hell bent on war

This is for your own works!!!
User avatar
Paula
Posts: 3155
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula »

Lizzie and David - I am going to opt out of this discussion. In the interest of anglo-america relations :lol:

Lizzie I know where your heart is in this conflict and strange as it may sound my heart is probably in the same place.

This war has reached far into our souls and made us all feel quite vunerable. But as someone a lot wiser than I said "all thing shall pass" and that is very true. Sometimes I think the whole lot is just rhetoric.
David
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:24 am
Location: Chicago

Opting out?

Post by David »

Paula, I certainly hope you stay around --

I hope I haven't given the impression of any animosity or anger towards you in my comments; if so, then that's a mistake and I apologize for giving that impression.

These are important issues -- different perspectives are vital.

D
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
User avatar
Paula
Posts: 3155
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 1:20 am
Location: London

Post by Paula »

Thanks David. I am only opting out of the commentory. You have not offended me. I know that I can sometimes be abrupt in my postings. I also know the USA-Anglo outlook on life differs. I have no wish to offend either and sometimes you feel that even thought all you are doing is stating a point it comes across as an attack on the person the comment is aimed at.

There are many things I would like to say which if they were said face to face with the intonation you could gauge whether or not they were meant as a slight. But in the typed word some of the things I want to say I know will offend because the vocal intonation is not there nor is the ability to quantify the argument. I will keep half an eye on this thread.
David
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:24 am
Location: Chicago

Post by David »

Funny, I usually tend to offend people face-to-face even more than I do in print.

Hmmm... maybe it's my FACE that's the problem...!?

D
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh »

I agree with all #s 1-4 that David has listed regarding the U.S.-Iraq [and next-to-be other countries] War.....I think the two bombs that "strayed" [interesting word choice, as though it were a domesticated animal, someone's pet] into Iran, I took as a sign of power and intimidation with the inherent message, "You're next."

If humanitarian concerns are so top-rung with the U.S., where is all the new, HIV medicine [the latest breakthrough stuff] that is unaffordable and, therefore, unobtainable by U.S. citizens. Where are the basics, much less the breakthrough meds, for the thousands in Africa dying slowly and miserably from AIDS....and the concern for all the other countries, with their particular dilemmas. Without the oil beneath the soil, the picture is markedly different.

I also hope you remain in this discussion, Paula. It won't be the first, nor the last, that anyone has been misunderstood/offended, but these things get worked through. We share our dying young and our committed older, who have been there before, as they go onto the battlefields side-by-side. The least we can do is hang in here together. Just because our views of our respective countries differ, and it's difficult for you to understand my/David's view of mine/his, doesn't mean we should be incommunicado. I know your views have vacillated, and you agree with some things that Linda and others have said, and you've agreed with some things that Byron and I [and now David] and others have said. I'm surprized, yet somehow not surprized, to see your comment about my heart and your heart. It's gratifying just to read that.

~ Elizabeth
David
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:24 am
Location: Chicago

Bombs

Post by David »

Actually, Lizzy --believe it or not-- I'm willing to believe that those bombs were errant. I'm also willing to believe that the bombs (or whatever they were) that hit that neighborhood a day or two ago were dropped there by mistake. I think that at this point the forces on the field are pretty sincere about wanting to avoid civilian casualties -- if for no other reason than that they know very well that much of the Arab world's opinion is very skeptical of their motives, and they don't want to turn the Iraqi people --or anyone else in the region-- against them any more than has already been done.

In that sense this isn't Vietnam, where the official policy of "destroying villages in order to save them" was so infamously murderous and resulted in atrocities like My Lai. The spin-docs have learned a lesson or two since then.

Nonetheless, I do concur with the implication of what you're driving at: that there is a very strong fear that Iraq won't be the final destination of U.S. aggression. Even though Iran has been becoming more moderate in the years since the Ayotollah died, and even though there's been a pretty strong groundswell of pro-western sentiment among the Irani people and even some elements of the Irani government, Bush included them in his infmous "axis of evil" speech, and lots of folks fear that they're the next country he has in his sights.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh »

David ~ Yes, and that's of course fine for you to believe the errancy. For me, I see the braggart display regarding accuracy to the extent of destroying what's beneath a bridge, while leaving the bridge itself intact, and hear the ooh's, aah's, and "wow! look at that!"s ~ all intended when the videotaping was done and then broadcast. Yet, to miss by an entire country, well, hmmm....particularly when that country is the next on the list with the least travel and movement of troops required to reach it. Perhaps not, but I'll remained convinced, until someone convinces me otherwise. So far that hasn't happened. One of the dangers with cynicism is that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. Generally speaking, I am not the least bit cynical.....however, bit by bit....and then gradually, and then "I stepped into an avalanche, it covered up my [ability to believe that errors, which serve an alternative purpose, are actually errors at all]."

When your distrust is of the internal/motives, the distrust of the external/actions easily follows. That remains the case with me. Though I can understand your moderation regarding these bombs, I don't share in it. Though not as blatant [yet], I see shadows of Viet Nam, including length of time.
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller »

It doesn't really seem so miraculous to destroy "what's beneath a bridge, while leaving the bridge itself intact" on one day, and to "miss by an entire country" on another.
According to my sources the manufacturer of these "intelligent" bombs give room for a "miss in between 7 % and 12 % of uses". I take this as referring to significant aberrations. When a real miss happens the missile simply takes up the wrong scent, which might as well be the rising sun in the east...
On the other hand chances are that about another 10 % will hit the target exactly as intended. (The remaining eighty % will damage the bridge and the truck.) But when I videotape at least about a hundred bombs per diem, I will most likely get a few tapes that can prove for the media how smart my bombs really are. I simply won't show the rest in my Qatar press conferences...
Jet
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:17 am

Post by Jet »

Lizzytysh,

When I joined the forum you welcomed me with a private message. For which I thanked you. So I hope you do not take my post amiss.

I have carefully read this thread. And in regard to Nan's post about your statements on torture I must conclude that you are saying that American soldiers are torturing Iraqi POWS and that it is an official policy.

Even in your reply to Nan in which you deny that this is what you wrote, you make the statement that "I do not believe that torturing is not occurring and being filmed by U.S. troops." And then you go on to speak about troops being brainwashed by their training, etc.

THe other thing that I will mention is that I agree with Paula that you do seem to be very anti-american. And bitterly so.

After reading the calumny heaped on the U.S on this thread, I think it should be renamed "Hell-bent on America".
Charles
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:42 am

Post by Charles »

I agree whole-heartedly with Vern, David, Tom, and Lizzytysh. America only looks out for its own interests and is hypocritical in its stance to the rest of the world. It's all about the cheque-book. If you don't go along with them they either bomb or boycott you.

So, I suggest that we boycott them. Starting with the Leonard Cohen Event in New York in 2004. Let's put our money where our mouth is. Get another venue. I'm sure Leonard would understand.
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller »

Charles,

please tell me this is a joke. If you want to boycott the US, I'd rather have that you consider the LC Event some kind of "Oil for Food" program.

After all, Leonard is Canadian.

As for a change of venue: We could take old Amsterdam instead of "New Amsterdam" aka Mannahatta aka NYC.

Could make some take a look at Old Europe instead of vituperating it.

Tom
Linda
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 9:10 pm
Location: USA

Post by Linda »

Well, I see the board took a nasty turn again, by the pro peace people. That is what you are called right?

Our church helps refugee families that come from, well wherever they come from, with housing and whatever they need to get started in America. Last night I listened to a Iraqi lady whose family fled after the Gulf war. Her husband is back there helping the Americans now, they still have family left there. She said Saddam and his family should be taken to the spot where they had to walk thirteen miles through the rugged mountains with what they had with them, and if he should reach the board, she said "well."

I suppose this will fall somewhere under the same catagory as listening to people from our local Air Force base, but darn do I believe them for some reason.

We should have finished after the Gulf war, and my only regret is that it took twelve years to come back.
Linda
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller »

Linda,

what are you referring to when you say "a nasty turn"?

pro-peace Tom
David
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:24 am
Location: Chicago

Anti-American?

Post by David »

No one will probably believe the sincerity of this question, but it IS sincere and I'm honestly hoping someone can come up with an answer:

Exactly what does "anti-American" mean in this (or any other) context? Any country or society, but especially one as diverse and multi-facted as this one, means (and "is") an incredible amount of different things to different people.

Does that epithet mean that someone is opposed to a given government policy? Does it mean that someone is opposed to the government itself, as it currently stands? And if THAT'S the case, does it simply mean that someone doesn't like the individuals who are in various slots of power, or does it mean that someone actually doesn't like the structure/institutions themselves, and would like to see something else instead (e.g., a contsitutional monarchy, a Parliament, an anarcho-syndicalist network of localized cells, or some other theoretical model)?

Does it mean that someone is somehow offended by the actual physical continent of America itself? Or, more specifically, does it mean that someone would like to see the political entity called the "U.S." configured differently somehow?

Does it mean that someone is opposed to one or another facet of "American" culture (which run the gamut from Britney Spears and junk-television to John Coltrane, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emily Dickenson, et al.)?

Does it mean that someone is opposed to one or another facet of American "values" (which, depending on whom one is speaking to, might be represented by anything/anyone from Pat Robertson to Thomas Jefferson to Tom Paine to Malcolm X, and everything in between)?

Does it mean that someone is opposed to "democracy"? If so, what definition of "democracy" is being invoked (even the Founding Fathers didn't agree on this one, and to this day political philosophers & scholars of all stripes continue to debate what the concept really means)? In other words, are we assuming that someone whom we call "anti-American" would rather see a totalitarian state? Or, conversely, a less restrictive, decentralized system (or non-system) of some kind?

Does it mean that someone is opposed to "capitalism"? If so, what does THAT entail --small-shop entreprenurialism (sp?)? International corporate conglomeration? All/none of the above? (For example -- Elijah Muhammad, founder of the Nation of Islam, was often accused of being virulently "anti-American", yet his model of economic empowerment through localized, African-American-controlled small business empires was absolutely and entirely capitalist.)

Does it mean that someone simply doesn't like his or her neighbors very much, and wants to see their homes and lives destroyed?

Again, I am honestly not being facetious here, although I admit to a certain playfulness of tone in my questions. I hear that term "Anti-American" thrown around -- and it's usually thrown at people who seem to like most of their fellow Americans a great deal, and who at least profess to adhere to what they consider the essence of Constitutional ideas and standards. That doesn't make 'em right, of course, but it does throw this whole idea of "anti-Americanism" into pretty complex and murky waters.

So -- if Lizzy or anyone else here is "anti-American," exactly what are they "anti"?

David

p.s. Linda, if anythng I've said has been intepreted as "nasty" or hostile in any way, I apologize. It is not intended as such -- I do not like ad hominem / ad feminem attacks, I don't use 'em, and I am absolutely sincere when I wish you --and all-- "shalom"/"salaam".
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh »

David and Jet ~

I would not have been able to spell out the quandaries related to that epithet and thank you, David, for doing so, which for all its twists and turns certainly clarifies the nebulous nature of such an accusation. My initial in-my-head reaction when I read it was, "What's that supposed to mean?"

Jet ~ Yes, I definitely welcomed you to the Board privately, when I checked your Profile [as I do every newcomer's out of my own curiosity] and saw that you are a pilot. Due to that, I P.M.'d you to ask had you ever seen the stage production "Charlie Victor Romeo;" gave you a brief synopsis; strongly recommended that [as a pilot yourself] you make it a point to see it, should you ever have the opportunity; and gave you the link to their site of the same name.

However, welcoming/contacting you, publicly or privately, in no way ever suggests that we won't or can't disagree, even vehemently, and that we shouldn't express that disagreement. So, your expressing what you have is no problem, whatsoever, with me in that regard.

I have spelled out so many times, in so many ways, [exhaustively!] how I feel about this war, "our" soldiers, this administration, and this president. I see no benefit to repeating all of that in still another [apparently futile ~ i.e. if you haven't understood the distinctions I've made, to date, I really have no idea what I could say to make you understand them now] attempt to clarify myself. If, after having read all of my postings, the broad swipe you've taken is your only conclusion, then I'm just going to have to let it rest with that. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, though I have certainly tried to make myself understood. However, too many trips back over the same, beaten path, and I begin to feel that I'm trying to ingratiate myself with my detractors, and that is not the case. Throughout history, people have been called things from one extreme to the other, depending on the personal and world views of the speaker. Any one person can be labeled by as many labels as there are individuals doing the labeling. So, I'm not going to try to determine exactly what you mean, nor am I going to try to defend against this labeling of myself as a person. I believe it to be a futile exercise at this point. Instead, I'll go with the age-old saying, "Say whatever you like, just be sure you spell my name right." You certainly have a right to your own opinion of me.

As this war has [already] begun to drag on, my views have become more entrenched. I fully predict that an increasing number of people will filter over to my perspective as time goes on, more people die, etc., ad nauseum. As for me, deeply-entrenched distrust is deeply-entrenched distrust. It cannot come out in pleasant, optimistic ways. Feeling betrayed by one's government; and what one has always perceived the representation of that country to be and gradually finding it to be otherwise; are also not likely to come out in pleasant, optimistic ways. It feels uncomfortable to me internally ~ and my expression of it is highly likely to cause others, who don't agree, to feel uncomfortable internally, as well.

~ Elizabeth

My welcome to you to the Forum remains intact, regardless of our differences of opinion, and your perception of me, as a result of mine.

I am curious, Jet, whether you were militarily trained as a pilot. Regarding the torturing of enemies, I'm guessing that the many stressors of war, PTSS in its making, and all the other things I listed have no bearing with you.
Post Reply

Return to “Writing, Music and Art by the Forum members”