Peacekeeper/ Matt Drudge

[WelshWitchPMD]

I heard "Peacekeeper" on an AM talk radio show called the Matt Drudge show. He was making some comments about the song being a good anti-war song. He was also making favorable comments on the Mac. I found this on his site. I was not aware that he had a poll for an anti-war song. Well the Mac won. I wonder if this will have an effect on the popularity of the song.


DRUDGE REPORT RADIO POLL:

**Closed**

Which Is The Top New Anti-war Song?

Beastie Boys- World Gone Mad [2574 VOTES]
Fleetwood Mac- Peacekeeper [3919 VOTES]
George Michael- The Grave [2701 VOTES]
John Mellencamp- Washington [1839 VOTES]

[wondergirl9847]

Cool!! I think the MAC made the PERFECT choice of a first single. After hearing President Bushs' address, people are scared and worried. We NEED this song right now. Even if it has nothing to do with war, people are taking it that way.

[CarneVaca]

That's interesting. The Mellencamp and Beastie Boys songs are definitely in reaction to the Iraq war. I don't know about the George Michael tune.

There is a growing movement of anti-war songs by artists who are releasing them over the web.

As a side note, Natalie Maines said last week in London: "We are ashamed that George Bush is from Texas." Some radio stations have pulled Dixie Chicks songs and spearheaded efforts for people to dump their Dixie Chicks songs. Reminds me of the John Lennon comment about Jesus.

[wondergirl9847]

I may NEVER have to hear friggin Landslide by the Chicks again!!!!!!!!! :blob1::blob2:

:laugh:

[Sugar]

A friend of mine recently gave me a copy of "Serve Yourself" by John Lennon and told me about how it was a response to "Gotta Serve Somebody" by Bob Dylan and it got me thinking about the real lack of socially-conscious music over the past few years. Where are the Bob Dylans and John Lennons of today? Not just singer-songwriters, but gutsy artists who really aren't afraid to take a stand on contriversial issues. Maybe the tide is turning. :)

And I never got the burning/trashing albums thing! So you bought the Dixie Chicks album, you're mad about the Bush comment, so you take the CD and destroy it. I guess it's a statement, but the Chicks already got their money, their Grammies, and you're the one out $15! Even better, after all the hoopla dies down, you decide you really liked the album, so you buy another copy! :laugh:

I'm glad the Mac is being represented like this, though, and that they are being recognized for it. :nod:

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

As a side note, Natalie Maines said last week in London: "We are ashamed that George Bush is from Texas." Some radio stations have pulled Dixie Chicks songs and spearheaded efforts for people to dump their Dixie Chicks songs. Reminds me of the John Lennon comment about Jesus.


Yeah - and I read over on Mick's board that Stevie was asked about Natalie's comment today in an interview and she stated that she didn't want to get involved and that she would never express her political opinions because she likes her career too much!!

Stevie really is so smart IMO.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Yeah - and I read over on Mick's board that Stevie was asked about Natalie's comment today in an interview and she stated that she didn't want to get involved and that she would never express her political opinions because she likes her career too much!!

there's "fightin' words" goin' on here in "Okie-land" because a top country musician (Who is from the OKC area) who played here last Friday night was asked his opinion of what Natalie Maines had said:

"I'm not suprised...That girl has a big mouth. Even though I'm not in support for a war, I think we should show our support for our troops and our president. She needs to quit talkin' out her BLOWHOLE!!!"-Toby Keith KOCO Interview 3/14/03

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by estranged4life
there's "fightin' words" goin' on here in "Okie-land" because a top country musician (Who is from the OKC area) who played here last Friday night was asked his opinion of what Natalie Maines had said:

"I'm not suprised...That girl has a big mouth. Even though I'm not in support for a war, I think we should show our support for our troops and our president. She needs to quit talkin' out her BLOWHOLE!!!"-Toby Keith KOCO Interview 3/14/03


Ha, ha! That is too funny! :laugh: :laugh:

I just think that Stevie was wise to not comment on it - I guess I prefer people who can express their views without being in your face about it. That kind of "in your face" commentary just turns me off.

[RoxyRockstar]

ya know after reading this thread...the first thoughts that come to mind mind are, Toby Keith is a blowhole! (sorry...have been listen to country long before he came around...never cared for him or his music.) and I have to agree with Sugar. People did that same thing over Garth brooks a few years ago when he wanted to get royalties over sales of his albums in second hand stores and in the end, everyone ended up rebuying all those albums they burned because they really liked him and if they had thought about it there was no way he was gonna be able to do that to begin with. They all jumped the gun and he didn't flinch one bit over them and i doubt the dixie chicks will either. The majority of their target buyers are teeen/20 something girls who don't give a rat's @$$ about politics to begin with and will agree just cuz natalie is the cool one. I don't imagine she will be losing much sleep over it.

[BombaySapphire3]

I think Natalie's comment was in response to being in Europe and seeing how most of the rest of the planet veiws Bush and this looming "war".If I did not already own it I'd have gone out and bought a copy of "Home'.

[Gazza]

I'm always a little put off when a band or singer releases some anti war song, and was pleased to hear that Peacekeeper was written 3 years ago, and wasn't really a response to what's been going on of late.

By all means, have an opinion, but don't ram it down our throats. Is there an issue the likes of Bono and George Michael won't just leave alone?

[PenguinHead]

The saving grace for Lindsey's Peacekeeper is that the words are just vague and universal enough for anyone to interpret as they like. He doesn't hit you over the head with some over-wrought political statement. In that way, it won't serve to polarize people.

Could it be that Lindsey just might have another hit single? They've been few and far between: Go Your Own Way, Tusk, Trouble, Big Love and...Peacekeeper?

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by RoxyRockstar
...the first thoughts that come to mind mind are, Toby Keith is a blowhole! (sorry...have been listen to country long before he came around...never cared for him or his music.)

I agree with ya, I personally don't like his music that much (Except for the song "The List" I really could care less about his music) but I did find it funny that the TV station didnt censor the word "Blow-Hole"...lol...

I would rather listen to George Strait & Keith Urban than either Toby Keith or the Dixie Chicks...Brian "Yeehaw Y'all" J.

[Keith]

as I watched the news this weekend, CNN kept running the story about what Natalie had said and how she finally apologized.

I thought it was interesting that she was having to apologize for something that she obviously feels, but no one is asking this administration for apologizing for submitting a forged document to the security council pertaining to Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy nuclear rods. As a matter of fact, I find it interesting that the American press was more concerned about what an entertainer said, then what this administration is actually doing.

Another sad thing, is that Europeans are probably more informed of what is going on in our country than most Americans. Everytime I see that poll that states that 4 out of 10 Americans believe that it was Iraq that attacked us on 9/11, it makes me cringe. (16 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi - Ira Whatever your beliefs are, at least know what the facts are.

[stefan]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Yeah - and I read over on Mick's board that Stevie was asked about Natalie's comment today in an interview and she stated that she didn't want to get involved and that she would never express her political opinions because she likes her career too much!!

Stevie really is so smart IMO.

:nod: :nod: :nod:
No! It's a shame that someone couldn`t speak his opinion (and by the way the opinion of 80% of people here in Europe and sad but true only but still/yet 40% of the people in the US) without being punished and offended for that. Burning of books and CD`s belongs to a time, where CD`s even didn`t exist... It's by far not appropriate! (to call this incidents in a moderate way). Even closing an artists work out of public perception like movies, radio, TV and so on because of his opinion is a real shame for democratic societies. :mad:
By the way: I don't like the Dixie Chicks version, because I don't like cover versions in general. You got no ideas on your own then do something different than working in a ideademanding business. But if you do so- it should be totally different or better than the original. And well- Landslide is neither the first nor the second. It`s O.K. because the song is good. That`s all about this imo.

[CarneVaca]

Oh my, so much to react to on this thread. I love this kind of discussion. Keep it going folks. Here's my take:

-- Sugar made some excellent points, as always. I don't own the CD, and I certainly wouldn't burn or stomp on it. But I think I'll go buy it now. I'd be more likely to get rid of (by selling it or giving it away) a CD by an artist who was found to have committed child molestation or some other despicable crime.

-- Toby Keith is a major asshole, and the kind of Neanderthal mouth breather that makes the rest of the world look down on Americans as unsophisticated and childish.

-- Keith, you made excellent points too. I would only take issue with the 40 percent you mentioned. These polls are way off. I keep wondering just whom the hell the pollsters are calling. If I had to guess, just from the people around me, I'd say it's more like 75 percent against the war. Of course, I am in New York. Isn't it sad that the most visible statement our Congress has made about the war in the past couple of weeks has been to rename French Fries? Morons!

-- Gazza, I'm curious as to why releasing anti-war songs puts you off. I find it ballsy and necessary. The Rolling Stones were the only band to release an anti Gulf War song in 1991, and my respect for Mick and the boys grew exponentially as a result.

-- I respect Stevie's choosing not to comment on this, but I would like to know how she feels about the war. I can pretty much guess how Lindsey feels. I think everyone should come clean and state their position. I don't care if you're a janitor, a Hollywood star or one of the poor suckers who's going to be pointing a gun at defenseless Iraqis.

[jeffs]

Could it be that Lindsey just might have another hit single? They've been few and far between: Go Your Own Way, Tusk, Trouble, Big Love and...Peacekeeper?

I would love for Peacekeeper to be another hit single for Lindsey but we have a better chance of Sadam leaving Iraq in the next 36 hours and moving to the US to embark on a university speech circuit than Peacekeeper gaining national popularity as a single and getting significant air time. I have yet to hear it in NYC though it has been played. Every radio station has made fun of how lousy the song is. Don't flame me - I am one of Lindsey's biggest fans to the point of nuaseum.

[stefan]

Every radio station has made fun of how lousy the song is....



...before playing Christina Aguilera and then Nsync and then the Backstreet boys...?

[tommer]

Toby Keith is a major asshole, and the kind of Neanderthal mouth breather that makes the rest of the world look down on Americans as unsophisticated and childish.
Even closing an artists work out of public perception like movies, radio, TV and so on because of his opinion is a real shame for democratic societies.
you guys should make up your minds.
if you are tolerant to intolerance itself, and to the lack of democracy and democratic thinking (and therefore be opposing the war) than everything's fine with those actions you condemn here.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by tommer
you guys should make up your minds.
if you are tolerant to intolerance itself, and to the lack of democracy and democratic thinking (and therefore be opposing the war) than everything's fine with those actions you condemn here.

Tommer, keep in mind I didn't say the guy doesn't have the right to speak. Of course he does. You know I've been consistent on matters of freedom of expression. Which is why I reserve the right to point out what kind of person Toby Keith is.

[tommer]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Tommer, keep in mind I didn't say the guy doesn't have the right to speak. Of course he does. You know I've been consistent on matters of freedom of expression. Which is why I reserve the right to point out what kind of person Toby Keith is.
okay, that's consistent enough. (as usual) we gonna have to disagree about the rest.
at least i can give you my absolute assurance that not more than a 100 people or so outside america even know who the hell toby keith is, or cares for whatever he may have to say. so there is no need to worry.

[Alison]

Well I have never heard of him till now. I live in Canada, maybe thats why.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by Keith
as I watched the news this weekend, CNN kept running the story about what Natalie had said and how she finally apologized.

I thought it was interesting that she was having to apologize for something that she obviously feels, but no one is asking this administration for apologizing for submitting a forged document to the security council pertaining to Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy nuclear rods. As a matter of fact, I find it interesting that the American press was more concerned about what an entertainer said, then what this administration is actually doing.



And no one is asking Saddam to apologize for torturing men who disagree with him, or ordering women raped in front of their husbands, or their children, or gassing thousands of defenseless people...

Oh, wait, I forgot. George Bush is much worse, right? Tell that to the people whose fathers have "disappeared" or been mutilated for life. Or maybe they're "forgeries" too, huh. Whatever.

[sulamith]

I was getting ready to respond with something very similar to what Nancy said, and now I see I don't need to do that.

Touche, Nancy!

Also, I don't really have a problem with what Natalie said, really. Anyone who gets their politics solely from an entertainer needs their head examined. I would hope most intelligent people would just take it with a grain of salt and keep going.

-Sharon

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by sodascouts
And no one is asking Saddam to apologize for torturing men who disagree with him, or ordering women raped in front of their husbands, or their children, or gassing thousands of defenseless people...

Oh, wait, I forgot. George Bush is much worse, right? Tell that to the people whose fathers have "disappeared" or been mutilated for life. Or maybe they're "forgeries" too, huh. Whatever.

Yeah, let's also get Saddam to apologize for taking the anthrax, VX and assorted weapons and helicopters from us all those years ago too. What was he thinking?

No question, Saddam sucks. War sucks more.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Yeah, let's also get Saddam to apologize for taking the anthrax, VX and assorted weapons and helicopters from us all those years ago too. What was he thinking?


I knew I would get this predictable response. Yeah, the U.S. was wrong there, but that doesn't make Saddam right. According to this logic, Saddam could bomb America and it still would be justifiable!

War does indeed suck, and I am not blase about that or dismissive of such concerns. It is, however, justified sometimes and this is one of those times. I know I'm in the minority here but I feel somebody needs to say these things. This isn't about George Bush. It's about Saddam Hussein and I think a lot of people either forget that or choose to ignore it.

[John Run]

Originally posted by jeffs

I would love for Peacekeeper to be another hit single for Lindsey but we have a better chance of Sadam leaving Iraq in the next 36 hours and moving to the US to embark on a university speech circuit than Peacekeeper gaining national popularity as a single and getting significant air time. I have yet to hear it in NYC though it has been played. Every radio station has made fun of how lousy the song is. Don't flame me - I am one of Lindsey's biggest fans to the point of nuaseum. [/B]

You know Jeff, I think you just try to get a rise out of this board. While you have never heard any station playing Peacekeeper, you have heard all the DJ's make fun of it...Give me a break! I am sure a bunch of DJ's are wasting air time trashing a song they are not playing. Furthermore you have been on a tirade for a week about how Peacekeeper is not a hit. You know what ,it probably will be a moderate radio success based on the number of adds. It was the most added added track in two formats last week. Finally, 3 different radio stations that I have heard play it, the DJ's have heaped praise on the song. Must be offering counterpoint to the DJ's you listen to that don't play the song, only trash it.

[CarneVaca]

Nancy, I understand your position, and you are not alone. I don't question your motives. But I don't believe a war is justified unless we are attacked first or there is indisputable evidence that we were about to be attacked. A recent poll shows that about 40 percent of respondents thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Doesn't that bother you? It's simply untrue, but it indicates that our government, through relentless deceptive propaganda, has struck fear into the hearts of a lot of people. Have you ever made a decision in fear? Decisions in fear tend not to be the best decisions one makes.

All this talk about installing democracy in Iraq is poppycock, and I will be proven right about this. You'll see. By the way, the LA Times reported last week on a secret State Department report that there's no way in hell democracy is going to happen as a result of this war. And furthermore, "entrenched economic and social problems are likely to undermine even basic stability for years to come." This is George W.'s own State Department! Doesn't that trouble you? The CIA has said we will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks as a result fo the war. We are on Orange Alert again, and do you have any idea the havoc that causes here in New York for someone riding the train daily? It pisses me off! Our own military is divided on how many troops and how long it would take to stabilize Iraq after this war. The government refuses to tell us their estimates for the cost of the war. We have been lied to and the people we "elected" are refusing to listen to us? How can these people be trusted to install democracy anywhere when they are ignoring democracy at home?

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by John Run
While you have never heard any station playing Peacekeeper, you have heard all the DJ's make fun of it...Give me a break! I am sure a bunch of DJ's are wasting air time trashing a song they are not playing.

I wondered about that, too. How bogus.

[stefan]

Originally posted by sodascouts
And no one is asking Saddam to apologize for torturing men who disagree with him, or ordering women raped in front of their husbands, or their children, or gassing thousands of defenseless people...

Oh, wait, I forgot. George Bush is much worse, right? Tell that to the people whose fathers have "disappeared" or been mutilated for life. Or maybe they're "forgeries" too, huh. Whatever.

Well in order to prevent these people from living under dictatorship you could bomb them away so they are suffering no more.

Of course Saddam is a dictator. But first it`s not the business of the US government to interfere where it wants. There are btw a lot of international places where you could interfere then. For being the international conscience Mr Bush is not in the right state. He fought against terrorists using US weapons in Afghanistan and so he will in Irak too. But that`s a different topic.

In fact there`s a young and fragile but nevertheless existing balance of international relationships built since the end of the iron curtain. It`s most important council is the UNO. Even George Bush senior asked for "partners in leadership" and not for vassal satellite- like subjection. The concern of the UN Resolution 1441 is not about preventing Saddam Hussein from reigning as a dictator. It`s clearly about certain ways of disarming controlled by Hans Blix and the other UN inspectors. This process= the goal of the Resolution 1441 was developing in the last weeks and months. A military threat by the Irak to it's neighbours nor to the rest of the world is as a fact not existing at this moment. This is why there was no majority in the UN council, although the US administration exerted pressure on several countries like Mexico and others in order to make them vote for the war. By ignoring the UNO and going to war the US administration uses the right of the strongest (sorry for the term I don`t know the exact term in english) This does neither work in democracies (internal affairs) nor between countries on the international/multilateral stage.
And this ideology is a very dangerous one. Once you open that door it`s hard to get back on the original track. This is a severe damage of international balance and the UNO. Everyone could feel free to follow this example.
Btw the US administration also does serious harm to the countries own reputation as a defender of democracy and freedom (as always stated) which is the minor thing regarding thousands of men and women in Iraq are going to be killed.
It is not the last alternative! And so Mr. Bush isolating his country by going to war without international legitimation commits in my opinion a crime.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Nancy, I understand your position, and you are not alone. I don't question your motives. But I don't believe a war is justified unless we are attacked first or there is indisputable evidence that we were about to be attacked.

I understand - but even "indisputable evidence" will be disputed by people who refuse to believe anything they are told that doesn't gel with their world view. The administration does have evidence, but there are always people claiming that their documents are forgeries, or that videos/photographs have been doctored, or that their polls are false, etc. etc. Some people already have their minds made up and will dismiss anything short of bombs falling on their heads. And a few of those folks would probably figure out a way to blame the administration for even that!

A recent poll shows that about 40 percent of respondents thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Doesn't that bother you? It's simply untrue, but it indicates that our government, through relentless deceptive propaganda, has struck fear into the hearts of a lot of people. Have you ever made a decision in fear? Decisions in fear tend not to be the best decisions one makes.

Well, I have been watching this same "propaganda" and I don't believe that Saddam initiated 911. I don't remember hearing that Saddam masterminded that. I do remember hearing that Al-Qa'ida has links to Iraq. I believe that.

All this talk about installing democracy in Iraq is poppycock, and I will be proven right about this. You'll see.

Obviously I can't argue with this hypothetical but I certainly hope you are wrong.

By the way, the LA Times reported last week on a secret State Department report that there's no way in hell democracy is going to happen as a result of this war. And furthermore, "entrenched economic and social problems are likely to undermine even basic stability for years to come." This is George W.'s own State Department! Doesn't that trouble you?

I am worried about Iraq because I know that the truth is that installing democracy is not easily accomplished and certainly will not be done overnight. Yes, it will take years. But Iraq is going to benefit from this. They are suffering under Saddam. When he is gone, it will be a long, hard road, but they will be better off. Did you know that after the Gulf War Iraqis staged a revolt? It failed because the US didn't help them out, and those who participated - as well as their relatives - were tortured and massacred. Are we going to leave them to that fate again?

The CIA has said we will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks as a result fo the war.

Decisions in fear tend not to be the best decisions one makes. :)

Our own military is divided on how many troops and how long it would take to stabilize Iraq after this war. The government refuses to tell us their estimates for the cost of the war. We have been lied to and the people we "elected" are refusing to listen to us? How can these people be trusted to install democracy anywhere when they are ignoring democracy at home?

This war will be expensive. That's a fact of life. I for one think the money is well-spent. And of course, as I said earlier, people will always maintain that whatever the government says is a lie. Also, policy should not be dictated by polls, but even if it were, a majority of Americans support the war (oops, those polls are false lies, right?) Therefore, I believe that the argument that the American govermment does not act as a democracy is a flawed one at best.

I'm sorry I have gone on so long but I feel really passionate about this. My father works for Mobil (now ExxonMobil) and works in Saudi Arabia. I was living there when the Gulf War occurred. My mother, sister, and I were evacuated and my dad was given a gas mask. All we could do was pray Saddam didn't point his weapons of mass destruction my father's way. My parents still live over there, and the gas masks are once again being passed out.

I'm not saying my experience gives me added authority - I know there are people who are a lot more threated by Saddam than my parents are - like you guys in Israel! But, for me at least, it brings home the fact that he is indeed a dangerous man. He must be disarmed, and it's become painfully obvious military action is the only way to accomplish this goal.

OK, I am going to step back a bit now and let other people talk. (Well, I intend to do that, we'll see if I actually stick by it. lol It's spring break and I have lots of time, after all!)

[CarneVaca]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sodascouts
The administration does have evidence, but there are always people claiming that their documents are forgeries, or that videos/photographs have been doctored, or that their polls are false, etc. etc. Some people already have their minds made up and will dismiss anything short of bombs falling on their heads. And a few of those folks would probably figure out a way to blame the administration for even that!

Sorry, Nancy, I just don't believe these jokers. They have already been caught in some lies, i.e., the aluminum tubes they claimed were being used for nuclear weapons, which as it turns out, cannot be used for that end. And, yes, they have forged documents, as have previous administrations. There's no doubt in my mind they have lied to us. And will continue to.

Well, I have been watching this same "propaganda" and I don't believe that Saddam initiated 911. I don't remember hearing that Saddam masterminded that. I do remember hearing that Al-Qa'ida has links to Iraq. I believe that.

You're a well-informed person. A lot of people who hear these claims about links to Al Qaida are just taking that at face value, and the administration knows damn well that is the effect these constant deceptions will have on the less-informed people. That's why they pay millions of dollars to PR consultants.

Obviously I can't argue with this hypothetical but I certainly hope you are wrong.

I tell you what, we'll revisit this in a few months.

Did you know that after the Gulf War Iraqis staged a revolt? It failed because the US didn't help them out, and those who participated - as well as their relatives - were tortured and massacred. Are we going to leave them to that fate again?

Yes, I am aware of that. And it's all the more reason for me to not have faith in what our government is telling us it is going to do. Also, remember Vietnam. We were lied to then. I think that's beyond question at this point. I could point to a lot of other examples, but I think that's enough.

Decisions in fear tend not to be the best decisions one makes. :)

Right you are. My point is not to cave in to fear; it's to put our resources where they are most useful.

This war will be expensive. That's a fact of life. I for one think the money is well-spent.

Well, considering that mayors and governors all over the country, and even officials in the city that suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, say they are not getting enough money from the feds to protect us, I would say that spending billions and billions of dollars on an unnecessary war is not money well-spent.

I know there's a lot of concern about weapons of mass destruction, but we seem to have lost sight of the fact that the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airliners, and that 14 out of 19 were Saudis, not Iraqis.

I hope your family will be safe in Saudi Arabia. I understand your concerns. Somehow I think they would be safer without this war.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by stefan
And so Mr. Bush isolating his country by going to war without international legitimation commits in my opinion a crime.

I think this is a very ideological statement. However, we must live in the real world. Of course it would be better for the United States to go to war with the backing of all of our supposed allies and the United Nations. But it was becoming increasingly evident that this was never going to happen. For God's sake, it seems the French would sooner allow Saddam to occupy Paris than to take a serious look at this situation.

The fact of the matter is, the longer this is put off, the more of a danger Saddam is likely to become for the entire world. He's already had over 10 years to play around with. Should the world keep farting around for another 10 while we let him acquire nuclear capabilities? It's got to end sometime, and that was the point of resolution 1441. I think President Bush has done more than enough to prove that Saddam is in definate violation of this resolution and I think it's a damn shame the the rest of the world who agreed to it refuse to live up to their own words. We can inspect forever, does that mean that Saddam will disarm? Hell no!

I am not a warmonger, and I do not like war any more than the rest of the world. If there were another way to rid the world of Saddam, then I would be all for it. The problem is, I don't know of another way.

Now to bring this back to music-
As far as what the Dixie Chicks comments go- I think it's somewhat disgraceful. I have a cousin who is a navigator in the airforce who is currently stationed in the Persian Gulf. I think that at this time, Americans should support our military forces who must serve now, and to undermind their commander-in-cheif in such a juvenile way, regardless of whether or not we agree with him- is embarrasing to the coutry and embarassing to our fellow citizens in the Gulf. That being said, I don't think it's necessary to ban their music or burn their records. That's a bit much.

[Bella Figura]

I know Stevie is doing the right thing about keeping her political opinions to herself and I should probably do the same. However just in response to Carne following statement:

"just from the people around me, I'd say it's more like 75 percent against the war. Of course, I am in New York. "

I'm also in NY however I am about 60 miles North of the City and the percentage turns around up here. More people support the objectives of WAR because we want to remain free peace loving people. Working class people who commute to NY as fireman and cops and/or stay at home raising families. But we are all tired of living in fear...this fear has been led by a media-feeding frenzy of terrorism, war and hate, exploiting the views of Bin Laden, Iraq and Korea and now to even those countries that are supposed to be our allies. So we are willing to support our troops (which btw, working class people and their sons and daughters make up the largest part of the military), our President (which btw I did not vote for but would never disrespect) and the probability we will have to fight to save our world and the values that it stands for by ourselves, again.

A lesson I have learned myself the hard way as a child in the schoolyard...the only way to stop a bully from his behavior is to stand up to them. Bullies really understand the true effects of fear and intimidation much better than a rational peaceful person. The Appeasement concept is never understood by a bully, it is too reasonable/rational, too grown-up a way to think, and is always misinterpreted as a "green light" for more unacceptable behavior. A bully always sees peace (even the reasonable cease-fire in '91) as weakness...

I, too, heard Peacekeeper on the Drudge Report and found myself laughing that a song about a missle is an anti-war statement. Especially when Lindsey actually removed a key phrase "only kill" to be PC. He should have left it as is rather then caving to the "pop"ular...true art should never cave into intimidation. As far as the Hollywood situation...an artist really should express themselves primarily through their art and if I had my way, stop telling the rest of us how to think, war is not a fashion statement...I can make up my own mind. I'm on-guard not to be manipulated by my goverment but are we as well defensed against manipulation by our favorite celebrities?? I absolutely adore John Lennon but I have to blame him for his part in starting all this "political activism" on the part of celebrities.

I was very tempted to email Lindsey's original version to the Drudge Report but maybe a better song to send him would be Stevie's beautiful and haunting and once again timely...Desert Angel...

[Les]

I, too, heard Peacekeeper on the Drudge Report and found myself laughing that a song about a missle is an anti-war statement.

While that's an interesting theory that has been tossed around here on the boards to great discussion, that is not what Lindsey indicates the song is about. As succinctly as I can put it, Lindsey says the song is about how destructive events affect families and individuals and it's about wondering what the ideal of "peace" really means.

He said something interesting in the AOL Broadband interview about this song. He said that he kept it purposely ambiguous in part because he feels art should have an ambiguity, but also in part because if only one interpretation is possible, then it is probably bordering on propaganda, which isn't his intention.

Just wanted to toss that in...though it has little bearing on the larger discussion. Hehe. ;)

[Bella Figura]

Hi Les, yes you're right, Lindsey has his own interpretation but his art is now out there for public consumption and someone turned me on to that interpretation of the song and I gotta go with it....

FYI, the US is testing our Peacekeeper Missles out in California this week!!! some kind of tune-up :confused:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Bella Figura
But we are all tired of living in fear...this fear has been led by a media-feeding frenzy of terrorism, war and hate, exploiting the views of Bin Laden, Iraq and Korea and now to even those countries that are supposed to be our allies. So we are willing to support our troops (which btw, working class people and their sons and daughters make up the largest part of the military), our President (which btw I did not vote for but would never disrespect) and the probability we will have to fight to save our world and the values that it stands for by ourselves, again.


Is bombing the crap out of Iraq, two thirds of whose population is 22 or under, going to stop us from living in fear? We are bombing a nation of children. Would Osama bin Laden have become a problem for us if the Gulf War didn't happen? Would the Gulf War have to have happened if we hadn't armed Saddam to the teeth with assorted weapons, ballistic, chemical and biological? Would we have armed Saddam to the teeth if there had not been an Islamic revolution in Iran? Would the revolution have happened if we hadn't backed a tyrant hellbent on repressing the Iranian nation?

I could talk about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, take a trip to Indonesia, over to Africa to places like Angola, leap across the ocean to Argentina, Venezuela, Honduras, Cuba, etc. But I won't, lest anyone think I'm un-American for simply pointing out that it has never been in our interest to support democracy. By God, if it had, we might just have supported Castro after he threw out the US-backed dictator and turned to the Communist Soviets when we turned our back on him.

But I digress.

My point: What are we failing to foresee this time? We can see by looking at the history of our and British involvement in the Middle East that there is a reaction for every action. For that matter, we could go back to the Romans vs. the Ottomans.

This time we have no excuse. There has been plenty of analysis about the can of worms that may be opened with this war. Because make no mistake, just as each of our previous actions in the region has come back to bite us in the cu, so will this one. The sad part is that there are plenty of warning signs and our administration has chosen to ignore them. Our administration has chosen to ignore its CIA, its State Department and even some of its Defense officials.

Is it possible -- is it possible -- that our administration is wrong and the CIA, the State Department and half of our military superiors, as well as 90 percent of the world, are right? Does that possibility even enter the minds of people who are supporting this war?

Stefan is right. Irreparable harm has been done here to relationships between nations. I hope to God we don't live to pay dearly for our current actions.

Bella Figura, I know your heart is in the right place. And ultimately we are going to agree to disagree. I just hope you understand where I'm coming from.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Is bombing the crap out of Iraq, two thirds of whose population is 22 or under, going to stop us from living in fear?

The short answer to your question here is obviously no. BUT - if you had phrased it differently, for example, "Will removing Saddam Hussein from power stop Americans from living in fear", I would say that it certainly couldn't hurt. After all, the goal of the war is to remove him from power, not to "bomb the crap out of Iraq." Granted, he is not the world's only threat, but he's right up there with the best of them.

The problem with that is, I'm still not sure if our feelings toward Saddam are a result of our government's propaganda against him, or if he is a viable threat. That is what keeps me, and probably many other people, on the fence somewhat.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
The short answer to your question here is obviously no. BUT - if you had phrased it differently, for example, "Will removing Saddam Hussein from power stop Americans from living in fear", I would say that it certainly couldn't hurt. After all, the goal of the war is to remove him from power, not to "bomb the crap out of Iraq." Granted, he is not the world's only threat, but he's right up there with the best of them.

The problem with that is, I'm still not sure if our feelings toward Saddam are a result of our government's propaganda against him, or if he is a viable threat. That is what keeps me, and probably many other people, on the fence somewhat.

I know for a fact Saddam has never infringed on my freedom or threatened my safety, regardless of what out administration tells me. Dreamer, think about the unintended consequences of our past actions in the region. Maybe that will get you off the fence.

[Les]

Originally posted by Bella Figura
Hi Les, yes you're right, Lindsey has his own interpretation but his art is now out there for public consumption and someone turned me on to that interpretation of the song and I gotta go with it....

Certainly, whatever you like. I sort of suspect you're going with that interpretation in part to make your point to "someone," so I just thought I'd toss in an alternate point of view of the song from the artist himself, since the song can be interpretated any number of ways. ;)

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I know for a fact Saddam has never infringed on my freedom or threatened my safety, regardless of what out administration tells me. Dreamer, think about the unintended consequences of our past actions in the region. Maybe that will get you off the fence.

I agree with you about the unintended consequenses of our past actions. That is a very, very good point.

I have a difficult time explaining how I feel about this matter, I think because my opinon changes so often. Something inherant within me feels that Saddam is a ticking timebomb (again, that's probably thanks to our gov't), and I just feel that as long as he is in power, we are somehow unsafe. I guess that is a bit of an irrational fear. But Carne, do you honestly feel that Saddam would not jump at the chance to provide those individuals who are more than willing to inflict harm upon Americans with the weapons to do it?

The sad thing is, as I have said before, the US can be its own worst enemy, and its not as if Saddam has never received any provocation from us to warrant him to want to do this.

I can see both sides of the argument clearly, and that's why when I hear about his alleged weapons and human rights violations, it really pushes me to the pro-war side because I think, why not just go in there and get rid of him? But as you noted, in addition to the fact that "war ain't pretty," there will most likely be several unforeseen ramifications of our actions. It's a tough decision to make. I just hope we're doing what's right.

[Gazza]

Gazza, I'm curious as to why releasing anti-war songs puts you off. I find it ballsy and necessary. The Rolling Stones were the only band to release an anti Gulf War song in 1991, and my respect for Mick and the boys grew exponentially as a result.


My respect for Mick has come from him just being a great performer, and The Stones writing fantastic songs. That's what I want from them - not their opinions on war.

It puts me off, because invariably they're saying nothing new, and just making sure their opinion is being heard. I couldn't care less what their opinions are personally. If the song is good though - it's good. But, lyrically it's not going to touch me like say "Wild Horses" does.

George Michael in particular has been bugging me these last few weeks. He's gone on every chat here in the UK speaking out against War and really looking like a bit of a fool imo. I think it's a shame when popstars get invited on shows to talk about their feelings on this War, when there are far better, and more well informed people to talk about the subject.

Saying all this though... The anti war music was much better back in the 70s. Who do we have now? Ms. Dynamite over here. Depressing times!

I don't want to get into a debate on this War... It's the same arguments, and counter arguments, thrown back and forth all the time, and the truth is - not one of us knows for sure what the end result will be - yet for some reason certain people speak like they do.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
But Carne, do you honestly feel that Saddam would not jump at the chance to provide those individuals who are more than willing to inflict harm upon Americans with the weapons to do it?


I honestly think that if he wanted to, he could have already. It is highly unlikely, based on his persona, that he would want to "share the glory," if you will of striking at the US. If he could, he would have done so, but not through others. Also, there are conflicting reports over just what he does or does not have. If you watched Dick Cheney on Meet the Press on Sunday, you might have picked up a contradiction or two in his answers. It's just too bad that Tim Russert has turned into a cream puff and didn't hold his feet to the fire.

Check this out, from the Washington Post (which by the way has editorially endorsed going to war, as opposed to the New York Times):

Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq

by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank

As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged -- and in some cases disproved -- by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports.

For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has "reconstituted nuclear weapons." Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night.

But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the administration's evidence -- such as Bush's assertion that Iraq sought to purchase uranium -- has been refuted by subsequent discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.

In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 "if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax." He then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al Qaeda leaders "have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years."

But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless he decided helping "terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities."

ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons and "it was highly unlikely" that the tubes could have been used to produce nuclear material.

Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was "wrong" about Iraq's nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility.

Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address.

In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications.

Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled "even as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles." But the only intelligence was electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about being able to build missiles in the future, according to a senior intelligence analyst.

Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing "the power of freedom to transform that vital region" and said "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But a classified State Department report put together by the department's intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it.

In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, last October, Bush said, "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can travel less than 200 miles -- not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the administration has not presented any evidence that they still exist.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[dissention]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I knew I would get this predictable response. Yeah, the U.S. was wrong there, but that doesn't make Saddam right. According to this logic, Saddam could bomb America and it still would be justifiable!

War does indeed suck, and I am not blase about that or dismissive of such concerns. It is, however, justified sometimes and this is one of those times. I know I'm in the minority here but I feel somebody needs to say these things. This isn't about George Bush. It's about Saddam Hussein and I think a lot of people either forget that or choose to ignore it.

Hi Nancy,

I respect your opinion whoeheartedly and respect you for saying hat you feel, but I completely disagree. This IS about George Bush.

It is an attempt for him to take control of Iraq and, more importantly, its oil supply in order to further our position as a superpower. This war with Iraq will either make or break him. He has built it up so much that he has to go to war to save face. He hasn't justified it AT ALL.

Iraq hasn't threatened us in years. Bush is using the events of 9/11 to push forward with this war; masking it under patriotism and a fight against terrorism.

George Bush makes my skin crawl and it makes me feel ashamed that I live in a country that he is in charge of. I despise him and his entire administration of warmongers.

THIS WILL BE A WAR LIKE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN.

I do not support this war or our President. Not in my name.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Very interesting article. With all the conflicting information, it's no wonder that I'm so confused about which way to go. Thanks for passing it on. :)

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by dissention
Hi Nancy,

I respect your opinion whoeheartedly and respect you for saying hat you feel, but I completely disagree. This IS about George Bush.

It is an attempt for him to take control of Iraq and, more importantly, its oil supply in order to further our position as a superpower. This war with Iraq will either make or break him. He has built it up so much that he has to go to war to save face. He hasn't justified it AT ALL.

Iraq hasn't threatened us in years. Bush is using the events of 9/11 to push forward with this war; masking it under patriotism and a fight against terrorism.

George Bush makes my skin crawl and it makes me feel ashamed that I live in a country that he is in charge of. I despise him and his entire administration of warmongers.

THIS WILL BE A WAR LIKE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN.

I do not support this war or our President. Not in my name.

I'm sorry you despise him so much. Perhaps that has colored your perception of his intentions and motivations. I think personalizing the issue to George Bush greatly weakens any anti-war argument. Do you really believe that he sits in the White House, cackling and rubbing his hands together eagerly at the prospect of war, when the lives of our servicemen are involved? The man is not the devil!

If I were him I would make exactly the same decision. Does that make me a despicable warmonger?

[stefan]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
I think this is a very ideological statement. However, we must live in the real world. Of course it would be better for the United States to go to war with the backing of all of our supposed allies and the United Nations. But it was becoming increasingly evident that this was never going to happen. For God's sake, it seems the French would sooner allow Saddam to occupy Paris than to take a serious look at this situation.



I believe to live in the real world. A war can be a reaction to a current threat and if I get offended. Both is not the case. The French and thankgood our administration in Germany too and some others have this time stood against the US pressure in saying no. Of course we now are "the old Europe" as Mr Rumsfeld stated (great name btw - you know what that means in German, where it comes from???) In fact the UN and their inspectors worked successfully. And obviously the disarming of Iraq was still in process. No one can seriously maintain that Iraq is still a military threat at the moment. To stop this successful work in process makes no sense. It just shows that the decision for this war has been made a very long time ago and the UNO debate was just an alibi to get the international "go". But it worked out differently and got complicated... To use the UN in such a way saying: if you do what we want, it's important and relevant and if you don't do what we want we do it anyway is an interesting view of international relationships. It is as I stated above the survival of the fittest and the right of the strongest. Imagine that in your personal life. I think you're glad that there is justice and independent courts and certain civil rights aren't you? And even in international affairs there are rules, which have to be followed. And even worse this one is a provident war (Präventivkrieg- how is the english term?) offensive war not to defend myself. The technical point of view- going to Bagdad and getting rid of Saddam, a missile shown on TV here and there like surgery- it doesn't work that way! Thousands of men and woman are going to die and it`s not a safe adventure on the TV screen. I don't think it`s ideological and
far from the real world and I also think it`s a serious look at the situation to say that this move by Mr Bush opened a door and destroys international balance systems which were built up in a very long time. Now we're back to foreign policy of the 19th century in building coalitions 3 against 3.
And yes I think it should be this way: if the UN says no then it should be no. Even for the US government. Btw- they expect us to be there when it comes to rebuild the Iraq, getting doctors and money and UN troops over there to keep things going after the war. In my opinion all this is a diplomatic desaster and will be a human tragedy. Remember that when Peter Arnett or whoever shows you the surgery work of the US missiles.

[Sugar]

And I don't claim to be an expert at foreign affairs, but I have heard a couple interesting things I thought I'd throw in...

As far as Iraq's association with bin Laden and Al Qaida, some argue that it's highly unlikely. First, bin Laden and his followers are religious fundamentalists, wheras Saddam basically IS the religion in Iraq. So at the core these two groups have little in common. Also, it's somewhat unlikely that Saddam would do anything with his weapons other than keep them. HE wants the glory. HE wants the power. Chances are he's not going to give, or even sell, them to anyone else so THEY can reap the glory. No doubt he's a monster, but most think he's a monster in a cage.

OK so we're not going to war because of Iraq's association with bin Laden, but to liberate the Iraqis and bring democracy to the region. ASIDE from the financial commitment this would require, most don't seem to think the surrounding countries would tolerate a democratic Iraq. Afterall, most Middle Eastern countries are totalarian dictatorships...why would they want all this democracy in their backyards, convincing their citizens that they have rights and freedoms and stuff. SO what are the chances of democracy succeeding then?

And if we're just in this because we like helping oppressed people, there's a whole bunch of Africans who would love to hear from us. Sierra Leone anyone? Or don't they count?

I can't be completly sure of Bush's motivations, but I really don't think they're in the best interest of this country. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm real worried about where we'll be in a year. Lest I bring up North Korea and the mistake I think we're making ignoring them.

I'll stop for now...gonna go hang with my daughter. Good for my soul.


:) :nod:

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by stefan
In fact the UN and their inspectors worked successfully. And obviously the disarming of Iraq was still in process. No one can seriously maintain that Iraq is still a military threat at the moment. To stop this successful work in process makes no sense.

I think I need a dose of that German propoganda that makes people think that the inspections were actually working and that Iraq has no dangerous weaopons that are a threat to our servicemen in the gulf! I guess that's why our troops have been issued gas masks and protective clothing in which to drudge around the 120 degree desert! If you think the inspections were working the way they should, I still contest that you are living in a dream world. Again, I'm not saying that justifies military action, but what then would you do? Let the inspectors inspect for the next 30 years until Saddam dies of natural causes and his even more meniacal son takes charge? I can totally understand the anti-war argument, but I do not understand an arguement that suggests complacency to allow Saddam to stay in power as long as these bogus inspections continue.

[stefan]

Well reading your statement of German propaganda is a funny thing. Stands for itself and I won`t comment it. Hans Blix by the way comes from Sweden. That was my part of the political discussion. CU on the music threads again.

[Sugar]

I wanna know what Rumsfeld means!:wavey:

[stefan]

Well feld is the german term for "field". And "rums" is a common term (not highlanguage) for a very loud noise caused by accident, if you fall from your chair or by throwing the door or throwing a bomb. So put this together and you get a very appropriate name for the position he has. :laugh:

So goodnight now from overseas, S

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by stefan
The French and thankgood our administration in Germany too and some others have this time stood against the US pressure in saying no.

Hmm, just saw on the news these very countries want to get in on the rebuilding of Iraq after regime change is accomplished... funny how that goes...

And you are aware of the millions of dollars French has invested in oil contracts with Hussein that perhaps flavored their stance on regime change an itsy bitsy bit? That even the French used to refer to him jokingly as "Jacques Iraq" because of how cozy he was with Saddam going back YEARS?

When they said they would veto anything the US put on the table, REGARDLESS Of content, if it mentioned something as basic as a disarmament deadline ultimatum for Saddam, you know exactly what they're worried about, and it's not world peace.

There's only one reason why the French wouldn't want any kind of enforced deadline: BECAUSE THEY KNOW SADDAM WOULD NEVER MEET ONE. They know he has NO INTENTION of disarming EVER. So much for the success of disarmament through Hans Blix (who, earlier today, said it woud be "interesting" (!) to see what the US found once they entered Iraq and scientists could speak freely.) But I think SomthngOfADreamr already successfully addressed that.

I have to say, I have a lot more respect for anti-war Americans than I do for the French government, who voted for 1441 KNOWING FULL WELL they would never follow through with it. That's a FACT. Oh, but they DID say, that if Saddam used chemical weapons on our troops, that would be the proof they needed to admit they were wrong! THEN they might send troops to help. Oh, THANK YOU! They COULDN'T CARE LESS that their tricks and delays might have put our soldiers at greater risk. They have acted DISGRACEFULLY.

BTW, I don't blame French people, just their government. It does infuriate me, though.

[Bella Figura]

no problem Carne Vaca, you are firm and passionate in your beliefs plus you also make sure you're educated on a subject before expressing your opinion. However being a New Yorker myself, I could not let you speak for me, I had to speak for myself.

this should give you a laugh since it's in the same vein as your response to me: I was giving my hubby a good teasing sh**t about how his people are totally at fault for the current state of affairs we find ourselves in today. After all if the Romans hadn't destroyed the Jewish Temple and drove the Jews out of their homeland in 70AD, none of this would be happening today.

but then, we would be dealing with other violence so who can tell??? violence exists within each one of us, it just takes the right fuse. and Carne, you're right, the Gulf War spawned both Bin Laden (but I have to think since he was done with the Russians he was gunning for us anyway, he just really needed an excuse) and Tim McVeigh, well, his nightmare is done.

our best chance for the longest survival of the human race (not the world, it'll be here long after we're extinct) is the ability to listen, really listen, not just waiting for your turn to vent, without closing our ears to other's views/beliefs/ideas/opinions.

I personally respect the peace marchers, I don't agree with them this time but peaceful protest is one of the masses few political weapons (voting and rioting being the others)...

so Carne, I'll listen to your opinions and praise for Lindsey and you listen to my opinions and praise for Stevie...and we'll be happy Ledgies

[CarneVaca]

Ah, Bella Figura, it is a pleasure to disagree with you. And I mean that in the most positive of ways: you have a knack for cultivating the respect you earn because you address issues in very thoughtful, unconfrontational ways. I could learn a thing or two from you. (Stop the presses! You read that right.)

And Sodascouts, don't think you're getting off this one easily either: I like the way you go at an issue with so much gusto, even when we disagree. I respect how you guys stand on this because I know you truly believe it is the right thing to do.

Also, Nancy, I should tell you I agree with you on the French question. And I don't mean to bash the French. I love cognac, French wine and Paris, which I consider the most beautiful city in the world (at least of the ones I've seen). But I do believe they are being disingenuous in all this. They have taken their stance based on business interests, no doubt about it. And as such, I place them at about the same level as our administration.

Stefan, I applaud the German stance. It seems to be the most morally driven position of all the major players. It is right for Germany to want peace. As it should be for all civilized nations.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by tommer
okay, that's consistent enough. (as usual) we gonna have to disagree about the rest.
at least i can give you my absolute assurance that not more than a 100 people or so outside america even know who the hell toby keith is, or cares for whatever he may have to say. so there is no need to worry.

You are quite right, sir. Natalie Maines is and always will be a much bigger star than Tobywhatshisname. It's a sad commentary on the radio and music industry in general that she had to cave to the corporate pressure she was under and apologize for her statement. Twenty years ago, something like this would have served to make the Chicks only more popular and every rock and roll dj would have been spinning the hell out of their records right now.
I am completely sickened that we are going to attack Iraq under the guise that "they had something to do with 9/11" or whatever the excuse du jour is. The idiot prince will get his war and God help us all.
As far as the Drudge report, I can't believe he's playing the song and likes it. Wonder who he's fronting for?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sodascouts
And no one is asking Saddam to apologize for torturing men who disagree with him, or ordering women raped in front of their husbands, or their children, or gassing thousands of defenseless people...

Oh, wait, I forgot. George Bush is much worse, right? Tell that to the people whose fathers have "disappeared" or been mutilated for life. Or maybe they're "forgeries" too, huh. Whatever.

Nancy,
I was reading the Village Voice online today and there is an article about how the weapons involved in the 1988 gassing were cyanide and mustard gas. The Kurds were killed by cyanide during a battle between Iran and Iraq. Iran used the cyanide. Our government and CIA have known about this for quite some time and have never chosen to share it with us. Saddam Hussein is a monster, a monster we created. We made SH what he is today by using him for our own purposes during our own problems with Iran. The US can not continue to police the world. There are many countries in the world where these atrocities are being commited and we have turned a blind eye to them. This whole situation has driven a huge wedge between us and some of our closest allies. In the eyes of the world right now (pardon the pun) the US looks very bad and justifiably so. The Bush administration would be much wiser to aid the Iraqi people in getting rid of Saddam. It takes much longer and it certainly doesn't make Mr. Bush's cronies wealthy but it can be done. I can't think of anytime in the history of our country where we attacked another country without provocation. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq are just sitting there, about 5 million in Baghdad alone, who can't afford to leave the city in the event of a bombing. Of course, not all of them are innocent but most of them are. In contrast, Saddam's Republican Guard only has 60,000 soldiers. We are sending 250,000. Can you imagine how those people must hate us right now? And how about after we've killed some of their loved ones? We are spending 90 billion dollars on this war. Personally, I'd rather fund the schools and get some kind of national health care plan going but the people who paid for W to win the election can't make any money off of that. Please do not think I am attacking you in any way Nancy, I'm not. I just can't believe this is happening and I for one feel like the American people have no say. I don't want a war. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
The short answer to your question here is obviously no. BUT - if you had phrased it differently, for example, "Will removing Saddam Hussein from power stop Americans from living in fear", I would say that it certainly couldn't hurt. After all, the goal of the war is to remove him from power, not to "bomb the crap out of Iraq."

The only way we are going to remove Saddam is to bomb the crap out of Iraq because unlike Bin Laden, Saddam is not going to go hide in a cave somewhere. He is going to hide in plain sight where it will force the US to use bombs and then ground troops to come in and get him.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
I agree with you about the unintended consequenses of our past actions. That is a very, very good point.

But Carne, do you honestly feel that Saddam would not jump at the chance to provide those individuals who are more than willing to inflict harm upon Americans with the weapons to do it?



That would be North Korea, who we should be very worried about at this point but we're pursuing diplomacy with them instead.:confused:

[CarneVaca]

This is what I'm talking about. From today's New York Times;

Operation Atlas, Shrugged Off
n these hours of suspense, as we wait for the opening shot of the war in Iraq, fear of retaliation has taken the nation to orange alert again. The federal government expects local communities to be hypervigilant. This is nothing new for New York City, which remains high on the list of targets for attack. But you would not know that by the level of support the city has gotten from the federal government.

New York is the chief example of the Bush administration's failure to underwrite the grass-roots war on terror. The city — in a position to offer a first line of domestic defense — has been left to fend for itself, relegated to the status of an ancient Greek city-state while Washington pretends that a national threat is manageable at the local level.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has mapped out a comprehensive plan, called Operation Atlas, for preventing attacks in the air, on land, on the waterways and in the subways, wherever people live, work, study, worship or recreate and wherever there are ports of entry. The price will be steep, with police overtime pushing the tab to some $5 million a week even as the city struggles to close a budget shortfall of more than $3 billion. City leaders are determined to deny any opportunity to those who would try to commit terrorism.

But this leaves hard choices for a city that has been suffering economically and psychically ever since Sept. 11. Already, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost — including slots for thousands of new police officers. Meanwhile, there has been a steady cost to the city for national security, about $110 million a year so far. President Bush promised help — $3.5 billion for first responders in localities across the nation — but it has remained mostly unfinanced. It may get ever more difficult to be heard while both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue are looking at an initial bill of tens of billions of dollars to attack Iraq and then begin rebuilding it.

But this moment may offer an opportunity to include the defensive needs of the most vulnerable sites on the home front as part of the larger supplemental financing for the war. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been lobbying Washington and says he is hopeful that the federal government will come through. Others are less optimistic.

Major cities around the nation are reeling from the combined effect of budget crises and the cost of antiterrorism efforts. New York is not alone in going all-out to keep the people safe right now. But as time grinds on and the costs become harder to bear, even the best efforts may slip if Washington fails to pay for the true costs of homeland defense.

[gldstwmn]

In an aside to this, we are snowed in here in Colorado. Denver International Airport had to be evacuated because there is so much snow on the tent like roof that it may collapse. There are two tears in it right now. The National Guard has been called in to help. However, there are 1500 less of them because those 1500 are on active duty in the Persian Gulf. So Carne, it is true. It is putting an extra strain on local governments everywhere and will continue to do so in ways we can and can not prepare for.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So Carne, it is true. It is putting an extra strain on local governments everywhere and will continue to do so in ways we can and can not prepare for.

Thanks.

But I gotta say this: Are you kidding me!? The roof might cave in!? Isn't this the newest airport in the country? Wow!

I'm glad they evacuated everyone though.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

They don't send National Guard troops abroad ever. I think whoever you heard that from was confusing them with the reserves troops - they are two completely seperate entities. The National Guard does just what its name says it does - guards the nation. Their loyalties are actually to whichever individual state they reside in, not to the US government specifically. It goes way back to a state's right to form its own militia. The militia developed into today's National Guard. And nowhere are they more present than here in New York where it seems the National Guard is out in full force lately.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
They don't send National Guard troops abroad ever. I think whoever you heard that from was confusing them with the reserves troops - they are two completely seperate entities. The National Guard does just what its name says it does - guards the nation. Their loyalties are actually to whichever individual state they reside in, not to the US government specifically. It goes way back to a state's right to form its own militia. The militia developed into today's National Guard. And nowhere are they more present than here in New York where it seems the National Guard is out in full force lately.

That was a quote from the Governor of the State of Colorado on KUSA this morning. He did say National Guard reservists. He's stuck at home also if you want to give him a call.:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Thanks.

But I gotta say this: Are you kidding me!? The roof might cave in!? Isn't this the newest airport in the country? Wow!

I'm glad they evacuated everyone though.

Yeah, the roof looks like a circus tent. Someone thought it represented the mountains. It's some kind of treated canvas.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
That was a quote from the Governor of the State of Colorado on KUSA this morning. He did say National Guard reservists. He's stuck at home also if you want to give him a call.:laugh:

I rang him up and we got it all straightened out. It's all good now ;)

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca


And Sodascouts, don't think you're getting off this one easily either: I like the way you go at an issue with so much gusto, even when we disagree. I respect how you guys stand on this because I know you truly believe it is the right thing to do.


Why, thank you!

You aren't just trying to mollify me, now, are you CarinaVaca? lol

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by SmthngOfADreamr
I rang him up and we got it all straightened out. It's all good now ;)
:nod:

Would anyone like to come over and shovel? I'm doing it in cycles. I have a loooong driveway. Ugh!

[sodascouts]

I know I should give my mouth a rest, but oh well...

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Nancy,
I was reading the Village Voice online today and there is an article about how the weapons involved in the 1988 gassing were cyanide and mustard gas. The Kurds were killed by cyanide during a battle between Iran and Iraq. Iran used the cyanide. Our government and CIA have known about this for quite some time and have never chosen to share it with us. Saddam Hussein is a monster, a monster we created. We made SH what he is today by using him for our own purposes during our own problems with Iran.

I do think our government was wrong to aid Saddam. If anything, that makes it MORE important for us to clean up anything that might have occurred as a result.

And it's undeniable that Saddam has indeed gassed his own people, regardless of the fact that he may not have done so in the specific instance you are referring to. Not even the French dispute that. :)


The US can not continue to police the world. There are many countries in the world where these atrocities are being commited and we have turned a blind eye to them.

And that's a good thing? Should we not prosecute one criminal because there are other criminals out there as well? With that logic, no one should ever be held accountable for anything.

This whole situation has driven a huge wedge between us and some of our closest allies. In the eyes of the world right now (pardon the pun) the US looks very bad and justifiably so.

I've stated before just what I think of the so-called "close allies" who are giving America a hard time.

The Bush administration would be much wiser to aid the Iraqi people in getting rid of Saddam. It takes much longer and it certainly doesn't make Mr. Bush's cronies wealthy but it can be done.

We are aiding the Iraqi people in getting rid of Saddam - the sooner the better.


I can't think of anytime in the history of our country where we attacked another country without provocation.

You don't call his refusal to give up his weapons of mass-destruction provocation? This isn't Bush throwing a dart at a map of oil-rich countries, hitting Iraq, and crying "Let's attack that country!" It is a response to Iraq's actions.

Meanwhile, the people of Iraq are just sitting there, about 5 million in Baghdad alone, who can't afford to leave the city in the event of a bombing. Of course, not all of them are innocent but most of them are.

I'm not going to pretend that that's not doing to happen. But I blame Saddam, who is actually hiding weapons under hospitals and other civilian targets. Can you imagine?!

In contrast, Saddam's Republican Guard only has 60,000 soldiers. We are sending 250,000.

It is this very fact that will shorted the war and minimize the casualties you spoke of earlier.


Can you imagine how those people must hate us right now? And how about after we've killed some of their loved ones?

His own soldiers are already decrying him and trying to surrender to US troops. A great deal of them hate Saddam - perhaps because he's killed so many of their loved ones.

We are spending 90 billion dollars on this war. Personally, I'd rather fund the schools and get some kind of national health care plan going but the people who paid for W to win the election can't make any money off of that. [QUOTE]

More money should go here, more money should go there, that's an argument that will never be settled because no matter how much money a program gets, the people who run it want more.

[QUOTE] Please do not think I am attacking you in any way Nancy, I'm not. I just can't believe this is happening and I for one feel like the American people have no say. I don't want a war. :distress:

I know you're not attacking me. I know that everyone loves me. ;) It's natural not to want war - no one does - but I feel like our government is only doing what is necessary and in the best interests of Americans including you and me.

[gldstwmn]

Miss Nancy,
I didn't picture Mr. Bush throwing a dart at the map, that was Dick Cheney. By the way, has anyone seen Mr. Cheney in the last six months?:laugh: By the way I'm begining to wonder if Dick hasn't had some work done and is now calling himself Rummy?;) Hey, we agree to disagree and no one got banned in the process. How refreshing. We won't be laughing, though, when the bombs start to fall.
:distress:
My thoughts will be with your family and all the other families in the line of fire.
Off to shovel... :wavey: