Mr. DanB,

I can't let your post go by without some kind of response. (And, yeah, I know I'm off message here without relating it to Ray. But stay with me here. I just might be able to pull it off.)

1.) The road to war was hardly misleading and blundering. In fact, Bush was quite patient in pursuing UN resolutions to satisfy the reluctanct international community. Even after obtaining clear authorization, he went back one more time only to be stabbed in the back by France and Germany.

2.) The accuracy of some of the intelligence reports remains in debate. With other reports, there's no doubt. Perfect? Hardly. Life never is. In light of things, it seems the best decision was made.

3.) False, cleverly, nearly unstated association with Hussein and Bin Laden? Well, which is it? False, clever or nearly unstated? I don't think there was any direct conncection made between Bin Laden and Hussein. But Iraq was a clear supporter of terrorism. Evidenced by the training camps.

4.) Dandelion, this is yours: I don't hold with those who speculate on what Mr. Bradbury might think of things. Sure, look to his work for possible statements but to go further out on a limb and speculate that he might fight the destruction of priceless antiquities in libraries and museums as the most deplorable bit of wastefulness in this war is a bit much, don't you think? I don't know Mr. Bradbury's feelings on this but I know mine when I compare the possible destruction of these antiquities and measure them against the liberation of an oppressed society and the release of children from prison.

Well, looks like I failed in connecting this more directly to Mr. Bradbury's works. I'll keep quiet from now on.

Pete

If you think war is a waste, what do you do with scripture (if there are believers in the house)....in the book of 'Revelation', where... Christ wages war on all those who do not accept Him. This War is unlike anything ever...

I'm pressed for time right now, but since specifically addressed, I feel compelled to give a brief reply.

With Bradbury's sadness in his stories in the aftermath of war, I have to think he opposes war in most instances. With the Martian Chronicles' clear sadness at the loss of the Martian culture, I have to agree with Dandelion that he would feel the ransacking of the museum in Bahgdad by looters is a tragedy -- as do I.

The claim that we shouldn't go into Iraq because there are murderous dictators in other areas and we don't go after them is a fallacious argument that does not recognize the unique situation reprsented by Iraq. My post above delineates those. Hussein represented a unique danger to the security of the US and the region.

Whether or not we need the approval of other world leaders should depend -- not on whether or not their approval is necessary to our decision making -- but whether or not their approval is based on sound reasoning and international law. In the case of France, Germany and Russia, ALL of them had multi-billion dollar contracts with Iraq that violated UN embargoes. Their appeal to appease Iraq was not based on international security or international law (which laws their contracts were in violation of). As a result, we should not make decisions that impact our sovereignty based on the popular opinion of governments who have put money above right.

Do we make the same mistakes sometimes? Absolutely. International policy is typically pragmatic in nature. What works in one decade may not work in another. International alliances are fluid -- they always have been and they always will be.

Should the loss of the artifacts in the museum be considered greater loss than the loss of life that occured both during and prior to the war? I don't think human life should be valued less than artifacts. I hope the looters who took from the museum will take a breath, pray to their God, and make the right decision to return these artifacts to the museum. But are those artifacts more important than the lives that were lost in this war and in the 20+ years of the Hussein regime? I don't think so.

As to the link between Hussein and Al Queda, many camps in Northern Iraq have been conclusively proven to be tied to Al Queda. In this case, intelligence reports were vindicated. I think this will also occur with WPD. There are over 2000 sites to be inspected.

More later.

What I do with "Scripture" is try to understand who wrote it and why and then unreavel the meaning "for those with eyes to see and hears to hear" the true meaning in the words. The bible is not the only reference on the time and has been redacted for political purposes by powerful people who saw the means to control the minds of the uneducated for their own gain. Open your eyes and ears and start to learn.

patrask:

We're doing a chapter by chapter study on 'Revelation' at our Bible study, and it's really aimed at our particular class, mostly made up of professionals, non professionals and college students. (what else is there, right?) I do believe I'm learning something. It's taught by the associate pastor, basically an evangelical church, with loose ties to the largest Bible school in Chicago.

Thruout, one thing is evident. Woe to the unbeliever. But wait a minute, woe? Why?

A Christian believes, and captures the Spirit of God. God steps in, and captures the sinner from death. Intertwined and with utmost love, God has expressed his dealings with the heart thru those who penned the words onto scrolls. Ultimately, expressed in the character, the personality, the mind of Christ. It is not simply a belief, otherwise, there would be no end product. The end product, is the reality one steps into, ushered by God Himself. A true Christian is constantly at war with those things against love and all that means, tho the weapons he fights with are spiritual.

Christ in Revelation is something far different from the nice fellow we got to know in the Gospels.

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 04-14-2003).]

I thank everyone for their thoughtfull replies and comments both to what I said and in other matters as well.
I almost wish there was some way of continuing this worthwhile discussion elsewhere, because this is a Ray Bradbury board. This, as other issues have, will probably continue to diverge from Bradbury specifically. However, I've never encountered another message board with as continually high a quality of thought and argument in all points, large and small.

-Mr. Dark, I appreciate your views so much more than the blunt-axe swinging "patriots" who seem to be filling up today's newspaper editorial columns. I was not trying to make the argument that "because" there are others like Hussein out there, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq. I was simply putting the situation into perspective, and at the same time, questioning our motivations. Iraq may very well be a threat to the U.S., but how unique of one, really? And, I think that the morality of preemptively attacking a nation that we believe poses a threat to us is suspect. What if other countries followed our example? How would we view their actions in that light?
I know that other countries had far-from-altruistic reasons for not backing us. But I would be more interested in truly representing world opinion, and seeing where we can go from that, than in our present course, which I see as reckless. After all, historically, our intentions have not always been honorable, but we've always demanded that they be reckoned with. Was the likelihood of being attacked by Iraq so unbelievably imminent that we had to act without devoting more effort to building up support first? Hussein is not, as I've heard him compared to, Hitler. While he may be ammassing weapons, he is not ammassing an empire. Hightened security should be how we deal with terrorist threats, not by violently instituting regime changes abroad.
Also, why should we be pragmatic about the loss of innocent life in this war, and not be pragmatic about the reality of other regimes like Hussein's that we haven't interfered with.
Also... "their" God? Sigh...

peterran- that comment, looking back, was a little convoluted. Sorry. Yes, there are training camps in Iraq. There are also sleeper cells in the United States. That does not mean that our country supports Al Queda. The taped appearance of Bin Laden, which everyone was making such noise about, in fact urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein, who he considers an "infidel". I think "understated" best sums it up. "Clever", in retrospect, might be giving us all too much credit.
Telling us that our enemies are all part of some Axis makes the unstated assumption of a connection when the only real connection is that they all hate us. So what? A lot of people hate us.

In general- while the murder of human beings is infinitly the greater tragedy than the destruction of a museum, think about this- when we murder people, we destroy our future and when we destroy art we murder our past.

Nard- I am hesitant to include a discussion on Religion so close to one on the war, lest they become hopelessly entangled. At the same time, I will say this: I have tremendous respect for Christianity. I was brought up a Christian, and still carry the ethical values that it gave me. At the same time, I cannot bring myself to accept all Scripture at face value, and this is more true of the Book of Revelations than of almost any other part.
I do, however, recall the phrase "Thou shalt not Kill". Not, "Thou shalt not kill unless Congress approves", nor "Thou shalt not kill unless convicted by a jury of your peers.". I would argue that war is never "just", but, as Mr. Dark earlier said, sometimes we consider it neccesary. But we CHOOSE. That is the important part. We, as humans, make the decision- how neccesary is it? and are we willing to have blood on our hands and on our souls because of it?
It doesn't matter to me at ALL that our president calls himself Christian. It doesn't offend me when he talks of God in public, because like you Nard, I also think that the seperation of church and state has progressed into absurdity (there is a Huge difference between teaching and preaching). It doesn't bother me that much, even, that he evidently considers what he's doing to be something holy, because the end product will be the same, and I, for one, know where I believe the boundries of "holiness" lie, and that is enough for me.
What bothers me is that a president who calls himself a Christian, and yet has presided over 150 odd Death Row executions and attacks other countries not in defense, but in the expectation of defense, has obviously not only not read between the lines of the Bible, but I am fearful that he is only reading from the Book of Bush.

I hope I have not offended anyone, because of how highly I value the people represented on this board. But I feel better mouthing off to people who I think might consider what I say, whether or not they agree with me, rather than to people who give you a dirty look and tell you that if you don't support the war, why don't I just move to France or Bahgdad. (France, I hear is lovely this time of year, while Bahgdad probably leaves much to be desired.)

Thank you all for your time, thought, and honesty.

With good tidings,
Dan

[This message has been edited by DanB (edited 04-14-2003).]

Also, this semester having taken a turn for the agonizingly busy, I won't have much time after to tonight to compose a response, but I will certainly read and get back eventually. Please don't take this as a cold shoulder, or a post-and-run, or anything.

Thanks, all
Dan

DanB (and others): Appreciate the posts.

When the war was first being proposed, I also viewed it as a pre-emptive war. But as the arguments were advanced, I saw the Iraqi regime as an integral part of the anti-western conspiracies of the terrorists. Thus, to me, to say that the war was pre-emptive is arguable (note I said arguable . . . no one has to agree with me). If I see a man getting ready to rape my daughter, I don't have to wait for a certain threshold to be reached before I can intervene -- especially if I know he has raped other women. Much of the terrorism of the last thirty years has stemmed from the instability of the region -- which instability is funded and armed (to a certain extent) by Hussein and his armies. Having a mass-murderer as a head of state is always problematic to the happiness of mankind, because he has the resources of a nation with which to kill. From the murder of Americans in Lebanon, to the 1st Trade Tower bombing, to the two American embassies in Africa to the USS Cole to 9/11 . . . there has been an on-going pattern of the murder of Americans and the violation of American soverignty.

International Terrorism is not the same as robbing the community bank, and has to be dealt with differently. I support (fully) Bush's original address after 9/11 that any nation that harbors these terrorists is an enemy to the US and will be considered as such. The current veiled threats to Syria are justified, in my opinion.

I recognize this is not a Bradbury topic any more (although it started off as one). I do know that in public speeches and interviews, he has expressed support for Bush. However, I am not arrogant or presumptive enough to claim that he does or does not support the War on Iraq. I've never seen him comment on it.

Hey, Dan,

A classy response from a classy guy. Still much for us to disagree on but, you're right. Further discussion may be beyond the scope of this board. And I hope you get caught up on the things that need cathing up on and get back into the fray. I think I can speak for all when I say cordial discussion of the issues is always appreciated.

Yours,

Pete Terranova

Beyond the scope....Hmm.
We've gone pretty far beyond what the intent of this site has been, or have we? No clocks to measure the beginnings of endings of anything, like in a round table discussion, with coffee served. Seems that a particular topic just looses it's steam by its own particular design...or is always alive with an ember or two burning for someone to start fanning a blaze....
I believe floating around somewheres there was ... an interview of Ray done in a Paris restaurant, where he gave some idea of his thoughts on world conflicts. I may be wrong, but I'll do a search to see if I can locate it....

Okay, this link was an interview done some 12 years ago, on Ray's upcoming 70th birthday. If you haven't come across it before, it was done in Paris. It talks about so many things, including the Berlin Wall coming down, that....well...you just have to take the time and read it yourself....

(click on, or type into finder):
http://www.tygersofwrath.com/bradbury.htm


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 04-14-2003).]

The main library in Iraq was not just looted, IT WAS BURNED! Anyone saying it's presumptuous to assume Ray regards this as a crime, without consulting Ray directly, has been paying little or no attention to his message over the years.

Whoa, Dandelion, hold on a minute. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you that it's bad that the Iraqi people are looting and burning their own museums and libraries. We all know what Ray feels about such things happening in free societies. But we're not on some slippery slope here or facing the end of the world because of it. Sure, according to Ray's work, these things are awful but most of his stories that address these issues are about societies who do these kinds of things as a matter of policy. Once law and order are restored in Iraq, these kinds of things are likely to stop. But my point is to lets look at the bigger picture: some artifacts and books have been looted and burned in exchange for the freedom of a people and for the safety of our military. Not the worst exchange in the world. Now, it's up to the people of Iraq to take what's left and build on that.

Pete

For Nard:

Since you are in the research mode on the Book of Revalation, You may find reading some other sources interesting, at least challenging, to your faith. I just completed reading all three of the books written by Ralph Ellis. Try Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs. I do not question anyone's beliefs and ask only that they do not question mine. I rather like the idea of open exchange of ideas. Dogma bothers me immensely. I think we agree on the existence of a supreme entity, that at least gives us a starting point. The rest is just semantics. Stick by your faith, but keep an open mind. Yesterday's truths are usually shown to be folly in the light of tomorrow's better information. If you were born a Hindu, how would you feel about you present faith? Is there really only one answer to such an immensely important question? I think Jesus would say that all paths to his Father's house are equally valid.

[This message has been edited by patrask (edited 04-16-2003).]

I know what you are trying to say, but would probably find difficulty with me, I am sorry to say.
My relationship with Christ is a long and hard one in developing and learning. Not months, but years of great disappointment... mostly with myself in relationship to this experience.
Christianity is NOT intellectual examination. Christianity is NOT psychological experience. If that were so, then I'd be ready to sit down at any time with you and listen to the other paths or ideas.
Christianity is a "relationship" ...that one develops with his Maker, not a airy -fairy type of ethereal ideology, but concrete, rubber-meets -the-road, all the junk-in- your-face kind of life, where you 'must' come to terms with who and what you are before God. That's where the 'cross' comes in, where I come upon the consequences of everything I am, should have been, could never be....as crucifixion. One man takes my place of consequences. AND exchanges places with me. THAT....is a love that no philosophy ...or theory ...can ever equal.

Nard,
If that is the case, then be anything but "sorry"! (I'm sure that's not what exactly what you meant to say, though)
While I subject my faith freely to ideology and philosophy, it doesn't mean that it Comes from these. It comes from... elsewhere. Sooner or later, these discussions always seem to come down not to what we think, or believe, but what we KNOW. You seem to believe your faith to be true innately, just because it is. All true faith is like that. The problem always arises, though, that different people KNOW that different things are true. Does this mean that some people's deeply held faiths are wrong?
Someone (forgot who) once mentioned Irving's Prayer for Owen Meany on the board. That is what true faith is like- the statue in the night that we KNOW is there, no matter what. What I hold to be real truth is a lot closer to something Mr. Bradbury once said that has also been quoted here- We're all one. I literally believe that. My concept of God, how I have literally recognized God in the world around me centers around that idea.
Am I to be told, after reading the Bible and the Bahgavad-Gita, and Emerson, and others, and most importantly, as best as I can muster, looking beyond my own mean egotism-
that I am deceived?
Who then, has done this deceiving?

Back to work, little scrivner Dan...
Oh, before I skidaddle, thanks especially to Mr. Dark and Pete for their sensible replies. I still can't say that I agree, but only time (if anything) will show us the wisdom of our actions, or the lack thereof.
Pete- classy? I checked your profile after that comment to see if there was any chance that I might know you. Guess not. The "classy" thing is kind of a joke with a few friends of mine.
Nard- I read that you're a composer. Very cool! What kind of music, for what occasions, do you do a lot of composition?

As always,
with love, squalor, and a dish of lime-vanilla ice,
Dan