<font color="#ffccff">Odd that skunk would post works, that show exactly what WoMD can do and what happens when nations sit idly by, talking and appeasing instead of taking action in time to avert the whole disaster in the first place.</font>

Not so very odd, if you know who Wilfred Owen actually was. Even though he considered himself a pacifist, he enlisted to fight for England in WWI. After suffering shell shock and being brought into hospital, he met Siegfried Sassoon, another WWI poet, and Robert Graves. They encouraged his writing. In August 1918 Owen was declared fit to return to the Western Front. He was killed by machine-gun fire only a week before the Armistice. "Dulce et decorum est" is obviously ironic, even cynical.
What you say about the poem is not what a literary critic would read into it, nor did Owen himself intend them in that way (even though I'm not saying it's explicitly pacifist, mind).

so, what does 'dulce et decorum est' mean in English anyway? Might help in interpreting the message of the poem if I actually knew what it's English title was (and before you start, yes I realize that intended meaning can be lost in translation, but I'm a lazy, mono-linguistical clod... [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

The full sentence is Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori which roughly translates as it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country

(forgot to add - I think it's originally a line from Horace)

[ 01-24-2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Cheers. That cleared things up nicely [img]smile.gif[/img]

Steady. I am NOT against military action provided that:
1. We have *HARD* evidence that Iraq is developing or stockpiling WMD's.
2. We are CAREFULL about the methodolgy employed (NO high altitude bombing, cluster bombs, air fuel bombs etc)
3. The action is UN authorised
4. That the new government does not consist of the 'Opposition groups' (many of whom are as guilty of just as nasty acts as Hussein)
5. We don't abandon the Iraqi civilians to 'fate' as we have done in Afghanistan.

Just because I'm against military action at this moment in time does not mean that I can not envisage a time when it would be neccesary. Nor does it mean that I support the continuing rule of Saddam Hussein.

My main concern is not for Bush/Blair's poll ratings or Iraq's oil - it's for the Iraqi civilians whose only 'crime' was to be born in the wrong country...

Amazing how similar your list is to mine. I am FOR military actio provided that:
1. We have *good* evidence that Iraq is developing or stockpiling weapons not permitted to it by the UN resolutions.
2. ..... Um.... We use whatever means necessary to reduce American casualties, including anything the military can dream up.
3. The action is UN authorized.
4. We leave the new government alone and don't spend tax dollars for years to come managing some puppet country. If a new serpent arises, we can cut him down in turn as well. Just because Kudzu grows rapidly doesn't mean you sit next to the vine babysitting it all day.
5. We let the Iraqi citizens determine their own fate, and we do not force democracy down their throats.

Um... Okay, so it's not quite so similar. :D

<font color="#ffccff">Your list is very similar to mine TL [img]smile.gif[/img] err actually I think it is mine.</font>

Yeah, MagiK, but it's too bad Numbers 4 and 5 are very unlikely to happen in any circumstance. :(

<font color="#ffccff">France and Russia won't allow it in any case, even if the US does. They have too much at stake in the matter, last I heard France alone has over 1.6 Billion invested in Iraq, and Russia is thought to have more. </font>