hell bent on war
Breaking it down more, I have to say that I found your posted articles, Candice, annoying ~ not because of their content or perspective ~ but because you were letting your articles stand for "you," as though you were hiding behind them. You initially commented on a humourous piece that Linda cut and pasted here. After that, the only thing you did was post articles. Your comments didn't really appear at all until the article I've already mentioned, which diverted me from commenting, as I now have above. Other cuts and pastes [including Linda's] have not bothered me in that same way because they have expressed themselves prior to and since them. Until today, you had made but one comment of your own [on the humourous piece]. I do feel that the articles have added to the discussions, even yours in their way, but when overly weighted with articles, it becomes cumbersome. As I've already said, I include myself in this assessment, as well. Articles in place of people concern me more than articles being used by people, who have let themselves be "known," to reenforce what they're already saying themselves. I don't know if I've made the distinction clear, but I've tried.
Lizzytsh I did not bring up politics here, and no it would not have mattered if you had praised Bush I still don't think this would be the place to be doing either, you don't see me praising him other than defending him. I never started praising the US on here either, only defending.
I think you have been called on a couple of posts as not being fact. The vet by the Vietnam wall comes to mind, also the Iraq IQ test. We can all search the web and come up with peoples opinions to support our side, and cut and paste. I have said that before, and the opposition seems to get brow beaten for doing it for some reason.
Your last paragraph is so typically you, the answer is no, no. I just regret responding to you at all on this issue.
I think you have been called on a couple of posts as not being fact. The vet by the Vietnam wall comes to mind, also the Iraq IQ test. We can all search the web and come up with peoples opinions to support our side, and cut and paste. I have said that before, and the opposition seems to get brow beaten for doing it for some reason.
Your last paragraph is so typically you, the answer is no, no. I just regret responding to you at all on this issue.
Linda
Hell bent --
Seems I have entered this discussion where the war is just as much alive here as it is in the middle east. I too rarely read the media's 'cut and pastes' as I am more intersted in the view points of of the members than that of the journalists. I know that this war has been a very emotive issue here and elsewhere so it may be time to stand back and see if one can focus on member contributions rather than media contributions. If I was to post an original poem/lyric here should members be intersted in more writing on this war/terrorist issue or on some other totally unrelated topic?
Regards Witty Owl.
-
George Gordon
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Scotland, Greece
-
George Gordon
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Scotland, Greece
-
George Gordon
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Scotland, Greece
And Lizzytysh, just to annoy you further --
W is right to keep UN in its place
One of the best things about the past three weeks of war is that we haven't had to think about the French, Germans, Russians or the UN.
But, alas, few good things ever last forever.
From Paris, Berlin, Moscow and from the Glass Palace on the East River, those who pulled every diplomatic trick to stop us from taking on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein are scurrying to get in on the after-party.
And let's be clear: The spoils of victory are what it's all about.
Iraq is a wealthy country. Our "allies" opposed the war because it threatened their commercial ties to Baghdad. With peace at hand, they're desperate to revive those interests - principally, billions of dollars in oil development deals.
Naturally, the hypocrites are again looking to the UN for cover. Since talking about their real concerns would be too bald - even for them - they're fixed on a convenient geopolitical tool. They're now prattling on about the need for the UN to confer legitimacy on the war - a wedge they hope could lead to the pot of gold they covet.
"I would write the word 'legitimacy' in capital letters," says Germany's ambassador to the U.S. "It is totally, 100% in [America's] interest to create international legitimacy for [the postwar] effort."
The word for that is unprintable, so let's just call it nonsense.
Defining 'vital'
Those carrying the load know this full well. In Belfast yesterday, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair promised a "vital" role for the UN once Saddam is toppled.
Unfortunately for France & Co., Bush couldn't resist defining "vital" after the joint U.S.-British statement was read:
"Well, it'd be a vital role as [an] agent to help people live freely," the President told the media. "That means food. That means medicine. That means a place where people can give their contributions. That means suggesting people for the [interim authority that will help rule Iraq until a formal government is established]. That means being a, you know, a party to the progress being made in Iraq. That's what [vital] means."
What it obviously doesn't mean is anything serious.
In dismissing the UN - which is pretty much what he's done - Bush is not a petulant know-nothing. In fact, he is thinking clearly.
Bush begins from a simple premise: Defeating Iraq is only one part of a much larger objective, a goal that involves changing the Middle East and neutralizing those terrorists hellbent on destroying us.
Bush suffers no illusions. He knows what Machiavelli knew: It's better to be feared than loved. But the President also knows that if you play it smart, you can be respected.
If, as the daily videos from the Arab street reveal, the U.S. is reviled in much of the Muslim world, the U.S. must show that it really doesn't see itself as locked in a life-and-death struggle against Arabs or Islam.
Sooner rather than later, that will mean another attempt to fashion peace between Israel and the Palestinians - as Bush and Blair intone repeatedly.
But what it most means is helping to create an Iraq the Iraqis themselves can be proud of - a free, prosperous democratic example in a region known for authoritarianism.
If that can be done, the rest will be far easier to do. But it should be done by ourselves.
Embracing the UN, with its ossified bureaucracy and petty squabbles, would make the job harder, which would be foolish.
But more important, if we want to retool our image in the Muslim world by doing what's right in Iraq, the U.S. must be seen as having done so without the UN's "help." If the UN "helps," it will claim that only its involvement stayed U.S. imperialism. If the postwar issues were only about sharing the economic burden of reconstruction, the UN could be useful. But the issues are far more significant - and for them, the UN would be an impediment.
This should be America's show because the U.S. needs the credit - and all the credit - it will deserve if the Iraq it creates is a beacon for the kind of change that could actually make the world more peaceful.
W is right to keep UN in its place
One of the best things about the past three weeks of war is that we haven't had to think about the French, Germans, Russians or the UN.
But, alas, few good things ever last forever.
From Paris, Berlin, Moscow and from the Glass Palace on the East River, those who pulled every diplomatic trick to stop us from taking on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein are scurrying to get in on the after-party.
And let's be clear: The spoils of victory are what it's all about.
Iraq is a wealthy country. Our "allies" opposed the war because it threatened their commercial ties to Baghdad. With peace at hand, they're desperate to revive those interests - principally, billions of dollars in oil development deals.
Naturally, the hypocrites are again looking to the UN for cover. Since talking about their real concerns would be too bald - even for them - they're fixed on a convenient geopolitical tool. They're now prattling on about the need for the UN to confer legitimacy on the war - a wedge they hope could lead to the pot of gold they covet.
"I would write the word 'legitimacy' in capital letters," says Germany's ambassador to the U.S. "It is totally, 100% in [America's] interest to create international legitimacy for [the postwar] effort."
The word for that is unprintable, so let's just call it nonsense.
Defining 'vital'
Those carrying the load know this full well. In Belfast yesterday, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair promised a "vital" role for the UN once Saddam is toppled.
Unfortunately for France & Co., Bush couldn't resist defining "vital" after the joint U.S.-British statement was read:
"Well, it'd be a vital role as [an] agent to help people live freely," the President told the media. "That means food. That means medicine. That means a place where people can give their contributions. That means suggesting people for the [interim authority that will help rule Iraq until a formal government is established]. That means being a, you know, a party to the progress being made in Iraq. That's what [vital] means."
What it obviously doesn't mean is anything serious.
In dismissing the UN - which is pretty much what he's done - Bush is not a petulant know-nothing. In fact, he is thinking clearly.
Bush begins from a simple premise: Defeating Iraq is only one part of a much larger objective, a goal that involves changing the Middle East and neutralizing those terrorists hellbent on destroying us.
Bush suffers no illusions. He knows what Machiavelli knew: It's better to be feared than loved. But the President also knows that if you play it smart, you can be respected.
If, as the daily videos from the Arab street reveal, the U.S. is reviled in much of the Muslim world, the U.S. must show that it really doesn't see itself as locked in a life-and-death struggle against Arabs or Islam.
Sooner rather than later, that will mean another attempt to fashion peace between Israel and the Palestinians - as Bush and Blair intone repeatedly.
But what it most means is helping to create an Iraq the Iraqis themselves can be proud of - a free, prosperous democratic example in a region known for authoritarianism.
If that can be done, the rest will be far easier to do. But it should be done by ourselves.
Embracing the UN, with its ossified bureaucracy and petty squabbles, would make the job harder, which would be foolish.
But more important, if we want to retool our image in the Muslim world by doing what's right in Iraq, the U.S. must be seen as having done so without the UN's "help." If the UN "helps," it will claim that only its involvement stayed U.S. imperialism. If the postwar issues were only about sharing the economic burden of reconstruction, the UN could be useful. But the issues are far more significant - and for them, the UN would be an impediment.
This should be America's show because the U.S. needs the credit - and all the credit - it will deserve if the Iraq it creates is a beacon for the kind of change that could actually make the world more peaceful.
Linda ~ I would hope that all my paragraphs would be [so] typically me. However, you say it like it's an indictment.....a parting jab.
Just because you feel it's not appropriate to have brought up politics here doesn't seem to be the measure of whether they should have been brought up. Our lives are inundated with the effects of politics, and as someone has already mentioned previously, Leonard's songs and poetry have found a host for them, as well.
Regarding factual matters, I've seen nothing that discredited the Iraq IQ test, other than one member's opinion of someone who distributed the test. Regarding the Wall, whether it was written as a result of someone having seen a vet at the Wall, or whether it was written as a composite of vets' views and experiences, isn't so important to me. On that, accuracy as to its beginnings would've been preferable, but it's not like quoting events that never occurred, etc. either. It was an emotive piece, intended to be so, to make some valid points about war.
In fact, I have not searched the Web for anything. Things come to me as a result of people I know. I also have no time for searching the Web. The news sites are checked by all of us where I work, out of our continuing interest in current events. However, we are not searching or surfing in that process.
Just because you feel it's not appropriate to have brought up politics here doesn't seem to be the measure of whether they should have been brought up. Our lives are inundated with the effects of politics, and as someone has already mentioned previously, Leonard's songs and poetry have found a host for them, as well.
Regarding factual matters, I've seen nothing that discredited the Iraq IQ test, other than one member's opinion of someone who distributed the test. Regarding the Wall, whether it was written as a result of someone having seen a vet at the Wall, or whether it was written as a composite of vets' views and experiences, isn't so important to me. On that, accuracy as to its beginnings would've been preferable, but it's not like quoting events that never occurred, etc. either. It was an emotive piece, intended to be so, to make some valid points about war.
In fact, I have not searched the Web for anything. Things come to me as a result of people I know. I also have no time for searching the Web. The news sites are checked by all of us where I work, out of our continuing interest in current events. However, we are not searching or surfing in that process.
Hi Candice - I think I owe you an apology you are quite right others have done it a lot more than you have and I think I have just been slowly boiling over with annoyance about it and your post just happened to be the last straw.
Can I suggest that you all just put the "link" in so we can choose whether to read the words of a jouralist etc.
If you deducted all the cut and paste items in this thread the comments of the posters themselves would proably only span 10 pages.
If I wanted to know what the media etc were saying there are millions of web papers I can get them off. I want to know what you lot think not what the media thinks.
Once again I do apologise to you Candice it really wasn't meant to be directed at you solely.
Can I suggest that you all just put the "link" in so we can choose whether to read the words of a jouralist etc.
If you deducted all the cut and paste items in this thread the comments of the posters themselves would proably only span 10 pages.
If I wanted to know what the media etc were saying there are millions of web papers I can get them off. I want to know what you lot think not what the media thinks.
Once again I do apologise to you Candice it really wasn't meant to be directed at you solely.
George Gordon ~
There were no questions posed by whom you term the "wee lass" [a term that might suggest vulnerable, innocent, in need of "protection"] ~ for being so wee, the lass certainly has a huge, ascerbic tongue, directed full-force in personal attack.
In that I'm in the midst of a long assignment at work, I don't have time to address your long post intended to annoy me. However, for now, I can tell you I certainly disagree with a number of things said.
There were no questions posed by whom you term the "wee lass" [a term that might suggest vulnerable, innocent, in need of "protection"] ~ for being so wee, the lass certainly has a huge, ascerbic tongue, directed full-force in personal attack.
In that I'm in the midst of a long assignment at work, I don't have time to address your long post intended to annoy me. However, for now, I can tell you I certainly disagree with a number of things said.
Lizzytysh,
You say I did not ask any questions. You are wrong. Here are the questions I asked.
Here is an article from CNN. Not a right-wing news organization. I wonder. Do those who have said the Iraqi's should not be liberated have any comments to make? I know everyone has said that they do not like Saddam, that he is evil. Here is certainly proof of that. But you have also said that he should not be removed by military force of the United States and Great Britain. Well, Thank God, these two nations have removed him. How else would you get rid of this monster?Iraqis tour half-demolished jail 'of evil'
Why do you say I make personal attacks. Have I attacked you. I only pointed out a fact. That you were cutting and pasteing long before I got here.
You say I did not ask any questions. You are wrong. Here are the questions I asked.
Here is an article from CNN. Not a right-wing news organization. I wonder. Do those who have said the Iraqi's should not be liberated have any comments to make? I know everyone has said that they do not like Saddam, that he is evil. Here is certainly proof of that. But you have also said that he should not be removed by military force of the United States and Great Britain. Well, Thank God, these two nations have removed him. How else would you get rid of this monster?Iraqis tour half-demolished jail 'of evil'
Why do you say I make personal attacks. Have I attacked you. I only pointed out a fact. That you were cutting and pasteing long before I got here.
-
George Gordon
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 2:21 am
- Location: Scotland, Greece
Your dear patronizing old man ~
As you've no doubt experienced here, when you are typing something, and when you read something that someone else has typed, do not always occur in the direct order you'd expect. I often scroll back and find that someone else has typed in something else. The engagement with Linda was more recent for me and more intense. Please do not speak to me of attacks. I also jumped to no conclusions.
"...so eager to attack Linda"....."jumped to your usual".....smog pretty thick out there, is it? table for four? or you won't be coming to New York, either....?
As you've no doubt experienced here, when you are typing something, and when you read something that someone else has typed, do not always occur in the direct order you'd expect. I often scroll back and find that someone else has typed in something else. The engagement with Linda was more recent for me and more intense. Please do not speak to me of attacks. I also jumped to no conclusions.
"...so eager to attack Linda"....."jumped to your usual".....smog pretty thick out there, is it? table for four? or you won't be coming to New York, either....?
Linda ~ Answering you over here, rather than in the New York 2004 section, I have no idea who these "many" are that you refer to, who asked me not to talk about the war. I do recall one P.M.'ing me; however, while I was being my recalcitrant self, it seems that with 7,234 views to date, there must have been at least a couple others interested. No idea why the subject should be taboo.