How everyone jumps all over the Dixie Chicks when they make a political statement, but nothing happens when Michael Jackson talks about why it is ok to sleep with young boys.
My father, a Marine Corp gunny sergeant, told me once:
"I am not afraid to die for my country, but I would prefer to make a lot of those mother f*ckers die for theirs..."
Let's all take a minute to say a prayer for the safety of our brothers and sisters in the military so far from home.
-- From all of us at The Erotic Review
Your Dad paraphrased Gen. Patton: "No one ever won a war by dying for their country. They won by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country!"
I say that prayer every morning for my son in Afganistan. And for all the others.
I am tired of celebrities appointing themselves as moral barometers. Especially when they don't have a clue!!!
Someone on another board used the word "cowardice" when describing the people who are anti war and don't want to see their soldiers (and innocent people die)
Here is a quote (and definition) they put on the other board.
We killed a shit load of people in Desert storm by the way ...and did it do any good? Did we accomplish anything? Did Vietnam accomplish anything?
I'm glad you people above want to go to war. but then again it ain't your ass over there gettin killed now is it?
Oh here's that quote about "cowardice"
"COWARDICE, n. A charge often levelled by all-American types against those who stand up for their beliefs by refusing to fight in wars they find unconscionable, and who willingly go to prison or into exile in order to avoid violating their own consciences. These 'cowards' are to be contrasted with red-blooded, 'patriotic' youths who literally bend over, grab their ankles, submit to the government, fight in wars they do not understand (or disapprove of), and blindly obey orders to maim and to kill simply because they are ordered to do so—all to the howling approval of the all-American mob. This type of behavior is commonly termed 'courageous.'"
—Chaz Bufe, The Devil's Dictionaries ("American Heretic's Dictionary" section)
Keep holding onto your ankles and spread those legs nice and wide because the government you so blindly trust is about to do you right up the ass like you've never seen.
War has many ugly aspects, and being of age during the Vietnam years I certainly would not call my self a hawk. However, what would you have done during WWII? Was there an alternative to fighting Hitler, Japan, Italy, etc? As I recall appeasement was tried and failed. Isn't there some point at which you have to fight fire with fire?
War should be a last resort. After 12 years of appeasement following several wars initiated by Sadam, and one brutal attack on his own citizens I'm willing to say it is time.
Reluctant supporter of the war.
...that will die in this useless, unpopular war? I suppose the 90% of the rest of the world that is opposed to this war doesn't have a clue either. But hey, that's okay, we are the good guys and we know what's best. Bush and his little band of chicken hawks, almost all of whom have never experienced war first hand, have given us the answers, and we must dutifully follow. Wave the flag and pass the ammunition, it will be another splendid little war!! The politicians in Washington always tell us the truth, right? Saddam at this moment is in a Piper Cub over Miami ready to drop the Big One. So let's get him before he gets us. It's all so simple, isn't it Birdie. That's the Clue that the celebrities, and all the millions of people worlwide, don't get, right?
Hear, hear!
I'm wishing for the safe return of the American and British troops (it's not only Americans soliders who may die in the coming weeks, a fact that often seems to be overlooked) but I'm sad that yet more oppressed and vulnerable Iraqis are going to lose their lives. I don't want any parent to have their child killed or maimed, or any child to lose a parent. Of course it's inevitable but I'm desperately wishing for a swift war with minimum casaulties.
But then, when Saddam's gone, what next? Does anybody really think a puppet regime installed by the US and UK is going to bring peace and stability to Iraq? Does anybody shouting for war actually care what happens to Iraq after 'our boys' come home?
stability to Iraq? YES, absolutely. More than likely, ANY new government will be an improvement - ask Irai exiles.
Iraq will be another Yugoslavia.
The Kurds in the north have been oppressed for decades, and are demanding their own country. We can't give it to them because the Kurds in Turkey are demanding their own country too.
The Shi'ites in the south have been oppressed for years (not as long as the Kurds), and so really hate the Sunis who have been doing things like gassing them. So they want their own country.
The Sunis (the smallest portion of the population) are fearing the retribution of the people their dictator has been opressing. They will not willingly give up power in any new nation, because power is all that's keeping them alive.
So no, there will be no stability in Iraq. Our occupation forces will probably keep open warfare from breaking out, but as soon as we depart there'll be some major racial warfare.
One should also note that Shiites in the south will be supported by Iran, who no doubt will have designs on what's left of the Iraqi oil fields. Armed Shiites can pass over the long border with Iran, and strike with impunity.
Bush's newly stated reason for declaring war on Iraq is to institute democracy. I will defer to some unknown sage at UC Berkeley who scrawled on a desk the following quote, which I believe is still applicable: "Fighting for democracy in Vietnam is like fucking for virginity."
Certainly you have the right to your opinion, but, come on, get your facts right. 90% of the world against action in Iraq - get a clue, do some reading.
And find out he's right?
86% against in England.
89% against in France.
95% against in Turkey.
~100% against in pretty much every arab country
83% against in Germany.
So while we can argue if 90% is hyperbole, it's pretty close.
Btw, US: 47% for war, 50% against war (37% only war with UN, 13% no war for any reason). Not really suprising considering we're being lied to regularly and the corporate media's too busy making catchy graphics to actually report the truth.
Maybe if you want to listen to a country music singer, it might do you well to listen to Darryl Worley's "Have you forgotten", cause I certainly haven't.
So, is Worley's point of view any more informed or valid than that of the Dixie Chicks? The reason I ask, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, unless you've seen some intelligence data that the rest of the world hasn't. MfSD.
and Worley didn't attack our President either for trying to do what he thought was right to protect us. Maybe you would rather have our President be more concerned about getting his dick sucked by an intern?
Remember the quote, "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
-- Modified on 3/18/2003 4:08:31 PM
I think I can trump that with a quote from Blaise Pascal "...The sole cause of man's unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room..."
There must be some of us who wish we could take W's toys away from him, and send him to his room for some quiet time.
-- Modified on 3/18/2003 7:21:22 PM
What are you talking about, interns, dicks sucked? I'm talking about a war in Iraq and the right of free speech in this country.
You made the point that celebs were uninformed, and I asked you if that applied to celebs who supported the war too, after you slammed the Dixie Chicks. So I guess your answer is celebs who support this war are informed, and those who don't, and speak out are uninformed. That's certainly a tidy arrangement, closed minded, but tidy.
Oh, and don't lecture me about patriotism if you decide on another dim witted response. I served my country in the military voluntarily, wore the uniform, and was discharged honorably. MfSD.
because, obviously my dim-witted response would be below your level of comprehension.
Funny thing is ... the Chicks are back-pedaling now, guess you should never let patriotism get in the way of your pocketbook.
-- Modified on 3/18/2003 7:59:08 PM
Fine, then don't lecture me on my level of comprehension either. I couldn't care less what the Dixie Chicks have to say, or Mr. Worley for that matter, but fortunately we live in a country where free speech is guaranteed.
You made the statement about celebs being uniformed on the Iraq situation. Then turned right around and sang the praises of another celeb(Worley) whose point of view you happen to agree with on Iraq, vis a vis his song. Your hypocrisy is your business, but if you're going to air it in a public forum, expect to be challenged on it. MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/19/2003 5:55:51 AM
Before you insult celebrities and condemn them for voicing their views, read your history sonny, not too long ago, we elected a professional actor to be Governer and then our president. No other advanced democracies has done that. I don't recall cries in the California of the 60s as why an actor should be running for high political office.
Read business week of March 24th [article by Bruce Nussbaum], scholars of all stripes, business executives, and not just the celebrities, view we are engaging in a tactical miscalculation.
Don't misread me, I don't know what the right answer is, we sure are going to find out. Remember what Bertrand Russell said, only fools and fanatics are sure of anything.
Zeroing on celebrities, and insulting them, is not fair.
Does that apply to celebs who support this "war" too? MfSD.
How everyone jumps all over the Dixie Chicks when they make a political statement, but nothing happens when Michael Jackson talks about why it is ok to sleep with young boys.
Well, two of them, anyway... the short one with no tits is not my type, but the other two, daaayyyuuummmmmm!
(Ducking and covering from all the flames I'm sure to draw)
I'd be willing to bet that you bad mouthed Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter when they gave their views. However, I'd also be willing to bet that you didn't moan and groan when George Bush Sr. said the same thing as Clinton and Carter did. I think some people would support Georgie Bush Jr. if he advocated invading Switzerland just so you could feel tough and shoot off your mouth like he does. As for fucking the Dixie Chicks, that has long been a fantasy of mine.
Just because someone has a different opinion than yours, they automatically "don't have a clue"? I don't think so. Get over yourself.
No one can disagree with u bob, and whether we agree or disagree it is time for all of us to support our President. Imagine what each and every one of us would do if we must make the decision the president must make. In my case I would be seeing a therapist more then once a week. God bless all those who support us. And yes along with my mother in law, dumped a nice bottle of st. emilion last night. Felt good too.
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.
Gen Omar N. Bradley
--------------------
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace.
The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry, March 23,1775
sacrifice of our arm forces and their families.
The world should be grateful too as we are the ones in S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Bosnia and Kosovo to defend freedom for over 5 decades. Unfortunately, they are not.
I'm there is spirit.
Kick ass guys. Come home safe.
Who is John Galt?
John Galt is the man who said he would stop the motor of
the worldÑand did
Yep, this does bring it down home for us, doesnt it. Another vietnam war, or another ww? Scary. Particularly given the climate of rudeness that abounds these days. especially in the city.
And why does it have to come to this? I dont get it.
My heart does go out to those who have to sacrifice bits and pieces of family members!!!! This is something that I cannot relate to as I do not have children, yet an uncle damaged in the Viet Nam war. It is a bit much. But I realize it is for those who have lost that I have been able to go about my business and not worry about a bomb, or an ouzi pointed at me!!!
I am so sorry, fortitude, and to others in your shoes. this is sickening.
In prayer...
Heartfelt gratitude to those who have kept our freedom where it is...and despite everything, God bless us and give us peace tomorrow, but at what personaL sacrifice??????
-- Modified on 3/17/2003 9:25:55 AM
But please don't be sorry. My son chose his profession (he is a career Army officer) for love of his country and his freedom. He has been in harm's way for more than 6 months now.
Insofar as the other posts in this thread:
1. Yes, believe it or not, I do care about the innocent civilians in all populations that suffer from warfare, including Iraqis, and my prayers go out to them as well. Too many innocents suffer and die in war. I've seen this for myself far too often for one lifetime. We keep getting better about "surgical" warfare, but it will never be perfect.
2. I truly believe that Saddam must be stopped for the sake of all civized people. It may not be exactly the right time, but it would happen sooner or later anyway, and better now before he really climbs into bed with some other enemies of ours (like Mr. Bin Ladn) and provides them the fruits of his research and development. Assuming he hasn't done this already. I often wonder what the approval ratings about this war are amongst those of us who directly lost loved ones at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
3. War will always be unpopular. Who wants to die, or kill others? But there are times when you have to take a step back and consider the alternatives. Vietnam was a time when we did not do this. Now, post 9/11, is a time when I think we have, and stopping Saddam before he achieves #2 above is paramount.
To those of you who disapprove of attacking Iraq and Saddam: Your right to disapprove is what makes this country special. Even as the father of a soldier who is out there, I can respect, understand, and even empathize with your feelings and beliefs, regardless of my own. And every time you excercise that right, the people who should be thanked are those who serve and have served in our armed forces. So when this all comes to a head, please remember where you live, and what sacrifices these guys are making on our behalf.
1. Better about "surgical" warfare, you mean like those pretty pictures on the TV during Gulf War I and later it turns out that the success rate was close to zero
2. For Saddam to give his weapons to finge elements like bin Laden, he would have to trust them not to tell anyone and not to use them on them; hardly likey. In fact, if Saddam has nothing to lose and he'll be killed then that increases the chance he would do this (the CIA stated that this is the ONLY circumstances this would occur)
3. No proof linking Saddam to 9/11 has surfaced that wasn't proved to be a fraud and any military action should be done to decrease terrorist actions, this would just piss off millions of Arabs and increase terrorist actions.
personally, i'm anti-war. as far as i'm concerned, when you go to war you admit that you are unable to solve problems and shed doubt on your status as intelligent beings. the "war to end all wars" ended over 50 years ago, but gee whiz, it seems to me we've fought a few since then.
the monkees recorded a cool little song 30+ years ago called "zor and zam" (i have no idea who wrote it) but it had some great political lyrics like:
"two little kings, playing a game -
they gave a war, and nobody came!"
of course, not showing up is not really an option for our boys and girls ... so however you feel politically about the war, the sentiment wishing our loved ones well should be appreciated. and, as mr. miaggi said (in 'the karate kid'):
"if MUST fight ... WIN"
I was vehemently opposed to this war until I looked at a September 11 memorial website and it dawned on me that the odds of Usama Bin Louden and Sadam Husain joining forces is almost guaranty. Can we really afford to let that happen. And when the people of Afganastan were freed from the Taliban did they not rejoice. So will the oppressed people of Iraq when they no longer have to fear a government that routinely rapes and tortures it's own people. Do we want to face a situation like September 11th again I know I do not want to live in a world where terrorist's run free because we are afraid to let our men fight. I do not believe this another Vietnam quite the opposite. And I do not even like or support President Bush but I do see the urgency put forth by people like Prime Mnister Tony Blair and I know ours is a just but unpopular war. Let's face sitting around singing Cum Bye AAh is not going to get the job done sorry that's how I feel.
I totally agree SASHA..!!! My prayer is that this time, our Military can get in, get the job done and get out. Every war we've been involved with has involved financial and private agendas for personal gain. I'm in hopes this one will be different. My eldest son was in Panama for 8 months prior to the invasion. He said when they first arrived, the natives would sneak onto the base and steal things(They would carry dryers on their backs)and run into the jungle and disappear. After being stationed there for a few months, they(MP's) could manuver in the jungle just as well as the natives. But when they were preparing to go in after Noriega(sp)they pulled all those established troups out, and went in with all "green" soldiers. My son watched the invasion from my couch saying " That should have been us, it's just not right, that's what we were trained to do, we should be there, not those "green" guys." In that instance he decided not to re-inlist(something he had been considering). He felt "Screwed without a Kiss" as he put it, by our government and rightly so.!! I just hope, going into a war, we can focus on the matter at hand and get rid of everyone in Washington's personal agenda's.
Two points:
According to the CIA, the only thing that could get bin Laden and Saddam togehter is our invasion. They're mortal enemies because Saddam's a secular man, and thus an "infidel". bin Laden is obviously religiously nuts. Basically, the only senario that could happen is if Saddam feels his number's up, and wants to be remembered as a hero to Arabs.
And get in, get out quickly would be the worst possible way to do this. Get in, get out means that the country will disintegrate into warring racial factions, which makes the perfect location for terrorists to set up camps. And doing that in a country that has lots of pissed off people who've just lost their families to bombs is even worse. It's going to cost a lot more money and a lot more lives now, but if we go in we have to stay there for decades or we'll be going back in again and again.
I will say may god be with are men and wemen in uniform and I hope not to many have to pay the price for these jane fonda types. Who cares what thay think ? Have clebs ever showen any real moral conviction to anything in life? The only ones that I have that kind of respecs for are ones who have served otherwise there are just a buntch of spoiled brats not any diffrent than the politicans who will send some to war but not there own! The people in Iraq will now have the right to do the same thing and say publicly they also dont agree with there gov, Most people have not had any reason to understand that is important , As for the UN, well if it was not for them 12 years ago sadam would have died 12 years ago and this would not have been a issue today! I dont want people to die but If they are lets give them respect and support while we can the people in the armed forces do it mostly as a way to improve there situation in life and not have to take a hand out with in and of itself deserves support and respect not to mention are loyelty in time's like these.Protesr Bush if you want but not them!
Truth or Knowledge, although not mentioned by our Founding Fathers as such, can be considered another essential element of freedom. After all, was it not Christ who said that knowing the truth can set you free?
how you all haev reacted back in the late 30's during Hitler's rise to power?
This peace & protest stuff seems to be along the same "non-intervention" silliness that helped lead to the death of some 6 million Europeans, merely because one short wallpaper hanger with a massive inferiority complex became powerful enough to convince the world he wasn't as evil as he was.
Didn't the old LON adopt a similar stance as many at the UN?
Hasn't our "cooperative" buddy in Iraq already gassed several Kurd's (yeah I know, those rebellious wwomen & children in the village....ya gotta watch them!)
What is your definition of evil? Genocide apparently doesn't count.
Sheesh.
Interesting comparison to 1930s Germany, I've heard that comparison a lot in the last few months. Unfortunately it is only somewhat applicable, but Hitler is the measuring stick for all despots and dictators that have followed him over the ensuing decades.
The last time I checked, Americans practicing their constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights, was a good thing. I don't support the premise on which this "war" is going to be fought, but I pray for a swift and merciful victory for our troops. I wore the uniform, served voluntarily and was discharged honorably once upon a time.
Unfortunately, the US sold Iraq the pre cursor chemicals that were used to create the poison gas used aginst the Kurds in the 1980s. Our story is we sold him agricultural chemicals and had no idea of the purpose for which he eventually used them. We also sold Hussein helicopters which may or may not have been used in those gas attacks on the Kurds.
We'll win the "war", my question is can we win the peace. MfSD.
-- Modified on 3/17/2003 12:00:07 PM
To protect all the countries of the world from suffering threw another holocost or Mass genocides by ruthless power crazed dictators trying to take over the world one small country at a time. How the hell can you have world peace while innocent people are suffering at the barbaric hands of ruthless dictators the U.N. should be ashamed of itself for being to cowardly to do what they were initially put in place to do keep the world free and allow all peoples to roam free from harm or threat of mass genocide. But what do I know.
Unfortunately the UN does not have the ability to deliver on this dream. To many competing national interests to ever allow a cohesive vision and strategy. WHere the UN can do some good is in the area of world hunger, and economic issues. Here the UN has and continues to do good.
But its track record at stopping naked aggression or mass murder is very poor.
The UN's mission is to have nations try to resolve their differences diplomatically, instead of war.
And as for dictators, those aren't the UN's job. It's not the UN's job to do "regime change", because who's to say what's a good regime and what's a bad one? For example, we loved Saddam until 1991.
And genocide: The UN can only act if it's members have the balls to do that. For example, several countries, including the US, were blocking UN intervention in Kosovo.
Can we win the peace?
A tougher job in my opinion
Genocide sure does count. But if I may, Saddam was gassing Kurds 20 years ago already, and the US (and the rest of the world) did not give a $hit about it. And China is conducting its own little genocide in Tibet and has been for years. And North Korea is ruled by a nutcase that has nuclear weapons. And Russia did do some not very nice things in Afghanistan and Chechenya. And and and ...
So let's forget about the Hitler charade please. These Hitlers have been in power for 20 years or so, and the US did not do anything about it until it suddenly felt threatened. The US are not doing that for world peace or because they are white knights or because they are against genocide. They are doing that because they feel threatened. Period. Without 9/11 Saddam could have gone on killing and torturing.
Pr. Bush is doing what he thinks is right for his country. He must be praised for that. But let's not try to paint things under a favorable light because it does not pass the acid test.
Bush giving him the chance to left the country with his three wives and billions of dollars???
If Weapons of Mass Destruction is such a concern, why is he going after Iraq which might have some (none so far were found, but I'm sure some will be conveintly found ... with lots of media around), but North Korea, who definitely has them, isn't a concerned???
Why during his address last night (Monday), he didn't mention the troops, but mentioned that the Iraqi better not blow up the oil wells???
Well, to answer your last question first, W didn't mention the troops but did warn the Iraqis not to blow up the oil wells, because he really, really cares about those oil fields. It is, after all, the reason why we're going after Iraq before N. Korea. Besides, as you point out, N. Korea is a much tougher nut to crack, and actually has nuclear weapons.
On the issue of W's offer of "safe passage" for Saddam Hussein and his family and cronies, I'm pretty sure they didn't believe W would honor it so it was a non-starter. W has a history of reneging on existing treaties (e.g., ABM treaty). The reason Turkey has been so reluctant to support the war is not because they can't be bribed, but because Turkey refused to take an IOU for it.
-- Modified on 3/19/2003 4:39:28 AM