hell bent on war

This is for your own works!!!
vern.silver
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada

Post by vern.silver » Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:49 am

Nan,

I did not read any personal attacks into your first post. I think perhaps Lizzytish's response may be out of a feeling of vulnerability seeing as she has been the brunt of many of the attacks (in my view.)

You did, though seem to make up for it in your second.

I don't care if anyone disagrees with my views, as long as they don't start to 'dislike me personally' because of them. At least not until they get to know me. Then they can hate me all they want.
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller » Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:50 am

Nan,
i didn't think that Sore Loser's posting was funny. I believe it was a hit below the belt. (We disagree on that - but that's ok.)
I don't think that lizzytysh was trying to lecture you, or "dismiss you as though" you "were a child not able to learn the lesson set for her by the teacher". (I'm not speaking for her, she certainly will do that for herself, I simply tell you that I disagree with you.)
Maybe I misunderstood your first posting, but I read pretty much the same assumption into it, namely that you were "deducing" that "it follows that those who think the war is justified have to be dumb hicks. Uneducated, easily fooled, unintelligent, brutal and uncaring". This, I think, is neither Elizabeth's position, nor is it mine. Now, as you say you didn't deduce anything like that, I'll take it for granted you didn't. (And I apologize for that, even though I didn't publish this impression before.)
I, too, "remain glad that you've begun to participate here". Maybe some of us are getting oversensitive, but some posting have been very bad dirt thrown at the so-called "pro-peace party", so maybe this is understandable to you.
Please continue discussing your own viewpoints.
Tom
Godzilla
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 7:11 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Godzilla » Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:32 am

AAAARUUUUGH

I never have posted anything serious here on the Forum. I hope no one will hold that against me. But a question I do have.

To Those who live in Great Britain and do not like the war: There has been a lot of harsh things said about the United States, my friends the Americans, and President Bush over the War in Iraq. But I have not seen the harsh condemnation of Prime Minister Blair, Parliament or the 50 percent of British who support this War. So, why is this? And I don't mean just quoting a statistic or two, I mean the real nasty things that are said about the United States should be just as true of Great Britain and Blair.

Godzilla

Everyone here wants to go to America
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller » Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:39 am

Godzilla,

there are those who lead their country into a crime. Then there are those who follow the wishes of their Big Brother, and make their people more or less follow them. Then there are countries that play the role of accessory after the fact.
No one is attacking the US, nor is anybody saying nasty things about them. But this administration is attacking, and their personnel really does throw dirt at those who oppose (think of what Rumsfeld said about Europe, for example.)

Tom
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25395
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:46 am

Dear Nan,

"Stop. Time out......" I need to clarify before I read anything else you or anyone else has written that I wasn't referring to you when I made my last comment/sentence....at all. I was simply reiterating the personal attacks issue, period. It was not intended to be directed at you at all. However, I came across your post as I was scrolling to find the most recent one and read that much, figuring it was to me, as you referenced my saying you were welcome to express yourself here. Before I read the rest of your post, or anyone else's, I wanted to clarify that right away! So, please, do NOT think that I meant that toward you. It was only a general statement, concurrently looking back and looking forward.

Now, I'll go read and catch up, and then read the rest of your post. It's the middle of the night here, and I've just woken up and come to the computer to record a dream I just had, and before returning to bed decided to check to see if anyone had written anything more. As it turns out, it appears many have, not the least of whom is you! But I hope the remainder of yours will not be anger directed toward me, because that's surely not what I meant.

~ Elizabeth
Nan
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 7:20 am

Post by Nan » Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:08 am

This is bizarre. vern and tom---I feel like I have gone Through the Looking Glass.

Indeed I attacked no one in my first post. I gave my viewpoint of what Sore Loser's parody meant. Lizzytysh responds by telling me more or less to wise up. With my deductions. And then tells me "if all else fails" I have her permission to consider it as free verse. "If all else fails" ????

And I now have had two members tell me to "continue discussing your own viewpoints" which is exactly what I did in my first post. I discussed what I thought SL's parody meant. And that I thought it was funny. That's the real problem I think. It made me laugh. I just made the mistake of saying so.
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25395
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:35 am

Dear Nan ~

Okay, now I'm caught up. I'm still a little bewildered with what your opinion is....but I'll take it per what you've said, that you don't agree with what SL said, but just that you found his parody humourous.

I took it that you thought SL's post was funny. I saw it as ridicule only, and didn't find it funny. For one thing, he didn't even manage to come up with his own words or "story line," just merely substitutions of words. As I reread your posts, it still seemed that you agreed with the position "suggested" by SL's co-opting, i.e. that his scenario did represent what pro-war people are like. I, of course, don't agree. The other things I said to you in my post were simply my questioning what appeared to be your saying that my own, personal background was responsible for my pro-peace stance, and was clarifying that that's not [necessarily] the case at all, with there obviously being many [200,000 in New York City alone, protesting on Saturday] who did not come from a "middle-class" background or the same as mine.

I certainly do defend your right to express your views here. I'm hoping that the only thing that may have sounded [and in my previous post I've explained its true intention] defensive [or whatever] was my last sentence in my post. The rest of it was simply me responding to you as I would anyone with regard to what I've said and how they've responded back. I am not attacking you, at all.....nor did I take your post to me as an attack, but rather as a misinterpretation of what I'd said/meant ~ and I was clarifying it, while at the same time expressing my own surprize and confusion at your misinterpretation [even though Vern has speculated that I may have been a little hypersensitive due to a feeling of vulnerability, for the reasons he gave, that really wasn't the case with your and my exchange. I appreciate his proferring that as a possibility, and in slightly related fashion, I think he's accurate in that my surprize may have been rather emotive because my words have been (intentionally) twisted about a bit, and my thinking that it had just happened again via ~ unintentional ~ misunderstanding was still a bit frustrating for me. That's where the "how you deduced.....is beyond me" came from.].

What Tom has said [regarding both S.L.'s post and his take on whether I was lecturing you] is how I feel. I am by no means lecturing you, just trying to make it understood where I do/don't align with how you feel about S.L.'s posting and why.

Yes, as you've already been encouraged by others, I still feel the same as I did......please keep posting. If I don't agree with you, that's fine and will continue to be. It's just that the post you were discussing was indirectly/directly pointed at me, and my responses to you on it had no choice but to seem at least *somewhat* personal :wink: .

Welcome [again] to the Forum :) . I *remain* glad that you've begun posting here, and I definitely still look forward, along with at least two [and I know more] others, to hearing from you. I apologize to you if what I said seemed like an attack. It wasn't what I was doing.

~ Elizabeth

Now it's 2:30 AM and I gotta get back to bed. Goodnite.
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25395
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:44 am

Dear Godzilla ~

I did once mention here somewhere that I felt Britain was as guilty of doing something as the U.S. However, I don't feel comfortable blasting Britain.....kinda ~ but not totally ~ like people who criticize their own family, but don't want others doing it. I feel free to criticize my own country, albeit others feeling me to be unpatriotic when I do it. Due to the strength of my feelings in regard to all this, I find myself unlike that family scenario, in that I do not mind the criticism of others regarding the United States, as I agree too much with them to do so. However, with the way the alignments of countries are, Britain's Blair, et al, are implicit in my criticism. I just don't feel compelled or inclined to be explicit in that regard. I'll leave that to the Brits on the Forum, if they so choose. I also can only bear witness to what's occurred in my own country, and I've never even been to England.

~ Elizabeth
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller » Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:33 am

Dear Nan,

I wrote:
Please continue discussing your own viewpoints.
And Elizabeth used about the same words.
Will you believe me saying that the use of "to continue" implies that you already have started? :wink:
I hope that these things have now been sufficiently cleared, and ask again for your forgiveness, if I misunderstood - which I take to be the case, now.
Tom
User avatar
Byron
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:01 pm
Location: Mad House, Eating Tablets, Cereals, Jam, Marmalade and HONEY, with Albert

Post by Byron » Mon Mar 24, 2003 12:44 pm

Godzilla, welcome to this disfunctional family of misfits and gas blowers. :wink:
Can I direct you to several previous contributions from 'Brits' which started appearing quite a few weeks ago, when the possibility of war was still being discussed.
Take your time to trawl through the mass of material and you will discover a considerable horde of accumulated postings, which go into great depth with regard to the war; the various views of the global picture; the concerns about US Government intentions; the concerns about British Government intentions; personal viewpoints about their respective leaderships and much more.
You will find that the Brits have been as generous with their opinions of their country's stance, as the Americans have about their's.
I am not going to precis any articles, postings, quotes, viewpoints, or offer you any abstracts either.
We will leave it to you to glean what you want from all that has gone before, and I for one, look forward to any contributions you wish to add.
Welcome to the asylum :roll:
Godzilla
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 7:11 am
Location: Tokyo

Post by Godzilla » Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:01 pm

AAAAAARRRRRRUUUUGH! (That means hello)

Byron,

I have read the threads and I see very little criticism of Blair or Parliament. I have read things like "Bush makes me vomit" and worse. My question also is Do you believe that President Bush was involved in the World Trade Center disaster? Vern.silver do you believe this? It is troubling.

Godzilla
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller » Mon Mar 24, 2003 2:09 pm

Godzilla,

I assume you're referring to this:
"The falseness and feigned concern in his voice overrides all messages." It makes you want to vomit...
Allow me a few remarks:

1. The President Bush lies about what you called "the World Trade Center disaster" being the driving motive behind his "Crusade". Shortly after taking over office he announced a change in the American position towards Iraq. So this war was on his agenda long before the WTC horror.

2. Both the CIA and the FBI had to admit (according to the coverage I've seen in the New York Times) they knew before the fact that a major terrorist attack was at hand. They didn't detail into the precision of their information. So I won't trust that the President had not been informed in advance. But I certainly hope he didn't know!

3. The cynical use this President eternally non-elect makes of the WTC victims is abhorring to me. I do explicitely not say that he was "involved". But he used the attack, which has definitely been more than just a "disaster", to pursue purposes that have their roots rather in his Family History and his former involvement in the Oil Business. In effect he abused the victims to push through a war he could never have pushed through without an event like that.

4. Feigning concern about possible victims (the Iraqi people), propagating lies about his real purposes - all this is the stuff the want to vomit can be made of.

Godzilla, I'm with you: It is troubling. But I'm not referring to criticism that may be too strongly worded. I am referring to the policy this administration follows.

Tom
John the Shorts
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 4:22 pm
Location: Wales

Post by John the Shorts » Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:33 pm

Attacks on Tony Blair are 2 a penny in this country - he was elected as a Labour Prime Minister (Left of Centre) but has turned out to be more Right Wing than Mrs Thatcher ever turned out to be.

He is in the process of destroying everything that socialists in this country held dear (NHS, Education, Welfare State and so much more).

In the most recent vote in parliament Mr Blair only won the vote thanks to the support of the Opposition, his own party voted against him despite the imposition of a 3 line whip.

Question for all non UK board members - How much of the above did you know? How much was reported in this way in your national press?

My own guess is that next to nothing of the above has been reported as the media in this country is dominated by the right and these are the people now keeping Mr Blair in office, not his own political party.

JTS (I'll answer replies to this but after this I'll leave politics alone - it causes too much argument and can never be resolved)

Godzilla, Nan Shwmae (Hello) I'm still fairly new here myself but it's good to see others joining in. I don't really know many people here other than by what posts I have read but I'm sure no-one here will have set out with the deliberate intention of upsetting or angering others.

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

Post by Linda » Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:36 pm

So I am to believe your propoganda as fact and what a veteran and many more at the Air Force Base where live are saying is hogwash , they don't know what they are talking about or I imagine they are most likely all brainwashed to believe that way in your opinion. Give me a break!

The definition of propoganda in my dictionary is still the same, systematic efforts to spread opinions of beliefs, any method of speading opinions and or beliefs. Who is doing that here, and is all of it facts? I seriously doubt that.

Nan I agree with your comments on posting here, or coming as a newcomer, if by chance you shouldn't agree, be ready to defend yourself. From when I first joined this board untill now, it has become a nightmare. Where have all the people gone that were here when I first discovered LC? I am so glad I discovered LC before this board (the way it is now). I would never have stuck with it the other way around.
Linda
User avatar
tom.d.stiller
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
Location: ... between the lines ...
Contact:

Post by tom.d.stiller » Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:56 pm

Linda,
I'd be very pleased if you recognized the facts, instead of permanently denying the truth and repeating the same old lies over and over again that you seem to have been made accept.
When the veteran you quoted remembers having been in a permanent war, i don't doubt his memory. The interpretation is wrong, as vern.silver correctly hinted at. The war in 1991 had been supported by the UN, and the UN is the sole authority on this issue. And the UN declared the war to be over long ago. Without having been directly attacked by use of weapons no country is allowed to use the arsenals against any other country. There lies the difference between the 1991 situation and the present one.
And the Security Council, the UN one, not the NSC, wasn't ready to allow for another one. So this attack is, legally spoken, a war crime, you may like it or not.
If you even cared to have a look at some sources like the UN, the Whitehouse.gov, the CIA world factbook, you'd very soon realize that the veteran was as misled by false interpretation as you seem to be.
No hard feelings, though.
Tom
(We may disagree, but we shouldn't start insulting each other. And I think it is wrong if you try to scare off those who might join the forum by creating scapegoats out of peaceful people.)
Post Reply

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