leonardcohenforum.com

War is not the answer
Love is
In war men use arms
in love men use arms also.

If one day some killer would like to murder your family, I know you will invite him into your loving arms Paula.


"why dont you come on back to the war
don´t be a tourist"

Peter,
I don't think it's fair, or even adequate, to compare the planned raid over Iraq with the defensive behavior towards a very real and personal threat.
Saddam, though a criminal he is, isn't a threat to any other country; he is not connected to the WTC terrorists.
To my mind, the "war" LC is referring to in "There is a war" rather is the general conflict that keeps things moving, like the old Greek said that war is the father of all things.
The war Paula is talking about isn't in the same line as "a war between the rich and poor, a war between the men and the women", it is slaughter, murder.
Tom

"They who have no arms have cleanest hands"

"If one day some killer would like to murder your family, I know you will invite him into your loving arms Paula"

that would depend on whether he truly repented of his sins. It is incumbent upon us to love our enemy, even if he is unkind or ugly.

Paula

The war Paula is talking about isn't in the same line as "a war between the rich and poor, a war between the men and the women", it is slaughter, murder.
Tom


Tom is expressing a pacifistic but wise approach here, which total bloody warmongers like Peter would do well to heed.

if someone murdered my family heaven forbid,i would love them....
after they were quartered and strung!

this "love"is really a form of hate.hate of ones self,hate of ones values.
i dont want to argue the "sadam:peacefull lovemonger v.s. bush murderous maglomaniac" debate.

saluté
elazar

I can't imagine the concept of what you are saying.

"Even if he is unkind or ugly" How is a murderer or tyrant "unkind" and what does it matter if he is ugly. Would it be better if he got you a cushion before he killed you or if it was George Clooney that would be OK? He has just murdered your family but it is OK he said sorry and he has nice eyes.

It is not incumbent on us to forgive. It might be incumbent on you but it is certainly not on me. Please don't foist your policies on me

Not sure here, but this is how I "took" [read] what the new Paula said. When she said "enemy," that pretty well explained the category. When she said, "unkind or ugly," I took it to mean the degrees and extremes, on a continuum within that category. Whether their behaviour is, i.e. [on the one end] unkind..........................................................ugly [on the other end]. I didn't take the ugly to be referring to physical appearance.

The Christian stance [which it sounds like this Paula may be, given her use of "incumbent"'] is to forgive, just as Jesus did, regarding all extremes of others' behaviours. Easier said than done, and the responses that followed hers are, of course, excellent examples of the human side of things. One historical example of her position would be Anne Frank's attitude. Another historical example would be Corrie Ten Boom's attitude, who met the executioner of her parents, many years after Auschwitz ~ and forgave him.

Elazar said if someone murdered my family heaven forbid,i would love them....
after they were quartered and strung!

I firmly believe you should love them *before* they are quatered and strung.

"Paula" said I can't imagine the concept of what you are saying.

"Even if he is unkind or ugly" How is a murderer or tyrant "unkind" and what does it matter if he is ugly. Would it be better if he got you a cushion before he killed you or if it was George Clooney that would be OK? He has just murdered your family but it is OK he said sorry and he has nice eyes.

It is not incumbent on us to forgive. It might be incumbent on you but it is certainly not on me. Please don't foist your policies on me

____________________________________

first of all, I have no reason to suspect that George Clooney is involved in any major crime. I have seen him interviewed on television many times and he seems rational and normal. Secondly, if you think about it, as he is a star, he will have a diary and probably a secretary. He would always be alibied .

also I dont quite understand your cushion idea. it may not make a difference whether a cushion is used or not. but if I came face to face with my killer afterwards, then yes I would share a cushion with him as this is the proper Christian approach imo.

Lizzytish has been reading my mind!

remember we are all G-d's children!!!!

paula_hansen wrote: Tom is expressing a pacifistic but wise approach here...

Many thanks for deeming this wise, but definitely I'm not a pacifist. If there is a real attack, I might consider violence an adequate means (sometimes you can't keep your hands clean).
In spite of this, I respect your position, and I think it is an absolutely honorable one. But let me put the reasons why I oppose this present war as clearly as possible.
Though WTC was, of course, a real attack of insufferable brutality, it is obvious that the Iraq didn't control it nor is in any way connected to it, no matter how often those sitting in five-angled buildings and oval offices repeat their lies.
Killing Saddam (who is a criminal and a ruthless dictator, i repeat that, Elazar!) was on Bush's agenda before September 2001 (personal reasons, I presume), and besides he needs a fall guy, because he doesn't seem to be able to present a real success in the fight against terrorism.
So this war is not justifiable, attacking the Iraq doesn't have anything to do with self-defense. This war is just slaughter. Thousands of civilians will be killed, children will burn alive, all because Li'l George wants to have one up over his father...
Tom

Tom "wise but not pacifistic" said

Killing Saddam (who is a criminal and a ruthless dictator, i repeat that, Elazar!) was on Bush's agenda before September 2001 (personal reasons, I presume),

2 questions arise


firstly, and more important, is there some personal motivation here? was there a diplomatic spat or snub years ago? for example did Bush refuse to take off his shoes when visiting Sadaam's home, or say something anti-Islamic? or did Sadaam not salute the Stars and Stripes? I knwo that sometimes really big arguments can start from little incidents.


2 how do you quote in that white block way, it's really neat?

Paula (not the agressive war-monger one)

Wait, wait Paula#2.....Paula #1 was pro-this-war to begin with. However, she has since expressed some ambivalence about this war and its purposes. She was also anti-war in the 60s. Right, wrong, or otherwise, her position regarding this one came into being as a result of other feelings, which have surfaced since the 60s and in relationship to issues surrounding this one.....or world safety in general. Even so, she has vacillated somewhat on it. I may be expressing this ["her"] in not-totally-accurate fashion, but I'm coming close. The bottom line is that it's unfair to imply or suggest that she's "the aggressive, war-monger one."

Meanwhile, I'm glad that I understood what you were trying to say [and saying, from the way I read it].

~ Lizzytysh

I am biting my tongue quite excessively at the moment.

Paula (the sandwich short of a picnic one). I am not a war mongering, gung ho, agressive person. I do not advocate war just for the sake of it. I am torn with this conflict between the fact sometimes it is better to confront an agressor head on than leave him to his agression on weaker people. It could well be if war does not happened the iraq people might be in a worse state than if it does. I am keeping my powder dry on this one, mainly because I can see both sides of the argument.