posted 03-18-2003 08:14 PM               

p.s.-Mr. Dark and the rest of the people who replied to my message on NASA...No strong feelings Sirs and Ma'ms it is just how I feel. Hence I respect each and every opinion. Thanks. (Personally I do not support war no matter what the circumstances are)

posted 03-18-2003 08:47 PM               

On war. I see it as sometimes being a necessary evil. When we fight cancer, we often take very intrusive measures to remove the cancer, in an effort to save the organism. If doctors can remove a cancer, but refuse to do so, we "blame" them for negligence.

With Hussein, it is perhaps arguable whether this situation warrants this; but (1) he has invaded two neighboring nations (unprovoked), (2) he's gassed his own people, and enemies in war, (3) he subsidizes Palestinian suicide bombers, (4) he murders and tortures his own people, and (5) Very few international leaders believe he has even come close to being forthcoming with his stockpiles of WMD. He is directly responsible (putting these activities together) for over one million deaths, and unnumbered maimings. If he is not a cancer in need of removal, he is very, very close.

posted 03-19-2003 09:57 AM            

Today real sacrifices are just down the road for all of us. Some are now occurring in our restricted daily routines. What price freedom! Our troops are answering the call as I type this post.

As for Mr. Bradbury, how about "The City"? The men were sent out loaded with biological warfare onboard their ship (WMD). The terror the enemy had long hidden was meant for only one use, the long awaited return of the conquerors.

Let us hope, for the sake of everyone on earth, our brave officers and the young men under their supervision can find such real stores before they are let loose upon unexpecting populations!

We may have to prove our resolve and become the "next great generation." It is the lives of the generations to come that will benefit or suffer from the legacy we leave. Actions and commitment change things. Many of RB's stories imply this: The Other Foot, F451, MC, SWTWC, Rocket, Long Rain, Toynbee Convector, etc. etc.

Sitting back, doing nothing brings on the Firemen, the world of The Pedestrian, Exiles, Usher II, Pillar of Fire, and, as Dandelion forewarned in her post, There Will Come Soft Rains!!

Final thought, peace has always had a price!

posted 03-19-2003 10:28 PM               

When there is Peace, prepare for War...

posted 04-06-2003 02:00 PM               

'nuff said.
Nay, what may you mean? Ray's opinion on the war in Iraq? Well, who knows.. anyone asked him or saw referances to it in his book, or are there made any books in this era commenting it, have he said any comments about it (the war) I whould gladly know.

posted 04-10-2003 03:00 AM               

[full text of his comments are at http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2002/bradbury.htm]

>>>>>>>>>>>>

"We're the in-between generation," said Bradbury. "We've only been out of the cave a few years, and we have to forgive ourselves. Because we're a mess in many ways. There are eight or nine wars going on right now. We're only paying attention to two of them, in Afghanistan and in the middle east. And there are others which we're ignoring.

posted 04-13-2003 08:31 PM               

A Piece of Wood is an interesting exception to this- one where the name comes from the idea that even by ridding man of his machines, we will never rid him of the darkness that causes him to murder, and then to justify it. There is also a bit in this story, though, where I detected a bit of impatience with those who are so immediately dismissive of peace.

Space travel is a fine goal, but we have to never lose sight that, if Mr. Bradbury's idealistic expectations of it are to be fulfilled, the people going to Mars need to be more like the family in the last chapter of the Martian Chronicles, and not there to set up a hotdog stand.

Mr. Dark-
I would never argue that Hussein is a cancer. But realistically, these cancers have always been out there, and we do not always act as we have recently done. Why is this, do you suppose? Sometimes we even give the Cancers weapons and financial support in the misguided hope that they'll take out a 'bigger' Cancer. But Cancer is Cancer.
I have nothing but contempt for Hussein's murderous regime, and it is in this way that the peace supporters most debase themselves- by demanding that we leave Iraq alone now that we've gone in, they are simplemindedly endorsing a course of action that would cause the slaughter of the Iraqis that we've managed to help rather than to murder.
I have nothing but contempt for Hussein, and would breathe a sigh of relief should he be gone.
The reason that I have and will continue to assert that our entry into this conflict was a mistake stems from our misleading and blundering road to war: our failure to recognize views of the international community, the trumping up of intellegence reports that said what we wanted them to say, our false (and cleverly, nearly unstated) association of Hussein with Bin Laden under the Blanket of Evil, and the reliance upon a culture of fear in our country to build mindless support for actions abroad.

Hopefully, as Mr. Bradbury seems to hope, we'll reach other worlds someday. Let's hope that we don't take too much of ourselves with us, and God forbid, let's not carelessly plop our flag down on someone elses world without thinking of the long term consequences.

With much respect,
Dan

[This message has been edited by DanB (edited 04-13-2003).]

posted 04-14-2003 06:42 AM               

I can't let your post go by without some kind of response. (And, yeah, I know I'm off message here without relating it to Ray. But stay with me here. I just might be able to pull it off.)

1.) The road to war was hardly misleading and blundering. In fact, Bush was quite patient in pursuing UN resolutions to satisfy the reluctanct international community. Even after obtaining clear authorization, he went back one more time only to be stabbed in the back by France and Germany.

2.) The accuracy of some of the intelligence reports remains in debate. With other reports, there's no doubt. Perfect? Hardly. Life never is. In light of things, it seems the best decision was made.

3.) False, cleverly, nearly unstated association with Hussein and Bin Laden? Well, which is it? False, clever or nearly unstated? I don't think there was any direct conncection made between Bin Laden and Hussein. But Iraq was a clear supporter of terrorism. Evidenced by the training camps.

4.) Dandelion, this is yours: I don't hold with those who speculate on what Mr. Bradbury might think of things. Sure, look to his work for possible statements but to go further out on a limb and speculate that he might fight the destruction of priceless antiquities in libraries and museums as the most deplorable bit of wastefulness in this war is a bit much, don't you think? I don't know Mr. Bradbury's feelings on this but I know mine when I compare the possible destruction of these antiquities and measure them against the liberation of an oppressed society and the release of children from prison.

Well, looks like I failed in connecting this more directly to Mr. Bradbury's works. I'll keep quiet from now on.

posted 04-14-2003 09:31 AM               

With Bradbury's sadness in his stories in the aftermath of war, I have to think he opposes war in most instances. With the Martian Chronicles' clear sadness at the loss of the Martian culture, I have to agree with Dandelion that he would feel the ransacking of the museum in Bahgdad by looters is a tragedy -- as do I.

The claim that we shouldn't go into Iraq because there are murderous dictators in other areas and we don't go after them is a fallacious argument that does not recognize the unique situation reprsented by Iraq. My post above delineates those. Hussein represented a unique danger to the security of the US and the region.

Whether or not we need the approval of other world leaders should depend -- not on whether or not their approval is necessary to our decision making -- but whether or not their approval is based on sound reasoning and international law. In the case of France, Germany and Russia, ALL of them had multi-billion dollar contracts with Iraq that violated UN embargoes. Their appeal to appease Iraq was not based on international security or international law (which laws their contracts were in violation of). As a result, we should not make decisions that impact our sovereignty based on the popular opinion of governments who have put money above right.

Do we make the same mistakes sometimes? Absolutely. International policy is typically pragmatic in nature. What works in one decade may not work in another. International alliances are fluid -- they always have been and they always will be.

Should the loss of the artifacts in the museum be considered greater loss than the loss of life that occured both during and prior to the war? I don't think human life should be valued less than artifacts. I hope the looters who took from the museum will take a breath, pray to their God, and make the right decision to return these artifacts to the museum. But are those artifacts more important than the lives that were lost in this war and in the 20+ years of the Hussein regime? I don't think so.

As to the link between Hussein and Al Queda, many camps in Northern Iraq have been conclusively proven to be tied to Al Queda. In this case, intelligence reports were vindicated. I think this will also occur with WPD. There are over 2000 sites to be inspected.

posted 04-14-2003 06:56 PM               

We're doing a chapter by chapter study on 'Revelation' at our Bible study, and it's really aimed at our particular class, mostly made up of professionals, non professionals and college students. (what else is there, right?) I do believe I'm learning something. It's taught by the associate pastor, basically an evangelical church, with loose ties to the largest Bible school in Chicago.

Thruout, one thing is evident. Woe to the unbeliever. But wait a minute, woe? Why?

A Christian believes, and captures the Spirit of God. God steps in, and captures the sinner from death. Intertwined and with utmost love, God has expressed his dealings with the heart thru those who penned the words onto scrolls. Ultimately, expressed in the character, the personality, the mind of Christ. It is not simply a belief, otherwise, there would be no end product. The end product, is the reality one steps into, ushered by God Himself. A true Christian is constantly at war with those things against love and all that means, tho the weapons he fights with are spiritual.

Christ in Revelation is something far different from the nice fellow we got to know in the Gospels.

posted 04-14-2003 07:45 PM               

-Mr. Dark, I appreciate your views so much more than the blunt-axe swinging "patriots" who seem to be filling up today's newspaper editorial columns. I was not trying to make the argument that "because" there are others like Hussein out there, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq. I was simply putting the situation into perspective, and at the same time, questioning our motivations. Iraq may very well be a threat to the U.S., but how unique of one, really? And, I think that the morality of preemptively attacking a nation that we believe poses a threat to us is suspect. What if other countries followed our example? How would we view their actions in that light?
I know that other countries had far-from-altruistic reasons for not backing us. But I would be more interested in truly representing world opinion, and seeing where we can go from that, than in our present course, which I see as reckless. After all, historically, our intentions have not always been honorable, but we've always demanded that they be reckoned with. Was the likelihood of being attacked by Iraq so unbelievably imminent that we had to act without devoting more effort to building up support first? Hussein is not, as I've heard him compared to, Hitler. While he may be ammassing weapons, he is not ammassing an empire. Hightened security should be how we deal with terrorist threats, not by violently instituting regime changes abroad.
Also, why should we be pragmatic about the loss of innocent life in this war, and not be pragmatic about the reality of other regimes like Hussein's that we haven't interfered with.
Also... "their" God? Sigh...

peterran- that comment, looking back, was a little convoluted. Sorry. Yes, there are training camps in Iraq. There are also sleeper cells in the United States. That does not mean that our country supports Al Queda. The taped appearance of Bin Laden, which everyone was making such noise about, in fact urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Hussein, who he considers an "infidel". I think "understated" best sums it up. "Clever", in retrospect, might be giving us all too much credit.
Telling us that our enemies are all part of some Axis makes the unstated assumption of a connection when the only real connection is that they all hate us. So what? A lot of people hate us.

In general- while the murder of human beings is infinitly the greater tragedy than the destruction of a museum, think about this- when we murder people, we destroy our future and when we destroy art we murder our past.

Nard- I am hesitant to include a discussion on Religion so close to one on the war, lest they become hopelessly entangled. At the same time, I will say this: I have tremendous respect for Christianity. I was brought up a Christian, and still carry the ethical values that it gave me. At the same time, I cannot bring myself to accept all Scripture at face value, and this is more true of the Book of Revelations than of almost any other part.
I do, however, recall the phrase "Thou shalt not Kill". Not, "Thou shalt not kill unless Congress approves", nor "Thou shalt not kill unless convicted by a jury of your peers.". I would argue that war is never "just", but, as Mr. Dark earlier said, sometimes we consider it neccesary. But we CHOOSE. That is the important part. We, as humans, make the decision- how neccesary is it? and are we willing to have blood on our hands and on our souls because of it?
It doesn't matter to me at ALL that our president calls himself Christian. It doesn't offend me when he talks of God in public, because like you Nard, I also think that the seperation of church and state has progressed into absurdity (there is a Huge difference between teaching and preaching). It doesn't bother me that much, even, that he evidently considers what he's doing to be something holy, because the end product will be the same, and I, for one, know where I believe the boundries of "holiness" lie, and that is enough for me.
What bothers me is that a president who calls himself a Christian, and yet has presided over 150 odd Death Row executions and attacks other countries not in defense, but in the expectation of defense, has obviously not only not read between the lines of the Bible, but I am fearful that he is only reading from the Book of Bush.

I hope I have not offended anyone, because of how highly I value the people represented on this board. But I feel better mouthing off to people who I think might consider what I say, whether or not they agree with me, rather than to people who give you a dirty look and tell you that if you don't support the war, why don't I just move to France or Bahgdad. (France, I hear is lovely this time of year, while Bahgdad probably leaves much to be desired.)

Thank you all for your time, thought, and honesty.

With good tidings,
Dan

posted 04-14-2003 08:43 PM               

International Terrorism is not the same as robbing the community bank, and has to be dealt with differently. I support (fully) Bush's original address after 9/11 that any nation that harbors these terrorists is an enemy to the US and will be considered as such. The current veiled threats to Syria are justified, in my opinion.

posted 04-14-2003 08:49 PM               

A classy response from a classy guy. Still much for us to disagree on but, you're right. Further discussion may be beyond the scope of this board. And I hope you get caught up on the things that need cathing up on and get back into the fray. I think I can speak for all when I say cordial discussion of the issues is always appreciated.

Yours,

posted 04-14-2003 11:46 PM               

Okay, this link was an interview done some 12 years ago, on Ray's upcoming 70th birthday. If you haven't come across it before, it was done in Paris. It talks about so many things, including the Berlin Wall coming down, that....well...you just have to take the time and read it yourself....

(click on, or type into finder):
http://www.tygersofwrath.com/bradbury.htm

posted 04-16-2003 04:58 PM               

Since you are in the research mode on the Book of Revalation, You may find reading some other sources interesting, at least challenging, to your faith. I just completed reading all three of the books written by Ralph Ellis. Try Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs. I do not question anyone's beliefs and ask only that they do not question mine. I rather like the idea of open exchange of ideas. Dogma bothers me immensely. I think we agree on the existence of a supreme entity, that at least gives us a starting point. The rest is just semantics. Stick by your faith, but keep an open mind. Yesterday's truths are usually shown to be folly in the light of tomorrow's better information. If you were born a Hindu, how would you feel about you present faith? Is there really only one answer to such an immensely important question? I think Jesus would say that all paths to his Father's house are equally valid.

posted 04-16-2003 07:30 PM               

Back to work, little scrivner Dan...
Oh, before I skidaddle, thanks especially to Mr. Dark and Pete for their sensible replies. I still can't say that I agree, but only time (if anything) will show us the wisdom of our actions, or the lack thereof.
Pete- classy? I checked your profile after that comment to see if there was any chance that I might know you. Guess not. The "classy" thing is kind of a joke with a few friends of mine.
Nard- I read that you're a composer. Very cool! What kind of music, for what occasions, do you do a lot of composition?

posted 04-17-2003 06:12 AM               

Nope. We don't know each other. The "classy" compliment was meant as just that: a compliment. No irony or hidden meaning intended.

Hey, care to share some of that lime-vanilla ice cream?

posted 06-21-2004 01:29 PM               

You spoke some truth there, brother.

Best,

posted 06-21-2004 01:43 PM            

I am unfamiliar with Mr. Bradbury's politics but he must understand
thast his attack on Moore will be spun as support for the Bush
Administration and their mistaken militaristic adventure. I feel both
these author's works are done in support of human dignity and freedom.
It is also my belief that "Farenheit 451" is about the power of words
and the freedom to use them. To the extent that Moore's film title is a

reference to Mr.Bradbury's anti-fascist novel, or to Francois Truffaut's

film based on it, I urge Mr. Bradbury to see it as an homage. It is
unfortunate that Mr. Bradbury's objection will detract from the popular
reception of this highly important film.

Further, Mr. Bradbury should realize that the title, "Farenheit 9/11" is

essentially different from the title "Farenheit 451" and, unless Mr.
Bradbury has a copyright on the word "farenheit", it is unlikely that he

posted 06-21-2004 03:43 PM            

It reminds me of the FOX network owning "fair and balanced" PLEEAZE!!

posted 06-21-2004 07:12 PM               

DanB. It was good reading your posts again. My own view is that international politics is extremely complicated. I am not so presumptuous to believe that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I learn all the time. I think Hussein's threat was based on his contributions to instability in the region. He invaded Kuwait, invaded Iran, funded the Palestinian suicide bombers, murdered and tortured his own people, etc. This instability created (or contributed to) a climate that fostered the kinds of terrorist agenda we all suffer from today. That's my take on it. I support a rather dramatic fight against terrorism, but understand that different persons view things differently. That's one reason I think civility and fairness in discussions like this (and religion!) are so important.

Only God is always right, and when I look at my life, I wonder about that sometimes!