The Sins of the Fathers
Animosities ancient beyond our own beginnings as a coherent people
Bubbled to the surface if a withdrawal of new forces took place
Proving Saddam’s iron fist the only master
To your vengeance
Time to gamble on peace.
We offer sanctuary for political refugees
As Vegas of future options
Which will lead to peace
Define and control inherited feuds
The sins of the fathers controlling no more.
Communicate with combatant groups
List grievances on all sides
Al Sadr saw the foe of his father slain
No prior demands
Time to talk.
Baathists have a right to vote
Where went the spoils of war?
Call for a new election.
Distribute the oil wealth to the people
Like Indian casino money.
The human cost of is irretrievable
The course of history directed
Logic dictates endgame
Time to fold ‘em
While death holds the winning hand.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Nuclear Warfare
Commentary on “Focus: Mission Iran” London Times, January 07, 2007
Assuming the London Times story “Focus: Mission Iran” is accurate, this idea poses several ethical questions, the first among them is the new doctrine of preemptive paranoia, sometimes called starting wars among the more rational in society. Has our world lost any semblance of ethics as the lovely blonde woman on the news assures us that the nuclear device to be dropped on Iran by Israel would be low yield? What are we now expected to accept?
Using nuclear weapons is not acceptable by any standard. Why has the United Nations not sent nuclear weapons observers into Israel yet expects others accede to this demand? How did Israel acquire nuclear technology? Shall we review that story? Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is irresponsible. If such a nuclear strike takes place, the number of warlike regimes in the world will multiply. What then? More nuclear strikes?
To counteract this warlike attitude, I suggest a United Nations resolution that retribution shall not be taken beyond what was given. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Not an eye for a brain. So it is written in the Old Testament and the words are meaningful and those who break that word of their religion are condemned to eternal warfare, the reason for the resolution.
To give this Resolution impetus, once the retribution allowance has been exceeded, immediate member economic boycott will ensue against the offender. Nobody wants to be called greedy, yet even too much retribution is a form of greed.
Warfare is a foolish waste of resources and as such must be stopped, if not for humanitarian reasons that boggle the mind with pain. Threatening a nuclear hit is moral bankruptcy no matter who does it.
Assuming the London Times story “Focus: Mission Iran” is accurate, this idea poses several ethical questions, the first among them is the new doctrine of preemptive paranoia, sometimes called starting wars among the more rational in society. Has our world lost any semblance of ethics as the lovely blonde woman on the news assures us that the nuclear device to be dropped on Iran by Israel would be low yield? What are we now expected to accept?
Using nuclear weapons is not acceptable by any standard. Why has the United Nations not sent nuclear weapons observers into Israel yet expects others accede to this demand? How did Israel acquire nuclear technology? Shall we review that story? Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is irresponsible. If such a nuclear strike takes place, the number of warlike regimes in the world will multiply. What then? More nuclear strikes?
To counteract this warlike attitude, I suggest a United Nations resolution that retribution shall not be taken beyond what was given. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Not an eye for a brain. So it is written in the Old Testament and the words are meaningful and those who break that word of their religion are condemned to eternal warfare, the reason for the resolution.
To give this Resolution impetus, once the retribution allowance has been exceeded, immediate member economic boycott will ensue against the offender. Nobody wants to be called greedy, yet even too much retribution is a form of greed.
Warfare is a foolish waste of resources and as such must be stopped, if not for humanitarian reasons that boggle the mind with pain. Threatening a nuclear hit is moral bankruptcy no matter who does it.
Friday, December 29, 2006
"Vengeance be Mine," saith The Lord
To Mrs. Janc Once Proud To Be
I never could see
Attacking those who cannot
Defend themselves
Like Jerry Janc
Can tell no tales.
It is beyond my comprehension
How a kindhearted man
Years dead
Could inspire such vitriol
Ole Jer made mistakes
But he didn’t make that many.
To talk ill of the dead
Calls the ghost in
He’s really old now
Like he seemed to us then.
A leader set out to be broke
Like a glass horse.
Jerry was so transparent
I could see all those interests
Floating in alcohol
He drank teetering on the edge
Of Women’s Liberation.
Even if Jerry
Popped out of the bottle
Long enough to write
The literary novel he dreamed
He would not compete with you.
We partied hardy often and long
On the hill by 3 Points
I knew you then
And I still know Jerry
Because he died at 42.
Let Jerry Janc
Rest in peace
Or at least remember him
As the father of your children
And the man who
Never left a bum empty handed.
I never could see
Attacking those who cannot
Defend themselves
Like Jerry Janc
Can tell no tales.
It is beyond my comprehension
How a kindhearted man
Years dead
Could inspire such vitriol
Ole Jer made mistakes
But he didn’t make that many.
To talk ill of the dead
Calls the ghost in
He’s really old now
Like he seemed to us then.
A leader set out to be broke
Like a glass horse.
Jerry was so transparent
I could see all those interests
Floating in alcohol
He drank teetering on the edge
Of Women’s Liberation.
Even if Jerry
Popped out of the bottle
Long enough to write
The literary novel he dreamed
He would not compete with you.
We partied hardy often and long
On the hill by 3 Points
I knew you then
And I still know Jerry
Because he died at 42.
Let Jerry Janc
Rest in peace
Or at least remember him
As the father of your children
And the man who
Never left a bum empty handed.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Iraq and Palestine
Iraq and Palestine
A study of peace must yield many prospectus points of view. Refusing to recognize a point of view is prohibited. We must deal with who is there now and their relation to the recently formed governments in Iraq and Palestine must be assessed from a social point of view as well as a reassessment from a militaristic perspective as to the actual size of the armies involved and the impact of this information on our future course of action.
It appears that the exercise of Democracy must yield the results desired proclaimed or decreed by US? I question not the results of the election, but what brought the people to that decision? Were certain political parties banned? What basic question must be answered before the sovereignty of elected governments is toppled for sectarian reasons? It is hypocrisy to tout democracy and then criticize the results. All sides must engage in dialogue at the forum through their elected official. Respect life and disengage in killing others. Period. Stop blowing each other up. Stop attacking US troops. US troops will cease fire as the truce develops. Stop lobbing bombs into Israel and receiving more of the same. Embargoes become a thing of the past. Restitution is possible.
All viewpoints must be heard. All viewpoints must have an articulate spokesperson. If a group viewpoint does not have such, then they are common criminals subject to local police control.
A summit consisting of the real contenders must be constructed. Refusing to talk to any of them will invalidate the summit.
Who are the contenders?
UN
US
Iraq
Iran
Pope
Imam
Syria
Israel
Russia
Jordan
Lebanon
Palestine
The factions therein wherein as evidenced by local importance.
Who else?
All these wars are wasting resources. Scientific cooperation and respect would be such an improvement over the current situations, even the self proclaimed followers of various religions would recognize the value of peace.
A study of peace must yield many prospectus points of view. Refusing to recognize a point of view is prohibited. We must deal with who is there now and their relation to the recently formed governments in Iraq and Palestine must be assessed from a social point of view as well as a reassessment from a militaristic perspective as to the actual size of the armies involved and the impact of this information on our future course of action.
It appears that the exercise of Democracy must yield the results desired proclaimed or decreed by US? I question not the results of the election, but what brought the people to that decision? Were certain political parties banned? What basic question must be answered before the sovereignty of elected governments is toppled for sectarian reasons? It is hypocrisy to tout democracy and then criticize the results. All sides must engage in dialogue at the forum through their elected official. Respect life and disengage in killing others. Period. Stop blowing each other up. Stop attacking US troops. US troops will cease fire as the truce develops. Stop lobbing bombs into Israel and receiving more of the same. Embargoes become a thing of the past. Restitution is possible.
All viewpoints must be heard. All viewpoints must have an articulate spokesperson. If a group viewpoint does not have such, then they are common criminals subject to local police control.
A summit consisting of the real contenders must be constructed. Refusing to talk to any of them will invalidate the summit.
Who are the contenders?
UN
US
Iraq
Iran
Pope
Imam
Syria
Israel
Russia
Jordan
Lebanon
Palestine
The factions therein wherein as evidenced by local importance.
Who else?
All these wars are wasting resources. Scientific cooperation and respect would be such an improvement over the current situations, even the self proclaimed followers of various religions would recognize the value of peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)