Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Jolly, Jbryan, and Larry

Benedict opined: Then we wouldn't have much science, would we?

And to LP,

The reason you are "labeled" a liberal or a leftist is the utter absence in any of your opinions so far, that which places you on the right, or in the middle of the American political spectrum. Your views are quite consistent.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, most of the time it is...a duck.

Jolly,

I understand why the views I have expressed on the very few subjects I have talked about are considered liberal, although there are some very well known conservatives, Pat Buchanan among them, who would agree with me. Of course, I consider my views on the war as more patriotic than I consider them liberal or conservative.

What I am wondering, though, is why it seems so important to some people to apply that or any label to anyone else since by doing so they are making an assumption they know my views on a multitude of subjects when I have never given them.

I suspect most people are like me -- having a mix of views, some of which might be considered liberal and some conservative. But by labeling people and making assumptions based on their views on only a few subjects, minds too often get closed to any real exchange of ideas.

Pat Buchanan is an idiot. He is not a Conservative - he is whatever he needs to be that day to get what he needs. He is purely interested in himself and his own ego.

Claiming that your past statements against the war, what you've said about our troops, and the support you have shown for Saddam is being patriotic is, if it weren't so absolutely pathetic, the funniest thing I've heard in ages.

Larry,
I agree with you completely.

Being agains a war is OK. I think all kinds of people from left to right, from conservative to liberal are against this war for their own reasons. In a democracy, it is rare that everybody agrees on anything.

But asking to stop a war when it is started is a different thing.

If the USA and the Brits had attacked Poland or Argentina, then, the opposition would have been legitimate.
But for God's sake,(here I am talking to LP and getting angry), your country has been attacked by an incredibly violent terrorist action.

The whole of the Arab world is competing at American and Jew bashing.

That guy (your friend Saddam, I know he is not your friend but I am angry and justly so) has killed thousands of people with chemicals weapons. He gives masses of money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He has violated the ceasefire treaty of 1991.
He is a butcher.
The whole of the MiddleEast needs a statement.

Sometimes, kind words work. Sometimes, zero tolerance works. You have to be more flexible.

A guy who is always on the yin side is not yin.
Because yin is a dynamic concept. It implies an interplay with yang. Both are opposed and will never see the face of the other completely. But both dance together in the field of the other's absence.
Anger sometimes makes me lyrical.

You see, that is what the clapping of one hand.

Yin is one hand. Yang is one hand.

And the clapping is what will never be heard and yet is the music of the Universe.

What is he on, that weird Freedom guy ?

The radio is playing Mozart's 20rd piano concerto.
That must be what creates the field.

LP, stop being always predictable. It is exhausting.

As a traitor, in the countries you defend so persistently, you would have been tortured. You would have denounced your friends (starting with Larry and Jolly) and be either freezing your a.s.s in Siberia or rotting in a hole in the ground with 100 of your friends.

What has it got to do with the clapping of one hand ?

You tell me.
:rolleyes:

Jolly,JBryan and Larry,

Congratulations. You are so popular (200 posts +).
I suggest you find an agent and start your show on FoxTV or CNN.

A film in Hollywood too might be a good idea.

Your memoires : how did you get to be what you are ?

How can we become you : are there special universities for that ?

You are such an inspiration for this country which has been too long deprived of a backbone.

Jolly, JBryan and Larry, you are the Light of the Universe.

I suggest they change the name of three airports in Irak.

Jolly International Airport.
JBryan International Airport
Larry International Airport and razor blade's wholesale shop.

What a team ! A country that has the three of you has nothing to fear.

benedict,
you are hilarious. but do not be so hard on lazy pianist. i like him. i'm glad he is saying the things he has to say. i know lots and lots of people who think as he does, and their voices are needed, too. he is not a traitor.

Pique,

I like him too.

He makes me think of a character in Dostoievski.

But I can't help pulling is leg.

I am sure that is so resilient that the more I push him, the more he is himself.

I know there are many people like him.

I have a daughter who takes part in every peace demonstration in Italy.

I only call him a traitor when he wants Saddam to stay and butcher his people and shows millions of USA haters that there is no consequence.

Peace is what happens when Saddam is out of power.

I feel very intolerant at the idea that millions of people demonstrated for peace against a war with Hitler's Germany.

I know intolerance is the expression of doubt.

Nothing will ever stop Lazy Pianist : he is the modern Antigone !

(sorry LP )

well, i liked antigone, too.

i think you maybe wrong about nothing stopping lazy pianist. he could easily decide that he is getting nowhere and that this forum is a waste of his time.

i have not seen anyone defend saddam hussein, not anywhere.

unfortunately, there is more going on with this war than simply stopping saddam from committing atrocities. lp has articulated that better than i ever could.

that is not to say that it isn't important, or even essential and moral to stop atrocities. but to view what is happening to the u.s. as if that was the only issue is terribly naive, i'm afraid.

I feel that if we started speaking about politics, our warm feelings might take a chill.

I am very tense as long as Saddam is not out and Irak is settled down.

And then I will be very tense as long as the Israelis and the Palestinians have not with the help of the USA and the (reluctant) acceptation of the Arab and Moslim world some hope and respect.

This fatwah on Israel (the Salman Rushdie of nations) has to stop.

Then, I will take a vacation.

I owe my life to the D-Day. I will never forget it. As long as the USA fight against dictators, I will be at their side.

It is when they fight for dictators like they did in the days of the Ugly American (Chile, Argentina, Brazil...) that I am worried.

I wish LP had said one single thing that went in the direction of liberating Irak here and now.

Peace is when Saddam is gone. Peace can never be when he stays.

How can somebody who says such sensitive things about opera talk such things.

Wozzek was a soldier.
Sarastro was a soldier.(he was a king).
Don Giovanni and the Commander were soldiers.

Soldiers are sometimes needed, like policeman, to bring or restore peace.

It is a question of tide. The tide is now going one direction.
And then it will go in the opposite direction.

Perhaps I would, Benedict, but I don't believe the Bush Administration's intent is to "liberate" Iraq. I believe their intent is toe invade it and occupy it. And I believe we intend to be there for a good long time -- both as an occupying force and then through proxy governments.

The general who is going to be placed in charge as "adminstrator, as soon as the war is over is highly controversial in the Middle East -- Army Lt Gen Jay Garner. About a year ago, he gave a major speech in which he sided and praised Ariel Sharon''s handling of the Palestinian revolt. He has given more of these since. This is the man we are going to put in charge of a Moslem country to organize it for a coming Iraqi government? This is hardly the sign of a benevolent liberator wanting to be sensitive to the country it liberated.

And, the Iraqi exile we are setting up to transfer power to? A nice man name Ahmen Chalabi. We airlifted him and 700 exiles into Southern Iraq yesterday so he will be ready when the shooting war ends -- before the guerilla war begins. He has not been in Iraq since 1958, when he was 13, except for a brief period in the late 1980's when he tried to raise forces against Saddam and was run out by the Shiites -- not Saddam. He was convicted of bank fraud and embezzlement in Jordan, in absentia because he fled to and was protected by the US. Several Arab governments in the region have said he is not now and will not be welcome in their countries. He is, however, good friends with Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

Is this really the type of man we are going to have run Iraq -- or even take a significant position? If we are going to return Iraq to the Iraqi's, would it not be better to have a local person -- one who has been living there -- and one who is not ostracized from much of the Middle East to do so?

These are the two men who we intend to place in charge. The choice of both of them show either abysmal insenstivity to the local Iraqi's who we are supposedly liberating so they can run things as they want -- or they show that we have a different agenda, one which is not as benign as the liberation of an oppressed people.

No, Benedict, you are not going to hear me support this war as a way of liberating Iraq. I do not believe that was ever the primary purpose of it, I do not think it is now and I do not think it is the intent of the Bush Administration to ever really liberate Iraq and allow it to develop a government that it wants. Iraq will always have a government we want and that supports the US. That is not liberation. That is conquest.

Lazy

I have noticed that you have not indicated where you live. Now you have made many references to "we" when speaking about the United States. Would you care to let us know approximately where you live?

The carping begins before the war is even over.

Nor, do I believe, will you ever. No matter how much evidence there is to counter your preconceptions. Your mind is made up even before we really know what the Administration's plans are, idle slanders and speculations about certain personalities notwithstanding. Such is your hatred for the Bush Administration that any thing they do will be wrong in your eyes. That is why your misgivings carry so little weight with me and others.

Amen!

oh, well, benedict. so much for you "needing" me in the coffee room!



i understand. if i believed that this was the only purpose of this war, i would be less tense. i don't like it that the leaders of this country have decided to go it alone and not work with the other great nations of our planet to come to a solution everyone agrees is necessary. i don't like what this has cost our nation in the world's esteem. we may feel like we are an island in the world community but we are not. the world really should have no place for cowboys any more.

i don't trust this administration. i wonder why those self-described conservatives here who endorse the taking up of arms against the government to protect the rights of citizens, those here who proclaim to so distrust government, aren't restively discussing taking up arms against this administration, and are so ready to trust it.

i agree it is very important to protect human rights and i agree that the u.s. should not have turned away from europe when hitler was committing atrocities. i agree that the u.s. should help prevent further atrocities in iraq.

i also think that if there is a real need for intervention, that the UN would also come to see the need, and that there is no need for the u.s. to go it alone. it isn't necessarily that the war is wrong. i don't know if it is or is not. it is the way in which this administration has gone about it that makes me very uncomfortable.

now most of the american people will rally behind the war and the president. that is to be expected, and perhaps the only reasonable thing one can do, now that the war has begun. that doesn't mean that it was the right thing to start it now, or to circumvent the process of bringing everyone in the world community on board.

this war is going to be very expensive, and the u.n. won't be sharing in the costs is my understanding. i think we really must ask what the big rush was, that the processes that were in place couldn't have continued.

the u.s. economy is being driven into the ground. most of the states this year are struggling desperately to balance their budgets. human services and education are being cut dramatically. all is being sacrificed to this administration's hawkish agenda.

how much peace and good will might $80 billion buy if it was spent on aid and education instead of bombs?

i don't think the choices this administration has made are making us more secure. and it remains to be seen if they really do bring freedom to the iraqis.

just to make it very clear: i am possession of no facts. i only know what i read, which is biased, and often ill-disguised opinions of others, no matter which end of the political spectrum it comes from. i have no idea what the right thing is to do in this situation. i am not out marching in war protests, though many of my friends are, because i don't pretend to know if this is a just and necessary war or not. but what i do know and do see makes me very apprehensive for the future of my country.

i hope this administration has made the right decision to bring on this war. if not, then i think it is time for either a revolution of the kind thomas jefferson called for every 25 years, or a constitutional convention to prevent this sort of concentration of power in the administrative branch of government from ever happening again.



questioning my government's decisions is not even remotely the same thing as saying it would be good for saddam to remain in power. i think what you don't see from your side of the atlantic is the domestic consequences here in the U.S. the precedents that are being set. the rights and freedoms that are being eroded right here on our own soil. that is what worries me. we may need to take up arms and overthrow a tyrant right here on our own soil.

by the way, i fail larry's litmus test as a liberal. there wasn't anything on that list i agree with. so i would appreciate it if all here cease and desist from trying to categorize my politics, and instead try to think about ideas independent of the politics.

benedict, if you truly subscribe to the ideals you and i discussed in the pianists corner, then you won't throw away my friendship just because we do not agree about politics. i happen to live in real cowboy country, and around here you have to know how to agree to disagree or you wouldn't be able to have a community.

Pique,

I am actually stunned by your presumption that the present Administration is up to no good. I believe I have a healthy amount of skepticism about whatever my government is up to but I require some evidence that there is something foul afoot before I am ready to, as you say, take up arms against my government. I didn't see it with Clinton and I don't see it now. Just a lot of idle supposition. Your animus towards Bush is evident in your language which is loaded with such terms as "going it alone" (obviously we are not. France and Germany are really "going it alone"). I have no particular love or hate for the man.

As soon as I see some evidence that there is skulduggery at work I will be the first to sound the alarm but, so far, I have not seen any reason to suppose that motives are not anything other than the obvious and often explicitly stated ones. Please do not patronize me with "you are being naive" or "you have not done my research" nonsense. I am quite capable of critical reasoning and am actually quite well informed. Provide evidence to support your deeply held suspicions.

This discussion is good. Please keep it coming.

Jodi

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, Governor of Georgia, was elected President of the United States. One or two nights before his inauguration (I forget which) there was the traditional entertainment extravaganza to celebrate our democracy and to honor the new President.

One of those who appeared was John Wayne. John Wayne had actively and aggressively campaigned against Mr. Carter. At this extravaganza, John Wayne gave a speech. He spoke of the greatness of the United States. He spoke of our values as Americans. He spoke of our freedom. And he spoke of his ideological differences with Mr. Carter. There were few things that John Wayne and Jimmy Carter agreed on.

Towards the end of his speech, he looked directly at Mr. Carter in the Presidential Box. And he congratulated him. He also warned him that he would face opposition from prople like him -- but that opposition would come from a deep love for America, for a deep belief in American values and from an honest and sincere disagreement over the best way for America as a country to move forward.

To paraphrase from memory, he said to Mr. Carter... Mr. President, we are the opposition, but we are the loyal opposition. As we argue and disagree in the next four years, remember more that we act out of honest disagreements with you, based on loyalty to America -- the same loyalty you have.

Gryphon asked what part of this country I am from. It does not matter. I am an American and have been all my life. I love my country and I love what it stands for. To assume that my loyalty and love for my country would be based on the region of the country I live in is to not understand what America should mean to all of us.

JBryan, I do not believe that you would take a position on something as grave as this coutnry going to war simply because of your political affiliation or whether or not you liked the President and his advisors. I assume that on something of this magnitude that you support the war because of your love for America -- and would support it no matter who was President.

It is unwarranted and highly offensive that you or anyone would assume that those of us who oppose this war do so because of some personal dislike for the President of the United States. Rather, like John Wayne, we love our country and are loyal to it. We oppose the policies of this President because we feel these policies harm and damage our country.

I do not believe I best love my country by supporting a President who I feel is leading it down a road which I believe it should not go down. Indeed, I would be a very poor American -- indeed, unAmerican -- if I were to support something as tremendously important as my country going to war simply because it was popular to support it or would make others think ill of me if I did not.

I am motivated in my opposition to this war because of my love for my country, because I believe my country is better than the way it is now behaving and because I believe, as I have said many times, that it is being severely damaged by the way we led up to the war, the execution of the war and what will come after the war.

I do not assume you or any of those who support this war are so petty as to support it simply because you like Mr. Bush. Do not assume my position on this war is based on something so petty as whether I like or dislike, love or hate, George Bush.

jbryan wrote:
"Please do not patronize me with "you are being naive" or "you have not done my research" nonsense. I am quite capable of critical reasoning and am actually quite well informed. Provide evidence to support your deeply held suspicions."

i would not dream of making such a statement to you, jbryan. you are probably better informed than i am, and i have nothing but admiration for your capacity for critical reasoning. i am not pretending, as i said, to know something or to have evidence. in fact, i am deeply ambivalent, in case that wasn't clear. if i had evidence, my suspicions would not be suspicions, but facts.

at this point, i am just hoping for the best possible outcome, hoping my fears are groundless, and grieving every day when i read the paper about all the people who are dying over there, iraqi, american, and british. one of my editors died over there the other day. it is heartbreaking.

doesn't it make sense to ask if all this death and destruction and violence is really necessary? doesn't it make sense to question what you are told? how often are we really told the truth? not very often, in my unfortunate experience.

while all kinds of arguments and statements in the press and online might make sense to me, i don't take anything as gospel. i believe what i have verified myself.

i'm not satisfied with any of the answers i have read so far, and so far, i am not feeling moved to investigate more deeply. it is truly too painful for me.

Lazy Pianist:

Thank you. You too, Pique.