Denouncing the Heretics

Chris Losinger

Stan Shannon wrote: Most make that just around 1/2, and only then with UN support. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Doug Goulden

I don't mind 'em having an opinion I'm just tired of hearing their being reported as news. Frankly Chris I don't give a damn. ;) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Losinger

Doug Goulden wrote: I'm just tired of hearing their being reported as news well, i agree with ya there. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Doug Goulden

Excellent link. I signed up although I think most of the people that we are talking about are to self absorbed to notice or care about someone elses opinion. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

peterchen

I see the reason why you're fed up - but also, I see why "celebs" have to voice their opinion: They have a moral obligation in times of uprising, to voice their opinion: because people do look up to them, and they can't afford to have been silent afterwards. Denouncing those of a different opinion as "uninformed" (to use a polite word) seems to happen very quickly now in the US. Second, if a country is abandoning certain values, everybody who believes in these values must stand up and voice himself. He doesn't need to be an expert about the immediate reasons. Further, celeb is likely to have a different point of view, way of thinking. I at least expect that with Lee and Moore - although Moore is not "out of the box" but "from a different box". Streisand and McClaine - they're probably old enough to have seen why the values exist that the US is now so quickly to abandon. That's what is more frightening than the war against Iraq itself: what the US is willing to give up, and to do, to go to this war. If I knew a way to dethrone Saddam... I probably wouldn't end up in office anyway, but IMO fueling fear, denouncing alliances, and last not least spending big tax bucks isn't worth it. And many more UN resolutions could be enforced with much less cost of life, dollars, and friendship.

If you go to war, you will destroy a great country a stoned greek chick to the richest man of the world
[sighist] | [Agile Programming] [doxygen]

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Doug Goulden wrote: A red head? You ARE a glutton for punishment. :rolleyes: Doug Goulden wrote: She sees that there is a difference between the intellectual idea that we can talk out all of our problems (meaning humanity) , and the reality that sometimes you have to be willing to fight for your beliefs. Ah, yes. The agonizing difference between theory and reality shows it's face. But nevertheless, difficult as it may be, it's always wise to study the theory before lunging into reality head first. -- we dance to the sound of sirens and we watch genocide to relax we dance to the sound of sirens we are the heroes of self-deception

Doug Goulden

peterchen wrote: And many more UN resolutions could be enforced with much less cost of life, dollars, and friendship. What have sixteen resolutions done for us? Sadaam hasn't listened to any of them. Have you seen Sadaam disarm? Have you seen him not attack British and American aircraft in the no fly zones? Seems that UN resolutions are pretty ineffective when the subject of the resolution doesn't care. The problem is that there is no way to enforce the reolution short of force, and if you aren't going to enforce the resolution there is no point in having the UN or the Security council. I think that the reality of the situation is that the UN itself is at stake , not because the US is trying to manipulate it but because it (and its member states) are unwilling to follow through. The UN is dying of apathy. peterchen wrote: IMO fueling fear, denouncing alliances, and last not least spending big tax bucks isn't worth it What alliance has the US denounced? It seems to me that France and Germany were the ones that wouldn't support a fellow NATO nation (Turkey) when they requested support. France as an ally is useless, they are the essence of self absorbtion and self importance. We saved them in 1919 and again in the 1940's, and the thanks we get is? Nothing... The US has a valid interest in pursuing the people who would see us destroyed and the French government(the same people who sold Saddaam the nuke plant in the 80's) are wringing their hands .... So what. But when they need us again who will open their wallet and send their sons and daughters to defend them? We will, just like we did for 50 years from the threat of the Soviet Union.... IMO France and Germany have pretty short memories. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

I thought Mr Moore and Lee were more directors than actors? Roger Wright wrote: We even elected a guy who's best role was as a supporting actor to a monkey. You're talking about Reagan, I presume. I've seen once a movie from the 50's with him as "actor". Oh my God, it was so bad!

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Stan Shannon wrote: Moore is just another wannabee European. I don't understand why he just doesn't move there and be done with it. I think so. Stan Shannon wrote: Most real Americans just want to kick someone's ass and we aren't too picking about who it might be Do you mean that the core of the US population is composed by violent people with psychopathic tendancies?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Mike Gaskey wrote: The petition asks the "stars" to please shut up and quit using their celebrity to push for positions that many of the rest of us do not support Isn't it a restriction of the freedom of expression? Why should these stars have to publicly stand for the opinion of the majority and not their own?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

jan larsen

Doug Goulden wrote: We saved them in 1919 and again in the 1940's, and the thanks we get is? Nothing... If you keep saying this again and again and again, then maybe it will become true... Doug Goulden wrote: But when they need us again who will open their wallet and send their sons and daughters to defend them? We will, just like we did for 50 years from the threat of the Soviet Union.... And what, pray tell, is the nature of this threat to Europe?, and I won't even mention your absurd claim about saving anyone from USSR. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: Isn't it a restriction of the freedom of expression? YEs and no. Two problems, from my perspective. 1) When they stand up an speak the media, television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and associated cable networks) treat their comments as "news" worthy of being broadcast with the same gravity as the President, a congress-person or a senator. 2) The entertainers have the public platform (that neither you nor I would have) simply because they have: a) big t*ts, b) a shapely figure, c) a good voice, d) the ability to fanticise on cue, e) etc. - not as the result of intellect or well thought out ideas. If their comments were treated as the comments of another citizen, I wouldn't have any problem. When their comments are treated as news because "we" paid to see a movie about pot smoking high school students, then I prefer they keep their mouths shut and I'll help by not paying to see any more performances. Mike

Doug Goulden

jan larsen wrote: And what, pray tell, is the nature of this threat to Europe?, Boy you and Neville Chamberlain have a LOT in common, try extracting your head from the sand. Osama and Saddam have at least one thing in common, if you aren't with them your against them. jan larsen wrote: and I won't even mention your absurd claim about saving anyone from USSR. As far as this statement... Ask most of Eastern Europe. People weren't climbing the Berlin wall because of the humanitarians on the other side. You have a definite revisionist slant hey? jan larsen wrote: If you keep saying this again and again and again, then maybe it will become true... You aren't speaking German are you? Seems to me when the US showed up in 1919, World War 1 had degenerated into a campaign of trench warfare, with thousands of dead on each side. The "doughboys" from the States helped to force Germany back. As far as WW2.... well the French DID really stick it to the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles, maybe they set the stage for the rise of Hitler.... Which part of that isn't true? Maybe you think Europe saved our butts? I don't think so ... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: Do you mean that the core of the US population is composed by violent people with psychopathic tendancies? I suspect that what he means is that since 9-11 a majority of us would personally throtle (being gentle here) anyone remotely involved. Anyone who stands between us and our percieved need to defend ourselves against the possibility of something similar happening again has placed themselves in the category of those involved in 9-11. If that isn't what Stan meant it is what I would have meant had I made the same statement. Mike

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: What have sixteen resolutions done for us? Sadaam hasn't listened to any of them. Have you seen Sadaam disarm? How many resolutions weren't applied by Israel, beginning by the 242? I don't compare Israel and Iraq, but some will do it, and won't understand why some may refuse to comply to resolutions when others can't. Doug Goulden wrote: Have you seen him not attack British and American aircraft in the no fly zones? Are these occupation of the iraqui sky covered by a UN resolution? I'm not sure, but I don't remember. Doug Goulden wrote: It seems to me that France and Germany were the ones that wouldn't support a fellow NATO nation (Turkey) when they requested support For the moment, I've never heard Turkey was threatened. there's even an iraqui "neutral zone" at the borders of Turkey. On the contrary, I've heard Turkey will be used as a platform for an attack. NATO is defensive, not offensive. Doug Goulden wrote: We saved them in 1919 and again in the 1940's, and the thanks we get is :wtf:! Don't believe in the mediatic b*llshit spread by your media. US never entered war to save France. They waited three years before intervening in WW1, and they would probably never have done it without the german submarine offensive. They waited two years and an aggression before being involved in WW2. If US were real allies, where were they on August 1914, September 1939 or May 1940? Moreover, before the D-Day the US considered France as an enemy territory, and envisaged to occupy it, not to free it. Have also a look to FDR's feeling about the free frenchs. Doug Goulden wrote: (the same people who sold Saddaam the nuke plant in the 80's More exactly in 1975. After the plant destruction by the Israeli Air Force, France refused to sell a second one to Iraq in the 80's. And please don't forget US have given to SH chemical and bacteriological warfares, A draw on this one. Doug Goulden wrote: We will, just like we did for 50 years from the threat of the Soviet Union Wrong again when about France, you can limit the period to 20 years (1945-1966).

Angels b

Doug Goulden

KaЯl wrote: US never entered war to save France. They waited three years before intervening in WW1, and they would probably never have done it without the german submarine offensive. They waited two years and an aggression before being involved in WW2. If US were real allies, where were they on August 1914, September 1939 or May 1940? I didn't say we entered the war to save France, I said we saved their butts. And we did and they're free because we did. As far as why didn't we enter the war earlier? Because we didn't want to get involved and we didn't think Adolph or the Kaiser were our problem. Sounds kind of like France and England's stance when Adolph was arming himself hey? I'm not saying we jumped right in, as a matter of fact I think that the US probaby should have stood up sooner against Hitler. The probability that we knew what he was doing in the concentration camps and did nothing is appalling. Should we wait this long again? Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

jan larsen

Doug Goulden wrote: if you aren't with them your against them. That sounds a lot more like Bush... At the moment there is no military threat against Europe, the threat from terrorism is a matter for the Police, and we need to cooperate and share information. Doug Goulden wrote: People weren't climbing the Berlin wall because of the humanitarians on the other side. No, they were climbing the walls because of the dictatoric rulership on their own side, but how does that apply to the US?... Doug Goulden wrote: Which part of that isn't true? I was referring to the statement that you didn't get any thanks, you did, but that was then and this is now. What you did generations ago can't possibly mean anything to anyone today, if that was the case, then please indicate which time limit you are using. If you moved that limit a couple of hundred years back in time, then I could claim that we saved our selves :-) . "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

KaRl

So, if I understand well, the problem comes less from the artists opinion than on the mediatic coverage and use of these declarations ? Isn't it so because we, as public, don't establish the difference anymore between the public people, and see few difference between politics and artists?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Ah, ok. I can understand this need of revenge. I just don't see the connection between 9/11 and SH, or as Stan said, between 9/11 and France?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: I didn't say we entered the war to save France, I said we saved their butts So France liberation was a side effect, we agree. The US objective wasn't to save others butts, but their own. I don't blame the US for that, 'cause IMHO any nation wages war to protect its interest, not because of moral stand. I'm just fed up to hear/read this legend quiet everyday in US media. Doug Goulden wrote: Sounds kind of like France and England's stance when Adolph was arming himself hey France in the 30's had no choice but to align itself on UK about foreign policy (a consequence of the occupation of Ruhr in the 20's and the refusal of the US to guarantee Versailles Treaty). When Chamberlain coming from Munich said "it's Peace in our time", at the same time, Daladier acclaimed by the crowd whispered "Les cons!" (Idiots!). That's perhaps also why France is now reluctant to align itself blindly on other countries, it paid it a high price last time. Doug Goulden wrote: The probability that we knew what he was doing in the concentration camps and did nothing is appalling. Should we wait this long again? No[^]. And you're right, the Allied were fully aware of what happened in the concentration and extermination camps. They just decide to do nothing. That's also why I consider the mediatic rumble around the Pope Pie XII a little bit unfair. As said Stalin, how many divisions had the Pope?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop