Poetry corner: Mess-o-potamia

For those of you not up on the geography of the ancient world, Mesopotamia is, of course, the old name for Iraq. While the historical circumstances were different, this poem, published in 1917, has a resonance with Bush's disastrous quagmire.

Kipling, the gung-ho British militarist and colonne, is one of the few poets the right wingers like- but even his sense and sensibilities were affronted by the futile, brutal warring in the harsh "land between the rivers."

Vote for Democrats!

Mesopotamia 
They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young
    The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:
But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,
    Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?

They shall not return to us, the strong men coldly slain
    In sight of help denied from day to day:
But the men who edged their agonies and chid them in their pain,
    Are they too strong and wise to put away?

Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide-
    Never while the bars of sunset hold.
But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died,
    Shall they thrust for high employments as of old?

Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour?
    When the storm is ended shall we find
How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power
    By the favour and contrivance of their kind?

Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,
    Even while they make a show of fear,
Do they call upon their debtors, and take council with their friends,
    To confirm and re-establish each career?

Their lives cannot repay us-their death could not undo-
    The shame that they have laid upon our race.
But the slothfulness that wasted and the arrogance that slew,
    Shall we leave it unabated in its place?
                                                        ~ by Rudyard Kipling

Comments

[Seth]

They did indeed sidle back into power. The man who planned the takeover of the Mesopotamian oil fields, not to mention the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, was a naval admiral named Winston Churchill.

[sara suh]

Kkipling was a fruitcake

[joanie]

I was talking to a parent today of a student I had last year and who has moved on to second grade.

We were recalling our conversation during the parent-teacher conference last November during which Iraq was discussed. It was off topic for a school conference, but my parents and I respect each other's knowledge. The parent asked my opinion of whether or not we should leave. I responded that we should leave. What will we have gained if next year at this time we are still asking the question?

So, a year has passed and the question still begs an answer. And the only gain that has been made is in the column tabulating Iraqi deaths, American deaths, British deaths, and further debilitation of Iraqi society and infrastructure. Not to mention the column tabulating the monetary cost to the American people

Of course, on the bright side, Haliburton has done well as has its stockholders . . . so maybe it was worth it afterall. Kinda depends on your values, doesn't it?

Imagine what we will gain if we wait another year?

[Other Steve]

I noticed you left out the column for "Deaths of Terrorist". Imagine if just 1 of them got in your school with a bomb strapped to his chest.

[mark]

Other Steve, I have a simple question. How is kicking the Iraq hornet's nest preventing terrorists from attacking us here?

[joanie]

I don't live in the imaginary land you inhabit. I live in the here and now. Reality . . . not virtual reality . . . governs my thinking.

And considering that Iraq has increased terrorism around the world, I'd say the chances of that happening have increased.

[Other Steve]

Mark, just read Joanie's reply, she said it all right there

[Other Steve]

If you replied to me with this in a previous post,

"If you are going to make a point, you have to be truthful . . . can't pick and choose your facts. But, you do, don't you?"

Why did you leave out the "death to Terroist" column.

Or don't you practice what you preach.

[joanie]

Frankly, other steve, because I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Why don't you fill in that column?

[Other Steve]

Well you said this

"And the only gain that has been made is in the column tabulating Iraqi deaths, American deaths, British deaths"

Wouldn't there also be a gain in Terrorist deaths also. Or do you delete these facts to suit you.

[joanie]

Supply some facts and I'll be glad to include your column. I'm interested in seeing what all our sacrifices have bought us. Make your case, Steve.

Also, still wondering what creating terrorists in Iraq has done to reduce terrorism at home? (ie: your school-room terrorist)

[Other Steve]

Al Zarqawi for one, have you forgetten about him, wasn't that a gain in terrorist deaths. One less Terrorist to worry about coming to America with a bomb strapped to his chest.

Is that a fact.

[sparky]

From what I read, the terrorists are not dependent on one particular leader...they have many waiting to step into place when one is captured, ( how many times have I read the headline " US captures #2 leader in Al Quesadia") , and a lot of them act on their own anyway. Any dead terrorist might be a good terrorist, but it's a drop in the bucket when it comes to our safety.

[joanie]

One.

Where's Osama?

[joanie]

Well, I thought you'd probably come up with Zarkawi. That continues to be debatable: "Who is Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi?" and "Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi-BBC" please note that the BBC article carefully sources much of its information to the US Maybe some over-hyping here.

Also, does this mean you think Zarkawi was worth the cost - 2000 plus Americans and countless innocent Iraqis for Zarkawi?

Finally, Iraq became a base for Zarkawi after the war began . . .

Now if you had put Osama Bin Laden in that column, we might agree.

Anymore?

Still waiting for an answer to why you think creating terrorists in Iraq has made us safer at home . . .

[Other Steve]

Joanie,
As I recall you said the Iraq war has created more terrorist. Where's your proof? And don't send me to an article from some conspiracy nut ok. But if it did, when you go to work next, look around at your surroundings, do you see IED's laying in the streets? Bombed out buildings from a recent terrorist attack? Burnt out buses that were recently blown up? And when you get to work, ask your students how many of their parents were pulled out of bed last night and shot. If you answer yes or get a sobbing kid, than i'll agree were not safer. Until then...

What do I have to do, name every Terrorist killed, You didn't name one of our hero's, (you just used a number as usual) Iraqi citizen, or British soldier who died. So again I say to you, Practice what you Preach.

Now for that other question, I could ask the same of you was 29,000 dead at the battle of Normandy worth It, Was over 6,000 dead on Iwo Jima worth it. But I wont. Lets just say that the cost of almost 3,000 of our hero's in Iraq saved more than a million lives, maybe my own, maybe a few of your students, your closet friends, yourself, or even our way of life, if the terrorist have been able to on a daily basis cause the death and destruction they did on 9/11. Lets see if Chossduvsky can come up with those numbers.

Sorry for the long Post

[joanie]

Well, you dodge and duck. Why should I have expected more. You've ignored questions and points and you indulge in emotional but unsubstiated rhetoric.

I watched Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh yesterday and Scott said we are going to war in Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons and it is because the American people are so ignorant and uninformed. You have just proven his case. Then I watched McGovern and Polk provide more facts and their plan for withdrawal.

You - your ignorance - is responsible and will be responsible for the killing that has been and the killing that will be. You are typical of the average guy who thinks he knows what he's talking about . . . but it is obvious you don't have a clue. Oh, you're full of emotions and blame but you have no understanding of history, diplomacy or even common sense. And, unfortunately, there are too many minions out there like you.

I'm angry that people like you will sentence so many of us and others around the world to more senseless death.

[joanie]

Well, you dodge and duck. Why should I have expected more. You've ignored questions and points and you indulge in emotional but unsubstiated rhetoric.

I watched Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh yesterday and Scott said we are going to war in Iran even though they have no nuclear weapons and it is because the American people are so ignorant and uninformed. You have just proven his case. Then I watched McGovern and Polk provide more facts and their plan for withdrawal.

You - your ignorance - is responsible and will be responsible for the killing that has been and the killing that will be. You are typical of the average guy who thinks he knows what he's talking about . . . but it is obvious you don't have a clue. Oh, you're full of emotions and blame but you have no understanding of history, diplomacy or even common sense. And, unfortunately, there are too many minions out there like you.

I'm angry that people like you will sentence so many of us and others around the world to more senseless death.

[joanie]

BTW, Steve, your calculus:

>2600 dead soldiers+>100,000 Iraqi deaths +$10million a day = Zarkawi

[Other Steve]

Well did you see any of them things I asked you to look for?

[Other Steve]

"2600 dead soldiers+>100,000 Iraqi deaths +$10million a day = Zarkawi"

And a million Americans Saved

[joanie]

Nice try, Steve. I'm wise to the dodge and duck strategy you guys employ. Still waiting for answers, not empty rhetoric. If you have any.

Second, regarding all those Americans that have been saved? Your claim - so prove it. Otherwise, just more empty emotional rhetoric.

You seem like kind of an easy-going guy. Too bad you don't keep up and stay informed. If only your Resident Idiot had stayed in Afghanistan and caught Bin Laden . . . just imagine how many Americans and Iraqis would be alive today.

[Other Steve]

19 terrorist on 9/11 killed 3,000 people

3,000 / 19 = 157 per terrorist

7,250 (terrorist killed in Iraq) x 157 = 1,138,250

12,000 (captured) x 157 = 1,884,000

Americans Lives lost to terrorist attacks in the US since Iraq War? 0

For a total of 3,022,250 potential American Lives saved since Iraq War started

Now of the 7,250 killed, only 863 (or 8%) were suicide bombers. If we just take that, the lives saved would decline to 138,491, and if we take 8% of the 12,000 captured we get that we prevented 960 suicde bombers which would add 150,720 lives saved for a total of 289,211 actual American lives saved since the Iraq War started.

Stats from Wikipedia

[joanie]

Oh, Steve. You're better than that. Fifteen of the nineteen were Saudis. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?

That's a meaningless response. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of people. Should we have bombed Oklahoma?

As for your last ridiculous attempt at calculus, keep dreaming. Still no proof . . . smoke, mirrors and wishful thinking just like your Resident Idiot.

[Other Steve]

1. A terrorist is a terrorist of course of course.

2. I thought we were talking about the Iraq War. (McVeigh was not from Oklahoma)

2. Did I make a mistake in my stomping and barking.

4. This Michel Chossudovsky you linked me to, if you believe what he says about al-Zarqaui, why don't you believe him about 9/11 and Osama cause you always say we were right to go into Afganistan but Chossudovsky has said 9/11 was just fabricated for America to wage war. Now I only presume he would mean Iraq here. Why the contradiction?

From a review of his Book: America's "War on Terrorism"

"According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State."

The Review is from his name in your link.

[joanie]

1. A terrorist is a terrorist of course of course.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

2. I thought we were talking about the Iraq War. (McVeigh was not from Oklahoma)

So why Normandy? Why Iraq? Saudi terrorists and not Iraqi.

2.(sic) Did I make a mistake in my stomping and barking.

Don't recall any stomping and barking.

Why the contradiction?

Forget Chossudovsky. If you don't like his beliefs. In the end, his take on Osama winning by breaking the US economy is held by many . . . isn't that what is happening? Osama who comes from wealth is a lot smarter than you are. At the end of the day, this perspective might be right. Although I don't think Wall Street was involved directly . . . much of what they do did set the stage for this. You bring up other more complex notions here. But I don't think you realize the implications of your own observations.

But you still think your calculus about Zarkawi works? And you still think creating more terrorists in what was a secular country is making us safer at home?

[Other Steve]

Joanie, I'm starting to think I'm hitting a nerve here. At first I thought you were just trying to be coy but now I'm thinking this subject is personal for you. So I'll just end this discussion and let you deal with your personal issues your own way. To answer your last question though, I'm safer where I'm at, maybe you do not feel the same where you are.

[joanie]

I agree ending it is better than the constant dodging you do. . . that does get frustrating.