"Jesus, another state of high alert. Is this what we're going to have to deal with for the rest of our lives?"
"Well, what choice do we have? Bush gets criticized for not doing enough, then he gets criticized for doing too much. It's like blaming the owner of a house for a burglary because he didn't shut the door right. These high alerts are Al-Quaeda's fault, not ours. They started it but we're damn sure gonna finish it."
"But how are we going to finish it with Al-Jazeera brainwashing ninety percent of the population in the Middle East and training their children to hate America?"
"When we've killed all the terrorists and enough of the sympathizers, they'll start being a lot more cooperative, believe me. That's all those psychotic pricks understand."
"I don't think so. It's a whole different mentality out there. I think we're all screwed. We're going to have to worry about another 9/11, or worse, forever. How are we going to get rid of all of them when the hatred is growing for America and new terrorists are being recruited every day?"
“All I know is you have to fight fire with fire when it comes to terrorists. They don't respect Pacifism. It just makes it easier for them to slaughter us.”
"I just wish there was a better way."
"This is the only way. Take my word for it."
“I think there are times when we have to fight, too. It’s a necessary evil in this world. I just have too many questions this time. I was glad to see the Taliban and Hussein taken out but Bin Laden is still alive out there somewhere four years later. I'm afraid we're stuck in another war now with no way to win, and no way to know when it's over. I mean, how is it ever going to end when terrorists grow like corn over there?"
"The only thing terrorists understand is violence, and they messed with the wrong country this time."
"I like the idea of terrorists running and hiding in holes in the ground like rats, too. But I can't help feeling like we're putting out a fire with gasoline."
"What are we supposed to do? Sit around waiting for them to sucker punch us again? We've got to keep them on the run."
"I learned self-defense so I could protect myself from evil people. Then one day, a guy tried to mug me. I beat him up pretty bad. At first, I was happy that it was him on the ground and not me. But later, when I had time to think about it, I felt bad about the beating I gave him. I thought I might have overdone it. I thought about the condition his life was in and how I had made it worse. And I realized that if I was more well-trained, stronger and wiser, I might have hurt him less or not at all. There's always more than one way to handle a conflict, if you're able to have clarity in chaos. It's natural to want blood when someone hits you, but this situation is so damn messy, I don't know what the right thing to do is anymore."
"They declared war on us. We had to respond."
"Do you think America is a Christian country?"
"Of course!"
"Well, what is the first thing Christ always said? Turn the other cheek, right? But when have we ever done that? I guess it's just nice to hear that crap in church but the real world is too messy to actually do it."
"Well, what would you suggest? How do you think we should be handling this?"
"I don't know. Probably just the way we are. We can't do nothing and hope terrorists will go away. I just don't like the idea of my children living their lives in fear. I wish we could have avoided all this entirely by staying the hell out of the Middle East to begin with, but God knows that's impossible with oil running the whole planet. I mean, we're not even supposed to be entangled with them the way we are. The world has become too small. That night I got mugged, I thought about how I could have avoided the whole thing if I just would have made different decisions beforehand. I knew it was a bad neighborhood and I stood out like a sore thumb but I didn't leave. So I can't exactly act surprised when somebody tries to mug me, even if the mugger is ultimately at fault. I shouldn't have been in that neighborhood, and we shouldn't have been in the Middle East."
"All I know is we have to deal with things the way they are, not the way we wish they were."
"Yeah, I'm afraid so."
An old theme, once again, repeated.
I saw a photograph once
of a soldier
being carried from a battlefield
by two of his comrades.
They were holding him under each arm
and his heels were dragging on the ground.
His head hung limply backward,
resting between his shoulder blades.
One of the soldiers was shouting
at the photographer
in anger, I suppose,
for capturing his fallen friend
in such an
undignified
moment.
You see, the skin and hair
had been flayed from his skull.
Where his face used to be,
there was a wet, red, freakish grin
reflecting the bright sunlight
and his eyes lolled madly
in the hollow sockets.
Once,
he was
a father,
a brother,
a husband,
a son
who laughed and sang.
Author notes
I realize this is a tender subject. My goal in this piece was to capture the confusion and divisiveness this war is causing here in America, and everywhere. The people who see it in black and white terms sometimes sound unreasonable and vengeful. The ones who don't sometimes sound disloyal. Neither is usually true. It's a dilemma as old as the hills.
Since conflict is the essence of drama, I originally set out to frame a conversation between someone who is vehemently pro-war and someone who is vehemently anti-war. Instead, I decided the conversation should be between a supporter of the war and someone who is basically in favor of squashing tyrants but is torn about several issues.
What I ended up with was the most typical conversation I've heard here in America (Maybe I should say "California" since most consider this state to be an alternate reality.)
Personally, I would be neither of the people in the conversation completely. I'm glad we took Hussein and the Taliban out of power, and if there was a parade in my town tomorrow, I would be there. Good is good, no matter how it happens.
I also wanted to demonstrate that the discussions about this war aren't much different than those about any war, anywhere, throughout history.
The ending was an attempt to simplify all the rhetoric and return to the basic human cost that wars always exact. The abrupt transition was intentional, kind of like a "smash cut" in film, and was meant to create a contrast and evoke an emotional response by switching abruptly from complicated to simple. Judging by some of the very emotional responses to this poem, I think it might have had the desired effect.
If anyone thinks I'm anti-American or anti-military, I would ask you to read this poem again a few times. It's healthy to talk about this war. Any war. As always, silence is also a formidable enemy.
Thanks for your time,
Mark
Written August 26th, 2004
In a list
A contest entry
- The Sketches of War by Chuck Johnson.
300 points, ended August 28, 2004, 13 entries
Bronze trophy winner
• next poem in this contest, remove from contest
What did you think
Comments
1 - 51 of 51
-
This is such a touchy subject...a painful subject....for many.
It is a confusing subject for me.
I know that we can't sit around and wait...so, no matter how you look at it, something had to be done...and it was and is....I pray for us all...
Brilliant piece.
Sam
-
Wow, yet another fact I had not considered. It's amazing how the conquering heroes are demonized and the true demons are given sovereign status. Thanks for pointing that out. I've heard so much horrible stuff about Hussein, I must have forgotten about that. Who can keep track? lol
(Have you ever thought about how much "Saddam Hussein" sounds like "Sodomize Insane"? That would be much more fitting, actually.)
Thanks for dropping by. I need the help with D.P. all over me like a cheap suit. haha (Just kidding, David.)
Mark -
Well, Iraq was not a sovereign country. Saddam was on death row... he broke out of jail and fled the country..... to come back with his "gang". He and his gang killed all government officials and took the country over. In police work... that's called "home invasion"! Now, regarding home invasion I don't think that any of us can or will ever tolerate some ass crook taking over our house. A country is simply a larger house and Saddam.... nothing more than an invading thug. That alone is enough for a "swat" team to go in - to save the "house" and its true owners.
Just because it is a country doens't mean it is not a house or home. It is.... and when left defenseless by a murderous take-over, it is the spiritual job of everyone on this planet to free the hostages - in this case every Iraqi citizen.
Nice write Mark. I see you have stirred the pot once again.
Don
btw..... this forum is a perfect forum for any and all thoughts... I thought that is what poetry was for... and this forum is absolutely for poetry! -
Thanks, Chuck.
It was easy to keep my temper because David is actually one of my best friends on this site. The angry comment above was the only time I've ever gotten upset with him. He just gets a little, uh, emotional sometimes and gets a little too creative in his criticisms. lol But he has a heart as big as all outdoors and I know he doesn't mean any harm. I actually enjoy our debates. I think he does, too. I just wish it wouldn't take so long for him to realize that I'm right. hahaha
Thanks for reading that extremely long comment. I'm proud to have you in my corner. haha
Mark -
.
Could not have said it better. Your comment is right on and full of the truth of the situation. From the media to the masses you've managed to sum up the situation in the War, America, Politics, Media, and Religion. You've kept your temper and not blamed when blame was due. Ty Check 6!
. -
Hey David,
Just wanted to address a few things you said -
I misinterpreted the "comfy confines of AP" comment. You were right. There is no one saying "Please be diplomatic" in the real world. However, I take that into account when I’m posting here. I don’t think all my pieces are publishing material. Sometimes they are just what I needed to get out of my system that particular day. However, I'm going to delete my comments. I misinterpreted that remark. Sorry.
" . . . it appears the average American is losing their civil liberties and are being terrorised into supporting Bush almost against their better judgement."
I am not noticing this at all. Most of the people I speak with criticize Bush and the war very angrily and with no shame whatsoever. Nobody I know feels terrorized.
"The issue is using the tragedy of these attacks to diminish domestic civil liberties in America, waive the Geneva convention, ignore UN protocol, link, it would appear, tenuously Bin Laden terrorist links to Iraq, smudge spuriously WMD information as the catalyst for invading a sovereign nation no matter how evil that sovereign nation is, ignore the role of Saudi Arabia, put American, Australian, English etc troops in another Vietnam, bombing civilian populations as well as a whole array of other issues that go beyond terrorism to trade agreements, environmental issues, gay and broader civil liberty issues, all of which amount to this American administration, not Americans, not America but this administration creating unilateral decisions that isolate it from global consensus and this makes other nations very uneasy."
What can I say? Any action by a powerful country that the world has grown accustomed to resenting can be twisted to appear evil and arrogant. You can find good or bad in anything, depending on what you focus on. But the fact remains that Bush had to do something. Those are the things he chose to do. I contend that the world community and Republican-hating liberals would be tearing him apart NO MATTER WHAT HE DID. You just can’t satisfy some people. If they were at the last supper, they would complain about not having any ketchup. The world is full of forgetful, ungrateful idiots who have no idea just how evil some people in this world are, and probably never will until someone they know personally gets killed. As the old saying goes, “A conservative is a liberal who got mugged.”
A talk show host here in L.A. named Dennis Prager is in favor of the death penalty. A lady called him one day and said, "I used to get so upset with you because you support the death penalty and I was always against it, but a month ago, my best friend was raped and killed. Now I'm for the death penalty. I just wanted to let you know I'm on your side now."
Dennis said, "That's great, but why did it take you losing someone you love for you to change your mind? All the other rapes and murders happening all the time didn't make you feel passionate enough that evil people should die the way their victims did?"
In other words, the problem with people is it usually has to be personal before they get passionate about punishing evil. As long as it happens to other people, or to another country, it's no big deal. When I was in Paris in 1992 during the L.A. riots, a Parisian came right out and said to me, "If it doesn't happen in Paris, I don't care." That attitude is probably pretty common, and it's one of the reasons the human race never gets it's shit together. If it has to happen to us before we'll care, we're doomed.
Regarding diminished civil liberties, it's simply impossible to tighten security without diminishing some civil liberties. It’s the cost of safety and I don’t mind paying it. People who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about.
I don't think Bush following his stated mission by taking out two countries that support terrorism, where he MIGHT have found Bin Laden and WMD's, is spitting on the Geneva Convention. But since he didn't find Bin Lid or WMD's there, all the Monday morning quarterbacks come out to condemn him. If he would have found them, he would have been a hero. Such is the fickle finger of fate, kind of like Geraldo finding a couple of empty beer bottles in what he hoped was the secret vault of Jimmy Hoffa.
Iraq was a sovereign nation, but Hussein also routinely threatened America with mass destruction. He messed with the bull and he got the horns. Bummer. Besides, "sovereign" is too nice a word for what was going on there and in Afghanistan. This is another example of liberal flip-flopping. A Republican president is screwed no matter what he does. Bush is being criticized for not doing anything to prevent 9/11 and he's being criticized for doing too much after it. Again, he would be criticized no matter what he did.
The “world community” seems to love America when it's down. That's why the world wrapped itself in U.S. flags after 9/11. But when we start searching for terrorists and taking out the people who supported them, tyrants who repeatedly stated publicly that they wanted to hurt us, the world started going to their defense and calling America the bad guy! France is even funding the terrorists now. No wonder Bush pays no attention to the opinion of the world community. He probably knows he'll be criticized no matter what he does, so he’s making up his own mind about what’s right for America. Who could blame him with a U.N. that takes years to make any and all decisions.
Since there hasn't been another major or minor attack here since 9/11, I think he's doing something right, despite all the hysterical rantings of the conspiracy theorists.
Almost every war has the potential to be another Vietnam. I don't want to go into the statistics again but the deaths in this war have been miniscule compared to most past conflicts, and there was much less squawking back then. Americans have been living in peace and prosperity, and have become so fat and ignorant, they've lost touch with how much evil there is in the world, so much so that they are more ready to accuse their own government of evil and ignore the evil of the enemy! The current state of the average American is at an all-time low.
Liberal arguments against the war always start out passionately but fizzle out when presented with facts. Most liberals I talk with don't even know that their beloved hillbilly, Clinton, proposed taking Hussein out by force in 1998 but Congress rejected it. Otherwise, he would have been the bad guy. Then again, probably not. Liberals hate conservatives more than tyrants, and will excuse any indiscretion by a democratic president as long as he supports abortion and gay marriage.
I agree with you in regard to trade agreements, ignoring the role of Saudi Arabia, and environmental issues. If I don't vote for Bush, it will be because of his own terrorism against the environment. His record is deplorable. He's turned around just about every piece of legislation protecting wild lands in America and relaxed laws against industry pollution. It's disgusting. Personally, I'm going to trade my car in for a hybrid soon and encourage everybody I know to so we can someday free ourselves of our slavery to Saudi Arabia.
Aside from this war and Bush's actions, etc., I think that much of the resentment around the world toward America is a result of our being the world's #1 weapons supplier. It's got to cause a little resentment to pick up a gun or bomb casing almost anywhere in the world and read "Made in U.S.A." on it. There's an old Jackson Browne song -
There's a shadow on the faces
of the men who send the guns
to the wars that are fought in places
where their business interest runs.
Despite our differences, I am gravely disappointed with my country in a lot of ways. Slavery and the attempted genocide of the Native Americans for starters. It would have been nice if we could have started out in an enlightened and peaceful way. Maybe our current state of affairs has something to do with karma. Then there’s all the crap the CIA is into. I don’t even want to get started on that one.
The sad fact is a lot of people get rich from war. I supposed it has always been that way. It's big business. That's why John and Robert Kennedy got blown away. They wanted peace, and that has never been possible in this world. Only about 500 years out of the last 5000 have been peaceful worldwide. It's human nature, it seems. Not yours or mine, but apparently a lot of others. That's why I went against my nature of being a peace-loving person and went to the recruitment center on 9/12. There are a lot of people in this world who will not be happy until everything unlike themselves is dead, and they must be stopped.
"My attitude is that populations in many of these countries are innocent and rather than attacking them, with the same amount of money spent of waging wars, genuine humanitarian assistance that values not just life but the cultures and traditions of these countries would produce a far greater and positive human benefit."
That is exactly the kind of irrational, feel good thinking that liberals are famous for. It sounds beautiful but it doesn't work in reality. The fact is America and a lot of other countries pour millions upon millions in humanitarian relief into countries all over the world, including the Middle East, and if that money isn't misappropriated by corrupt governments, it is rarely appreciated or repaid. The Muslim mentality is such that if we poured every spare cent into helping them in the ways you mentioned, and if every American flew over there to hand out laurel leaves and sing Kum Ba Yah with them, we would still be slaughtered. Muslim terrorists think in terms of Muslim and non-Muslim, not good and bad. Anybody on their holy land for any reason is an infidel and automatically an enemy. This is the sad reality that most liberals don't seem to want to accept. They think that everybody in the world wants peace and can be reasoned with. It's beautiful in its childlike naivete but it isn't realistic.
It’s also not true that most people in these countries are innocent. You said it yourself - "Bin Laden gives pride to many Muslims."
If someone from America killed 4000 innocent civilians in another country, any country, almost every American, except lunatics, would want him dead. So please explain to me again how giving humanitarian aid and offering the laurel leaf of peace and brotherhood to people who celebrate a mass murderer will do any good.
Another classic liberal statement is, "People are basically good." Or as you put it, "At heart, I believe in the greater good of humans and their innate desire to want to do good rather than not." Anytime I hear someone say that people are basically good, I know I'm talking to someone to whom evidence is irrelevant.
I know by your work that you are aware of the depth of evil in this world, so I find it baffling that you still think that even the worst of us are basically good. I don't think people are basically bad, either, but neither are they basically good. They must be assessed on an individual basis, because every person has both good and evil inside them, and many, only evil.
Rarely in the history of the world has one land mass been more steeped in ignorance than the Middle East is right now, mainly because of the steady diet of propaganda and lies fed to them by their own media and leaders about America and the west in general. This endemic brainwashing creates terrorists more than all the military action by America combined. The Al-Jazeera network has more blood on its hands than we do for poisoning the minds and hearts of their own people by feeding them B.S. like, “The Jews use the blood of Palestinian children in their pastries.” The news on this network is 100% fabricated and filled with hateful lies about Israel and the U.S., and it’s the only source of news most people in the M.E. have. I also blame this brainwashing for the attacks on 9/11more than anything America has ever done in the Middle East.
Regarding America “bombing civilian populations”, that is totally untrue. Civilian casualties occur in every war, but especially when the terrorists and cowardly rats like Hussein routinely hide themselves behind women and children, trusting in the innate goodness of America and the certainty that we won't blow them all up just to get the ones we want. It's like cops and robbers. The cops are always at a disadvantage because the bad guy has no rules, but the cop does. The cop can't shoot into a crowd or hide behind women like the bad guy can. Hussein's standard M.O. was to surround places he knew were our targets with women and children. With this and all the other atrocities against his own people, his "nation" didn't deserve its sovereignty, and I'm glad we took it from him.
There's an old expression - No good deed goes unpunished - which is particularly fitting when it comes to the humanitarian aid America has doled out to countries that have been chronically unable to get their crap together. Many of these countries are now among those who hate and distrust America. And most of that money has never been paid back, even partially. America is the sucker of the world, a sucker that was down to the soggy pink stick decades ago.
To the terrorist mind, America would be just as unwelcome in the Middle East no matter what we were there for. They don't think in terms of good and bad, they think in terms of Muslim and non-Muslim. Isn't that clear enough by now? They will not be happy until everything that does not reflect their view of how the world should be is DEAD. They're not interested in winning arguments. They want us dead. And they would want us dead whether we were dropping food or dropping bombs because as non-Muslims, we are infidels on their holy land. Liberals just don't seem to get that. They don't understand the enemy. I saw these scumbags cut off Nick Berg's head. (You can, too, at www.michaelsavage.com) I heard him screaming as they slowly sawed through his neck, screaming that abruptly stopped when they finally made it to his windpipe. I saw them hold his head up and throw it on the floor. But people are basically good, though. Hmm.
I don’t want to get into the format or style of this piece again. I’ve explained too many times already what I was trying to do – give a snippet of a typical conversation about this war, then cut abruptly to a single death to create a contrast between all the squabbling and the basic cost of war. I couldn’t do that and give a 20-page, detailed argument by both sides at the same time.
I have heard that Ghandi story and always loved it. Actually (interesting factoid), I sat near Ben Kingsley at the premiere of that movie in 1983.
I always appreciate your intelligence and passion, both in your writing and our arguments. But you and I are interpreting world events from a Christian perspective. Even if we’re not practicing Christians, we have been indoctrinated into thinking in terms of good and evil, believing in the Golden Rule, the virtues of pacifism, etc. The Muslim perspective is almost exactly opposite to Christianity in many ways. Revenge against infidels is a common theme throughout the Koran.
The liberal argument is that the cause for this war lies at home. I say the same is true for Iraq and Afghanistan. If we attracted this mess to ourselves somehow, so did they. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but the lion’s share falls on the the Middle East, which has become a hotbed of ignorance, intolerance, and blind hatred, mainly due to institutionalized brainwashing and propaganda, and primitive religious beliefs and practices that don’t allow for harmonious interaction and cooperation with the modern world. If you want to attack this war at the source, start there.
I await your next volley.
Mark
P.S. Again, I completely retract the “short order cook slop burger” comment. I meant that only in reference to punctuation, not heart, passion and intelligence, which you are loaded to bursting with.
(I hope we don't crash the server for this website with these long responses. lol)
Edited on Sep 05, 2:31 p.m. because ''. -
First, I have enjoyed reading this.
I read this once before, but decided not to comment, because I didn't want to start or be drug into any arguments, as this is a poetry site, not a Yahoo chat room...
However, I will drop a brief penny or two.
Being ex-mil, my first reaction was that on 9/12, a large part of the Middle East should have been a sheet of glass. If you destroy your enemies, you have none to worry about.
9/11 was the first media-successful attack on America. We have become a nation of complacent sheep, one huge herd following the governmental shepherd. That is sad.
I sincerely believe as a country we need to limit government back to what it was originally designed to do, and concentrate on living our own lives with personal responsibility and individual freedoms.
We need to quit worrying about whether this country or that country did this to that other country. We need to worry about our own country; our own citizens.
If struck at, strike back decisively. No PR, no middle ground. If we are going to strike, commit fully. No holding back.
As for people getting angry or taking offense at what who writes what here, thoughts are thoughts, and we're entitled. Get over it. -
Hey David,
I read your message earlier and am still trying to digest it all. You said something a while back that pretty much sums this all up - that we both want the same thing for this world - we just differ on how to go about getting it. It's very late right now but I will answer this more thoroughly ASAP. It will be a short answer because I don't want to belabor this any further. I've already said a few things I regret. (I just went back and deleted that "slopburger" comment. haha That was just nasty and vindictive of me. You know I really have the highest respect for your talents. I'm just a stickler for punctuation, grammar, etc. In fact, my friends call me the "grammar police" because I'm always correcting them. In other words, I'm a total pain in the ass.)
Anyway, please excuse my unmeasured comments. I didn't mean them. Well, some of them. lol You are a hothead, though, just like me. haha We sure get in some real hootenanny's, don't we?
Your friend,
Mark -
Hi Mark
You mistake me for who I am and what my focus is.
However, I want you to think about the inherent arrogance in your opening remark - let me just clear up something
"In the comfy confines of AP, this could well be an acceptable piece to those who like you (which I do) and to those who share your opinion on this conflict (which I don’t). In the broader community, this remains lame and hackneyed and no matter how many time you edit this piece, will probably remain so."
You are insinuating two things with that remark - 1) that allpoetry.com is nothing more than a mutual adoration society full of insincere sycophants and 2) that people here aren't as intelligent as those in the "broader community"
WRONG!
Point one and two are wrong. Firstly some of the most intelligent minds write at AP and express themselves in a way that would quite frankly baffle many in the "wider community" Which is the very reason why your piece would be savaged more out side this forum than in. Outside there is no comment policy to be diplomatic. Not that I have been really adhering to the policy when it comes to this discussion. But outside you would really run up against those who, unlike myself, are radically pissed off with how this American administration has manipulated this conflict to their own ends at the expense of the UN and American forces. There is tremendous cynicism towards the motives of Bush that extend way beyond Michael Moore's piece that moderate or conservative American cannot comprehend. That does not make these critics anti-American. In fact if anything, it makes them even more concerned for their American friends because from the outside looking in, it appears the average American is losing their civil liberties and are being terrorised into supporting Bush almost against their better judgement. A war that moderate, rational Americans do not really want but need to support simply because they feel if they do not, they are not being patriotic. And that is a dreadful thing, along with the Patriot Act, to have happen to any democracy.
AP is not a mutual admiration society but a club of writers who start getting used to what other writers on this site produce. That makes it a comfy confine because the bulk of comments are very complementary and encouraging. When we don't like a piece more often than not you will have no comment rather than getting negative comments. That is why the statement is there.
NEVER have I ever suggested, insinuated or said anything about AP being, what did you say? "a mutual adoration society full of insincere sycophants" - do not speak for me for I have never said that. I respect this site greatly and quite frankly it has been an emotional and creative saviour. I don't disrespect AP and don't like my words twisted suggesting I do. Just as I don't like my words twisted to say I don't like Americans or America. That Mark, you should know for a fact that is bullshit. I don't like your government and I like the Howard government of Australia even less. I think America and Americans on the whole are great, just as I think every nationality, on the main are great. But none of these country's governments, including Australia's is beyond criticism and in some cases socially lampooning.
Let’s address a few of these
“By the way, I think the content of conversations between average Americans and the televised debates you're seeing on TV in Australia probably differ quite a bit. After all, I would venture to guess that Americans are probably a little more righteous about this war than Australians are.
On the day of the attacks on the WTC, I was in shock like the rest of the world, but they were my neighbors and MY people. That makes a difference. I wonder if your views would be different about this war if the terrorists attacked buildings in Sydney and killed a few thousand Australians, including people you knew personally. I imagine your feelings about this war would be a little different, though I know you either won't admit it or can't imagine it even if you could admit it, which amounts to the same thing.
When I saw the people in the buildings jumping to their deaths to avoid being burned alive, and when I saw the relatives of the thousands who were killed wandering through the rubble with photographs of their loved ones asking if anyone had seen them, I flew into a rage and destroyed half the furniture in my house. The next morning, I went to the recruitment center and tried to join the Marines but I was two years too old and they weren’t issuing age waivers due to the flood of new recruits. Otherwise, I would be in Iraq right now. If I were there, it would most definitely piss me off to hear the efforts to make the world safe from terrorism by the "evil" Bush administration and our allies belittled and mocked, as you did in your latest America-basher, “The Roberston Plan”.
Another reason I'm surprised that you are "highly insulted" by this piece is that, compared to this, almost all of your work is incredibly unbalanced and biased without a jot of concern about insulting anyone. For example, here are a few comments from the aforementioned epic, "The Robertson Plan" –
Point One
On a smaller scale but considering Australia has about 7% of the population of America, we lost pro rata just as many Australians in the Bali bombings as you have with WTC, where I should add many Australians also perished. Had it happened at one of our cities the human response would be revenge. That again is not the issue. The issue is using the tragedy of these attacks to diminish domestic civil liberties in America, waive the Geneva convention, ignore UN protocol, link, it would appear, tenuously Bin Laden terrorist links to Iraq, smudge spuriously WMD information as the catalyst for invading a sovereign nation no matter how evil that sovereign nation is, ignore the role of Saudi Arabia, put American, Australian, English etc troops in another Vietnam, bombing civilian populations as well as a whole array of other issues that go beyond terrorism to trade agreements, environmental issues, gay and broader civil liberty issues, all of which amount to this American administration, not Americans, not America but this administration creating unilateral decisions that isolate it from global consensus and this makes other nations very uneasy. Especially the populations of Britain and Australia who find their leaders almost kowtowing to Bush on many more issues other than this war. Your issue is revenge and dismantling terrorist networks. Therefore there is little to no agreement because we are in reality focused on two very separate things. Dismantling terrorist networks guarantees the world will be is a heightened state of emergency forever. While you have inequality, poverty, starvation, etc you have unrest. My attitude is that populations in many of these countries are innocent and rather than attacking them, with the same amount of money spent of waging wars, genuine humanitarian assistance that values not just life but the cultures and traditions of these countries would produce a far greater and positive human benefit.
There is a story about Louis Armstrong going on a world tour. He lived in the Harlem and left his house unlocked. Some interviewer asked him if he thought this was dangerous. His reply was, who would be stupid enough to rob me when the whole neighbourhood watches my house? Whoever gives genuine benefit and pride to any community is by definition protected by that community. Rightly or wrongly Bin Laden gives pride to many Muslims. To simply hunt him down does not rectify the situation. To bomb Iraq and Afghanistan at a grass roots level works more like Greek fire in quelling unrest. Also never move away from the fact that previous American administrations supported both Hussein and the Taliban, as they did at one stage arm and support Bin Laden and the mudjahadeen’s battle against the Russians.
At heart I believe in the greater good of humans and their innate desire to want to do good rather than not. I look at everything from that point of view. It may at times appear unrealistic but that is my focus. If there are to ways of doing something I look for what is kindly and less militaristic. I cannot believe America would be under any greater threat if America used it vast humanitarian clout rather than military clout to fix situations for long-term solutions. Idealistic! Yes but that me.
“I really do think there is some kind of seething resentment toward America in all these incredibly unbalanced remarks. I know it was supposed to be a humorous piece but, as Shakespeare wrote, "Many a true word is spoken in jest."
I am not bashing America nor Americans, offending some right wing elements maybe but rather lampooning your very hawkish government who continues to scare the shit out of the wider global community Mark. Big difference unless you are going to tell me Bush speaks for all Americans? I didn’t think so. As for Shakespeare, that is exactly the purpose of the piece. I work on the theory if something makes me smile…this made me smile. But be warned, more corporates will get involved with this war, more will receive kick backs through aid contracts and tax payers will be asked to cough up more funds to support the ever increasing military budget that is ballooning ever onward and upward at the expense of health, community and education systems. And as a war against terrorism is self perpetuating because the more you seek the more that is destroyed, the more that is destroyed the greater the hatred, the greater the hatred the greater the recruiting of more terrorists and therefore the greater the requirement to fund the military.
Last but not least at the very heart of all my comments is a desire to see better work. And that equally applies to my own “short order cook slop burgers.” At the heart of this piece, as I have stated, is the fundamental flaw of choosing the wrong format for the piece. Understanding the logic for choosing it, it does not work-IN MY OPINION-because you need to really get into the head and heart of not just the opposing issues but the opposing thought processes that arrive at those issue. That is a very, very difficult thing to do without true empathy for those opinions. “My Name is Neema” where I wrote as a 13 year old African girl and “Just like a cloth” where I wrote as a 17 year old Moldavian girl were researched beyond imagining but at the heart of those pieces is not an alternate view. It is one view, it is their view and it was me being incredibly drained and sad beyond imagining for these people. They are two pieces I am probably most proud of because to take such harshness and turn it into outrage requires poetry. But it reads true and this is the incredibly difficult task you have with this piece. As a real exercise in writing, scrap that format and write with total empathy for the viewpoint that you don’t support.
After the killings in Calcutta during the partition of the subcontinent, a Hindu told Gandhi that he had gone into a Muslim’s home and smashed their baby’s head against a wall. What should he do? Gandhi said find an orphaned Muslim baby and raise that child in all the true Muslim values of its dead parent’s faith.
Your friend
David
Edited on Aug 30, 9:19 p.m. because ''. -
Hey David,
See, that last comment was just fine. Critical but respectful. That's all I ask.
Despite my anger at your first remark, please know that I think your heart is in the right place. I think you just get a little too heated up where this issue (the war) is concerned. Then again, if someone is going to get overheated about something, that's probably a good one to pick.
There are a lot of very young people on this site who are testing the waters and trying to discover their own voice and talents beyond the miasma of what they've learned from the adults in their lives, and God bless them, but most of the people here are well-educated adults like yourself. I think this site is a perfect place to post work - a true cross section of humanity, just like the "broader community".
In the above remark, you attempted to belittle the favorable responses to this piece by saying that all those people just liked me and/or shared my feelings about the war. In my own defense, because I featured this piece, most of the people who commented didn't know or "like" me and had nothing to gain by leaving insincere compliments. Literally everybody who commented felt that the conversation in it was balanced and unbiased - everyone except you.
Naturally, this leads me to wonder if the piece is as unbalanced as you say it is, or if the problem is personal with you. After all, it's very balanced compared to the pro-war, pro-Bush responses to your work that I've given.
I think the real problem is you are so riddled with anger at the Bush administration that you can't stand reading opinions, even if they're by two fictional characters, if one of them doesn't reflect your own feelings about this war.
I couldn't exactly go into every nuance of this conflict in that conversation or it would have been as long as the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Again, my goal was to go from complex to simple and elicit an emotional response by doing so. In that, I succeeded.
As I'm sure you're tired of hearing by now, I wanted one of the characters to be pro-war and one to be not entirely anti-war, but conflicted and confused, as I think many, if not most, Americans are right now. Most agree that we needed to do something and that taking out "terrorists and nations that provide safe haven and/or funding to terrorists" was the right thing to do, but any thinking person can't help but wonder what America did to get into such a mess in the first place, and if we might have avoided it if we weren't addicted to Saudi oil or using our military unwisely in the M.E., among other things. Of course, it's almost always impossible to be completely gung-ho unless one is a true neanderthal. It is right and good to look at war from every angle, and to question the actions of our governments. After all, they are supposed to be representing us.
I do agree with you on one of your criticisms, however - that I made the anti-war voice more persuasive and the pro-war voice too simplistic. That was one of the reasons for the edit. I also changed the name and took out the parade reference because I couldn't justify a moderate person not going to a welcome home parade. I consider myself borderline moderate but I would always support the troops no matter how much I disagree with a war.
However, again, my goal wasn't to present a long-winded debate, it was to go from complex to simple as concisely as possible. By the way, I think the content of conversations between average Americans and the televised debates you're seeing on TV in Australia probably differ quite a bit. After all, I would venture to guess that Americans are probably a little more righteous about this war than Australians are.
On the day of the attacks on the WTC, I was in shock like the rest of the world, but they were my neighbors and MY people. That makes a difference. I wonder if your views would be different about this war if the terrorists attacked buildings in Sydney and killed a few thousand Australians, including people you knew personally. I imagine your feelings about this war would be a little different, though I know you either won't admit it or can't imagine it even if you could admit it, which amounts to the same thing.
When I saw the people in the buildings jumping to their deaths to avoid being burned alive, and when I saw the relatives of the thousands who were killed wandering through the rubble with photographs of their loved ones asking if anyone had seen them, I flew into a rage and destroyed half the furniture in my house. The next morning, I went to the recruitment center and tried to join the Marines but I was two years too old and they weren’t issuing age waivers due to the flood of new recruits. Otherwise, I would be in Iraq right now. If I were there, it would most definitely piss me off to hear the efforts to make the world safe from terrorism by the "evil" Bush administration and our allies belittled and mocked, as you did in your latest America-basher, “The Roberston Plan”.
Another reason I'm surprised that you are "highly insulted" by this piece is that, compared to this, almost all of your work is incredibly unbalanced and biased without a jot of concern about insulting anyone. For example, here are a few comments from the aforementioned epic, "The Robertson Plan" -
"I think the next country that America (should) help level to the ground so its homeless people can achieve constitutional rights should be China, Syria, China, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, China or Chad."
(Implying that America is bent on world domination.)
"You will be able to donate directly - on top of the couple of trillion spent on the war thus far- I would like to see the government spend a million more dollars, billion more, trillion more, every cent until we all live near a soup kitchen and every Arab is strung up by his gonads."
(Implying that America is a nation full of mindless racists.)
"Great shooting guys(!) Only 875 million rag heads to go. God Bless us all!"
(Implying that America is totally indiscriminate in its bombing. If that were the case, soldiers wouldn't be walking through the slums of Iraq searching for terrorists, being picked off one-by-one by snipers all the while. We would just carpet bomb the whole place and be done with it. The ignorance in this comment alone dwarfs your criticisms of me in this piece and actually makes me worry about your mental state.)
I really do think there is some kind of seething resentment toward America in all these incredibly unbalanced remarks. I know it was supposed to be a humorous piece but, as Shakespeare wrote, "Many a true word is spoken in jest."
One more time for the road - I didn't and don't mind you criticizing my writing. Just be respectful about it. The terms "literary poo" and "flush material" do not make for a balanced critique.
There is something else I have come to agree with you on. This is not my best work. I posted it somewhat tentatively because I am usually 100% sure of the point I want to make. As I mentioned before, though, this war is messy, so this piece is messy. That's what happens when you try not to take sides, I suppose. It's much easier to just spout your own opinion constantly. (Not mentioning any names.)
I did notice that you balanced your criticisms somewhat with compliments about my other work aside from this mindless drivel. lol I appreciate that and, as I hope you know, the feeling is mutual (despite my fixation on grammar, punctuation, etc.) I must tell you, though, saying that I "failed spectacularly" in this piece actually had the opposite effect on me than intended. I was happy to hear that. After all, if one is going to fail, he should do so spectacularly, don't you think? haha
Waiting for your next scud.
Again, no hard feelings. It's okay with me if you think this piece sucks. This is a place to grow and learn as well as show how brilliant we are. lol
If I ever come to Australia, I will STILL by you that pint. I might throw it on you before the end of the evening, but I'll buy you the pint. lol
Mark
Edited on Sep 01, 4:28 p.m. because ''. -
Hi David. This country is based on free speach. In all its forms. Allpoetry is a background for ANY type of expression that the poet wishes to use. As so many of your anti-war pieces and expressions demonstrate. Mark did a fantastic job of trying to understand both sides... more then you have done from what I've read. This is not an attack, its a critique of the comments you've left. I highly encourage you to continue with your beliefs, your comments, and your opinions, however, let others express themselves as well. Did Mark demonstrate both sides well...perhaps not in your opinion...but he certainly tried and has tried even after all your edit causing remarks. So, as this platform ages, it will be interesting to see if the challenge of accuracy is met in the political battle soon to be decided. Only a few days left...then the right meets the left in a battle of the best of both sides...and the worst of them all. May the best man win...no matter the side! Good on you for your attitude, comments, and opinions!
Chuck
-
Mark
In the comfy confines of AP this could well be an acceptable piece to those who like you (which I do) and to those who share your opinion on this conflict (which I don’t). In the broader community this remains lame and hackneyed and no matter how many time you edit this piece, will probably remain so. The reason is simple. You have chosen the wrong format to espouse views that do not belong to you. If this was read in the middle of an anti-globalisation rally or that rally in your pitcure, would the demonstrators be sharing your anti war antagonist’s view because in affect that is who you are speaking for. So the problem is not the format per se, it is using this format to this subject. Just as you would not use this format for abortion, gay marriages etc- arguments that so polarise its protagonists. Its like sticking a black man in the middle of a KKK rally and creating dialogue on equal rights. And as offensive as such pieces would be to gays, blacks, KKK members, anti or pro abortionists etc, how you have structured the issues surrounding this war is highly insulting to me and I dare say many who vehemently oppose this war and how and why America is there.
What I am reading is the literary equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotter’s game. You know you are not watching a real game and as skilled as the other team is, you know they are there merely as props so the globetrotters can do tricks and win the game. If you want to see a real basketball game you go to an NBA match. This is why this piece is offensive to me. No matter how many times this is edited, changed, if you stick to the same premise, your natural bias on the subject always comes through. Even if you were visited by the ghost of Eugene O’Neil and given a crash course in conflicted dialogue this piece will still not ring true. But then I have your sharp responses to two of my pieces, A plastic Duck and Why Bush will win. These responses to my arguments are brilliantly written and in the main, eloquently discussed. They ring very true because you understand and totally embrace what you are saying as opposed to this piece, as bold as the effort is, it remains clichéd doggerel. So you can be as offended as you like with the way I am explaining this to you but understand that those who are opposed to this conflict and totally distrust this current Bush administration cannot embrace this piece no matter how seemingly balanced you have attempted to make it. It is highly offensive having a right wing conservative Bush supporter stating such bullshit as the dialogue that permeates this
Certainly no one I have spoken to or read, American or otherwise are talking like this. As I said, you will get people to agree with you but this is balanced in much the same way as WorldCom’s books were balanced.
You are a good person, a fantastic writer who has in this particular piece failed spectacularly in my eyes. I am genuinely sorry if my words have caused offence but to those who oppose this conflict, this very ordinary writing that is equally offensive.
I would suggest you revisit what you and Blacknight put together as arguments and fashion something out of that, because those responses are everything this fallacious piece is not. It is honest writing.
By the way, as a writer, if you are really comfortable with the structure of this piece more power to you and what I have to say will remain meaningless no matter how well intentioned and aimed it is at you writing better. Now I am going to read some more of your work and redeem my faith.
David
PS May I applaud your use of punctuation- its an object lesson for all.
Edited on Aug 29, 9:32 p.m. because ''. -
Good
This war has created a lot of fuzz and arguments not only in the U S but also in the international arena. I have seen pro war/pro Bush Americans defending the war while the anti war/ anti Bush faction vehimently opposing all the actions.
Unfortunately the American public are not interested in what the world other than them has to say.
War in this age is not a good thing since most of the countries have mass destruction weapons(especially those who condemn other countries for possessing mass destruction weapons) and a small mistake on the part of any, could lead to total disaster.
Many countries other than the two countries involved has suffered and no one is kindly to this war. This is a fact, like it or not. Even today the CNN was full of old memories of how the Bush administration held that Iraq had mass destruction weapon and how the evidence today proves it false.
Why should the American soldiers die for the policies of the American politicians? Why the Americans lose their spouse, children, parent for the politicians blunder?
Why can't the politicians themselves go to war if they are so anxious?
The scape goat is the Intelligence agencies, the poor guys!
I am not at all surprised that you have to give explanation to so many.
Love from India - Joel - -
Hi TillyMay,
Thank you. I think I chose the name Fractured for this because I am so fractured myself. I think this war is messier than Vietnam in one big way - we knew Charlie was not going to be trying to come over here (America) to try to kill us en masse, or to any of the other countries allied with us or helping with the war effort. That's why they're called an enemy without borders. I just wish there was a clear solution, but the cards have been dealt and we must play it through. Thanks again. I hope all is well with you.
Mark
Edited on Aug 31, 3:45 because ''. -
A well deserved trophy, Mark. This is thought provoking and captures the madness and confusion and messiness of this world. Politics and greed, suffering, anger and oppression, religion, culture and media all feed into this complex war machine that is eating everything in it's path. It's tragic and heroic and horrible all at the same time. My heart aches for so many different people, and it's hard to see who the enemy is, for the smoke that billows first this way and then that. I hate war, but it's not going away...and there is so much truth in the line:
"All I know is we have to deal with things the way they are, not the way we wish they were."
How we do it, well now, that's the quezzie, innit?
This is a heartfelt, bittersweet, and truthful look at current events and human nature. Well done, mate...well done.
-
Congratulations Mark on winning a Bronze Trophy.
A very intense and sombre write you have given us here.
Take care
Sammy -
Hi Chuck,
Thanks very much for the bronze in this contest, and for your kind words about this piece. To be honest, I wasn't expecting to win. Though I support the war effort and don't see any other way of dealing with fanatical terrorists other than to hit them head on and/or keep them running, I am torn on the politics that led up to our current situation and the details of the decisions the Bush administration has made. My inner conflict came through in this piece, which has been clipped and edited repeatedly since I entered it. As I said above, I'm usually not confused when I write. I know what I want to say ahead of time and I say it. But it's a confusing time so this poem was confusing to write and for many to read, I guess. Though of the thirty or so responses, only one was negative. I didn't mind the criticism as much as the tone. The favorable response from you as a veteran, and from the other American soldier, mean the most to me, anyway.
Thanks again. Your opinion of this piece means a lot to me. I appreciate it very much.
Best wishes,
Mark
Edited on Aug 31, 3:57 because ''. -
This is a very good piece. I'm surprised and hurt that it has not been taken in the way it was written. Objective and clear. Little in the way of opinion, more of a documentary on the personal aspects of war. I feel that you've captured the essence of the subject, the spirited conversations and convictions of the sides and the overall confusing aspects of war. Every war has its desenters and its supporters. Yours is the first honest attempt to display both sides...no matter if they all agree with either side. Thanks for entering. You've just made judging this contest much harder.
-
Yep, "peeved" about covered it. There's an old saying that should be engraved in stone just below the golden rule -
"It's not what you say. It's how you say it."
Mature adults should be able to criticize each other constructively without being nasty and mean-spirited about it.
The only time I get nasty is when, as I said, someone hits my shit limit. I hate conflict, and I especially hate conflict with a friend. And if someone gets insulting with me about my work, their work better be impeccable, because I labor over everything I write. Admittedly, this piece is a little different for me because I'm usually 100% sure about the message I want to convey or the story I want to tell, and when I'm done, I feel confident in it. This time, I wrote it and put it out as a work in progress a little bit because this war is messy and anything I write about it is going to be messy, too. It's like the old saying about the conflict in Northern Ireland - "If you think you know what it's about, you're not well-informed." I'm conflicted about this war and so the poem is conflicted as well. In fact, I just edited it because it still isn't what I want it to be. I still like the concept, though, and will work on it until I get it right. In the grand scheme, it doesn't really matter. I think very little does matter in this world except love and kindness, as corny as that sounds. I'd rather be loved than disliked, but I'd rather be disliked than abused.
I don't mind criticisms of my work at all. I expect them, actually. Nobody can please everybody all the time. In fact, I welcome criticism because I'm undyingly humble about my skills and how much there is to learn. Writing is like sleeping and eating to me. I would do it even if everybody hated my work. I think you're the same way.
Anyway, feel free to criticize my work all you want, but if you get insulting and nasty again, expect another good kick in the cajones. lol
No hard feelings.
Mark -
My dear friend you seem peeved, I can tell.
Let me just say a few things and you can take them anyway you like. Firstly, you are one of the very best writers on this site and when I read your stuff I expect quality that is at that level. Even if its an experiment or a different style there is something there that is of that comparable Mark Rickerby bench mark. I thought this piece was worse than awful as I stated in my comments and if that makes your comments on mine more honest or sadly more spiteful then so be it. But I am here to tell you, whether you like it or not, I will comment on your work because you are on my favouites list and barking back at me will not change that. I respect you, your writing and I will let you know in my own words when I think you have posted something that is trite and below par. I don't care if you think this is the most wonderful thing you have ever penned, if as a reader on an open forum site I have the right to tell you that this piece stinks. Hate me all you like but we should know each other well enough to realise that we want to improve our craft.
Which gets me onto the next point that you should realise about my own writing. I cannot spell (although "pooh" is the english, australian spelling), I am hopeless at grammar, I am not anti war, I am anti this war, I am not hyper critical of all US foreign policy, just this aspect of it and as far as this piece goes it is the only one I have ever really got stuck into. It is jingoistic, simplistic, trite and as far as a piece goes I thought it was terrible. As far as your comments on my stuff goes where you see mistakes, tell me. But the true essence of what we do is to express what we the writer feels in words that mean something to us. That these words connect or in this case miss by a country mile should in all honesty be unimportant. It has obviously connected with some people and that's great. I may not beileve in what you say, and in this case how you have stated it, but I will defend to the end your right to say it.
While we are both at ramming speed, unless you are are getting comments on what you know to be a devisive issue then I don't think you are writing properly. As for your shit limit maybe I just have a thicker skin but really I value your comments, and beyond this particular bit of "flush material" you still remain at the very top of the writers on this site.
"Sorry but since we're being so honest, for someone who slaps poems together most of the time like a short order cook making slopburgers, that's laughable. I usually have to weed through the punctuation errors, misspelled words and run-on sentences to find out what your point is. So to refer to my work as "flush material" is really nauseating." if that is what you really think of my writing and its the most honest comment you have made, I value it. And it will be going onto my front page.
One more thing to, I have not had a chance yesterday, as I always have such limited time as you know I don't have an internet connection at home so most of my stuff is "slopped together" in a frantic hurry at a public library, but I thought your piece about a cafe was great. It was everything this bit of shit wasn't.
David
-
Hi Wayne,
Thank you very much for saying "Regardless of your own personal beliefs, you never seemed to lean in any certain direction to influence readers." That was my goal, which was why I presented it as two characters speaking, neither of which represented myself. It was hard to do because, as anyone who knows me would attest, I am very much in favor of overthrowing tyrants, and very supportive of the military. I don't even think that George Bush is the anti-Christ that the left tries to paint him as. I can't stand the man's environmental policies (or lack thereof) but as far as the war, I think he's doing what he said he was going to do - taking out terrorists and nations that provide support or safe haven to terrorists. i.e., Irag and Afghanistan. Syria was also at the top of that list but they saw what was happening in Afghanistan and Iraq and quickly started cooperating with us. A smart move.
I believe there is moral violence (taking out the Taliban, Hussein, et al) and immoral violence (nazi's, the 9/11 attacks, etc.) And as I said in my comment section, if there was a welcome home parade tomorrow, I'd be there waving my flag.
Thanks again,
Mark -
bluffininlv,
I'm not sure why everybody is assuming that the guy in the conversation who decided to go to the beach instead of the parade is me but just to clear it up, this is a rewriting of the most common conversation I've been hearing about the war, and it's between two fictitious characters, neither of which reflect my personal views exactly. Please read my comment section. I can't stomach anybody accusing me of not supporting the troops. But I don't blame anyone for getting confused. It's a complicated situation to anyone who hasn't had a frontal lobotomy so a poem about it is bound to be confusing, too.
I've heard the poem you mentioned and thoroughly agree with it. In fact, I agree with your entire comment. The best people to talk to about this war are the soldier in the field and the people who dug through the rubble at the WTC.
One thing we all have to be careful of, however, is being afraid to say anything that even remotely sounds like we're not supporting the troops. In the 60's, the hippies who spat on the returning soldiers were absolute idiots. But most of the anti-war crowd actually supported the troops. After all, what better way is there to support soldiers than trying to end a war that, rightly or wrongly, one thinks is unjust?
In other words, though I am personally in favor of the war and in routing out evil wherever it is, I don't think those who are against this war are bad people. The worst thing I can say about them is that they don't completely understand the nature of the evil we're dealing with.
Al Quaeda and the myriad of other terrorist groups wanted every American dead way before 9/11 just because of our military presence in the Middle East and our support of Israel. They probably would have wanted us dead if we were over there selling cookies. No matter what the reason for us being there, we are infidels in their book, literally. The common belief that the terrorists are "a radical faction of Islam who have distorted the words of the Koran" for their own ends is not entirely correct. The "Holy Koran" lumps "Christians, Jews and pigs" together numerous times, thus giving an official okay straight from Allah himself to slaughter them at will just for being on their holy ground.
Before I go on a rant here, if you'd be at all interested in hearing how I really feel about this war, please visit D.P. Robertson's poem called "Why Bush Will Win" - because, with all due respect, you've got me all wrong.
Thanks,
Mark
Edited on Aug 27, 2:33 because 'I edit everything'. -
David,
I'm surprised. For someone so anti-war and hyper-critical of U.S. foreign policy, I figured you'd be pleasantly surprised by a writing that raises questions about the war, rather than my usual pro-Bush, pro-war position.
My goal here was simply to present a conversation between two people - one a staunch supporter of the war and the other someone torn about it. Whether or not it sounds like a 50's anti-smoking ad or whatever, this is the most typical conversation I've heard here in America. I also wanted to demonstrate that the conversations about this war aren't much different than those about any war, anywhere, all through time. The ending was an attempt to simplify all the rhetoric and return to the basic cost wars always exact.
Not to toot my own horn but my underlying goal with this and all my work was to elicit an emotional response and make people think which, judging by virtually all the other responses, I accomplished. So to take your slash job seriously would be like a stage actor worrying about why one guy in a cheering audience booed him.
With all due respect, I'm getting a little tired of your shitty attitude. You call me "condescending" and start your comment off with "literary pooh"?? (By the way, you misspelled poo, unless you meant I'm a literary small, fuzzy bear.)
If you can't keep your opinions civil, stop commenting on my work. I invite you to revisit any of my comments on your work, even the pieces I was annoyed by or that I considered trite, and see if I ever insulted you personally. It's called tact. Again, I'm sorry, but you just hit my shit limit, and if you're not going to handle yourself with class and manners, I'd rather not hear your opinion again.
Edited on Aug 31, 3:47 because ''. -
Go to the beach already!!
-
polemicists dream come true !!
All this will come to an end someday and people will come to the site of the former WTC just as people come to the memorial tower in Hiroshima.
I know many Muslims here in the US and they are not of the ilk which "murdered" nearly three thousand men and women.
Yes, we are in real deep there in Iraq, probably deeper than we ever wished to be. But bringing home our troops, which I sorely desire, will not stop the hatred toward us.
Were we at war with anyone when they crashed those planes into those two buildings or the pentagon?
The president said at the onset that he was sick and tired of all these "undeclared" wars on this country.
Actually though, and I mean Sam Clemmons prayer notwithstanding, you have to talk the police and fire fighters,
who were left standing, what it was like rummaging through that mess for arms, legs, torsos empty of their prior contents what the hell this is all about.
My mom always said that if we had either been able, or gone to war with the nazi when they even though about invading Poland, we may have saved countless, countless lives.
Some of us figure that as long as these guys, or whover, only gases the people within the confines of his own geographical borders I won't lose any sleep over it.
REMEMBER They came for the gypsies but I WASN'T a gypsy;
They came for people in other political parties,
But I was not one;
Then they came for the Jews,but I was christian;
Then they came for me, and there was none left to
hear my plea for help.
If I am not for mysef, WHO will be?
But if I am only for myself, WHAT am I ?
And if not now, WHEN?
-
This is so different. You have exposed the reader to several different thoughts, ideas, questions and ways to look at things. I think a lot of times, we as people view things depending on how much personal impact there is on our own lives. Understanding the war, at best, is very complicated. You have given us a very thought provoking piece here. Thank you for sharing this. Good luck in the contest.
-
A very somber write. I love the way you handled it. Yes, it is a very sensitive issue, but one that should never be avoided. Reguardless of your own personal beliefs you never seemed to lean in any certain direction to influence readers. It was laid out in such a way that individual readers are able to draw their own conclusions. Yes, I wish war was never an option. It would be so much better to do battle with words instead of weapons. In a perfect world war is never an option but I am also reminded that our world is far from perfect. I personally cannot think of anyone who can truly say they love war or love the aftermath. But, I do understand as long as man has had breath in his lungs that wars have waged between individuals and nations. You handled this write with exceptionally good taste. Thank you for posting.
Edited on Aug 26, 9:25 p.m. because ''. -
I don't support the war, but I support the troops and feel they deserve all the recognition they can achieve for following command and doing what they feel is right. I found the first half, the dialogue half to be kind of boring (no offense) but the poem part was pretty good and got the message across vividly.
-
I always enjoy your poetry Mark, you make me think. At some points throughout this I was saying out loud "yeah...uh huh!" Good job on this, I did feel a little anger here and there and all in all it was very powerful!
~*Destiny*~ -
literary pooh! It reminds me of a conversation I would read on early anti-smoking ads or more wet still someone trying to convert a person over to christianity. It smacks of bland, sweeping generalisations for people who may have just dropped back from a year's holiday on Mars. Also above everything else, because I know what a good writer you are, and how alert you are to the subject matter, it gives me the impression of being spoken to in a really condescending manner. If there is one thing that should come out of this whole piece is the fact that most western countries enjoy a great level of "freedom of choice" and no one should be made to feel guilty for that choice.
The piece is also divided neatly into two halves where the second part is really good writing and is as emotive as the first part is flush material. The other thing I find disturbing is that it really preaches two arguements when in reality the situation in the middle east is many, many shades of grey. So while not supporting one aspect of the war it does not mean that a person is as clearly polarised as what the conversations make out. Sorry, but you are a much better writer than this technically, emotively and intellectually hackneyed, simplistic piece and this does not do your considerable talents any favours
David
Edited on Aug 26, 7:31 p.m. because ''. -
I was here and I read this..Catressa
-
Very, very good my friend!
Mari
-
I loved this. It brings to life the truth that the public tries to avoid, and the way it was written was tasteful, not overdone. The ending was perfect. The impact it had on me just made me sit back in my seat and say, "wow...". This is a beautiful poem. Really.
-
You brought up many good thoughts and questions. People view things in different ways. Life is complicated. It is interesting to see how people view war, parades and such. I think this was a good write in a completely different form than I have ever seen. It is thought provoking and that may have been your intention.
Victoria Lin -
Excellent
This was very tastefully written, neither overpowering on either side but leaving the reader to add their own values and opinions. Very well written, thank you for a thoughtful write
-
powerful and astute
we are all people. . birth growth love life death . .just different ideals . .to fight is the right of survival . .but thinking it is just ? . . each of us to our own . .
but war is a necessary evil . . what is good for them is bad for us . . what is good for us is bad for them . . both have god on their side !? . . i know not the solution . . just that to give in is not always the way . . the rest becomes history . .
smiles . . thjought provoking discourse
mike -
painfully beautiful
This has such thoughts to ponder and I had a growing apprcieation for it. This was so strong and powerful, left me sorrowful and sad. It was painfully beautiful. You are a wonderful poet. Painfully beautiful... -
absolutely an excellent, extremely powerful write! you expressed both sides of an age old dilemna so perfectly that i am jealous i didn't write this!
the way you went from conversation to describing in vivid detail the photograph and then ending with the truth was very touching. this takes talent.
i thank you for writing this and sharing it with all. it should be on the front page of the new york times! -
Yes, this war is diverse and confusing. Sometimes it goes deeper than us civilians will never know about I'm pretty sure. Nice job writing this.
-
good
interesting...it kept my attention, and I especially liked the lines....
"Once,
he was
a father,
a brother,
a husband,
a son
who laughed and sang."
Can't help but think, if I was in a war aiming a gun accross a battlefield at a person in front of me, that the person accross from me is doing the same thing. He/She has a home and a family to go to, and I would be trying to stop him/her from doing that...Just an interesting take....
Also, I liked the diologue in the beginning....was that an actual conversation or did u just come up with it? Anyway, Cheers and God Bless! -
i dont think anything is black and white and those who think that way better watch there backs because so many ppl live in the gray that there gonna be decieve time and time again and not know what there ebing taken for this subject is a sour one but one that must be discussed thanks for sharing you view laterz `X2c~
Adding your comment:
