present.

This is not a matter of creating a league table of who has suffered the most on whatever side of the Atlantic. I am not going down that road. I am simply stating cold, hard facts.

All of us owe one another huge respect for all that each of us do for others during our daily lives. I have no personal animosity towards anyone on the Forum. I simply use dramatic metaphore and simile in a crude attempt to bring some perseptive dimension for people to better appreciate the points and views which I wish to propose.

I now hear that 8 Brits and 4 US military have died in a helicopter crash in Kuwait. Our problems are as naught compared to the pain which 12 families are being given this day.

G-d bless.

I have just heard on CNN that American troops have succeeded in taking the town of Umm Qasr. I am pleased that they have achieved their goal.
What really causes concern, is that they then allegedly raised the American Flag. (according to CNN reports)
If ever there was a way to antagonise, alienate and stir up bad feelings against any foreign army in any country anywhere in the world, it is to have them 'appearing' to be a conquering army of occupation.
For G-d's sake, will someone in the American military use some common sense and get a grip in order to stop further thoughtless actions.
I am not against the American flag, far from it. But Umm Qasr is thousands of miles from the USA and planting your flag on foreign soil is like waving a red rag in front of an already, very angry bull.
The USA requires support from its Arab friends in the whole of the middle east region, but this understandable piece of flag waving by brave American soldiers, is a sure way to cause unwanted, uncalled for, animosity.
No, no, no, I am NOT attacking your flag or your soldiers. Remember, there are thousands of British soldiers serving under your flag as well as vice versa.
I'm asking for sensible restraint in the middle of a volatile situation.
If an American came and stuck his flag into the lawn at the front of my house I would not be a happy bunny.
Please, please, please be careful out there.
Nobody makes friends or INFLUENCES people by shoving a national flag in their face.
Remember, its Liberation, not apparent occupation.