Charles ~
I feel that the idea of boycotting the Leonard Cohen Event's venue of New York City makes every bit as much sense as pouring French-produced champagne into the streets, and boycotting or renaming French Fries. I'll be making my reservation for the event very soon.
~ Elizabeth
hell bent on war
There is a...
Dunno how or if this is relevant, but if it isn't just write it off as an "errant" bit of cluster-verbiage...
I came across this while sifting through some of the writing on Leonard I've done over the years -- To paraphrase a different songwriter: Use it if you need it, if you don't just pass it on...
"...essential to Cohen's symbology of love is the political defiance that often suffuses his erotic imagery. His greatest love songs... are peopled with soldiers, warriors, and heroic women seeking solace from the loneliness of their calling. These are love songs filled with raging fires and a sense of looming oppression. In this dark and frightening landscape, lovers meet and try to create a sanctuary against the oppressors of the spirit, oppressors whose brutal and petty games of power, greed, and glory are played out on battlefields or in offices of high authority.
"To Cohen, however, the power, the greed, and the glory are mutually enacted in the ritualistic and sacred struggle fought by lovers, who must both peel away their own preconceived notions of eros ("When we fell together, all our flesh was like a veil / I had to draw aside to see the serpent eat its tail") and find a haven in a world where the supreme role of love is denied, and those who seek it above all are persecuted.
"This idea, that lovers are warriors in a holy battle against an oppression that chains the spirit, lies at the heart of Cohen's vision: it's here that his key to redemption is found. Even "Suzanne," for all its misty romanticism, tells of finding perfection in a companion who's "half-crazy" -- a direct challenge to conventional notions of propriety and accepted bounds of romantic longing.
"In "Chelsea Hotel # 2," written in the '70s about Janis Joplin, Cohen again finds something subversive and heroic in lovers coming together bent on finding new beauty in bodies, attitudes, and mores denounced or shunned by conventional society. The song's most memorable scene, in which Janis shoots up after some playful sexual bantering, is Cohen at his most tender and revolutionary:
'And clenching your fist for the ones like us
Who are oppressed by the figures of beauty
You fixed yourself, you said, "Well, never mind --
We are ugly, but we have the music..."' "
Shalom,
Salaam,
David
I came across this while sifting through some of the writing on Leonard I've done over the years -- To paraphrase a different songwriter: Use it if you need it, if you don't just pass it on...
"...essential to Cohen's symbology of love is the political defiance that often suffuses his erotic imagery. His greatest love songs... are peopled with soldiers, warriors, and heroic women seeking solace from the loneliness of their calling. These are love songs filled with raging fires and a sense of looming oppression. In this dark and frightening landscape, lovers meet and try to create a sanctuary against the oppressors of the spirit, oppressors whose brutal and petty games of power, greed, and glory are played out on battlefields or in offices of high authority.
"To Cohen, however, the power, the greed, and the glory are mutually enacted in the ritualistic and sacred struggle fought by lovers, who must both peel away their own preconceived notions of eros ("When we fell together, all our flesh was like a veil / I had to draw aside to see the serpent eat its tail") and find a haven in a world where the supreme role of love is denied, and those who seek it above all are persecuted.
"This idea, that lovers are warriors in a holy battle against an oppression that chains the spirit, lies at the heart of Cohen's vision: it's here that his key to redemption is found. Even "Suzanne," for all its misty romanticism, tells of finding perfection in a companion who's "half-crazy" -- a direct challenge to conventional notions of propriety and accepted bounds of romantic longing.
"In "Chelsea Hotel # 2," written in the '70s about Janis Joplin, Cohen again finds something subversive and heroic in lovers coming together bent on finding new beauty in bodies, attitudes, and mores denounced or shunned by conventional society. The song's most memorable scene, in which Janis shoots up after some playful sexual bantering, is Cohen at his most tender and revolutionary:
'And clenching your fist for the ones like us
Who are oppressed by the figures of beauty
You fixed yourself, you said, "Well, never mind --
We are ugly, but we have the music..."' "
Shalom,
Salaam,
David
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Torture
Re: the torturing of POWs
I, personally, have seen absolutely no evidence that U.S. operatives or their allies are torturing POWs.
There are, however, several hundred suspected Al-Quaeda operatives being held in U.S. prison camps --not being tortured, as far as anyone knows, but being held indefinitely and yet being denied POW status, in violation of the Geneva Convention.
In no way do I equate this with the executions of U.S. POWs that some believe have taken place at the hands of the Iraquis. To do so would be obscene. Nonetheless, the capture and indefinite holding of these prisoners set an unfortunate precedent; many in the Arab world are angry about it. From what I'm hearing, it is already being pointed to as the equivalent of non-violent violations of Geneva Convention protocol such as the parading of U.S. soldiers in front of cameras.
Again, I do not necessarily make this association myself -- but it seems that in this case, as in so many others, too many architects of U.S. policy remain arrogantly unaware of how their actions are perceived in other parts of the world. And in my opinion, without that kind of knowledge, that kind of ability to see things through "the other guy's eyes" (even if you strongly disagree with him), one cannot truly engage anyone --friend or foe-- in a way that's likely to bring about positive results.
I, personally, have seen absolutely no evidence that U.S. operatives or their allies are torturing POWs.
There are, however, several hundred suspected Al-Quaeda operatives being held in U.S. prison camps --not being tortured, as far as anyone knows, but being held indefinitely and yet being denied POW status, in violation of the Geneva Convention.
In no way do I equate this with the executions of U.S. POWs that some believe have taken place at the hands of the Iraquis. To do so would be obscene. Nonetheless, the capture and indefinite holding of these prisoners set an unfortunate precedent; many in the Arab world are angry about it. From what I'm hearing, it is already being pointed to as the equivalent of non-violent violations of Geneva Convention protocol such as the parading of U.S. soldiers in front of cameras.
Again, I do not necessarily make this association myself -- but it seems that in this case, as in so many others, too many architects of U.S. policy remain arrogantly unaware of how their actions are perceived in other parts of the world. And in my opinion, without that kind of knowledge, that kind of ability to see things through "the other guy's eyes" (even if you strongly disagree with him), one cannot truly engage anyone --friend or foe-- in a way that's likely to bring about positive results.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
I know I am going to regret jumping into the fray again. First of all I would like to clarify something I never said - I never said I loved the British Goverment I said I did not believe they were as corrupt as Lizzie believed the US Goverment were.
My second point I am going to try to explain what I meant when I said Lizzie comes across as anti-american.
David altho your views mirror Lizzie in someways you do not come across to me as anti american.
Lizzie on the other hand does come across as anti american. I will do my best to explain (because I can't quite put my finger on why she comes across as AA).
If Lizzie were British and she was talking about Britian in the same way she talks about the USA. I would have said - if you feel that strongly why are you still here.
On the other hand if David were British and he were talking about Britian in the same way as he talks about the USA I could concur to a certain degree. David does not seem to be venonous about the USA and Lizzie does.
I am sure Lizzie loves her country and I wonder if I am seeing something in her postings that isn't there. I would really like some feedback on this post.
It is as if Lizzie sees the USA as the anti-christ (I know I am over dramatising there ). Lizzie I would appreciate it if you did not take umbridge at my comments they are not intended to be an insult it is just an observation.
My second point I am going to try to explain what I meant when I said Lizzie comes across as anti-american.
David altho your views mirror Lizzie in someways you do not come across to me as anti american.
Lizzie on the other hand does come across as anti american. I will do my best to explain (because I can't quite put my finger on why she comes across as AA).
If Lizzie were British and she was talking about Britian in the same way she talks about the USA. I would have said - if you feel that strongly why are you still here.
On the other hand if David were British and he were talking about Britian in the same way as he talks about the USA I could concur to a certain degree. David does not seem to be venonous about the USA and Lizzie does.
I am sure Lizzie loves her country and I wonder if I am seeing something in her postings that isn't there. I would really like some feedback on this post.
It is as if Lizzie sees the USA as the anti-christ (I know I am over dramatising there ). Lizzie I would appreciate it if you did not take umbridge at my comments they are not intended to be an insult it is just an observation.
Anti...
Paula, I'm not here to speak for Lizzie -- she's capable of doing that herself. But from what I've read, she's very much "anti" the American government and its policies. I don't know, but I'm guessing she (like I) is convinced that these policies have been in place for quite some time, and that they've cause much harm in the world long before the current war started.
But is being against a government being against the "country," however that might be defined? I realize that in England, "the government" is a more transitory concept than it is here -- under the Parliamentary system, a "government" can be brought down, another put in its place, and the "system" still survives. (I HOPE I've got that nomenclature right!)
Here, we tend to think of the "government" as the systemic/institutional framework within which various individuals and parties work. But we also refer to those individuals and parties as "the government." I can see how that might cause some confusion -- in fact, now that I think about it, it confuses even me sometimes!
But what does a "country" mean? Must that term be equated with who(m)ever is in power? I wonder...
But is being against a government being against the "country," however that might be defined? I realize that in England, "the government" is a more transitory concept than it is here -- under the Parliamentary system, a "government" can be brought down, another put in its place, and the "system" still survives. (I HOPE I've got that nomenclature right!)
Here, we tend to think of the "government" as the systemic/institutional framework within which various individuals and parties work. But we also refer to those individuals and parties as "the government." I can see how that might cause some confusion -- in fact, now that I think about it, it confuses even me sometimes!
But what does a "country" mean? Must that term be equated with who(m)ever is in power? I wonder...
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
David - I did think it could be just a cultural difference. Is it not possible to bring the US goverment down. I thought it came reasonably close with the Monica Lewenski fiasco.
Yes you are correct with regard to the British goverment it can be brought down usually by sexual scandals famously the Christine Keeler affair.
I think you can be loyal to your country whilst not being loyal to the elected body which runs it. But I think in the present climate the USA and the UK has enough enemies without its own citizens adding to the descension.
Yes you are correct with regard to the British goverment it can be brought down usually by sexual scandals famously the Christine Keeler affair.
I think you can be loyal to your country whilst not being loyal to the elected body which runs it. But I think in the present climate the USA and the UK has enough enemies without its own citizens adding to the descension.
-
George.Wright
- Posts: 1874
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 3:37 pm
- Location: Bangor, N.Ireland
Paula ~ I'm not taking umbrage at your comments here. I can understand why you are taking David to be less venomous than I am. He is at times saying various things such as he doesn't make the link that I do about the World Trade Center; he sees no evidence of torturing being done by the American soldiers at this time; etc. ~ where he clearly comes across as a "reasonable person." He verbalizes certain things that can provide a link, a commonality ~ and hence a bridge ~ between himself and others who don't feel the anger, or the same level of anger, I do toward this administration. I admire him for that, and it works exceedingly well in negotiation processes. However, I don't share in his feelings and perspectives in the areas where he's done this, and I can't and won't pretend to. I'm not trying to negotiate [not to say that he is, either, but just that what he's saying also works well for negotation]. I'm only trying to express what I feel and how I view what I'm seeing.
I don't see any evidence, either, of torturing at this point, but am going by the anger that has been maximized in these young soldiers in order to go forth ready to kill. Excellent training can prepare a person to do what they do well, but the want to kill is another matter. You need to access another portion of the brain to do that. Gang fights/street fights based on anger and territorial concerns often get into an excessive force mode and a "take that ~ and that ~ and THAT!" kind of mentality and behaviour. Likewise, with police, who feel they have the "right guy" [this is in the U.S. not Britain], have been often enough known to get into that and much more with a prisoner at the station or while still on the streets. And the police aren't even in the mode of being already sanctioned, encouraged, and expected to kill, as these soldiers are. You can believe that they have been prepared to consider the Iraqis as the true enemy. The behaviours that can come out of these scenarios can result in torture, and once into it, the gang easily joins in. No evidence yet, but I'm saying David is free to believe as he wishes, and I am free to believe as I do. This capability of torture has nothing to do with being American or one of the Allied Forces. It has to do with the capabilities of human beings in wartime situations, where the intent is to kill, to maim, to do whatever is necessary to conquer. We have examples here every day where officers have exceeded necessary force and gone into the excessive force zone.
David is correct that I am very "anti" the American government and its policies which have been entrenched and manifesting elsewhere for a long time. I sometimes get the feeling that the expectation is that only people living elsewhere should have the right to these feelings, and that if I live here, I should be embracing the whole of it, or leave. Likewise, what I felt before the onset of this war cannot change overnight, simply because someone started dropping bombs. My feelings aren't a faucet to be turned on and off at [another's] will. Due to my original position, the onset of bombing only works to strengthen my resolve and perspective and feelings.....not to suddenly start saying, "YAY team!!" Still and all, I have said things to the effect of, "Please pray with me that our innocent [non-policymaker] young people come home alive, as SOON as possible, and that they have the strength and wisdom to resist the temptation to torture."
I have worked for various governmental and other "controlling" entities and I have seen firsthand in a wide variety of ways how the individual is eclipsed in the process, and the machine lives on, wielding its power. I don't feel apologetic for my feelings regarding this war or this administration's motives for being in it. This is for many reasons. However, the focus of this thread truly need not be whether Lizzie is anti-American or not. That is really getting sidetracked as to the true importance of what is happening in the world. Right now, we have a plane hijacked [reportedly by Iraqis] from Turkey and sitting on the tarmac in Greece and wanting to get to Germany. Something was also said by a co-worker about their being in full, anti-chemical uniform, as well, but I did not get that confirmed. We have Syria being threatened for bringing military supplies to Baghdad. Mention was made of Iran and some implied threat with them, as well [my previous mention of the show- of-power and implied threat then, with errant bombs falling into their country ~ one of the three comprising the "Axis of Evil" ~ comes to mind here]. My fear is that other countries will be added to this list. This unstable area is becoming more destabilized by the minute.
I'm not so sure you're overdramatizing with "anti-Christ," Paula. I've heard Saddam mentioned in that regard. I've heard Bush mentioned in that regard. I've heard that this is the true beginning of Armageddon. I've heard the predictions of Nostradamus play into these events. To say that America is in the role of the "anti-Christ" ~ who knows? I know that it is through greed, which is certainly not a Christ-like quality, that we are there, threatening everyone and bombing the hell out of innocent men, women, and children. I'm wondering why it's not being questioned here, as much as it is elsewhere in the media, why the Iraqis are not greeting the "American" troops with welcoming, open arms of gratefulness for their "liberation." What I do keep hearing is that they love their country and do not want American domination. The highest-dollar contracts for "rebuilding" are yet to be awarded, and the rationale being put forth for why they all are to go to a handful of American corporations [a couple of which were MAJOR Bush-presidential-campaign] contributors], with any European countries relegated to sub-contractor status ~ is that the bidding process required sharing of confidential information, that apparently would pose a security risk, is shared with European countries. I won't even comment on all of that. I think it speaks for itself. There is so much more to come, to be revealed. History will play itself out, unless history doesn't survive.
The more I watch and listen and read and hear, the more at peace I become with any labels anyone wishes to attach to or throw at me. My moral right to feel moral indignation, sadness, and grief is not stripped from me simply because of where I was born and raised, because I am "an American." Where I was born does not dictate what my deepest values should be.
I write my response to you, Paula, with amazing calmness and peace deep inside. Is being anti-American worse than being pro-human? Or is being pro-human worse than being anti-American? I really don't care. All I know is what I think, what I question, how I feel, and what I believe. You don't need to share in any of these. Neither does David. Neither does anyone else. My feelings are mine and I claim them.
~ Elizabeth aka Lizzytysh aka Lizzie
I don't see any evidence, either, of torturing at this point, but am going by the anger that has been maximized in these young soldiers in order to go forth ready to kill. Excellent training can prepare a person to do what they do well, but the want to kill is another matter. You need to access another portion of the brain to do that. Gang fights/street fights based on anger and territorial concerns often get into an excessive force mode and a "take that ~ and that ~ and THAT!" kind of mentality and behaviour. Likewise, with police, who feel they have the "right guy" [this is in the U.S. not Britain], have been often enough known to get into that and much more with a prisoner at the station or while still on the streets. And the police aren't even in the mode of being already sanctioned, encouraged, and expected to kill, as these soldiers are. You can believe that they have been prepared to consider the Iraqis as the true enemy. The behaviours that can come out of these scenarios can result in torture, and once into it, the gang easily joins in. No evidence yet, but I'm saying David is free to believe as he wishes, and I am free to believe as I do. This capability of torture has nothing to do with being American or one of the Allied Forces. It has to do with the capabilities of human beings in wartime situations, where the intent is to kill, to maim, to do whatever is necessary to conquer. We have examples here every day where officers have exceeded necessary force and gone into the excessive force zone.
David is correct that I am very "anti" the American government and its policies which have been entrenched and manifesting elsewhere for a long time. I sometimes get the feeling that the expectation is that only people living elsewhere should have the right to these feelings, and that if I live here, I should be embracing the whole of it, or leave. Likewise, what I felt before the onset of this war cannot change overnight, simply because someone started dropping bombs. My feelings aren't a faucet to be turned on and off at [another's] will. Due to my original position, the onset of bombing only works to strengthen my resolve and perspective and feelings.....not to suddenly start saying, "YAY team!!" Still and all, I have said things to the effect of, "Please pray with me that our innocent [non-policymaker] young people come home alive, as SOON as possible, and that they have the strength and wisdom to resist the temptation to torture."
I have worked for various governmental and other "controlling" entities and I have seen firsthand in a wide variety of ways how the individual is eclipsed in the process, and the machine lives on, wielding its power. I don't feel apologetic for my feelings regarding this war or this administration's motives for being in it. This is for many reasons. However, the focus of this thread truly need not be whether Lizzie is anti-American or not. That is really getting sidetracked as to the true importance of what is happening in the world. Right now, we have a plane hijacked [reportedly by Iraqis] from Turkey and sitting on the tarmac in Greece and wanting to get to Germany. Something was also said by a co-worker about their being in full, anti-chemical uniform, as well, but I did not get that confirmed. We have Syria being threatened for bringing military supplies to Baghdad. Mention was made of Iran and some implied threat with them, as well [my previous mention of the show- of-power and implied threat then, with errant bombs falling into their country ~ one of the three comprising the "Axis of Evil" ~ comes to mind here]. My fear is that other countries will be added to this list. This unstable area is becoming more destabilized by the minute.
I'm not so sure you're overdramatizing with "anti-Christ," Paula. I've heard Saddam mentioned in that regard. I've heard Bush mentioned in that regard. I've heard that this is the true beginning of Armageddon. I've heard the predictions of Nostradamus play into these events. To say that America is in the role of the "anti-Christ" ~ who knows? I know that it is through greed, which is certainly not a Christ-like quality, that we are there, threatening everyone and bombing the hell out of innocent men, women, and children. I'm wondering why it's not being questioned here, as much as it is elsewhere in the media, why the Iraqis are not greeting the "American" troops with welcoming, open arms of gratefulness for their "liberation." What I do keep hearing is that they love their country and do not want American domination. The highest-dollar contracts for "rebuilding" are yet to be awarded, and the rationale being put forth for why they all are to go to a handful of American corporations [a couple of which were MAJOR Bush-presidential-campaign] contributors], with any European countries relegated to sub-contractor status ~ is that the bidding process required sharing of confidential information, that apparently would pose a security risk, is shared with European countries. I won't even comment on all of that. I think it speaks for itself. There is so much more to come, to be revealed. History will play itself out, unless history doesn't survive.
The more I watch and listen and read and hear, the more at peace I become with any labels anyone wishes to attach to or throw at me. My moral right to feel moral indignation, sadness, and grief is not stripped from me simply because of where I was born and raised, because I am "an American." Where I was born does not dictate what my deepest values should be.
I write my response to you, Paula, with amazing calmness and peace deep inside. Is being anti-American worse than being pro-human? Or is being pro-human worse than being anti-American? I really don't care. All I know is what I think, what I question, how I feel, and what I believe. You don't need to share in any of these. Neither does David. Neither does anyone else. My feelings are mine and I claim them.
~ Elizabeth aka Lizzytysh aka Lizzie
Last edited by lizzytysh on Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Enemies...
Paula --
There are those of us who truly believe --based on actual evidence, based on the realities of world events as we've researched and come to understand them-- that adventures like the Iraqi invasion are bringing the U.S. --and the world-- much closer to destruction than it was before. Throughout modern history, I think it's safe to say, imperial powers have been the primary sources of oppression, danger, and catastrophe in the world -- especially in the long run. I see no reason to doubt that trend now.
But please, Paula, I implore you -- Those of us who oppose the war, or even who oppose "our" governments, are NOT "enemies." Please don't call us that, or put us in the same category as those, like the 9/11 terrorists, who are truly possessed of visions of death and desire the annihilation of "the ancient western code". As I said -- I revere the principles upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were codified (and, of course, we all owe infinite thanks to y'all for the Magna Carta, which was one of the templates) -- That particular "American Dream" is magnificent beyond words, even if it's still far, far from being realized in a way that's truly equitable for all.
But in terms of flag-waving, the only flag I want to wave any more is a flag of the Whole Earth -- now, if never before, nothing happens in "only" one country, one area, one place. Destruction visited on a seemingly remote location today reverberates here, there, and everywhere tomorrow. This isn't some kind of hippy-dippy New Age Gaeia rant -- it's the reality in a world where communications, as well as mushroom clouds, know no borders, no limits, and --ultimately-- no politics either.
There are those of us who truly believe --based on actual evidence, based on the realities of world events as we've researched and come to understand them-- that adventures like the Iraqi invasion are bringing the U.S. --and the world-- much closer to destruction than it was before. Throughout modern history, I think it's safe to say, imperial powers have been the primary sources of oppression, danger, and catastrophe in the world -- especially in the long run. I see no reason to doubt that trend now.
But please, Paula, I implore you -- Those of us who oppose the war, or even who oppose "our" governments, are NOT "enemies." Please don't call us that, or put us in the same category as those, like the 9/11 terrorists, who are truly possessed of visions of death and desire the annihilation of "the ancient western code". As I said -- I revere the principles upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were codified (and, of course, we all owe infinite thanks to y'all for the Magna Carta, which was one of the templates) -- That particular "American Dream" is magnificent beyond words, even if it's still far, far from being realized in a way that's truly equitable for all.
But in terms of flag-waving, the only flag I want to wave any more is a flag of the Whole Earth -- now, if never before, nothing happens in "only" one country, one area, one place. Destruction visited on a seemingly remote location today reverberates here, there, and everywhere tomorrow. This isn't some kind of hippy-dippy New Age Gaeia rant -- it's the reality in a world where communications, as well as mushroom clouds, know no borders, no limits, and --ultimately-- no politics either.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
p.s.
p.s.
Lizzy --
We should probably wait for concrete evidence of U.S. atrocities, just as we want others to wait for concrete evidence of a Saddam-9/11 connection.
Before you start to think I'm waffling, or being naive, or somehow being too accomodating or unaware of how the "real world" works, please rememaber: I'm in Chicago. I do a lot more in the 'hood than hang out in blues clubs. I know a little something about gang-bangers, the indoctrination of hate and violence, the prison system, and (for that matter) police brutality, as well. But just as I'm not going to look at any group of African-American kids with their five-point star tattoos and their caps tilted to the left and assume, without asking, that someone is gonna get wasted in front of my building, I'm not necesariliy going to look at a group of soldiers --any soldiers, "ours" or "theirs"-- and assume the worst either, until I know it for sure. 'Tain't "negotiation" -- it's only fair.
Lizzy --
We should probably wait for concrete evidence of U.S. atrocities, just as we want others to wait for concrete evidence of a Saddam-9/11 connection.
Before you start to think I'm waffling, or being naive, or somehow being too accomodating or unaware of how the "real world" works, please rememaber: I'm in Chicago. I do a lot more in the 'hood than hang out in blues clubs. I know a little something about gang-bangers, the indoctrination of hate and violence, the prison system, and (for that matter) police brutality, as well. But just as I'm not going to look at any group of African-American kids with their five-point star tattoos and their caps tilted to the left and assume, without asking, that someone is gonna get wasted in front of my building, I'm not necesariliy going to look at a group of soldiers --any soldiers, "ours" or "theirs"-- and assume the worst either, until I know it for sure. 'Tain't "negotiation" -- it's only fair.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
David ~ I'm not presuming any of those things. I only mentioned the "other side" because the Iraqis were being [duly] villified for their presumed/evidenced torture/humiliation of American soldiers. I brought up the reverse in response to that, reminding that we are just as capable of said behaviours, that this is not behaviour restricted to the "evil Iraqis." 'Tis also only fair.
~ Lizzytysh
~ Lizzytysh
Lizzytysh,
I do not think I took a swipe at you. Broad or narrow. In your reply you did not address the point I raised either. WHich again is that you make point-blank accusations, retract them, and then repeat the accusations again. And then you tell your readers that THEY misunderstand you. I cannot follow this illogic.
I know many honorable men and women in the military. One would get the impression after reading your posts that the U.S. military is made up primarily of brutal sadists. You, of course, will reply that you said no such thing. But anyone reading your posts will indeed think that is what you believe. I bid you and the board adeiu.
I do not think I took a swipe at you. Broad or narrow. In your reply you did not address the point I raised either. WHich again is that you make point-blank accusations, retract them, and then repeat the accusations again. And then you tell your readers that THEY misunderstand you. I cannot follow this illogic.
I know many honorable men and women in the military. One would get the impression after reading your posts that the U.S. military is made up primarily of brutal sadists. You, of course, will reply that you said no such thing. But anyone reading your posts will indeed think that is what you believe. I bid you and the board adeiu.
Here's an interesting article. From the Guardian
Why we should go to war
Julie Burchill
Guardian
Saturday February 1, 2003
In the mode of Basil Fawlty, I've tried not to mention the war. I know that Guardian readers are massively opposed to any action against Saddam Hussein, as are 90% of the people I love and respect both personally and professionally. But I am in favour of war against Iraq - or, rather, I am in favour of a smaller war now rather than a far worse war later. I speak as someone who was born and raised to be anti-American; I know that, even in my lifetime, America has behaved monstrously in Latin America, Indo-China and its own southern states. I was against the US because, whenever people sought autonomy, freedom and justice, it was against them. But that narrative is ended now and a new configuration has emerged.
The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice. They are the opposite of socialism even more than they are the opposite of capitalism. They are against light, love, life - and to attempt to pass them the baton of enlightenment borne by the likes of Mandela and Guevara is woefully to misunderstand the nature and desires of what Christopher Hitchens (a life-long man of the left) described as "Islamo-fascism".
When you look back at the common sense and progressiveness of arguments against American intervention in Vietnam, Chile and the like, you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists:
1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!" it is one of the few ways in which the dull-minded think they can have the last word in any argument. So what if it is about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages? If not, don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it!
2) "But we sold him the weapons!" An incredible excuse for not fighting, this one - almost surreal in its logic. If the west sold him the weapons that helped make him the monstrous power that he is, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iraqis, then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance by doing the lion's share in getting rid of him.
3) "America's always interfering in other countries!" And when it's not, it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look.
5) "Ooo, your friends smell!" Well, so do yours. We may be saddled with Bush and Blair, but you've got Prince Charles (a big friend of the Islamic world, probably because of its large number of feudal kingdoms and hardline attitude to uppity women), the Catholic church (taking a brief break from buggering babies to condemn any western attack as "morally unacceptable") and posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Damon Albarn.
Oh, and we've also got Condoleezza Rice, the coolest, cleverest, most powerful black woman since Cleopatra, and you've got the Mothers' Union, with their risible prayer for Iraq's people, a prime piece of prissy, pacifist twaddle that even Hallmark "Forever Friends" would reject as not intellectually or aesthetically rigorous enough.
So, all in all, and at the risk of being extremely babyish myself, I'd go so far as to say that my argument's bigger than yours. Of course, you think the same about your side. And we won't change our minds. Ever. So let's do each other a favour and agree not to rattle each other's cages (playpens?) until the whole thing's over. Free speech and diversity - let's enjoy it! Even though our brothers and sisters, the suffering, tortured slaves of Saddam, can't. Yet. Still, soon.
Why we should go to war
Julie Burchill
Guardian
Saturday February 1, 2003
In the mode of Basil Fawlty, I've tried not to mention the war. I know that Guardian readers are massively opposed to any action against Saddam Hussein, as are 90% of the people I love and respect both personally and professionally. But I am in favour of war against Iraq - or, rather, I am in favour of a smaller war now rather than a far worse war later. I speak as someone who was born and raised to be anti-American; I know that, even in my lifetime, America has behaved monstrously in Latin America, Indo-China and its own southern states. I was against the US because, whenever people sought autonomy, freedom and justice, it was against them. But that narrative is ended now and a new configuration has emerged.
The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice. They are the opposite of socialism even more than they are the opposite of capitalism. They are against light, love, life - and to attempt to pass them the baton of enlightenment borne by the likes of Mandela and Guevara is woefully to misunderstand the nature and desires of what Christopher Hitchens (a life-long man of the left) described as "Islamo-fascism".
When you look back at the common sense and progressiveness of arguments against American intervention in Vietnam, Chile and the like, you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists:
1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!" it is one of the few ways in which the dull-minded think they can have the last word in any argument. So what if it is about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages? If not, don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it!
2) "But we sold him the weapons!" An incredible excuse for not fighting, this one - almost surreal in its logic. If the west sold him the weapons that helped make him the monstrous power that he is, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iraqis, then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance by doing the lion's share in getting rid of him.
3) "America's always interfering in other countries!" And when it's not, it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look.
5) "Ooo, your friends smell!" Well, so do yours. We may be saddled with Bush and Blair, but you've got Prince Charles (a big friend of the Islamic world, probably because of its large number of feudal kingdoms and hardline attitude to uppity women), the Catholic church (taking a brief break from buggering babies to condemn any western attack as "morally unacceptable") and posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Damon Albarn.
Oh, and we've also got Condoleezza Rice, the coolest, cleverest, most powerful black woman since Cleopatra, and you've got the Mothers' Union, with their risible prayer for Iraq's people, a prime piece of prissy, pacifist twaddle that even Hallmark "Forever Friends" would reject as not intellectually or aesthetically rigorous enough.
So, all in all, and at the risk of being extremely babyish myself, I'd go so far as to say that my argument's bigger than yours. Of course, you think the same about your side. And we won't change our minds. Ever. So let's do each other a favour and agree not to rattle each other's cages (playpens?) until the whole thing's over. Free speech and diversity - let's enjoy it! Even though our brothers and sisters, the suffering, tortured slaves of Saddam, can't. Yet. Still, soon.
Fawlty?
Candice --
I always like to read well-written, well-reasoned, and passionate opinions from the side I disagree with -- it challenges my own thinking, and forces me to think more deeply and more fully about my position. Although the piece you quote descends into stereotype and below-the-belt invective in a few places (e.g., the "right-wing chappies" guilt-by-association canard and the witty but irrelevant and overdrawn swipe at the Catholic church), for the most part it's a stimulating and bracing screed, and I salute both you and the writer of that piece. I'm glad you posted it.
It is, in fact and undeniably, a very powerful and utterly irrefutable argument for why Saddam should be deposed. The thing it doesn't address, though, is that the corporate agenda of world domination, as spearheaded by U.S. intervention, is every bit as much against "light, love, and life" as the fundamentalist throwbacks and totalitarian butchers represented variously by Al Queda, Saddam, et al. The piece also assumes --falsly, in my opinion-- that the U.S. purpose here could be to "redress" greed and ignorance, instead of using the obvious and unarguable horror of Saddam's regime as an excuse to spread and propogate (sp?) greed and ignorance, in the form of world- wide corporate hegemony and the cultural, political, economic, and environmental catastrophe that it represents.
But also, Candice --as I tried to say to Paula earlier -- it's very, very wrong to call opponents of the war, or opponents of U.S. state/corporate imperialism, "anti-American" or [horror of horrors!] "pro-Saddam" (I know you didn't write that article; I'm just re-stating this because I think it needs to be emphasized). I can't think of any rational person in the world, let alone the U.S., who could possibly be "pro-Saddam."
Although Saddam is allegedly a secularist, and although I continue to maintain that as of yet we have no concrete evidence to link him with Al Queda, I agree with the author of this article that in spirit he's aligned with the Dark Ages-driven fundamentalists who, as far as we know, were the demonic minds behind 9/11. You're probably aware that in response to that atrocity, a book was written (I forget the author) that characterised the coming struggle as "MacWorld vs. Jihad World". Candice, that phrase chilled my spine, my body, and my soul -- because it epitomized what, I fear, this has become: a war with no "good guys," a war between bloodthirsty, tyrannical madmen on one hand, and insatiably greedy exploiters and destroyers on the other; a war in which --no matter which side "wins"-- truth and beauty will be the victims.
Tragically, I see no reason to dis-believe that initial impression.
I always like to read well-written, well-reasoned, and passionate opinions from the side I disagree with -- it challenges my own thinking, and forces me to think more deeply and more fully about my position. Although the piece you quote descends into stereotype and below-the-belt invective in a few places (e.g., the "right-wing chappies" guilt-by-association canard and the witty but irrelevant and overdrawn swipe at the Catholic church), for the most part it's a stimulating and bracing screed, and I salute both you and the writer of that piece. I'm glad you posted it.
It is, in fact and undeniably, a very powerful and utterly irrefutable argument for why Saddam should be deposed. The thing it doesn't address, though, is that the corporate agenda of world domination, as spearheaded by U.S. intervention, is every bit as much against "light, love, and life" as the fundamentalist throwbacks and totalitarian butchers represented variously by Al Queda, Saddam, et al. The piece also assumes --falsly, in my opinion-- that the U.S. purpose here could be to "redress" greed and ignorance, instead of using the obvious and unarguable horror of Saddam's regime as an excuse to spread and propogate (sp?) greed and ignorance, in the form of world- wide corporate hegemony and the cultural, political, economic, and environmental catastrophe that it represents.
But also, Candice --as I tried to say to Paula earlier -- it's very, very wrong to call opponents of the war, or opponents of U.S. state/corporate imperialism, "anti-American" or [horror of horrors!] "pro-Saddam" (I know you didn't write that article; I'm just re-stating this because I think it needs to be emphasized). I can't think of any rational person in the world, let alone the U.S., who could possibly be "pro-Saddam."
Although Saddam is allegedly a secularist, and although I continue to maintain that as of yet we have no concrete evidence to link him with Al Queda, I agree with the author of this article that in spirit he's aligned with the Dark Ages-driven fundamentalists who, as far as we know, were the demonic minds behind 9/11. You're probably aware that in response to that atrocity, a book was written (I forget the author) that characterised the coming struggle as "MacWorld vs. Jihad World". Candice, that phrase chilled my spine, my body, and my soul -- because it epitomized what, I fear, this has become: a war with no "good guys," a war between bloodthirsty, tyrannical madmen on one hand, and insatiably greedy exploiters and destroyers on the other; a war in which --no matter which side "wins"-- truth and beauty will be the victims.
Tragically, I see no reason to dis-believe that initial impression.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
David I was not meaning to suggest you and Lizzie were enemies of the USA. It is to do with a "family" concept.
I think it is important to show a united front and support your family. Even if you do not wholeheartenly agree with the argument. Behind closed doors vent as much spleen as you need letting your family know your opinions but to the world show a united front. If you feel so strongly about their course of action then I think you ought to leave the family unit and live with people which views you can relate to.
Also I think David's opinions are more logical and there is more substance to them. Whereas Lizzie opinions on the USA concern me. David's do not. I think his opinions are healthy but I don't think Lizzie's are.
I don't think it is necessary to live in the bosom of a community you feel is totally alien to you. There is a whole world out there.
The other thing I would say is I agree totally with your concerns that this war is going to make this world even more unstable that it already was.
I think it is important to show a united front and support your family. Even if you do not wholeheartenly agree with the argument. Behind closed doors vent as much spleen as you need letting your family know your opinions but to the world show a united front. If you feel so strongly about their course of action then I think you ought to leave the family unit and live with people which views you can relate to.
Also I think David's opinions are more logical and there is more substance to them. Whereas Lizzie opinions on the USA concern me. David's do not. I think his opinions are healthy but I don't think Lizzie's are.
I don't think it is necessary to live in the bosom of a community you feel is totally alien to you. There is a whole world out there.
The other thing I would say is I agree totally with your concerns that this war is going to make this world even more unstable that it already was.