The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Damned by dreams that emasculate
Whichever thoughts grow fond
A ritual that once grew great
Before the broken bonds
Elevated past darkened doubt
Tattooed bystreet-light fraud
The taxman knocks, reasons without
Civilian levy duly stored
Forgetting sinful syntax
Forging sentences of stealth
Intricately evading tax
And procuring piles of wealth.
To save their seats politicians lie
With bribes they don’t resent
With starving hunger babies cry
Whilst income tax is sadly spent
Witness wily officials in their jaguars
Diamonds nested in wife’s ears
Then see taxpayers in economy cars
They saved for years and years
Will no one break the circle of lies
And do the whole country a favour
Recall the day democracy died
The birthday of New Labour
Whichever thoughts grow fond
A ritual that once grew great
Before the broken bonds
Elevated past darkened doubt
Tattooed bystreet-light fraud
The taxman knocks, reasons without
Civilian levy duly stored
Forgetting sinful syntax
Forging sentences of stealth
Intricately evading tax
And procuring piles of wealth.
To save their seats politicians lie
With bribes they don’t resent
With starving hunger babies cry
Whilst income tax is sadly spent
Witness wily officials in their jaguars
Diamonds nested in wife’s ears
Then see taxpayers in economy cars
They saved for years and years
Will no one break the circle of lies
And do the whole country a favour
Recall the day democracy died
The birthday of New Labour
Page:
I have decideded not to read this thread any more.
Black Glove wrote:
> The point is, is that it is soliders who enforce dictatorships, and
> thus though your poetic quote was in essence true, it was also a
> one-sided vision. Yes the solider can liberate, but the solider can
> also oppress.
> Soliders are tools of governments, not knights in shining armour.
I think the poem is in the context of reminding people that all freedoms stem from the will, and pasy will, of people to fight for them.
I think it's a mistake to generalise - someone has quoted India, but the first Indian War of Independence in (I think) 1857 was begun by a soldier of the British Army who shot his CO who had ordered the troops to use a new type of ammunition - the ammunition was coated with some sort of lubricant taken from animal fats - this offended the Indians in the army. Local chiefs also rose up, but it was put down after two years of fighting.
Whilst it's nice to think Gandhi singlehandedly brought about independence, the truth is that British rule of the colony relied on the military, and the army, navy and air force had two crucial problems.
1) Years of war had weakened them and demoralised the troops. Many had fought for freedom from the Axis powers, but then returned to be ruled by another nation.
2) The military was comprised mainly of Indians at all but the levels of high command.
England had survived the second world war, but was still battered and economically weak, more importantly it was no longer the hegemonic power in the world - the USA was, along with the USSR.
In the event of a rebellion in India the military could not be relied upon to suppress it, and India could break away starting off a chain reaction of similar uprisings when it became clear to other colonies that there was no way in hell the British could afford to send their own forces to prevent them doing so. Also such a volatile break would sour trade e.t.c. with India. Atlee decideded the solution was to grant independence, the UK would still retain partial control anyway because India relied on it for trade, supplies and such, plus the Indians would keep the UK model of government set up along with it's administration practices. In later years someone whose name escapes me would coin the term "Neo-Colonialism" - the control of another country at arms length by economic, political, covert action e.t.c. but NOT overt military force.
Hence indepence mainly came about because of the military's amost refusal to enforce British rule.
> The point is, is that it is soliders who enforce dictatorships, and
> thus though your poetic quote was in essence true, it was also a
> one-sided vision. Yes the solider can liberate, but the solider can
> also oppress.
> Soliders are tools of governments, not knights in shining armour.
I think the poem is in the context of reminding people that all freedoms stem from the will, and pasy will, of people to fight for them.
I think it's a mistake to generalise - someone has quoted India, but the first Indian War of Independence in (I think) 1857 was begun by a soldier of the British Army who shot his CO who had ordered the troops to use a new type of ammunition - the ammunition was coated with some sort of lubricant taken from animal fats - this offended the Indians in the army. Local chiefs also rose up, but it was put down after two years of fighting.
Whilst it's nice to think Gandhi singlehandedly brought about independence, the truth is that British rule of the colony relied on the military, and the army, navy and air force had two crucial problems.
1) Years of war had weakened them and demoralised the troops. Many had fought for freedom from the Axis powers, but then returned to be ruled by another nation.
2) The military was comprised mainly of Indians at all but the levels of high command.
England had survived the second world war, but was still battered and economically weak, more importantly it was no longer the hegemonic power in the world - the USA was, along with the USSR.
In the event of a rebellion in India the military could not be relied upon to suppress it, and India could break away starting off a chain reaction of similar uprisings when it became clear to other colonies that there was no way in hell the British could afford to send their own forces to prevent them doing so. Also such a volatile break would sour trade e.t.c. with India. Atlee decideded the solution was to grant independence, the UK would still retain partial control anyway because India relied on it for trade, supplies and such, plus the Indians would keep the UK model of government set up along with it's administration practices. In later years someone whose name escapes me would coin the term "Neo-Colonialism" - the control of another country at arms length by economic, political, covert action e.t.c. but NOT overt military force.
Hence indepence mainly came about because of the military's amost refusal to enforce British rule.
Skarra wrote:
>
> Can you name 5 dictatorships that were ended entirely through
> peaceful methods?
>
> And can you name 5 dictatorships that were brought to an end at the
> barrel of a gun? I know i can!!!
As long as you can name me 5 dictatorships that were kept in or brought to power through peaceful means...
Only Ghandi ending the British rule in India springs to mind in all honesty. The Russian Revolution though was surprisingly bloodless, though the army still played a huge part.
>
> Can you name 5 dictatorships that were ended entirely through
> peaceful methods?
>
> And can you name 5 dictatorships that were brought to an end at the
> barrel of a gun? I know i can!!!
As long as you can name me 5 dictatorships that were kept in or brought to power through peaceful means...
Only Ghandi ending the British rule in India springs to mind in all honesty. The Russian Revolution though was surprisingly bloodless, though the army still played a huge part.
As I understand it, leaders make decisions and order soldiers to do their bidding, then sit around big tables and make more plans.
Soldiers have no autonomy, they go where they are pointed at.
A bit like the Evil Knivel stunt-bike.
Soldiers have no autonomy, they go where they are pointed at.
A bit like the Evil Knivel stunt-bike.
Well, a few hundred years ago they were.
Knights, however, were soldiers, and as soldiers swore an allegiance to the head of state, not to the people populating it.
However, there were also the Knights Templar, who were dodgy hardmen.
Knights, however, were soldiers, and as soldiers swore an allegiance to the head of state, not to the people populating it.
However, there were also the Knights Templar, who were dodgy hardmen.
The point is, is that it is soliders who enforce dictatorships, and thus though your poetic quote was in essence true, it was also a one-sided vision. Yes the solider can liberate, but the solider can also oppress.
Soliders are tools of governments, not knights in shining armour.
Soliders are tools of governments, not knights in shining armour.
Alright then.
This is a little off topic, but answer me this.
Can you name 5 dictatorships that were ended entirely through peaceful methods?
And can you name 5 dictatorships that were brought to an end at the barrel of a gun? I know i can!!!
This is a little off topic, but answer me this.
Can you name 5 dictatorships that were ended entirely through peaceful methods?
And can you name 5 dictatorships that were brought to an end at the barrel of a gun? I know i can!!!
Black Glove wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> "It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the
> freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given
> us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus
> organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the
> soldier
> who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin
> is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the
> flag."
I agree with Black Glove: this quote is a lot of nonsense.
Gandhi was not a soldier: his non-violence beat the British Empire and gained India its independence. And when nationalism was gaining ground there, it was soldiers who fired on demonstrators, who allowed the imperial authorities to imprison the movement's leaders and who forcibly shut down its newspapers. You could say the same about the struggles for democracy and civil liberties in 18th and 19th Century Britain - again it was soldiers who were used to suppress these rights, and protestors who eventually gained them.
I assume this quote is meant to refer to the American revolution and the subsequent war for for independence: but as I recall there were soldiers on both sides. In any case there is a world of difference between people/soldiers fighting in revolutions and soldiers being used by a state to maintain the status quo or to fight wars of aggression.
I think this quote is all about glamourising the military and presenting anything it (for which read its government) chooses to do as beyond criticism, eg "You don't support invading Iraq you whining, pacifist liberal: you're a traitor to your country, think what the military has done for you! Support us! Baa baa treasonous hound baa baa."
> Skarra wrote:
> "It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the
> freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given
> us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus
> organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the
> soldier
> who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin
> is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the
> flag."
I agree with Black Glove: this quote is a lot of nonsense.
Gandhi was not a soldier: his non-violence beat the British Empire and gained India its independence. And when nationalism was gaining ground there, it was soldiers who fired on demonstrators, who allowed the imperial authorities to imprison the movement's leaders and who forcibly shut down its newspapers. You could say the same about the struggles for democracy and civil liberties in 18th and 19th Century Britain - again it was soldiers who were used to suppress these rights, and protestors who eventually gained them.
I assume this quote is meant to refer to the American revolution and the subsequent war for for independence: but as I recall there were soldiers on both sides. In any case there is a world of difference between people/soldiers fighting in revolutions and soldiers being used by a state to maintain the status quo or to fight wars of aggression.
I think this quote is all about glamourising the military and presenting anything it (for which read its government) chooses to do as beyond criticism, eg "You don't support invading Iraq you whining, pacifist liberal: you're a traitor to your country, think what the military has done for you! Support us! Baa baa treasonous hound baa baa."
Skarra wrote:
> "It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the
> freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given
> us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus
> organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier
> who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin
> is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the
> flag."
This is a one-sided glamourized version of the solider in my opinion.
The solider is ultimately a tool of generals and governments, and they can be used for evil as well as liberation.
It could be just as easily said that it is the compliance of the solider that helps oppressive regimes to flourish. It is the solider who follows orders which have result in atrocities.
The solider can protect and liberate, but the solider can also to a tyrant's tool of oppression.
> "It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the
> freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given
> us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus
> organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier
> who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin
> is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the
> flag."
This is a one-sided glamourized version of the solider in my opinion.
The solider is ultimately a tool of generals and governments, and they can be used for evil as well as liberation.
It could be just as easily said that it is the compliance of the solider that helps oppressive regimes to flourish. It is the solider who follows orders which have result in atrocities.
The solider can protect and liberate, but the solider can also to a tyrant's tool of oppression.
Belldandy wrote:
> I actually think that the very fact Iraqi's protested so soon after
> the invasion was a positive sign - it shows they knew they would be
> allowed to protest, unlike with Saddam.
Agreed.
> I actually think that the very fact Iraqi's protested so soon after
> the invasion was a positive sign - it shows they knew they would be
> allowed to protest, unlike with Saddam.
Agreed.
Page: