The Pheasant, Wizard Award Winner Options

[Guest_Nina_*]

James

You are most welcome

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Sylvia...

That was a long doorbell ring.

More like a gong of the ages! :)

Glad I made u laugh with my remarks about spermatozoids and such

Humour is vital - even if I'm trying to ditch it here!

>>.... but I'm back to say that I still don't like the idea of arming the poor pheasants with machine guns, even metaphorically. It's not the poem that fails, it's the idea. We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess that's what makes a forum dynamic, yeah, yeah...

Indeed, do go on...

>>Trouble is, I don't believe in absolutes.

Makes two of us. Agree on that.

>> Passive resistance has worked very well under certain circumstances and happens to be about the only effective weapon for the weak. If you can't or don't have arms to bear, then you use whatever method works, and passive resistance is one of them.  Ghandi, of course, is a prime example. I don't believe he wished to be a martyr, and anyhow he was shot by one of his own countrymen, not by a Briton.

Ghandi - yes, correct.

Sure, if one doesn't have any useful weapons and all that is left, passive resistance it has to be. But if one is stronger then employ everything at one's disposal. Unless one is a pacifist doesn't that make sense?

>>On the other hand, other nations can and must defend themselves against monsters like Hitler. And rightly so, there's no avoiding it. The Battle of Britain must rate as about the most heroic recent landmark in history.

Yes, those chaps were amazing. In fairness, I'm sure the German pilots were decent people, too. But they were there to enforce the Nazi's will and that had to be opposed. Whenever I see a Spitfire fly above me I always think of that Battle.

>>Whereas more recent events, such as arming other monsters like Saddam Hussein and then bombing the whole country of Iraq, just don't "click" with me. And most of Africa was armed by the West, and look at the mess they're in.

Ah! If you think I might support Western arms policy and the invasion of Iraq, you'd have me wrong there. I did support the Iraq War initially because our own PM - Blair lied to us. He told us that the Iraqis had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD - i.e. Chemical / Biological / Nuclear) which could be targeted at Britain within 45 minutes. We had much reason to suspect Saddam would target, too. But it was all lies. I'm not entirely sure if Blair was lied to himself and simply passed that on or if he twisted the info given to him so much that it constituted his own lie. But they were lies.

Ironically, I think the Iraq War was precipitated by the USA neo-Cons and the fundamentalist Christians from whom they draw their strength. But I think the Bush administration has lied less to the US people than HMG has to us. Besides, the UK did not have to join in. We did so willingly - even eagerly - so I wouldn't blame the US for that.

I'm delighted Iraq is free of Saddam; the man, his sons and his regime were tyrants, murders and oppressed all. However, we cannot simply rampage around the globe like some 21st Century Robin Hood - quite insane.

Most arms sold to Africa are immoral. I agree.

>>Going back to the pheasants, I'd like to think of them as part of the weak communities on this planet, so I'd also feel happier if they were to "bomb" hunters using alternative & effective methods, not the "eye for an eye, or tooth for a tooth" strategy.

You see, I have never believed in eye for an eye etc. I would always want kill for an eye, kill for a tooth. massive and unstoppable retaliation. Overwhelming force. Genuine Shock and Awe. Why pussy-foot around. If its war then lets stop the other side as quickly as possible. Here Hitler did have the right idea - Blitzkrieg. Very effective. If Britain were attacked I would want HMG to set out to absolutely obliterate our opponents; no questions and no quarter. Nothing held back. Now, by doing that it might actually be a quicker, less damaging war - surrender might come quicker. Imagine if we could have nuked German cities in 1940 - the war might have been over within a year. Yes, there would have been much suffering - but there was. Overall, it would have reduced the number of people suffering greatly.

In the poem, I was trying to empower the pheasants - turn them from being the weaker species into the stronger (their flight gives them the edge).

>>I don't feel comfortable with the idea of pheasants creating mass destruction with machine guns....how sad !! ĄThis may sound funny, but I'm being dead serious.    

But why not? The shooting day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out (save closed season) goes on. That is mass destruction - just a few at a time. Why wait around to be shot at?

>>There would surely be no end to the violence, and we'd have, no doubt, an Animal Farm planet. Now I'm feeling depressed.

I disagree. The "no end to violence" scenario is when both sides are reasonably evenly matched - so the war goes on and on and on (1914-18 trench warfare, for example) or when one side is being repressed and cannot fight back properly (e.g. the Palestinians against the Israelis today).

When the Allied nuked Japan in WW2 that soon stopped the fighting. I live near the UK's nuclear bomb factories - and I used to drive past them daily. It's a pity we need them but we do. It represents devastating power and protects our security on that top level. Of course, countries still need conventional forces but nuclear weapons have, in my opinion, protected the global peace since WW2. I belong to the first generation of Brits who have not experienced a major war in their life time. Lots of smaller wars, of course. And people still are killed, maimed etc. But no very major war. (We were not involved in Viet Nam). I'm thankful for that beyond measure. But such security comes at a price - part of it was the Battle of Britain and other WW2 engagements and part the nuclear deterrent and part alliances - e.g. NATO / Australia / New Zealand etc. Of course, having the USA as one's major ally is very useful, too - and for that reason maybe we should have told them Iraq was a damn silly idea, not just agreed to join them. I think we did the US a disservice there.

>>All the same, it's a great poem, you wizard, you !

Thanks Sylvia and sorry to distress you. Hope you feel better now. You know, I think we aren't that far apart. Neither of us wants war. Both of us want any wars to be minimised in length and damage. We just have different approaches to achieving that.

All the best to you,

James.