One question. Are you looking at this with a feeling of disgust/shock at the title? Or were you intrigued by the title and felt little or no disgust/shock at it? If you answer yes to the first question then perhaps my conlusion of this article is incorrect, but if you answer yes to the second question you have effectively supported what I am about to write. Either way I personally would like to know your views in the forums.
Well, if I was willing to start this with a simple, one-word response to the statement given in the question in order to show where I stand on the subject then it would be this: NO.
But I wouldn’t do such a thing. Oh no. Because I do feel this does require some level of explanation to follow with it. Which is what I intend to do in what will follow. But first I feel some sort of explanation is required. Firstly, this is not directly an anti-war article. Any of you who know me though will know that I am indeed anti-war, but that is not directly the reason for why I write this. I write this because it struck me whilst watching Question Time on BBC1 last night (27/02/2003) that there are quite a few people who are believing what is told to them by the majority of politicians that something needs to be done in Iraq because in the 1930’s much of the public was against the idea of war and that it was the public of that time’s ‘fault’ that we tried to appease Hitler and allow World War II to happen on such a scale etc etc, and that the situation in Iraq is similar and we cannot go on appeasing Saddam or similar problems will happen. Personally I believe that to be an overstatement of the greatest kind, and I also believe is clear use of ‘spin’, a favourite tactic of the current government. I should also point out at this point that I am not a historian, indeed I do not know everything there is to know about German history, but I have studied the two World Wars to GCSE standard for two years, and even from that (and a certain amount of my own knowledge) I can still draw the conclusion which I have stated above.
As I write this I am sure that most of you are well aware as to what has prompted me to write such an article. For those of you not so aware of what could have prompted such an article, I shall explain briefly. On Monday just passed (03/02/2003) at 9pm GMT a television programme was aired on ITV, entitled Living With Michael Jackson, a documentary by Martin Bashir (who interviewed Princess Diana for BBC’s Panorama programme a few years previous), in which Mr Bashir spent a period of I believe 8 months following Michael Jackson and being allowed to basically live with him, in a series of interviews. As I said, this programme was aired in the UK on Monday night passed, and last night (Thursday 06/02/2003) was aired in America. Whilst I am unaware of what impact the show made in the States, I now that the reaction over here in the UK has been quite a varied one although the majority of people, even those who felt sympathy and ‘warmed’ towards Jackson, seemed to have the same consensus, and that is one of him being a paedophile, which is where my title primarily comes from, and why I am writing to argue against this idea of Michael Jackson being yet another ‘celebrity paedophile’, and hopefully show him to be the good man I think a few people saw when watching the programme. And not only do I think he’s a good man, but also an extremely gifted and intelligent one.
Today, September 11th, 2001 “a date which will live in infamy…”
For the first time I open with a quote, and I’m sure you recognise it, most probably if you’ve seen the film Pearl Harbor, or if you study history (and remember it!). To let you know that quote is taken from Former U.S. President F.D.Roosevelt after the infamous Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. The reason America (eventually) joined the Second World War (too late in my opinion).
[I would like to say right now that this piece I am writing is in no way Anti-American. I am simply stating my own opinions on events, some past, most present.]