The Pheasant, Wizard Award Winner Options

[Guest_Nina_*]

James

You are most welcome

Nina

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran, Thanks for popping back.

Neither of you is off-topic - this is precisely the sort of debate I delight in my work generating. It's why I write, more than anything probably. And you've both offered excellent crits, thank you. If I deleted your post I'd be truncating the effect of my poem - why would I want to do that? Quite apart from your excellent comments?

Now, I'm going to disagree with you in the main!

>>James: Yes but it's Japan's fault.

>>Fran: No, it was their leadership's fault. Now, leadership is part and parcel of a country, but in the past when the 'wrong' leaders were in power and a nation went to war, only the soldiers were involved directly. (Okay, those at home starved and were taxed to hades, but that was it.)

We always have to take the leadership as acting for a country; we have no alternative. It was the sons of those people who murdered and mutilated the American people in Pearl Harbour. It was the sons of those "innocent" people who murdered, mutilated and tortured the British and Empire servicemen in many Far East camps. It was Japan's fault. No one says that it was every Japanese person's fault; of course it wasn't. Can't be the children's fault and, because of their previous system of government, couldn't be many others' intentions either - but they are a collective, as are all countries and so it was Japan's fault. In war one cannot divide those people who are "ok" from the rest. Not everybody in Germany voted the Nazis into power but, tough, that was their government. War is not about fairness; it is about using force to stop force - and the force in the Far east was Japan. They butchered and tortured their way across the continent in a most terrible way. (Incidentally, I'm not actually sure I blame anything Japanese per se - I think most / all humans are capable of this and it just happened to pop up in the Japanese at the time. Next time - and there will be a next time (See "Hatred") - it will be others.

>>Fran: Since WWII it is now possible to involve the entire population in a war. The citizens of Hiroshima - the grandmothers, the babies - had nothing to do with deciding to bomb Perl Harbour.

Tough. Neither did the innocent Hawaiians killed and maimed. That's war. The Japanese should not have started it. It is no good arguing for the innocent in a country which starts a war; they cannot be helped until the war has been concluded. We can all say how terrible - and it is. We can all lament what happens - and it is lamentable. But the nukes ended the war in the least costly human way, overall. Had the Japanese surrendered earlier the nukes would not have been deployed. (Mind you, I suspect we might have had nuclear war in Europe as a result... man needed to see the power of those weapons).

>>Fran: Any more than the Jewish children in the Lodsk (sp?) ghetto had anything to do with any fermentation against the Nazis.

I'm lost here. Sorry I may not know the story - against the Nazis?? I had it in mind that the Nazis were the opporssors.

>>Fran: All innocent. All murdered.

Which is why the Germans and Japanese needed stopping.

>>Fran: Modern warfare holds power over governments by threatening innocent people - it's like taking hostages.

It always has, really. Look at the brutal repression of the Welsh - in our own homeland - by the Bloody English and Normans. (The Normans repressing the English, too, of course). War has always involved the whole population - just that it's said to be a new thing. It ain't: it's always been.

>> Fran: 911 is part of that: governments are now waking up to the fact that with modern weaponry and ideas small cells of terrorists can terrify a nation almost as much as a full scale war. At least in the latter you can threaten retaliation, but with Al Quaida (sp?) where does it come from?

The 21st Century problem - but AQ would be easy to deal with if it existed as a big organisation. It doesn't. It's insignificant. The real thread is thousands of un-linked angry young Arab males. Easily proved: Kill the few AQ people and the threat remains.

>>The only way we can convince the world that we disagree with our leaders is to vote them out - but what a pitiful selction of choices we have - or use peaceful protest when they let the power or conspiracy-theories go to their heads. The anti-war rally before Iraq in the UK was huge.

I agree but only people who feel strongly againt the war go onto the streets. I was in favour of the war but I didn't go onto the streets to say so. Millions were in favour - not all against.

>>I don't know what the answers are: it's impossible to un-invent the atomic bomb, now it has been developed. But, like Sylvia, I don't think that answers can ever be simple, and violence should always be last resort.

emm... isn't that like saying that Quantum Mechanics is a tad complex? Would anyone (save maniacs) disagree?

(Okay, James, as a mod, you can please delete this if it is too off topic, but if you do need to, pls PM it to Sylvia so she sees. Ta)

No, Fran, everyone should see your arguments. I wish all my work sparked-off this so big thanks to Sylvia and you.

James.