How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 "The World is Against us........"   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

"The World is Against us........"

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


50 posted 04-08-2003 11:45 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Hate to double dip but here goes:

Brad:
quote:
I support this war, I like the idea of getting rid of Hussein, but, really, was their an immediate threat here? I believe it is the right thing to do, but what happened except a gradual campaign that began a year ago to focus attention on Iraq. What has happened other than Bush and company talking about Iraq?


Conisdering the fact that Saddam Hussein started his political career as an assassin in a botched attempt to kill the president of Iraq when he was 18 (a group of himself and five others approached the president's car from either side of the street and opened fire -- hitting each other -- sorry but I have to laugh) -- and the rest of his carreer up to 1995 when his cousin/son-in-law Hussein Kamal defected to Jordon -- who had been in charge of the WMD program in Iraq (he was in a feud with Uday who was jealous of him because of his closeness to his father and feared his life -- yanno Uday the brute -- the son with his own prison).

Before Saddam killed him -- Kamal managed to give us vital information about the WMD program and Saddam's plans -- he wanted to carry a nuke on a flatbed into Kuwait and put another one on a fishing boat and sail it into an Isreali harbor....  

Do we really think his plotting has ever stopped?  

The danger was always imminent -- we'd have been here without 9/11

It's not totally fair to say that there isn't political hay being made out of it though -- Carl Rove wanted it now to refocus attention from the floundering economy and the fact that we have no Osama Bin Laden in an American jail or even rotting in Cuba -- all things considered though -- just because the Bush team can take advantage of it doesn't mean the threat wasn't imminent.

And -- the organization that's behind the 'Not in our name' bull-oney is a radical group -- no time to look it up -- I'm pretty sure Google will work for Deere and Denise too -- you guys do your homework  

My brain -- is spic and span... by the way... just washed it and can't do a thing with it.

The most blatant bit of whitewashing I've seen so far was today though -- on the BBC World News they reported British Intel doesn't think Saddam was hit by the attack on the restaraunt last evening -- that he left minutes before the strike.  None of the U.S. of A. outlets even mentioned it -- still focusing on we 'don't know' whether or not we got him.  

(British intel BTW is what we've been counting on mostly for this war and the hunt for Bin Laden -- James Bond is better than the CIA folks -- and French INtel too.... ya have to wonder eh?)

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-09-2003 12:11 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


51 posted 04-08-2003 11:57 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Com'on, Mike, I admitted that last one was irrelevant, but just too hilarious to ignore.

Comparisons, even if flawed and less than perfect, can be valuable for detecting inconsistencies and poor logic. You contend that A follows B (people protest the war only because of news stories), so I point out that we usually see B following A (the news usually reflects what people want to read). Your logic in this instance seems to be dictated by what you want to be true, transposing cause and effect, with nothing but misleading rhetoric as evidence. No, anti-American stories aren't very much like baseball stories. But your denunciation of them was a bit like a fish story.

You insist no one should ever say anything negative about Bush because of his "position." So I point out that others are in similar positions, but obviously don't get - or DESERVE - our respect. For politicians, position alone is not and should not be a shield against criticism. Of course, what you might have meant to say (but didn't) is that leaders in YOUR country deserve respect because of their position. Sadly, even that wouldn't have improved your consistency very much. Not unless the "respect" you've repeatedly shown for Clinton is of a very unusual sort. Maybe what you really meant was, "Do as I say, not as I do?"

Analogies aren't perfect, and mine may be worse than most, but sometimes, Mike, it's the only polite way to call something a load of ill-conceived crap.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


52 posted 04-09-2003 12:10 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Micheal if you're not going to be needing your soapbox can I sell it on E-Bay?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


53 posted 04-09-2003 12:11 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, you can't be referring to me, Ron, because my crap is always WELL-conceived! Of course a rose by any other name......

PEACE
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


54 posted 04-09-2003 12:13 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Denise,

First, socialist and fascists don't work well together. Fascists hate America because they think it is socialist, and socialists hate America because they think it is fascist. But what groups are you talking about? Start naming names. And try to show me how they could be behind all the worldwide demonstrations.

But doesn't your whole discussion just beg the question? Why do people hate America in a way that is different than, say, Iraq or Rwanda?

Because nobody can ignore America, they haven't been able to ignore America since WWII. You can ignore Iraq, you can ignore Rwanda, but you just can't make America go away. Without checking, can you name the leaders of five African countries? I can't (Asia and Europe are different matters of course), but I bet everybody in Africa knows who Bush is.

You say America will no longer be complacent, but America has never been complacent, no American government has been isolationist since pre-WWII. The rest of the world knows this, and it just seems that this administration learned the wrong lesson. We have always been involved with the world and that's why people hate America. There's something hugely ironic, humorous if it wasn't so tragic, about a country with the strength of America actually worrying that it's not taken seriously enough.

On the BBC, a woman who lost her son in the war, said, "He died to protect my freedom."

This is wrong.

He died to give Iraqis freedom.

And that is something worth dieing for.

If you can't see the difference between the two, then 911 has done nothing, it hasn't changed American attitudes, only further confused the distinction between American ideals and American borders.

And finally,

quote:
Well, Brad, who knows?  I guess that depends on what one means by immediate threat. No doubt he posed/poses a threat, a threat made more real to many of us by the events of 911. We can no longer take comfort in the fact that we are surrounded by oceans and separated by continents from fanatics and tyrants.  Our complacency is gone forever. For our own survival we cannot afford to take a threat lightly, or hope that a continual policy of appeasement is in the best interests of any free society.


What do you mean by immediate threat?

I made it quite clear, the UN makes it quite clear, what constitutes a threat. Twleve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's a threat. What did Hussein do last year? If you can't point to it, it's not there. I don't know why this is difficult to understand.

The difference is that when someone points this out to me, I can say, "Sure, but is it the right thing to do?" and they respond, "Well, I'm no lover of Hussein, but . . ." whereas you have to run behind about definitions. Not that that's such a bad thing all the time, I like definitions.

But we have a fanatic and a tyrant ninety miles from our shore and we've appeased him (in your sense of appeasement at least) for over forty years. Why not take him on? Is he a threat? He must be or why would it be so difficult to buy cigars from the guy.

"Who's next?" is a question that pops up all the time. But if what you said were true, he would be next, indeed he must be next.

And you know what, I don't think that would be such a bad thing.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 04-09-2003 12:13 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sure, Rebel, but why not just sell it directly to Mysteria? She buys anything that appears on E-Bay the minute it hits the screen....
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


56 posted 04-09-2003 12:16 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

    One would hope that facts would be presented on both sides.  It is not difficult to engage in a debate if one side is not required to respond but to hold the other side "to the facts?"  

    What indications are there that the U.N. has been able to effectively deal with human rights violations?  The Sudan? Rhwanda? or maybe even perhaps Iraq?

    How can one morally justify torture, rape, genocide, enslavement of a people?  They showed the release of hundreds of Iraqi children from a prison where many had been held for years because of the wrong sect or political views of their parents. Was that made up?  Are the Iraqi torture chambers made up?  

     The dude, Brad is the Iraqi information minister.  Should the world believe him? Hundred of thousands, if not millions of Iraqi's have been killed by Saddam's reign, yes or no? Is that a falsehood or a fact?  Where is the outcry in the world over these atrocities?

     How can one say, if weapons of mass destruction are found, then one can gloat?  Why in heaven's name would anyone gloat over the fact that a sadistic sociopath has biological and chemical weapons?  

    I don't gloat over Bosnia nor Afghanistan, but I do not feel particularly bad two American presidents had the courage to act. Yes, that means Clinton as well as Bush. Is this a contest to see who is right?  

    Most of the protesters around the world that we see here in America hold signs indicating this is a war over and for oil?  What facts exist to support this allegation?  

    Who has a higher stake in the economic future of Iraq and is threatened if Saddam is deposed.  Is anyone seriously going to argue that France has not tied itself as well as Russia has to Iraqi oil? Let's hear the facts on that issue.  

    I am not trying to be personal, but I have heard arguments that Americans are not liked because we showed our participants rather that another countries participants after the Olympics.  I also heard the look the president gave the Prime Minister of Canada is a reason to have hostile feelings towards the U.S.  Are those valid reasons to be anti-American?  

    Yes, America has and will continue to make mistakes, both domestically and in foreign policy.  But there appears to be enough hypocrisy on both sides. How can one say, I am against a war but I applaud the results?  

    As far as the Hague, I have seen arguments that it is pro-Nato and Pro-U.S.  Should we rely on justice that is based on world politics or justice?    

    There is a movement to lift sanctions off of the Sudan, I assume it is to not make it easier to sell more children into slavery so they can be shipped to Libya, and what does Libya have to do with the U.N. and human rights violations?  

     And of course, the humanitarian Russians who are fighting for the good of the U.N. by holding a meeting with the French and Germans this weekend.  How many times did the Russians use their veto power or just ignore the U.N.?  What media coverage did they allow when they go in and demolish cities with no concern whatsoever for civilian casualties?  

     What indication is there that Saddam would comply with U.N. resolutions without the presence of overwhelming military force to force him to?
Should the world just contain Saddam and let him continue in his merry way, spending and hoarding millions, excuse me, billions, while his people starve?  

    Is it possible if the U.N. had even minimal ability or willingness to act on despots and dictators involved in gross human rights violations the U.S. would not be in the precarious situation it is in?  

    The world goes to Nigeria to hold the Miss World pagent, a country where women are treated as slaves and stoned to death for alleged religous reasons.  Why did the pagent move, because of the mistreatment of women? Or maybe it was because a newspaper had the courage to criticize and it created a riot situation that anyone would have the audacity to stand up and speak for women and their rights?  What was the world view on that issue?  A compassion for rights?  

     The U.S. has made mistakes, and will continue to do so, but the rest of the world has a hard time in my opinion, and this is clearly my opinion to stand on any righteous moral ground.

[This message has been edited by Tim (04-09-2003 12:38 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


57 posted 04-09-2003 12:25 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

point of order Tim --

I'd love to read your last post but since you didn't break it down into paragraphs it is extremely difficult to read sir....

if'n ya don't mind -- would you edit please?
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


58 posted 04-09-2003 12:33 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

sorry, didn't know anyone read my ramblings and rants.  Just a country bumpkin here who clearly was not an English major.  Doubt there was much said of intellectual importance anyway, just was reacting to the scenes I saw on television tonight by the propagandists we all know as the American media.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


59 posted 04-09-2003 12:46 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

   When we felt a threat from the tryrant some 90 miles from our shore, we came about as close as the world has ever seen to a nuclear war between Russia and the U.S.  I remember wondering at the time if the world was going to destroyed in nuclear holocast because of a perceived threat to American security.  As a nine year old, perhaps the thought was more, are we all going to get blown to bits because of the missiles in Cuba?
   So I guess I have a bit of trouble with that example.  Would you liken Castro to Saddam? Both or neither: mass murderers, guilty of genocide of their own people?

[This message has been edited by Tim (04-09-2003 12:55 AM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


60 posted 04-09-2003 12:52 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, Michael thanks for not quoting some of the things I no longer believe in.  

But let me address one of the lies you speak of.

Arab presses say that coalition forces target women and civilians.

We have.

Arab presses also show women and civilians as suicide bombers.

So, please explain to me why we shouldn't target women and civilians?

I don't want one soldier to second guess him or herself on this.

Added note: I deleted my last question here. Now that was a cheap shot and I apologize for it.


[This message has been edited by Brad (04-09-2003 01:13 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


61 posted 04-09-2003 01:16 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Second-guessing themselves is part of the job description, Brad. It's called judgement.

Maybe we need a little review of logic? Suicide bombers are one group, which we can call S. Women and civilians are another group, and we'll call them W. And yes, there is a subset of these two sets, the Union of S and W. Let's call it SUW.

Now which of these three are being targeted?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


62 posted 04-09-2003 02:54 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Obviously, SUW.

But the propoganda machine says that huge numbers of W are S so, if we take it at face value, we're stuck with targeting W.

I was just trying to show that there is an inconsistency to be pointed out there. I just think this is a better tactic than accusing them of lies (true of course but not particularly news) while we make mistakes.

Dennet says somewhere that he detests bad arguments made for positions he holds dear.
A lot of the stuff I'm trying to do here isn't really any more than that.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


63 posted 04-09-2003 03:27 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

LR and Tim,

Great stuff (or rather horrible stuff). I hope your not trying to convince me, I'm already converted (My complaint is in the execution). But here's the problem:

1. We initiated this action.

2. Every argument that both of you made was designed to take away the moral ground from others, but that doesn't automatically confer it on us.

The arguments presented are basically always the same:

Anti-war: Who are you to go and invade countries when you feel like it?

Pro-war: Who are you to question my actions or the actions of my government?

And they just talk past each other. Both sides are claiming that the other side doesn't have the moral ground to do what they're doing.  

And they're right. Now what? While few are for Hussein in any real sense, a lot of people are against a unilateralist America.

I think we have to accept this. The question to my mind, as the initiators of this action, isn't that other people are bad (we know that), isn't that Hussein is bad (we know that), isn't that some out there hate us no matter what we do (we know that), but that in the end how do we convince people that we're actually on their side?

One way, I think, is to get away from these endless sand trap arguments and say what needs to be said. This is one move in an overall action to change the world, to make it a democracy, to extend human rights, and the rule of law around the world.

This is not a selfless strategy as it makes the world safer for people (and, yes, for stable markets), but it's a strategy that many, I think, if expressed in the right way, can go far.

Why?

A few years back I jokingly mentioned to several Korean professors that what I really wanted was a United States of the world. Surprisingly they said, "Brad, that's what we want".

I was shocked, but this is a valid goal, not the emulation of American culture, not the 'for us or against us' rhetoric, but the establishment of human rights, the rule of law, and liberal constitutions.

The only vehicle really able to do this right, the only one I can see at any rate, is the UN. If they can't do it, if they're not up to the task, then what do you propose that can?

Because there's going to be a lot of cleaning up to do for the next fifty years or so.

  


Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


64 posted 04-09-2003 08:57 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

The reason the arguments remain the same is because no one refutes them with a plausible alternative.  All I hear is "but,"  Saddam is evil, but...
Yes, but...  "The U.N. should be the driving force behind the democratization of the world..."  I wouldn't use the word democratization myself, I would think our goal as a world would be to ensure basic human rights to all people.  What is the difference between should and is?  Is there ever a line someone can cross before pre-emptive action is necessary.  What the heck is pre-emptive?  If Hitler had decided to stay in Germany and exterminate the gypsies and Jews, would have it been wrong for action to be taken against him?  I do not expect to change anyone's mind, I just find it interesting to observe the logic employed to justify a stand against the removal of one of the cruelest and most sadistic leaders in history.  I fully understand what I consider the pacifist point of view, if you are against war and are willing to accept the consequences, then you stand on a moral ground.  And Brad, I suspect the world will be cleaning up after itself far in excess of fifty years, we haven't done too great of job up to this point.  ( I include the U.S. as well as the rest of the world in that statement, and I still don't know how to do those smilie face thingees)
morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


65 posted 04-09-2003 12:13 PM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

I always take a while to post here because I only get a chance to folow up at 9 in the mornings. Like Balladeer said "life is calling" I try to read all that was said before so I can get a good grasp of the way the issue is being ventilated.

Now Michael said in (I believe) his last post, that "nothing is being achieved" by the discussion. I want to make it clear to all of us that contrary to that view, a whole lot is being achieved. We have, for the last couple of days, been discussing in a civil and decent way, with no vitriol that I can detect, an issue which some of us, quite obviously, feel very passionate about. That, ladies and gentlemen. is quite an achievement. We are (I assume) are all from different backgrounds, some of us from different countries, and maybe different socialisations. Notwithstanding, we have mangaged to be decent. In a world where there is so much hostility and intolerance, I think that we should be proud of ourselves. As far as the specific issue is concerned, I am not sure that there has to be a general consensus on who is right or wrong for there to be the achievement of general understanding of each other.

Now I wanted to comment on the original topic of the thread: The World is Against us..."  It seems to me that a number of the views posted here, have clearly illustrated this belief that the world is against America; that there is some underlying plot, or scheme against America, and Americans. My question is, why on earth would the entire world be against America? We (the world in general) owe so much to America, that it would be inconceivable that such a notion could be true. In fact, it is absolutely not true. The world does not hate America. The world (I believe) simply wants the US to uphold the ideals that it was founded upon, in a fair and impartial way. If even the hint of partiality or ufairness, or indeed, arrogance, is exhibited, the US will be viewed with suspicion. Why is this? The world has always been suspicious of Superpowers, and where there is only one Superpower, the suspicion increases tenfold. I think that what most of us (Non-Americans) worry about is simply this: What do we do if this massive Superpower, the most powerful in history, decides to become a tyrant? Now I suppose that Americans may not be able to fully comprehend the fear associated with such a thought but for the rest of us, it is a very real possibility.

So when we hear the utterances coming out of the White House ("with us or against us") we wonder; when we remember the attitude to the World Court, we wonder; when we consider some of the Constitutional rights of Americans which seem to be in jeopardy after 9/11, we wonder; When we think about the general attitude of US foreign policy, we wonder; When we recall that Israel has repeatedly ignored directives from the UN, with US support and (seemingly) encouragement, we really have to wonder. Some of us view the war in Iraq as another (maybe the most frightening) indication of a Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it likes, regardless of world opinion.

Having said all that, some of us still love America. My mother has lived there since 1984, (incidentally, she supports the war but I do not love her any less) and my country has benefited greatly from the goodwill of America. I think that the US is a very great nation. Most of my favorite sports, movie, music, and artistic personalities are from America and I think that the American Constitution must be considered one of the greatest documents ever crafted. All of this does not change my mind about the war in Iraq. In my opinion, it is simply wrong. Does that make me anti-American? Do I have to support EVERYTHING that America does so as not to be considered against America? Because when you get right down to it, this is what pro-war Americans seem to be suggesting: If you are not with us, you are against us.... ooops, didn't somebody else say that already?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


66 posted 04-09-2003 12:15 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Tim,

I think we agree. My only argument for the UN is that people look to it as an authority.

I was at a family function this evening (the Confucian memorial for a grandmother, lots of bowing and drinking) and the TV was on. A brother or cousin (I get all these things confused in Korean, they have a different word for every possible family distinction) mumbled to me in English, "Might makes right."

I'm looking at Iraqis who are cheering our troops on, and I asked him really? He changed his wording, still in English, to Pax Americana.

I smiled and nodded. But the distinction, perhaps, between you and I, is that I still see the US as part of the UN.

I think we can make a difference there.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


67 posted 04-09-2003 12:24 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
We (the world in general) owe so much to America, that it would be inconceivable that such a notion could be true. In fact, it is absolutely not true. The world does not hate America. The world (I believe) simply wants the US to uphold the ideals that it was founded upon, in a fair and impartial way. If even the hint of partiality or ufairness, or indeed, arrogance, is exhibited, the US will be viewed with suspicion. Why is this? The world has always been suspicious of Superpowers, and where there is only one Superpower, the suspicion increases tenfold. I think that what most of us (Non-Americans) worry about is simply this: What do we do if this massive Superpower, the most powerful in history, decides to become a tyrant? Now I suppose that Americans may not be able to fully comprehend the fear associated with such a thought but for the rest of us, it is a very real possibility.


Yep,that's pretty much how I see it.

And Michael, in case you think I've changed my mind, I haven't, it is this that I've been trying to express for well on three years now. Hmmm, maybe that's why I haven't published that best seller yet?



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


68 posted 04-09-2003 02:16 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I thought we were targeting SUV's....

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


69 posted 04-09-2003 03:13 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

The first time I drafted the response, I made Suicide Bombers S, and Women and Civilians C, which made the union of the two SUC. I thought that was just a little too cutesy, though.

I guess it wouldn't have really mattered. That anyone would want to target the union of the sets pretty much blew me away, though I'm sure all the other suicide bombers will find it very reassuring.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


70 posted 04-09-2003 03:25 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I suspect we do Brad...
just a note of 1000 civilians massacred,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2922595.stm
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 04-09-2003 06:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

quote:

So when we hear the utterances coming out of the White House ("with us or against us") we wonder; when we remember the attitude to the World Court, we wonder; when we consider some of the Constitutional rights of Americans which seem to be in jeopardy after 9/11, we wonder; When we think about the general attitude of US foreign policy, we wonder; When we recall that Israel has repeatedly ignored directives from the UN, with US support and (seemingly) encouragement, we really have to wonder. Some of us view the war in Iraq as another (maybe the most frightening) indication of a Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it likes, regardless of world opinion."

This is language I can understand...thank you. There is only one part I would think should be changed.

Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it likes...

I would change to..

Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it thinks best for its own good

I don't feel, in all fairness to Bush, he is  doing this because he likes it or likes war, rather he feels it an inevitability to our national security. There is a difference...

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I had a huge Rottweiler once, the most gentle, playful and faithful dog in the world to me. I remember, though, thinking that, if he ever wanted to, he could tear me to shreds. He never gave any indication he would but I still made sure that every time he flashed his teeth his tail was wagging. I understand what you're saying....
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


72 posted 04-09-2003 11:45 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

or as I heard, perhaps an elephant who does not understand when he moves within a house, the flick of a tail, or lift of a trunk can brush against someone else in the house and the elephant would not even be aware of contact, but the other would feel they had been pummelled.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


73 posted 04-10-2003 03:00 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I'm not sure the animal analogies give me much comfort, guys. Because if I had a dog or elephant I felt I could no longer trust, I know what I would do.
Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


74 posted 04-10-2003 04:40 AM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer

Ron, would you encage them?


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> "The World is Against us........"   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors