Denouncing the Heretics

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

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: So, if I understand well, the problem comes...... Correct, at least that is my view. 1) they're given a forum that the average person doesn't have regardless of intellect, 2) the main stream media quotes these people as though they were Colin Powell or Condelezza Rice or Rumsfeld or Bill Clinton for that matter. It is important to understand that the main stream media is very liberal and reports with a bias, so these people just supply grist for their mill. Read: Slander (Ann Coulter) or Bias (Bernard Goldstein) - for a conservative take on the media. KaЯl wrote: 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? This is sad, but the average man on the street hears what is reported in the main stream media, and believes it. So when Dan Rather is quoting some looney like Clooney or Sean Penn - they take the reporting as factual without realizing that they're being manipulated or being fed biased material. Mike

Mike Gaskey

KaЯl wrote: the connection between 9/11 and SH The President's view (if I can correctly interpret what I've read) is that with Saddam we have an absolute enemy who has: 1) biological, 2) chemical, 3) possibly nuclear materials. Prior to 9-11 it would have been safe for us (the USA) to leave him in place, contained within the borders of Iraq. Subsequent to 9-11 "you" have to assume that he would funnel some of this 1, 2, or 3 - to the Bin Laden's of the world. Not necessarily UBL himself or Al Q. but other extremists. The Bush approach is preemptive and proactive. His training is business, not diplomacy and he is acting like an intelligent corporate CEO by getting in front of the potential problem before it becomes real. I happen to agree. It is simply a risk we can't allow. KaЯl wrote: 9/11 and France France is placing itself between us and the goal of eliminating the risk preemptively. Now I suspect the preemptive piece is offensive to many. But it is still legitimate, at least in this instance. That is because Saddam has not honored his agreements to disarm, smuggles oil out in contravention of UN ruls to the contrary, has not accounted for 100's of Kuwaitis, has not repaid Kuwait for the destruction created in the 90 - 91 invasion. That provides the legitmacy to the preemptive and proactive approach. France, however, does not agree - thus the cause for the animosity. This is because the view is that the action of France, via possible UN veto of resolutions or approaches to delay what we think to be necessary, greatly harms our future security. Mike

KaRl

Mike Gaskey wrote: It is important to understand that the main stream media is very liberal and reports with a bias, so these people just supply grist for their mill Is it your opinion or is it widely recognized :confused: ?

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

peterchen

Doug Goulden wrote: What have sixteen resolutions done for us? It is undisputed that 80-90% of the WMD's owned by Saddam have been destroyed. Doug Goulden wrote: Seems that UN resolutions are pretty ineffective Seems the UN is pretty ineffective when spme country says "You don't decide if we go to war or not." That's right. Doug Goulden wrote: What alliance has the US denounced? - The US could have taken Afghanistan with full support of the NATO. You rather choose vasalls that don't dispute your strategy, as shortlived as this "alliance" might be. What is an ally who doesn#t want to put up with you when he could need you? - The US decides to do Iraq on their own - independent of the vote of the UN - that's pretty obvious. - The US decides to deal with Turkey on their own, rather than over tha NATO alliance. - Germany and france are not willing to make the UN nodders for the US. Maybe this is the final blow that breaks the NATO, but there have been many blows before. Doug Goulden wrote: It seems to me that France and Germany were the ones that wouldn't support a fellow NATO nation (Turkey) Belgium? The age-old German-France conflict has been stabilized for almost 60 years now - neither by three years lying in the trenches, nor by the germans blitzing france, nor by france surrendering. IT HAS NOT BEEN SOLVED by the US coming along on a white horse in a shining armor. You wouldn't have saved anyone without Russia. IMO the US is not willing to learn that a colonial attitude already failed once for the Europeans. We do remeber WW2. I still see the last traces of it every day. Don't forget that. If you claim your help in WW2, you must also accept that at least west germany did learn it's values of democracy and freedom from the US. If you give a gift, you can't demand it back.

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]

KaRl

Mike Gaskey wrote: The President's view (if I can correctly interpret what I've read) is that with Saddam we have an absolute enemy who has: 1) biological, 2) chemical, 3) possibly nuclear materials. You probably know other countries have such means, and could potentially attack the US, or could furnish these weapons to terrorists: Iran, China, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia to name a few. Will they all be the next targets? I don't understand the link between 9/11 and WMD. The weapons used were cutters, not chemical or biological warfares. Moreover, SH has chemical/biolgical weapons since the 80's (thaks to thewestern countries), and these weapons weren't involved in any attack against the US. BTW, did SH ever directly target the US? Mike Gaskey wrote: France is placing itself between us and the goal of eliminating the risk preemptively. The French position has been quiet always caricatured and deformed by the US media, 'cause IMO it's easier to make it a target than to answer to the questions it raises. It was also an easy way to hide the fact the World opinions are following France, Russia and Germany, not the US. It's IMO the role of a real friend to warn me if I'm planning to do a major BS, not to support me whatever the silly things I could do. It's not the role of friend, but of a flatterer. As wrote Jean de La Fontaine, My Good Sir, Learn that each flatterer Lives at the cost of those who heed. The US will problably learn it also in the future.

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