How GW and Tony Saved the World, A poem Options

[Guest_Jox_*]

© Todd Congreve, 2005. I, Todd Congreve, do assert my right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with Sections 77 and 78 of The Copyrights, Designs And Patents Act, 1988. (Laws of Cymru & England, as recognised by international treaties). This work was simultaneously copyrighted in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. This work is posted as an unpublished work in order to elicit critical assistance and other helpful comment, only.

Ref: TC xxxx AB

How GW and Tony Saved the World
By TC

Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Prat
resolved to have a battle.
Global democracy - worship that:
low intelligence, lying prattle.

B52s flew-over, in a row,
full of destruction and death.
It excited both our heroes so:
Iraqis breathed their final breath.

(end)

=======================================================
Notes:

I wrote this because I was much angered by both Bush and Blair today gloating about how, despite all the problems etc, they were right to invade Iraq because the World is better off without Saddam in power. This is blatant Marxism - "The ends justify the means." (Karl Marx) Or is it just stupidity? In Economics (Marx was an Economist) we look at costs and benefits. Sure, many people would agree that having Saddam in gaol, rather than running an important country was a good idea. However, what about the costs, Mr Bush and Mr Blair? Ah! Of course - I forgot - Blair and Bush don't pay the costs, do they? Others do that.

OK, then, let's nuke everything in the whole World because the World is better off without nuclear weapons. (A perfectly fair postulation in the Blair-Bush "philosophy").

Now, how can we get rid of these two war-crazed tyrannical leaders? Perhaps we should invite the new model Iraqi army to invade both the USA and UK?

J.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies to Lewis Carroll - Here is his original (well out of copyright!)

Taken from:  Through the Looking-Glass  by Lewis Carroll, 1832-1898

Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee
Resolved to have a battle,
For Tweedle-dum said Tweedle-dee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew by a monstrous crow,
As big as a tar barrel,
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi J

I didn't see  GW and TB gloating over Iraq yesterday but no way can the invasion of Iraq ever be justified except in their heads.  

Brilliant idea to take the Lewis Carroll song and adapt it.  They really are like two fat overfed schoolboys, sitting in their comfortable offices, playing games with people's lives, not carig at all what the cost is to innocent Iraqis. I have commented on the same thing in a poem I wrote some time ago.

Nina

How GW and Tony Saved the World
By TC

Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Prat  
resolved to have a battle.
Global democracy - worship that:
low intelligence, lying prattle.    .....lol, I love this line.

B52s flew-over, in a row,
full of destruction and death.
It excited both our heroes so:
Iraqis {breathed}[took] their final breath.  ...this line is too long

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

Thank you very much for your reply.

It's not just Iraqis, either (though, you're right, I focus on them in this poem). I think over 1,000 Americans and over 100 British service personnel have been killed plus civillians and journalists and so on. The Bush Government estimated that over 30,000 Iraqis have died so far.

"low intelligence, lying prattle.    .....lol, I love this line.

Thank you very much.

"Iraqis {breathed}[took] their final breath.  ...this line is too long

This is so funny - I originally had: "Iraqis exhaled their final breaths." - and thought that might be a tad long. OK, I'll attend to that line again - thank you.

Thanks for your help.

J.

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi James

Post something political and I buzz into the forum (like a wasp to a honey pot; annoying but hard to deter, lol)

I find it fascinating that at the start of the war they were less belligerant than at this stage when their vital "reasons" for the invasion have been shown to be mere figments of their security forces' imaginations. (Oh, no doubt Saddam was an evil dictator - holding people without trial, torturing them in secret, having inconvenient people killed, interfering in other soverign nations ... hang on, don't some Western Governments do things like that, too? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ...?) They cannot afford to back down. It is so very, very sad; from their posturing so much destruction and misery has arrisen. They are now in a hole of their own digging: if they admit doubts they are weak; if they don't, they are patently fools. Brawn obviously matters far more than intellect.  

let's nuke the everything in the whole World because the World is better off without nuclear weapons. (A perfectly fair postulation in the Blair-Bush "philosophy").

On the other hand, logic can be scary, too

How GW and Tony Saved the World  --- GW sounds a bit polite - Dubya is a well known version of the name, would that make it really obvious? (ok, I am slow - but I misread it as "Get Writing" ... sad woman that I am)

I think you have a powerful and angry poem here: well done, James  :pharoah2

Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Prat  --- lovely - the original was crying out for that as an update, hehe
resolved to have a battle.
Global democracy - worship that:
low intelligence, lying prattle.  --- nice play on intelligence

B52s flew-over, in a row,
full of destruction and death.  
It excited both our heroes so:
Iraqis breathed their final breath.  --- not just Iraquis, either; plenty of US and other troops have died in the conflict, plus, if the world hadn't been wasting billions on this farce, there might be more room for compassion eg in Sudan and so on, thus saving "collateral" lives elsewhere in the world.

I agree with Nina that the last line is a tad too long.

I also found that S2 L2 does not fit Carroll's rhythm. Now, I know you don't see rhythms as a rule, but here you have kept to his setting very well apart from the last line (Nin'a suggestion works for that) and S2 L2
full of destruction and death.
is rhythmically unlike the other lines ...
how about something like:

B52s flew-over, in a row{,}[:]
destruction, terror, death
or
brought destructive, violent death
or
missiles bringing death

Please forgive me for banging on about that rhythm here, but I think the poem has such a powerful punch it is a shame to see it derailed (hows that for mixed mets?) by one line

Cheers,

Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran,

>F> Post something political and I buzz into the forum (like a wasp to a honey pot; annoying but hard to deter, lol)

LOL... Don't think I dare reply there!

>F> I find it fascinating that at the start of the war they were less belligerent than at this stage when their vital "reasons" for the invasion have been shown to be mere figments of their security forces' imaginations. (Oh, no doubt Saddam was an evil dictator - holding people without trial, torturing them in secret, having inconvenient people killed, interfering in other sovereign nations ... hang on, don't some Western Governments do things like that, too? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ...?) They cannot afford to back down. It is so very, very sad; from their posturing so much destruction and misery has arisen. They are now in a hole of their own digging: if they admit doubts they are weak; if they don't, they are patently fools. Brawn obviously matters far more than intellect.

"Intellect" - GW and Blair governments??? Go, wash your mouth out!  

>J> let's nuke the everything in the whole World because the World is better off without nuclear weapons. (A perfectly fair postulation in the Blair-Bush "philosophy").
>F> On the other hand, logic can be scary, too

I have never found logic anything but utterly terrifying. If there were a devil, he would be a mathematician spouting evil logic all day. (Is logic ever anything but evil?)

>F> How GW and Tony Saved the World  --- GW sounds a bit polite - Dubya is a well known version of the name, would that make it really obvious? (ok, I am slow - but I misread it as "Get Writing" ... sad woman that I am)

Thanks but I'll leave others to use "double U."  And, of course, "Get Writing" is an evil empire which aims to take the World over, too! :)

>F> I think you have a powerful and angry poem here: well done, James  

Thanks Fran.

"Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Prat  --- lovely - the original was crying out for that as an update, hehe

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree there - I think many people have employed those two for new works.

"low intelligence, lying prattle.  --- nice play on intelligence

Thanks! Glad you splotted that :)

"Iraqis breathed their final breath.  --- not just Iraquis, either; plenty of US and other troops have died in the conflict, plus, if the world hadn't been wasting billions on this farce, there might be more room for compassion eg in Sudan and so on, thus saving "collateral" lives elsewhere in the world.

I think this and my reply to Nina (above) cross-posted - I mentioned that as well.

>F> I agree with Nina that the last line is a tad too long.

But neither of you have said why! So, why please? As I said to Nina, I'll attend to that again but unless I know the reason and SEE it, it cannot change.

>F> I also found that S2 L2 does not fit Carroll's rhythm. Now, I know you don't see rhythms as a rule,

I have only ever seen them in two poems - "Skimbleshanks" (TS Eliot) and "The Night Mail" (WH Auden). Both puff-puff sounds. Oh yes and I see it in many of Status Quo's songs, else not in music either.

>F> but here you have kept to his setting very well apart from the last line (Nin'a suggestion works for that) and S2 L2

Why??? (He says in considerable frustration!) :)

"full of destruction and death. is rhythmically unlike the other lines ...

Sorry, Fran, I have absolutly no idea what you mean. How is it different (and, by the way, I made no attempt to shadow Caroll's rhythm - I didn't know he'd used any).

>F> how about something like:

B52s flew-over, in a row{,}[:]
destruction, terror, death
or
brought destructive, violent death
or
missiles bringing death

Now, I'm not especially fond of my line "full of destruction and death" - I think "full of" is weak - was meant to refer to the bombs crammed inside. But all your suggestions lose the bomb reference. (They were using bombs, not missiles, by the way). Many of the bombs were cluster bombs, too.

>F> Please forgive me for banging on about that rhythm here, but I think the poem has such a powerful punch it is a shame to see it derailed (hows that for mixed mets?) by one line

Nothing to forgive but I'm afraid you're wasting your time. If you / someone else can SHOW me why their rhythm suggestion is an improvement I will consider their suggestions but I cannot have a poem of mine which I cannot justify nor explain to others.

If I adopt others' versions of aspects my poems, then I need to understand why I'm doing it and to SEE / FEEL what difference it makes. So, sorry, Fran, I took a decision some time ago not to makes changes to poems for reasons of rhythm; it would be very wrong of me to employ what you suggest (however sound poetically) - but thanks for your crit.

Thanks, Fran.

J.

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Hi James,

Very interesting thoughts.  I like the fact that you used a silly nursery rhyme to base it on.  I think it reflects your feelings about Bush and Blair very well.  lol

Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Prat
resolved to have a battle.
Global democracy - worship that:

I won't pretend to be knowledgable about these things (I'm the much cliched ostrich that buries his head in the sand) but maybe they should stop pushing our government at others.  Whether or not it's 'better' doesn't really matter if others don't see it that way or prefer their own goverment.  They can't force people to choose democracy.  Although I believe we are better off without Saddam in power, if they had taken care of him the first time around ...  And I thought that this war was about ridding the world of terrorism.  When did it become all about Saddam anyway???

low intelligence, lying prattle. Good line!

B52s flew-over, in a row,
full of destruction and death.
It excited both our heroes so:
Iraqis breathed their final breath.

I won't even touch the rhythm issue!  lol  I've read the others comments and know how frustrating it can be.  If I thought I could explain it adequately I might attempt it but I think I would confuse you even more!  lol

Thanks for the read!

Cathy

[Guest_Toumai_*]

Hi James

>F> Post something political and I buzz into the forum (like a wasp to a honey pot; annoying but hard to deter, lol)

LOL... Don't think I dare reply there!



"Intellect" - GW and Blair governments??? Go, wash your mouth out!  

ooops ... what was I thinking of?  

I have never found logic anything but utterly terrifying. If there were a devil, he would be a mathematician spouting evil logic all day. (Is logic ever anything but evil?)

logic is neutral; it's mis-use by humans is evil.

>F> How GW and Tony Saved the World  --- GW sounds a bit polite - Dubya is a well known version of the name, would that make it really obvious? (ok, I am slow - but I misread it as "Get Writing" ... sad woman that I am)

Thanks but I'll leave others to use "double U."  And, of course, "Get Writing" is an evil empire which aims to take the World over, too! :)

ah, but Get Writing is now deceased (too much squawking)

"Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Prat  --- lovely - the original was crying out for that as an update, hehe

Well, I'm not sure I'd agree there - I think many people have employed those two for new works.

could be - but I haven't seen 'em

"Iraqis breathed their final breath.  --- not just Iraquis, either; plenty of US and other troops have died in the conflict, plus, if the world hadn't been wasting billions on this farce, there might be more room for compassion eg in Sudan and so on, thus saving "collateral" lives elsewhere in the world.

I think this and my reply to Nina (above) cross-posted - I mentioned that as well.

yes, I saw that after I'd posted, thanks

>F> I agree with Nina that the last line is a tad too long.

But neither of you have said why! So, why please? As I said to Nina, I'll attend to that again but unless I know the reason and SEE it, it cannot change.

apologies, James; it was because it feels like there are too many syllables compared to the rest of the verses

>F> I also found that S2 L2 does not fit Carroll's rhythm. Now, I know you don't see rhythms as a rule,

I have only ever seen them in two poems - "Skimbleshanks" (TS Eliot) and "The Night Mail" (WH Auden). Both puff-puff sounds. Oh yes and I see it in many of Status Quo's songs, else not in music either.

Yes, those are very rhythmic verse. (Erm ... do SQ make music?)

>F> but here you have kept to his setting very well apart from the last line (Nin'a suggestion works for that) and S2 L2

Why??? (He says in considerable frustration!) :)

oh dear ... knowing you do not see rhythm I was very tempted not to mention that line, cos I had a feeling it would bother you ... but then I figured I wouldn't be going an honest crit ... as that line did catch my eye ... so a dilema

"full of destruction and death. is rhythmically unlike the other lines ...

Sorry, Fran, I have absolutly no idea what you mean. How is it different (and, by the way, I made no attempt to shadow Caroll's rhythm - I didn't know he'd used any).

Carroll does have a particular rhythm for this; most children's verse does. You had kept with it I guess cos you'd followed his pattern of rhyems which would push it that way

>F> how about something like:

B52s flew-over, in a row{,}[:]
destruction, terror, death
or
brought destructive, violent death
or
missiles bringing death

Now, I'm not especially fond of my line "full of destruction and death" - I think "full of" is weak - was meant to refer to the bombs crammed inside. But all your suggestions lose the bomb reference. (They were using bombs, not missiles, by the way). Many of the bombs were cluster bombs, too.

ok, I quite understand that (apologies for my ignorance on the point of what they blew people up with)

>F> Please forgive me for banging on about that rhythm here, but I think the poem has such a powerful punch it is a shame to see it derailed (hows that for mixed mets?) by one line

Nothing to forgive but I'm afraid you're wasting your time. If you / someone else can SHOW me why their rhythm suggestion is an improvement I will consider their suggestions but I cannot have a poem of mine which I cannot justify nor explain to others.

If I adopt others' versions of aspects my poems, then I need to understand why I'm doing it and to SEE / FEEL what difference it makes. So, sorry, Fran, I took a decision some time ago not to makes changes to poems for reasons of rhythm; it would be very wrong of me to employ what you suggest (however sound poetically) - but thanks for your crit.

James, I quite agree that there is no way a poet should ever adopt a suggestion merely because someone else says it is "better" thus  (not even Shakepeare himself should have that power ... not that he can, of course - but assuming time travel, or reincarnation or sommat)

I am really sorry I brought it up, as it has obviously caused great frustration :(

Apologies, and many thanks for the reply

Hugs,

Fran

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Fran,

Thanks very much for returning :)

>J> "Intellect" - GW and Blair governments??? Go, wash your mouth out!
?F> ooops ... what was I thinking of?

:)

>J> I have never found logic anything but utterly terrifying. If there were a devil, he would be a mathematician spouting evil logic all day. (Is logic ever anything but evil?)
>F> logic is neutral; it's mis-use by humans is evil.

Nope, sorry can't agree. Logic is always evil. It is cold and precise and is a juggernaut through the villages of conscience and emotion.

>F> How GW and Tony Saved the World --- GW sounds a bit polite - Dubya is a well known version of the name, would that make it really obvious? (ok, I am slow - but I misread it as "Get Writing" ... sad woman that I am)

You're not sad!

>J> Thanks but I'll leave others to use "double U." And, of course, "Get Writing" is an evil empire which aims to take the World over, too!
>F> ah, but Get Writing is now deceased (too much squawking)

So there is hope after all !!! Bring back Clinton and Major! Well, Clinton, at least.

>F> I agree with Nina that the last line is a tad too long.
>J> But neither of you have said why! So, why please? As I said to Nina, I'll attend to that again but unless I know the reason and SEE it, it cannot change.
>F> apologies, James; it was because it feels like there are too many syllables compared to the rest of the verses

Apologies not appropriate - it was very kind of you to crit. Thanks for the explanation - I'll look into that now.

>F> I also found that S2 L2 does not fit Carroll's rhythm. Now, I know you don't see rhythms as a rule,
>J> I have only ever seen them in two poems - "Skimbleshanks" (TS Eliot) and "The Night Mail" (WH Auden). Both puff-puff sounds. Oh yes and I see it in many of Status Quo's songs, else not in music either.
>F> Yes, those are very rhythmic verse. (Erm ... do SQ make music?)

Wonderful music! I like to play Montverde's madrigals followed by some Quo to liven things up. Eclectic, me? No - just bonkers.

>F> but here you have kept to his setting very well apart from the last line (Nin'a suggestion works for that) and S2 L2
>J> Why??? (He says in considerable frustration!
>F> oh dear ... knowing you do not see rhythm I was very tempted not to mention that line, cos I had a feeling it would bother you ... but then I figured I wouldn't be going an honest crit ... as that line did catch my eye ... so a dilemma

OK, thanks - but (he whispers) you still haven't said why...

>F> "full of destruction and death. is rhythmically unlike the other lines ...
>J> Sorry, Fran, I have absolutely no idea what you mean. How is it different? (and, by the way, I made no attempt to shadow Caroll's rhythm - I didn't know he'd used any).
>F> Carroll does have a particular rhythm for this; most children's verse does. You had kept with it I guess cos you'd followed his pattern of rhymes which would push it that way

Different rhymes, I think. Sorry, I'm reet confused.

>J> Now, I'm not especially fond of my line "full of destruction and death" - I think "full of" is weak - was meant to refer to the bombs crammed inside. But all your suggestions lose the bomb reference. (They were using bombs, not missiles, by the way). Many of the bombs were cluster bombs, too.
>F> ok, I quite understand that (apologies for my ignorance on the point of what they blew people up with)

No apologies, please - I appreciate the crit... just explanations...

It is important how people were blown up because cluster bombs are especially nasty. But the USA and UK both use them extensively.

>F> Please forgive me for banging on about that rhythm here, but I think the poem has such a powerful punch it is a shame to see it derailed (how’s that for mixed mets?) by one line
>J> Nothing to forgive but I'm afraid you're wasting your time. If you / someone else can SHOW me why their rhythm suggestion is an improvement I will consider their suggestions but I cannot have a poem of mine which I cannot justify nor explain to others.
>J> If I adopt others' versions of aspects my poems, then I need to understand why I'm doing it and to SEE / FEEL what difference it makes. So, sorry, Fran, I took a decision some time ago not to makes changes to poems for reasons of rhythm; it would be very wrong of me to employ what you suggest (however sound poetically) - but thanks for your crit.
>F> James, I quite agree that there is no way a poet should ever adopt a suggestion merely because someone else says it is "better" thus (not even Shakespeare himself should have that power ... not that he can, of course - but assuming time travel, or reincarnation or sommat)

ROFL. That wasn’t quite my argument. If I knew why you were suggesting what you were and could see it were better than I would certainly consider it. But it would be like (Warning : pretentious clap-trap time) an architect employing a material he knows nowt about because experts tell him it is far better than that which he is using - not good enough; he needs to understand why it is better - else how can he explain and defend his constructions?

>F> I am really sorry I brought it up, as it has obviously caused great frustration

No, don’t be sorry at all, please. But I do need to know where the rhythm is, what it is and why it is deficient, else any helpful suggestions are of no use - which is a great pity because I’m sure people who read this tile will be nodding in agreement with you... but I have no idea whatsoever why... :(

>F> Apologies, and many thanks for the reply

Please don’t apologise - you were being helpful. But if you can point to where a rhythm exists and what it sounds like (e.g. a steam train or whatever) that would be brill. Thanks.

>F> Hugs, Fran

Well, there are compensations for being ignorant!

Seriously, cheers Fran, thank you for all your efforts.

J.

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Cathy,

Thanks for looking-in.

>C> Very interesting thoughts.  I like the fact that you used a silly nursery rhyme to base it on.  I think it reflects your feelings about Bush and Blair very well.  lol

Thank you... yes, though maybe they don't deserve Carroll! (so they got me!)

>C> I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about these things (I'm the much clichéd ostrich that buries his head in the sand) but maybe they should stop pushing our government at others.  Whether or not it's 'better' doesn't really matter if others don't see it that way or prefer their own government.

Agreed. I have no objection against "the West" promoting democracy - it is a deeply flawed system of government - but the best we know of. However, the idea of democratising by invasion and conquer seems bizarre - and wrong. I would even have no objection if the West assisted freedom fighters - but we can't simply get away with wholesale take-overs as in the gunboat diplomacy days of the British Empire. Problem is, maybe many would prefer democracy - but when they are attacked by foreigners all it does it to unite them against the invaders.

>C> They can't force people to choose democracy.  Although I believe we are better off without Saddam in power,

I’m sure that few people, outside of Iraq, would disagree there!

>C> if they had taken care of him the first time around ...

Quite. Worse still, we supported him previously.

>C> And I thought that this war was about ridding the world of terrorism.  When did it become all about Saddam anyway???

Quite again. This was the big con. Bush / Blair sold it as an anti-terror war. I supported it on that basis. We were told that the Iraqis could attack the UK within forty-five minutes and were likely to do so. Fair enough, then, I thought - attack is the best form of defence and if we’re under threat. Of course, it has emerged that all this was utter rubbish / hype / lies. I, along with many others, was duped. But, hey, that’s not why I’m so angry. I’m so angry because war is a terrible step to tale and must be reserved as a last recourse - not just because Bush and Blair think it’s worth a go and lie to the American and British people - and the rest of the World - to get their way.

“low intelligence, lying prattle. Good line!

Thanks! :)

>C> I won't even touch the rhythm issue!  lol  I've read the others comments and know how frustrating it can be.  If I thought I could explain it adequately I might attempt it but I think I would confuse you even more!

Thanks Cathy. I am listening if anyone can - but I don’t think it is for want of explanations - Alan, Don and Ron have all kindly tried very hard (as have others). I think I understand the concepts reasonably well. But I never seem to hear the rhythm in things. I’m not colour-blind but I can only think it must be akin to that - where colour blind people accept colours exist and understand them but cannot discern them. It is frustrating but I’m delighted I can see colours!

>C> Thanks for the read!

Thanks Cathy! Appreciated.

J.

[Guest_Nina_*]

Hi J

>F> I agree with Nina that the last line is a tad too long.

>J>But neither of you have said why! So, why please? As I said to Nina, I'll attend to that again but unless I know the reason and SEE it, it cannot change.

I shall attempt to say how I see the reason, though I can't promise that it'll make much sense.

B52s flew-over, in a row,
full of destruction and death.
It excited both our heroes so:
Iraqis breathed their final breath.

For the rhyme to work the first two lines have to be symmetrical to the second two, which means the number of syllables should be the same, otherwise the shape is distorted.  The way you have it at present death lines up with final which means breath kind of hangs on its own at the end instead of matching with its rhyming partner.

Now that is probably as clear as mud so I'll scarper quickly.

Nina

[Guest_Cathy_*]

Hi James,

>J>Thanks for looking-in.

You're welcome.

>C> Very interesting thoughts.  I like the fact that you used a silly nursery rhyme to base it on.  I think it reflects your feelings about Bush and Blair very well.  lol

>J>Thank you... yes, though maybe they don't deserve Carroll! (so they got me!)

You are too good for them!  lol

>C> I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about these things (I'm the much clichéd ostrich that buries his head in the sand) but maybe they should stop pushing our government at others.  Whether or not it's 'better' doesn't really matter if others don't see it that way or prefer their own government.

>J>Agreed. I have no objection against "the West" promoting democracy - it is a deeply flawed system of government - but the best we know of. However, the idea of democratising by invasion and conquer seems bizarre - and wrong.

I agree!

I would even have no objection if the West assisted freedom fighters - but we can't simply get away with wholesale take-overs as in the gunboat diplomacy days of the British Empire. Problem is, maybe many would prefer democracy - but when they are attacked by foreigners all it does it to unite them against the invaders.

Very true.  I think the US lives by 'the end justifies the means'.  Sadly!  And I think that is wrong.  Don't we teach our children to try more peaceful means to settle a dispute before attempting force?  We don't set a very good example.

>C> They can't force people to choose democracy.  Although I believe we are better off without Saddam in power,

>J>I’m sure that few people, outside of Iraq, would disagree there!

You are probably right.

>C> if they had taken care of him the first time around ...

>J>Quite. Worse still, we supported him previously.

Now see, that's something I wasn't aware of.  Like I said, bury my head in the sand!

>C> And I thought that this war was about ridding the world of terrorism.  When did it become all about Saddam anyway???

>J>Quite again. This was the big con. Bush / Blair sold it as an anti-terror war. I supported it on that basis. We were told that the Iraqis could attack the UK within forty-five minutes and were likely to do so. Fair enough, then, I thought - attack is the best form of defence and if we’re under threat. Of course, it has emerged that all this was utter rubbish / hype / lies. I, along with many others, was duped. But, hey, that’s not why I’m so angry. I’m so angry because war is a terrible step to tale and must be reserved as a last recourse - not just because Bush and Blair think it’s worth a go and lie to the American and British people - and the rest of the World - to get their way.

I agree wholeheartedly!  But where do you draw the line?  How do you know when it's the 'last recourse'?  I think there should be more than a handful of people coming to that decision.

“low intelligence, lying prattle. Good line!

Thanks! :)

>C> I won't even touch the rhythm issue!  lol  I've read the others comments and know how frustrating it can be.  If I thought I could explain it adequately I might attempt it but I think I would confuse you even more!

>J>Thanks Cathy. I am listening if anyone can - but I don’t think it is for want of explanations - Alan, Don and Ron have all kindly tried very hard (as have others). I think I understand the concepts reasonably well. But I never seem to hear the rhythm in things. I’m not colour-blind but I can only think it must be akin to that - where colour blind people accept colours exist and understand them but cannot discern them. It is frustrating but I’m delighted I can see colours!

lol  I'm glad you can too.  I wondered about the similarities myself.  If there is such a thing.  I still have some trouble with rhythm and it can be very frustrating for sure!

>C> Thanks for the read!

>J>Thanks Cathy! Appreciated.

No problem!

Cathy

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Nina,

>F> I agree with Nina that the last line is a tad too long.
>J> But neither of you have said why! So, why please? As I said to Nina, I'll attend to that again but unless I know the reason and SEE it, it cannot change.
>N> I shall attempt to say how I see the reason, though I can't promise that it'll make much sense.

B52s flew-over, in a row,
full of destruction and death.
It excited both our heroes so:
Iraqis breathed their final breath.

>N> For the rhyme to work the first two lines have to be symmetrical to the second two, which means the number of syllables should be the same, otherwise the shape is distorted.  The way you have it at present death lines up with final which means breath kind of hangs on its own at the end instead of matching with its rhyming partner. Now that is probably as clear as mud so I'll scarper quickly.

LOL! Well, thanks - I certainly understood that, no problem there. What you say sound very logical but I didn't know R&M was strictly based on a precise matching of syllables.

However, you see, I keep saying that verse and it still seems to rhyme - and thereby hangs my problem; I evidently don't see poems as most others do.

Anyway, again thank you and I'll consider that when reviewing.

Thanks, Nina!

J.

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Cathy,

>C> Very interesting thoughts. I like the fact that you used a silly nursery rhyme to base it on. I think it reflects your feelings about Bush and Blair very well. lol
>J> Thank you... yes, though maybe they don't deserve Carroll! (so they got me!
>C> You are too good for them! lol

Gosh, that is extremely kind of you; thank you.

>J> I would even have no objection if the West assisted freedom fighters - but we can't simply get away with wholesale take-overs as in the gunboat diplomacy days of the British Empire. Problem is, maybe many would prefer democracy - but when they are attacked by foreigners all it does it to unite them against the invaders.
>C> Very true. I think the US lives by 'the end justifies the means'. Sadly! And I think that is wrong. Don't we teach our children to try more peaceful means to settle a dispute before attempting force? We don't set a very good example.

Actually, by traditional standards of how superpowers have behaved over history, the US is amazingly restrained. (The British were much, much worse). But we do live in different times and I think US foreign policy will have to change further, still.

>C> if they had taken care of him the first time around ...
>J> Quite. Worse still, we supported him previously.
>C> Now see, that's something I wasn't aware of. Like I said, bury my head in the sand!

This dates back to the Iran-Iraq War. The "Allies" - i.e. mainly the US and UK - were fearful of Iran, therefore supported Iraq in the war. If my memory serves me (which it seldom does) A certain Donald Rumbsfeldt (sp) was an envoy of President Regan and can be seen shaking hands with Saddam.

Here is a link: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

>C> And I thought that this war was about ridding the world of terrorism. When did it become all about Saddam anyway???

>J> Quite again. This was the big con. Bush / Blair sold it as an anti-terror war. I supported it on that basis. We were told that the Iraqis could attack the UK within forty-five minutes and were likely to do so. Fair enough, then, I thought - attack is the best form of defence and if we’re under threat. Of course, it has emerged that all this was utter rubbish / hype / lies. I, along with many others, was duped. But, hey, that’s not why I’m so angry. I’m so angry because war is a terrible step to tale and must be reserved as a last recourse - not just because Bush and Blair think it’s worth a go and lie to the American and British people - and the rest of the World - to get their way.
>C> I agree wholeheartedly! But where do you draw the line? How do you know when it's the 'last recourse'? I think there should be more than a handful of people coming to that decision.

I can't remember the situation in the US for war - I think Congress has to approve. However, the US / UK never declared war on Iraq - they hid behind UN Resolutions. In the UK, Parliament may be asked to approve but really, a Prime Minister can take the country to war on his own. (Though s/he would be very wise to consult the cabinet and The Queen.) The ability to do this is a result of Royal prerogative - which is vested in the hands of the PM for the most part.

>C> lol I'm glad you can too. I wondered about the similarities myself. If there is such a thing. I still have some trouble with rhythm and it can be very frustrating for sure!

Phew! Glad I'm not the only one! :)

Thanks, cathy,

J.

[Guest_Billydo_*]

Hi James

Tweedle-Prat, prattle and battle ... inspired.

How can a modern democracy be taken to war on a false premise?

Does my 'ed in why Blair's still at number ten.

Good poem, cock.

Cheers

Mike

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your comments.

Is Blair any worse than most? I don't know. Would Brown or Cameron or Kennedy be better? Anyway that's probably why he's still at No10.

Actually, he's not at No10 today - he's in Europe somewhere giving-away our rebate - yes that's the same rebate he said a few weeks ago that he wouldn't give away "period." Now, for a Europhobe (that is the institution, not the people, nor the countries) like me this is tantamount to treason. So, I have no idea why he is still at No10 when he should be locked in the Tower.

J.

[Guest_circumsolar_*]

a witty ditty, mr.jox - voicing the sort of sympathies (and with that same flavour of slightly restrained cut-throat posturing) one might expect from an edition of Punch - complete with caricatures :) i think this one's maybe more about the message than the perfection of a form; adopting the nursery-rhyme style was quite inspired, imo.

is Blair worse than the others? not in my books - lord knows what the others would have done in the same situation, or - god help us - Maggie T! he's probably the lesser of all evils.

as for him giving away money from our rebate  - i was listening to an economist on the tv (yeah, whichever side's talking can drag them or scientists up to defend whatever stance has been adopted, but i do believe he was from the London School of Economics) who said that "of course, the money given away now will actually be coming back (and more) to this country in the next 6 years, so it's a matter not so much of 'giving it away' as moving it around". All i know is that the policies are all so interdependent that changes in one generally have to mean changes elsewhere, and we all know that politicians HAVE to have the flexibility of give and take to be able to structure deals that are believed to be best for the countries they're representing. It's barter, isn't it? now i'm not one for bartering, preferring to have a set price and pay that or refuse to pay that as the case demands... though that would probably be a terrible way to run a country, no deals reached and all out war on our hands at every occasion... but a politician has to be able to manoeuvre, that's the whole game of politics and that's why most of us don't trust them as far as we can see them! they can smile in your face while weilding a knife behind your back. sigh, there's got to be some who try to do the best they can for all the right reasons, but how many just get jaded with the whole process? just look at how the bills are put up for discussion in this country (white papers or whatever they're called) - what a lottery!

let us remain poets, jabbing at injustices and wrongs wherever we see them, looking to keep our caves cozy and our thoughts pure  

[Guest_Jox_*]

Hi Jan,

>Jan> a witty ditty, mr.jox

Thank you very much... mind you, if you're going to be formal it is Mr Ox. (No bull!)

>Jan>  - voicing the sort of sympathies (and with that same flavour of slightly restrained cut-throat posturing)

LOL Wonderful phrase!

>Jane> one might expect from an edition of Punch - complete with caricatures

I used to write for a (tiny circulation) satirical magazine. So that makes sense!

>Jan> i think this one's maybe more about the message than the perfection of a form;

All my poems are, to be honest. For me the message is 99.99% of a poem and if the form can be improved to help deliver it then so be it. (Plus not seeing R&M means I don't work on the form much at all).

>Jan> adopting the nursery-rhyme style was quite inspired, imo.

Thank you very much.

>Jan> is Blair worse than the others?

Yes, I now think he is. The reason is that, unlike previous Prime Ministers, I trusted him. I believed the New Labour message in 1997. I don't appreciate being lied to about the necessity of a war which I was conned to support - and only this weekend, Blair's sell-out to the EU on the budgetary matters is disgraceful.

>Jan> not in my books - lord knows what the others would have done in the same situation, or - god help us - Maggie T! he's probably the lesser of all evils.

I wanted Margaret Thatcher hanged for treason against the British people. I believe she was responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths - suicides and stress-related - because of her policy of using unemployment to re-format the economics and crush the unions. On the other hand, if you are referring to the Falklands war then I think she was near-perfect in her handling of that. In that case, UK territory was invaded. But Iraq didn't do that to us.

>Jan> as for him giving away money from our rebate - i was listening to an economist on the tv (yeah, whichever side's talking can drag them or scientists up to defend whatever stance has been adopted, but i do believe he was from the London School of Economics)

And that is supposed to be a positive recommendation???

>Jan>  who said that "of course, the money given away now will actually be coming back (and more) to this country in the next 6 years, so it's a matter not so much of 'giving it away' as moving it around".

Such is incorrect - but I wish I'd heard the argument! We are giving-up the economic development portion of the rebate to enable development loans to be switched to other areas of the EU.

>Jan> All i know is that the policies are all so interdependent that changes in one generally have to mean changes elsewhere, and we all know that politicians HAVE to have the flexibility of give and take to be able to structure deals that are believed to be best for the countries they're representing.

Sure. So why did Blair sell his country out? Of course, he won't be around to pick-up the pieces and he doesn't have to plug the greater-expanded black hole in Government finance, which he's just stretched. Do people really think the French leaders would have sold-out like this? Of course not and it was the French we wanted to move on the CAP - but we bought a pig-in-a-poke.

>Jan> It's barter, isn't it?

No. Barter is exchange and haggling in the absence of money. This is politicking - a power struggle within the EU.

>Jan>  now I'm not one for bartering, preferring to have a set price

There cannot be a set (monetary) price when there is no money. (I think you mean just haggling?).

>Jan> and pay that or refuse to pay that as the case demands... though that would probably be a terrible way to run a country, no deals reached and all out war on our hands at every occasion...

Well, since you mention that, I think our continued membership of the EU could well lead to war within fifty years. I am desperate for us to leave the corrupt and undemocratic institution as soon as possible. But, of course, no major UK political party will promise that, so we're stuck with the oddities. (Though I did vote UKIP at the previous European elections).

I say might lead to war because - like the American revolution (Taxation without representation) that is what we have with the EU. Our MEPs are just distant faces, of whom we know nothing. The Commission (a civil service) runs the place and is unelected. The Council of Ministers (the top decision-making forum) is unelected to EU positions etc. Now, the EU is usurping sovereignty at a frightening rate and, eventually, as with the former Yugoslavia (and many more places) people will rise up and fight against the foreign controls imposed without democracy. I would be delighted to see the EU destroyed as soon as possible. I would also be delighted to be in an European Free Trade Area (oh we had one!) and we could even have co-operation on anti-terrorism and environmental policies. But this level of political control terrifies me. I would far sooner leave today and join the USA, Canada and Mexico in NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area).

>Jan>  but a politician has to be able to manoeuvre, that's the whole game of politics and that's why most of us don't trust them as far as we can see them! they can smile in your face while wielding a knife behind your back. sigh, there's got to be some who try to do the best they can for all the right reasons, but how many just get jaded with the whole process? just look at how the bills are put up for discussion in this country (white papers or whatever they're called) - what a lottery!

A discussion document is a Green Paper. After consultation, a bill is formulated - called a White Paper -  which then goes through Parliamentary readings in both the Upper and Lower House. For specific Welsh and Scottish matters, the process may be restricted to their respective assemblies. The same with Northern Ireland when their assembly meets again. After the Bill (White paper) has passes its various readings and been amended in various ways, it is passed up for Royal Assent. When it has Her Majesty’s signature on, it becomes a law.

I agree with you if you are saying that the UK / English Parliament is in urgent need of reform. I think you are right. Much is archaic and much arbitrary and much downright daft. But, then again, democracy is often like that. A bad system but the best we know of.

I actually do trust politicians, unless they give me reason not to. I think most are reasonable, sincere and very intelligent.

>Jan> let us remain poets, jabbing at injustices and wrongs wherever we see them, looking to keep our caves cozy and our thoughts pure

LOL... I have always tried to avoid pure thoughts.

No, I may write some poetry but I am a political economist first and foremost. It is what I spent nearly twenty years teaching and my first academic love. In terms of writing, I think of myself as a prose writer first - and there I most enjoy writing about espionage and the political consequences thereof. Then, when I come to poetry (which I really enjoy, by the way) many of my poems are political. If they did a scan it would show political economy running all the way through me, I’m afraid!

(By the way, I always wanted to be an MP - but could never accept any one party’s policies... I have voted in two elections Conservative, in two Labour and in three LibDem - plus that Euro election UKIP. If Independent MPs could secure sets as a norm, I would have tried to contest some - I‘m a real political junkie!).

Take care now and thanks for the very interesting points.

James (Mr Oxenholme!) :)