Moron Musicians For Kerry

[Sgt Schultz]

Bands Gather to Stump Against Bush
By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press Writer
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/thorphalanx/morons.gif
NEW YORK - A collection of more than 20 prominent musicians from John Fogerty to Bruce Springsteen to Pearl Jam joined forces Wednesday calling for President Bush's ouster, announcing an unprecedented series of fund-raising concerts across nine swing states.

"I feel this is one of the most critical elections in my lifetime," Springsteen told The Associated Press in the most overtly political statement of his career. "This wasn't one that a concerned citizen felt comfortable sitting out."

Springsteen was joined by a collection of performers that spanned generations and genres: country act the Dixie Chicks, hip-hoppers Jurassic 5, bluesman Keb' Mo' and classic rockers John Mellencamp and Jackson Browne. The artists, touring under the "Vote for Change" banner, will play 34 shows in 28 cities between Oct. 1-8.

Springsteen's concerns and commitment were shared by other performers, including Dave Matthews and his band.

"It's the first time Bruce and the E Street Band ever stood up and made a clear political statement," Matthews told The AP. "This is the first time we've ever stood as a band, unified, and said we want a change."

The shows, which launch Oct. 1 in Pennsylvania, will take an unusual approach: as many as six concerts on a single day in cities across the states expected to decide the November presidential race. Other stops on the tour are North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and the key state in 2000, Florida.

The money generated will go to America Coming Together, which promises on its Web site to "derail the right-wing Republican agenda by defeating George W. Bush." The anticipated millions of dollars will be spent in the swing states before the presidential election, said ACT president Ellen Malcolm.

The shows will be presented by MoveOn Pac, the electoral arm of the liberal interest group MoveOn.org.

There was no immediate word on prices for tickets, which go on sale Aug. 21 for all the shows. The concerts will pair artists, such as Springsteen and REM, the Dixie Chicks and James Taylor (news), or Mellencamp and Kenny "Babyface" Edmonds.

Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, who memorably told a London audience last year that she was ashamed to share her home state of Texas with Bush, echoed Springsteen's comment about the importance of the Nov. 2 election.

"A change is in order," Maines said in an AP interview. "There's never been a political climate like this, which is so the polar opposite of me as a person and what I believe in."

The idea was hatched by several of the acts' managers, and quickly expanded. "Once we started talking to each other, ideas started percolating and other artists started reaching out to us," said Jon Landau, Springsteen's manager.

Many of the acts had a history of social activism, from Browne's anti-nuclear concerts to Mellencamp's Farm Aid shows. Pearl Jam front man Eddie Vedder was a Ralph Nader backer in 2000, but he feels Democratic nominee John Kerry is the choice this time around.

"There's a vote coming up, and a chance to have a regime change at home," Vedder told AP. "I'm feeling the same way, there's a need for change."

[FORD]

Morons??

Some of the most talented musicians in the history of recorded music here, you fucking idiot.

You want fascist music? Listen to Van Hagar. Sammy loves Junior, and he takes it up the ass from Ted Nugent. doesn't get more Republican than that.

[JCOOK]

Sorry but im' waiting for Vanilla Ice or maybe Wang Chung to weigh in on this one, Although Air Supply makes a good case for Kerry...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD


You want fascist music? Listen to Van Hagar. Sammy loves Junior, and he takes it up the ass from Ted Nugent.

If he takes it up the ass, I'm sure you'll want some of the action, huh, you fag? :spank: :blow:

[JCOOK]

Now thats' not very nice Im' sure FORD is really waiting on Bryan Adams before he makes up his mind.

[HELLVIS]

I think this tour should be called the...

My Last Album/Tour Sucked Ass Hence BUSHAPALOOZA

[FORD]

Bruce's last album did not suck. Neither did the Dixie Chicks album. However, I'll admit that REM has gone downhill without Bill Berry :(

[HELLVIS]

Really, have you heard the peices of shit PEARL JAM has been trying to

sell? And, what the fuck has "The Boss" done since The River. And,

why didn't Mellencamp flush that last turd he recorded? What about

Dave Matthews' last record's sales. Doesn't Jackson Brown have a

girlfriend to beat up on or somthing?

By the way, who the fuck are the rest of those opportunists?

[FORD]

The only Pearl Jam albums I've heard in quite a while are their own self released live albums. I couldn't tell you about Dave Matthews record sales, because I'm not a fan.

[HELLVIS]

Why don't you type me a few lines of Bruce's latest work?

I hear it's been tearin' up the airwaves...

Bullshit! When you do hear him (which isn't often these days), you

"Hear Born to run" or "Born in the USA".

I never pegged you to be a Dixie Chicks fan, so I must admit I feel

a bit taken aback, perplexed, in a quandry, confused even (as Snaggle

Puss would say).

[HELLVIS]

Another thought just occured to me.

Bruce is a lot like VAN HALEN, one might say.

Who the hell would want to listen to his new stuff, when they could be

listening to his classic stuff?

Anyone? Hello...Anybody...

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
Morons??

Some of the most talented musicians in the history of recorded music here, you fucking idiot.



...and this makes them socio-political wunderkinds?

These are babied entertainers who have less a conception of reality than... hell... you..

I'd say there's a moron here. You're just pointing in the wrong direction.

[HELLVIS]

One finger pointing out, how many pointing back?

[Warham]

I did respect some of these artists.

Not anymore.

[HELLVIS]

Yo!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
Morons??

Some of the most talented musicians in the history of recorded music here, you fucking idiot.

You want fascist music? Listen to Van Hagar. Sammy loves Junior, and he takes it up the ass from Ted Nugent. doesn't get more Republican than that.

Fucking idiot? Nice, but I won't stoop to your level and respond in kind.

"Talented musicians" definitely. And some extraordinary songwriting talent as well. I'd exclude the Dixie Chicks here though. First of all, new Country Music is cliché' drivel and the Chick's biggest hit was a Fleetwood Mac song (who I just saw a few months ago in concert).

A group that far surpasses the Dixie Chicks are the Indigo Girls, whom I have seen 5 times.

All that being said, the aforementioned bands' political views are naive, simplistic and narrow minded. This tour is pure self indulgency, not something that will actually result in more informed voters. Since it is all an exercise in preaching, or in this case, singing, to the choir, this will probably only rouse Bush voters.

[FORD]

A right wing Indigo Girls fan??

Now I've heard everything.
Guess you aren't paying attention to the lyrics?

[ULTRAMAN VH]

There's no bigger turn off than when Hollywood stars and musicians pretend they are political masterminds. A good portion of these clowns barely have high school diploma's. Stick with what your good at, entertaining the sheep. The only one who seems to get things done in the political arena without looking like an ass is Bono.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
A right wing Indigo Girls fan??

Now I've heard everything.
Guess you aren't paying attention to the lyrics?

I guess you are pretty narrow minded. The Indogo Girls are great.

[FORD]

I love the Indigo Girls. But they certainly don't disguise their political or philisophical viewpoints. That's why I'm surprised that they would have a fan who complains about musicians getting involved in politics.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
I love the Indigo Girls. But they certainly don't disguise their political or philisophical viewpoints. That's why I'm surprised that they would have a fan who complains about musicians getting involved in politics.

Fair enough. Yes, the Indigo Girls' have always been very vocal about their philisophical and political beliefs and there are some I actually agree with (along with Springsteen et al). I guess I'm not really complaining about musicians getting involved in politics I'm merely venting about their ill-advised notions about some things. I think artistically, spirutally, philisophically etc I belong in the Indogo Girls, Springsteen camp as opposed to the REALLY moronic COuntry Music camp.


I buy their music and if I think they are saying something stupid (hello, Van Halen) I feel the need to respond. Like here, where 10 people will read it.

I think this explains it best - I invest a lot in their music, on a lot of levels (financial being the smallest part), so I actually feel hurt when they put down their instruments and then attempt to touch on subjects of history, foregin policy, war and the military on a purely EMOTIONAL level. I know it may be hard for them to divorce their emotion, which is essential to their medium, from these matters but I think that it must be done to realize a sensible view on these matters. And even more, when they paint people who have so strongly invested in their music who happen to be supporters of Bush policies as Nazis and racists and homophobes and mean spirited it makes me angry. These musicians should open their minds about their audience - they may think they all basically agree with them about their life outlook, and they'd probably be right - but they can't then make the jump to their belief in politics. This is why I despise the marriage of art and politics. Art is best expressed on an emotional level, not a political one.

[ELVIS]

Amen to that!


FORD loves to let his emotions control his political thought processes...

I remember when some dumb girl was killed by a back hoe or something while trying to be a "human shield" in palestine...

FORD went nuts...


:elvis:

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Amen to that!


FORD loves to let his emotions control his political thought processes...

I remember when some dumb girl was killed by a back hoe or something while trying to be a "human shield" in palestine...

FORD went nuts...


:elvis:


So now it's wrong to have an "emotional" reaction to a brutal sensless murder??

Fuck politics. Politics have nothing to do with fascist fucking NAZI butchers slaughtering innocent people.

Did you have an emotional reaction to 9-11, or a "political" one?

Those who support the BCE's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are operating from "emotion" driven by revenge motives, because the facts simply do not support involvement of either Iraq OR Afghanistan in the events of 9-11-01.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
So now it's wrong to have an "emotional" reaction to a brutal sensless murder??

Fuck politics. Politics have nothing to do with fascist fucking NAZI butchers slaughtering innocent people.

Did you have an emotional reaction to 9-11, or a "political" one?

Those who support the BCE's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are operating from "emotion" driven by revenge motives, because the facts simply do not support involvement of either Iraq OR Afghanistan in the events of 9-11-01.

Gee, I'm glad I tried to honestly explain why the Musicians For Change crap bothers me. :rolleyes:

Now you are saying we shouldn't have gone in Afghanistan either? Obviously everyone had an emotional reaction to 9/11. But after that is over you act with logic. The leftists dunderheads in Hollywood and elsewhere only operate on emotion when it comes to foreign policy and military matters.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD

Those who support the BCE's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are operating from "emotion" driven by revenge motives, because the facts simply do not support involvement of either Iraq OR Afghanistan in the events of 9-11-01.


You are so full of crap on this, it's sickening...

[DLR'sCock]

Should be good, I'll be at the Philly date for Bruce and REM...




Bush will lose in 2004...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz


Now you are saying we shouldn't have gone in Afghanistan either?

The case for Afghanistan was very weak. The cover story was "well maybe Osama's hiding out there because he led the Mujahadeen back in the 80's". Yet the evidence of Bin Laden being there never truly materialized. If he was there at all, he was allowed to escape, by his old family friend, George Bush Jr.

The true story of the invasion had a lot more to do with the fact that the Taliban had reneged on a business deal they signed with UNOCAL and a few other companies back in Texas in 1997, to build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea, and across Afghanistan, to carry oil and natural gas.

4 years and millions of dollars later and the project was still on hold. In their last meeting with representatives of the BCE, in May of 2001, the Taliban leadership was informed that "either you accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury you under a carpet of bombs".

Plans to invade Afghanistan were on Junior's desk in July of 2001 according to Richard Clarke.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by FORD
Bruce's last album did not suck. Neither did the Dixie Chicks album. However, I'll admit that REM has gone downhill without Bill Berry :(

I gotta disagree concerning R.E.M. I loved the UP (1998) album. Severely under-rated that one. And hopefully their new one will be good.

FORD's right...you're talking a bunch of great talents (and a few not-so-talented) ensuring that the little people in the great U.S. of A are not sacrificed for Dick Cheney's personal bank account. What's happened to America in the last four years has been horrifying. The rest of the world hates the U.S. more than they ever did in history, civil rights are being questioned, freedom-of-speech has gone back 30 years, unemployment is very high, the economy is in a shambles, Bush is not protecting the country but instead provoking the rest of the world (why didn't they wipe out Al Quaida??...why did they just attack Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9-11), and Bush actually stands as the first President since Roosevelt to not protect the country from an at-home attack. So, how is that idiot doing a good job? If the reasons I listed are not good enough reasons for change, then I guess all you really have is to question the legitimacy of an artist like Bruce Springsteen. And all I have to say is...GOOD LUCK!

[Rikk]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Should be good, I'll be at the Philly date for Bruce and REM...




Bush will lose in 2004...

YES HE WILL!!

Enjoy the concert! I love both artists. Too bad I'm in Canada!:)

[Rikk]

Originally posted by HELLVIS
Really, have you heard the peices of shit PEARL JAM has been trying to

sell? And, what the fuck has "The Boss" done since The River. And,

why didn't Mellencamp flush that last turd he recorded? What about

Dave Matthews' last record's sales. Doesn't Jackson Brown have a

girlfriend to beat up on or somthing?

By the way, who the fuck are the rest of those opportunists?

Yeah, Pearl Jam. Maybe they're not selling tons of records anymore, but they sure as shit still sell out the arenas when they tour. Funny, every time they come to Toronto they sell out the ACC. Better than a certain other band, huh?

And what has The Boss done since the river? Hmm. Have to think about this one. Oh, I don't know...a certain record called BORN IN THE U.S.A., maybe? I think it sold a few copies. And gee, he still sells out stadiums, multiple nights. (Again, much better than a certain other band we all know, huh?)

R.E.M...no, they're not big at all.:rolleyes:

Seriously, dude...putting down these big names isn't going to win you points. Your corrupt little Texan murderer is going to be sent out on his ass and his dad will be crying because he and the Saudis won't be making nearly as much money without little moron Jr. in the White House.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
You are so full of crap on this, it's sickening...

That's not a response. I agree 100% with Ford on this. You don't start wars based on revenge tactics if there is no real reason you're attacking said country...meaning, if said country was not responsible for the bloodshed you want to avenge, there is no justification. Afghanistan did not produce a cleaning out of Al Quaida (mainly because that's not why they were really there) and Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Quaida...it was about Haliburton and oil control. 9-11 has bought this administration so many licenses to get away with disgusting shit.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Gee, I'm glad I tried to honestly explain why the Musicians For Change crap bothers me. :rolleyes:

Now you are saying we shouldn't have gone in Afghanistan either? Obviously everyone had an emotional reaction to 9/11. But after that is over you act with logic. The leftists dunderheads in Hollywood and elsewhere only operate on emotion when it comes to foreign policy and military matters.

Yeah...these "leftists" don't want people dying for oil or money. You think Bush, Cheney and the others are so noble? If they were so busy worrying about protecting this country, they wouldn't be provoking half the countries in the world to hate the United States and starting wars with countries that (big surprise!) had no weapons of mass destruction nor ties to Al Quaida. If Bush is so worried about protecting humans from evil, why isn't he doing anything to stop a genocide no the verge of occurring in Africa? He's even fighting U.N. recognition of such an event (just as Clinton did in '94 concerning Rwanda).

I love when people protect Bush without presenting one fact and just attack "leftists" and just blindly sloganeer.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by Rikk
If Bush is so worried about protecting humans from evil, why isn't he doing anything to stop a genocide no the verge of occurring in Africa?

He's waiting for Canada to take the lead. :rofl:

[Rikk]

Originally posted by wraytw
He's waiting for Canada to take the lead. :rofl:

That was so ignorant and stupid, you have no idea. In Rwanda, Canada did take the lead!!! The only country that did stay and saved probably a few hundred thousand lives was Canada, you idiot. America refused to get involved and Belgium bailed out. But Canadian U.N. troops stayed and couldn't prevent 900,000 from being murdered with machetes, but still managed to save a lot of lives and keep the world aware of the genocide. This caused a lot of future U.S. embarressment.

I met the Major who was second-in-command of Canadian troops.

Next time, do your research before you make such a stupid comment.

[wraytw]

lol

I didn't think that the context of my post would go over your head so easily.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by wraytw
lol

I didn't think that the context of my post would go over your head so easily.

Okay...I catch what you meant now.

Even then, it's nothing I want to joke about. The stories the major told me about what he saw have haunted me. The U.S. should be pretty ashamed of themselves for still trying to call Rwanda a "civil war". There's no humor for me in people paying $30 a head to be killed by a handgun so that you don't have to suffer through a machete death.

Bush's whole "saving people from tyranny" argument is...as usual...bullshit.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
That's not a response. I agree 100% with Ford on this. You don't start wars based on revenge tactics if there is no real reason you're attacking said country...meaning, if said country was not responsible for the bloodshed you want to avenge, there is no justification. Afghanistan did not produce a cleaning out of Al Quaida (mainly because that's not why they were really there) and Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Quaida...it was about Haliburton and oil control. 9-11 has bought this administration so many licenses to get away with disgusting shit.

You are wrong on all accounts. The U.S. is totally justified for LIBERATING Afghanistan and Iraq. I never stated it was done for revenge. If you think wars start and end nice & neatly in a pre-determined fashion and everything goes according to plan you may want to check out the von Schlieffen plan for France, just for starters.

The left's answer for everything.... "Haliburton!". Was it OK for Haliburton to be in Bosnia? You guys need to get your head out of your conspiritorial ass for you to be able to debate any of this stuff rationally. You base everything on 1/2 truths filled in with propoganda trash.

There are lots of sources that gave the US justification for an Iraq invasion (including the 9/11 report and a recent Senate Intelligence report, for starters) but I'll cite just one, that came out today.

Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes

Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons development program at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has told Congress.

In comments that received virtually no press coverage in the United States, Duelfer testified that Iraq was "preserving and expanding its knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons." One Iraqi laboratory "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development," the top weapons inspector said.

Duelfer's stunning assessment, delivered in March of this year, was first reported last week by renowned historian William Shawcross, in a column for Britain's Guardian newspaper.

The former U.N. weapons inspector, who replaced David Kay as head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group last year, said that Saddam was financing his nuclear program by misappropriating funds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program.

According to Duelfer, Saddam was able to use Oil-for-Food to boost his military procurement budget to $500 million annually &$0150; a 100-fold increase from 1996 to 2003.

Most of the recent nuclear research took place at Iraq's notorious al Tuwaitha weapons facility, where Saddam had stockpiled over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium ore since before the first Gulf War.

Iraq was also in talks with North Korea on the possibility of importing a 1,300 km missile system, the ISG chief revealed. Foreign missile experts were working in Iraq in defiance of U.N. sanctions, and had helped Iraq redesign the al-Samoud missile.

Saddam's 500-plus-ton uranium stockpile was being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the same agency that had responsibility for monitoring North Korea's nuclear program throughout the 1990s. In October 2002 Pyongyang stunned IAEA inspectors with the announcement that it was ready to produce nuclear weapons.

In June of this year, the U.S. Energy Department removed 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium from al Tuwaitha.

Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press at the time that the low-enriched uranium stockpile could have produced enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

In March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but the claim was widely dismissed by congressional investigators as well as U.S. reporters.

[Big Train]

Two things:

The entertainment industry is full of liberals for a very basic reason. They are paid extremely well by the people for doing compatively little for society. So they feel a tremendous amount of guilt (some of them) for the lifestyle they are afforded with. So natuarally, they tend to lean emotionally towards liberal policies (most of which effect them negatively, economically speaking,which makes it an emotional decision). Hence you get these types of things, where people use their percieved "clout" with the people, to show them their is a better way. It always ends up being a pointless, self indulgent, naive exercise, but it is good press for them, as "down to earth" people, which is why it continues to go on. In the case of these particular artists, outside of Bruce, it is also a way to generate buzz about acts that otherwise were floundering. They are taking the Rondstat route.

Secondly, the "theory" of the oil pipeline has never been proven at all. It requires great leaps of logic and faith to even remotely connect those dots.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
You are wrong on all accounts. The U.S. is totally justified for LIBERATING Afghanistan and Iraq. I never stated it was done for revenge. If you think wars start and end nice & neatly in a pre-determined fashion and everything goes according to plan you may want to check out the von Schlieffen plan for France, just for starters.

The left's answer for everything.... "Haliburton!". Was it OK for Haliburton to be in Bosnia? You guys need to get your head out of your conspiritorial ass for you to be able to debate any of this stuff rationally. You base everything on 1/2 truths filled in with propoganda trash.

There are lots of sources that gave the US justification for an Iraq invasion (including the 9/11 report and a recent Senate Intelligence report, for starters) but I'll cite just one, that came out today.

Iraq Survey Chief Duelfer: Saddam Was Developing Nukes

Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons development program at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer has told Congress.

In comments that received virtually no press coverage in the United States, Duelfer testified that Iraq was "preserving and expanding its knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons." One Iraqi laboratory "was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development," the top weapons inspector said.

Duelfer's stunning assessment, delivered in March of this year, was first reported last week by renowned historian William Shawcross, in a column for Britain's Guardian newspaper.

The former U.N. weapons inspector, who replaced David Kay as head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group last year, said that Saddam was financing his nuclear program by misappropriating funds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program.

According to Duelfer, Saddam was able to use Oil-for-Food to boost his military procurement budget to $500 million annually &$0150; a 100-fold increase from 1996 to 2003.

Most of the recent nuclear research took place at Iraq's notorious al Tuwaitha weapons facility, where Saddam had stockpiled over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium ore since before the first Gulf War.

Iraq was also in talks with North Korea on the possibility of importing a 1,300 km missile system, the ISG chief revealed. Foreign missile experts were working in Iraq in defiance of U.N. sanctions, and had helped Iraq redesign the al-Samoud missile.

Saddam's 500-plus-ton uranium stockpile was being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the same agency that had responsibility for monitoring North Korea's nuclear program throughout the 1990s. In October 2002 Pyongyang stunned IAEA inspectors with the announcement that it was ready to produce nuclear weapons.

In June of this year, the U.S. Energy Department removed 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium from al Tuwaitha.

Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press at the time that the low-enriched uranium stockpile could have produced enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

In March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney said there was evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but the claim was widely dismissed by congressional investigators as well as U.S. reporters.

Do you know what a pseudo-scientific argument is? It's one in which you already have your conclusion and then just try and fit your premises in based on your already settled conclusion. Colin Powell tried this in December 2002. The American people bought it. I didn't. I could tell it was all bullshit. They had no evidence. And they still don't. To claim that Ahmed Chalabi fooled Bush and the intelligence investigators means only one thing...Bush sent America to war because one small group tricked him. Almost 1000 Americans are dead now (as well as thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians) because Bush based all of his intelligence on the words of one man? Kinda irresponsible, isn't it?

What did they solve in Afghanistan? How come Al Quaida seems more active than it's ever been?

What have they solved in Iraq considering they were there to save the people? Did getting an old man with a mustache really save the world from "weapons of mass destruction" conisdering this man has been a U.S. employee for over 20 years? How did it save the world considering any weapons they've found have been old weapons given to them by the U.S.? I guess the evidence of Saddam's treachery they like to point to (gassing Kurds in '88) sounds kinda ridiculous when he did such treacherous acts with U.S.-supplied chemical weapons.

Shouldn't a country be compelled to go to war instead of look for reasons for it? There are a great many dangerous countries in the world with nuclear weapons, run by dictators or leaders that were NOT on the U.S. payroll at one time. Gee...I guess North Korea (a country that actually DOES have a giant stockpile of nuclear weaponry) is not a threat. There was no compelling reason to send the U.S. to war, especially considering we've empowered this man and let him murder and brutalize his people for over 20 years now. What justification did we have to suddenly go in 2003? How did it save the U.S. from future terrorist attacks considering ever since Bush got into office we get more and more...snicker...orange alerts? We've also found NO evidence that Saddam had any intention of ever even thinking of attacking the U.S. And Saddam was a sworn enemy of Al Quaida. Don't you think the fact that Cheney and Rumself are now trying to site a 1994 meeting between that happened to include two low-level advisors of Saddam and Al Quaida is kinda weak? Doesn't that sound like trying to justify a conclusion you will stick to no matter what evidence is presented?

And don't look at Haliburton as a silly catchphrase. It's fucking important. I'd like to know why we need to keep half of Iraq unemployed and give all the contracts to American companies considering the least you could give Iraqi citizens after destroying their businesses, power supply and phone lines is the ability for employment in fixing these supplies themselves. That's not freedom they're facing...it's bloody military rule. Why do you think the people are so violent and angry? Do you really think these people hate freedom? How moronic an argument is that???

Furthermore, the typical response I've been seeing to any of mine or Ford's posts is to attack "leftist" thinking, to laugh at words like Haliburton, but to present no evidence contradicting any of our evidence.

Give it up...there's no justification for the war. If you even give me proof for the war's need (for which there is none), I ask you why we willingly kept Saddam there for 20 years in the first place.

Bush let the people down. It's time for change. Kerry is no saint. But he's better than a man that is causing the world to truly hate the United States (look around you) and is blatantly exploiting countries at a far greater rate than any President before him. If you want to give your tax dollars to destruction of Iraqi resources and then give more tax dollars to Haliburton to fix such destruction when said destruction was only marginally necessary because we put Saddam there in the first place and said destruction wasn't compelling and almost 1000 American troops should not be dead for it because America is no safer, then have fun. Me, I'll think about what my government is doing instead of blindly follow it. Questioning your government and asking questions is one of the greatest freedoms your country offers you.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by Rikk
YES HE WILL!!

Enjoy the concert! I love both artists. Too bad I'm in Canada!:)

Hey Rikk, good to see ya bro!!!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
Did getting an old man with a mustache really save the world from "weapons of mass destruction" conisdering this man has been a U.S. employee for over 20 years?

This really says it all, as far as totally discrediting your every word. But, to be fair I will respond tomorrow when I have some more time. In the meantime you may want to specifically refute the facts I have stated, or respond to things I put out there instead of just trotting out the same old Pacifist, America-hating drivel.

Haliburton!! :rolleyes:

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
This really says it all, as far as totally discrediting your every word. But, to be fair I will respond tomorrow when I have some more time. In the meantime you may want to specifically refute the facts I have stated, or respond to things I put out there instead of just trotting out the same old Pacifist, America-hating drivel.

Haliburton!! :rolleyes:

Don't bother... The fact that you think Saddam didn't work for the American government makes you a joke in my eyes. But even worse, anyone that calls someone who questions their elected government an America-hater is completely ignorant in my eyes. I don't really need your response because you have no credibility to me.

Furthermore, I didn't respond to many of the specifics in your post because they were pure and utter nonsense. Quoting Cheney and listing questionable sources that Saddam was making nuclear weapons doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring the entire state of mind in which a war should be entered. You are clearly not an intellectual, and I'm tired of wasting my time with someone determined to not question any government action and can only yell in the face of the intelligent: "Haliburton!!:rolleyes: "

Dude, one more thing...to accuse someone of being basically a blind pacifist because they argue that a country should be compelled to go to war really shows your attitude. Maybe you should serve in one and realize how unglorious an experience it really is and then realize that wars should only be fought to save one's country...not to exploit others. You have not listed any evidence for extreme duress under which a decision had to be made. And I've asked you twice now. Don't bother for a third attempt. Your arguing style sucks... You're just another stubborn redneck.

I'll be laughing at you this November when your corrupt buddy Cheney stops getting his giant stock option payouts because Haliburton is kicked out of Iraq. (And no, Haliburton is not the answer to everything...but its mere corrupt existence in the situation is pretty symbolic...dontcha think?)

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
Don't bother... The fact that you think Saddam didn't work for the American government makes you a joke in my eyes. But even worse, anyone that calls someone who questions their elected government an America-hater is completely ignorant in my eyes. I don't really need your response because you have no credibility to me.

Furthermore, I didn't respond to many of the specifics in your post because they were pure and utter nonsense. Quoting Cheney and listing questionable sources that Saddam was making nuclear weapons doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring the entire state of mind in which a war should be entered. You are clearly not an intellectual, and I'm tired of wasting my time with someone determined to not question any government action and can only yell in the face of the intelligent: "Haliburton!!:rolleyes: "

Dude, one more thing...to accuse someone of being basically a blind pacifist because they argue that a country should be compelled to go to war really shows your attitude. Maybe you should serve in one and realize how unglorious an experience it really is and then realize that wars should only be fought to save one's country...not to exploit others. You have not listed any evidence for extreme duress under which a decision had to be made. And I've asked you twice now. Don't bother for a third attempt. Your arguing style sucks... You're just another stubborn redneck.

I'll be laughing at you this November when your corrupt buddy Cheney stops getting his giant stock option payouts because Haliburton is kicked out of Iraq. (And no, Haliburton is not the answer to everything...but its mere corrupt existence in the situation is pretty symbolic...dontcha think?)

No, I will respond tomorrow when I have more time, like I stated before. In the process I'll try not to insult you like you have done to me. By the way I did not say you were an America-hater becasue you question your government. Besides, aren't you in Canada?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Rikk

I met the Major who was second-in-command of Canadian troops.



Did he still have his tail between his legs? Hmmm? :gulp:

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
I love the Indigo Girls. But they certainly don't disguise their political or philisophical viewpoints. That's why I'm surprised that they would have a fan who complains about musicians getting involved in politics.

Bruce Springstein, et al are decidedly *not* politicians or world leaders. Hence their having next to no credibility.

The indigo girls are different. When two chicks go down on each other, they pretty much have the lesbian credentials down pat. Besides, it's more a hormonal thing here as opposed to an intellectual one. Cunnilingus does not require a lot of deep thought.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Rikk
That's not a response. I agree 100% with Ford on this. You don't start wars based on revenge tactics if there is no real reason you're attacking said country...meaning, if said country was not responsible for the bloodshed you want to avenge, there is no justification. Afghanistan did not produce a cleaning out of Al Quaida (mainly because that's not why they were really there) and Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Quaida...it was about Haliburton and oil control. 9-11 has bought this administration so many licenses to get away with disgusting shit.

Shut the fuck up, dumbass!

Does that qualify as a response ??

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
Don't bother... The fact that you think Saddam didn't work for the American government makes you a joke in my eyes. But even worse, anyone that calls someone who questions their elected government an America-hater is completely ignorant in my eyes. I don't really need your response because you have no credibility to me.

Furthermore, I didn't respond to many of the specifics in your post because they were pure and utter nonsense. Quoting Cheney and listing questionable sources that Saddam was making nuclear weapons doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring the entire state of mind in which a war should be entered. You are clearly not an intellectual, and I'm tired of wasting my time with someone determined to not question any government action and can only yell in the face of the intelligent: "Haliburton!!:rolleyes: "

Dude, one more thing...to accuse someone of being basically a blind pacifist because they argue that a country should be compelled to go to war really shows your attitude. Maybe you should serve in one and realize how unglorious an experience it really is and then realize that wars should only be fought to save one's country...not to exploit others. You have not listed any evidence for extreme duress under which a decision had to be made. And I've asked you twice now. Don't bother for a third attempt. Your arguing style sucks... You're just another stubborn redneck.

I'll be laughing at you this November when your corrupt buddy Cheney stops getting his giant stock option payouts because Haliburton is kicked out of Iraq. (And no, Haliburton is not the answer to everything...but its mere corrupt existence in the situation is pretty symbolic...dontcha think?)

After re-reading this tripe I've changed my mind. I'm not going to waste my time with you, at lest in this thread, because there's nothing I can say that will make you see the utter silliness of what you are arguing.

This thread WAS about Bruce and this moronic tour. Your retort was to throw the proverbial kitchen sink of liberal wackiness into the mix all in 2 posts, which I'd need way too much space to reply to without a reader losing interest.

So, if you want to bring up a SINGLE point in another thread fine but for me to reply to your tome of Bush hating here would just be pearls before swine.

....oh yeah, "Haliburton!":rolleyes:

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh heh.. Schultzie, I pretty much came to the same conclusion.

This guy's a freekin' idiot.

And to imagine he's preaching to us about "making up your mind before doing research"... What did he call it? Oh yeah, a "pseudo-scientific argument". And yet if you look at the premise he took from the get go, he's simply describing exactly what he's engaged in right here before your naked streaming eyes!

Just another commie-liberal hypocrite as far as I'm concerned.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
No, I will respond tomorrow when I have more time, like I stated before. In the process I'll try not to insult you like you have done to me. By the way I did not say you were an America-hater becasue you question your government. Besides, aren't you in Canada?

I'm an American citizen.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Heh heh heh.. Schultzie, I pretty much came to the same conclusion.

This guy's a freekin' idiot.

And to imagine he's preaching to us about "making up your mind before doing research"... What did he call it? Oh yeah, a "pseudo-scientific argument". And yet if you look at the premise he took from the get go, he's simply describing exactly what he's engaged in right here before your naked streaming eyes!

Just another commie-liberal hypocrite as far as I'm concerned.

Yup...you're a moron. You don't even know what a pseudo-scientific argument is. You kinda made an ass of yourself with that attempt at criticism. Mind you, I see you posting drivel in this room all the time.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Shut the fuck up, dumbass!

Does that qualify as a response ??

You know, Elvis, I've noticed you simply like to jump on people in MAIN all the time. And I don't know why. You started giving me shit last week for no reason, and I had a lot of people telling me to ignore it. So, I will.

"Shut the fuck up, dumbass!" Good, smart response. I'm surprised you're a mod. I guess some people were right...and I'm not talking about your friend, thefive.

Do you ever post anything positive, and is it true you're pro-Sammy?

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
After re-reading this tripe I've changed my mind. I'm not going to waste my time with you, at lest in this thread, because there's nothing I can say that will make you see the utter silliness of what you are arguing.

This thread WAS about Bruce and this moronic tour. Your retort was to throw the proverbial kitchen sink of liberal wackiness into the mix all in 2 posts, which I'd need way too much space to reply to without a reader losing interest.

So, if you want to bring up a SINGLE point in another thread fine but for me to reply to your tome of Bush hating here would just be pearls before swine.

....oh yeah, "Haliburton!":rolleyes:

You know the only thing I'll say here? Your post was quite offensive to my opinion, and I suppose my post was offensive to yours. My attitude was not fully in-the-right...I was blatantly arrogant and offensive myself. So, I think we both pissed each other off when this is supposed to be clean debate.

Of course, what gets me is that you accuse liberals of having this giant mix of wackiness or whatever you call it. Any criticism of the government can be explained away as liberal or commie bullshit, etc. But the truth is, just as you think these are all paranoid conspiracy nuts, you're kinda accusing the liberals of also being one big pacifist conspiracy machine. Furthermore, it seems kinda obvious to me that one should be allowed to criticize one's own government. That is actually one of the main elements of democracy. This whole "love it or leave it" crap is bullshit...it's anti-American at its core. To constantly scrutinize your government's own actions is one of the most important American rights. I mean, if we could spend a year studying Bill Clinton's sex life, I think it's only fair that we can also question why exactly we are in Iraq and whether the government is really so concerned with making us safe. After all, it's the people's tax dollars. Can you tell me what's wrong with asking questions and why it's worth attacking people by calling them liberal nuts when they ask said questions?

[Rikk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Did he still have his tail between his legs? Hmmm? :gulp:

Dude was sent home near the end of the genocide sick from exhaustion, depression and frustration. He told me he still has nightmares about it every night of his life. He also told me one image that never leaves his mind is driving down the highway with 60000 bodies on either side...the whole experience almost killed him. And he developed quite a kinship with the other Canadian U.N. troops that were stationed there, trying to save lives and publicize what was going on. Every day he saw slaughtered towns and every day the American government refused to vote YES in U.N. recognition (mind you, the Americans were one of many countries that dropped the ball on that one...it's even rumored that Albright told her staff there was "no profit" in Rwanda).

[Big Train]

Rikk, Rikk, Rikk....there are some hurts feelings here, easy big fella...

Let me ask you liberals a basic question, which may help illuminate our differences. If you were the president of the US (actual US citizens only, currently residing in the US), starting at 10 AM on September 11th, what would you have done differently.

Hold on , this is gonna get fun...

BTW, Elvis is my man, don't knock him...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Rikk
Dude was sent home near the end of the genocide sick from exhaustion, depression and frustration. He told me he still has nightmares about it every night of his life. He also told me one image that never leaves his mind is driving down the highway with 60000 bodies on either side...the whole experience almost killed him. And he developed quite a kinship with the other Canadian U.N. troops that were stationed there, trying to save lives and publicize what was going on. Every day he saw slaughtered towns and every day the American government refused to vote YES in U.N. recognition (mind you, the Americans were one of many countries that dropped the ball on that one...it's even rumored that Albright told her staff there was "no profit" in Rwanda).


So HE DID have his tail between his legs. Thought so. :gulp:

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Rikk
You know, Elvis, I've noticed you simply like to jump on people in MAIN all the time.

No, not all the time. Only when I feel like it...

And I don't know why.

Do you need to know why ??

You started giving me shit last week for no reason, and I had a lot of people telling me to ignore it. So, I will.

Ignoring it means to do what I said in my last response, namely, "shut the fuck up, dumbass!"

Now you've gained my interest. What did I 'give you shit' about last week ??

"Shut the fuck up, dumbass!" Good, smart response.

I like to consider it the condensed version of what Sgt Schultz was trying to get through your thick skull...

Look how you replied to him...

I'm surprised you're a mod. I guess some people were right...and I'm not talking about your friend, thefive.

I see your angle.. my skin is alot thicker than that. Try again Mr. Sensitive Liberal...:rolleyes:

Do you ever post anything positive, and is it true you're pro-Sammy?

Yes I do, and no, I am not...

BTW...

Do you consider what you have been posting in this thread to be "positive" ???

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
You know the only thing I'll say here? Your post was quite offensive to my opinion, and I suppose my post was offensive to yours. My attitude was not fully in-the-right...I was blatantly arrogant and offensive myself. So, I think we both pissed each other off when this is supposed to be clean debate.

Of course, what gets me is that you accuse liberals of having this giant mix of wackiness or whatever you call it. Any criticism of the government can be explained away as liberal or commie bullshit, etc. But the truth is, just as you think these are all paranoid conspiracy nuts, you're kinda accusing the liberals of also being one big pacifist conspiracy machine. Furthermore, it seems kinda obvious to me that one should be allowed to criticize one's own government. That is actually one of the main elements of democracy. This whole "love it or leave it" crap is bullshit...it's anti-American at its core. To constantly scrutinize your government's own actions is one of the most important American rights. I mean, if we could spend a year studying Bill Clinton's sex life, I think it's only fair that we can also question why exactly we are in Iraq and whether the government is really so concerned with making us safe. After all, it's the people's tax dollars. Can you tell me what's wrong with asking questions and why it's worth attacking people by calling them liberal nuts when they ask said questions?

I'm not criticizing your right to criticize the government / current administration at all. I've never said "love it or leave it" I am simply critical of what you base your criticisms upon - very shaky and/or non-existant gorund. My perjoratives ("liberal nuts") stems from all of the truly wacky conspiracy theories. If you want to debate / criticize things with me or others then I think you have to base it on some basic facts we can agree upon, real news stories from credible sources etc. It's almost impossible to even have a conversation if much of what you base your arguments on are Internet conspiracy theories. Basing everything on the "Bush Criminal Empire" and "Haliburton" and dark, clandestine under the table deals WITH Bin Laden and the Sauds etc etc etc......makes it so we are all here just yelling into a vaccum.

It's fine ang good to question why we are in Iraq - but to base a critique of it on "we just want the oil" or "Haliburton" or some other reason isn't getting us anywhere. In my opinion.

[ELVIS]

Mine either...


:elvis:

[Rikk]

Originally posted by ELVIS


Do I consider what I'm posting in this thread to be "positive"? Well, dumbass, it's kinda hard to have a lot of positive posts when one can simply look at the name of the thread, huh genius?

You make me laugh.:D

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
I'm not criticizing your right to criticize the government / current administration at all. I've never said "love it or leave it" I am simply critical of what you base your criticisms upon - very shaky and/or non-existant gorund. My perjoratives ("liberal nuts") stems from all of the truly wacky conspiracy theories. If you want to debate / criticize things with me or others then I think you have to base it on some basic facts we can agree upon, real news stories from credible sources etc. It's almost impossible to even have a conversation if much of what you base your arguments on are Internet conspiracy theories. Basing everything on the "Bush Criminal Empire" and "Haliburton" and dark, clandestine under the table deals WITH Bin Laden and the Sauds etc etc etc......makes it so we are all here just yelling into a vaccum.

It's fine ang good to question why we are in Iraq - but to base a critique of it on "we just want the oil" or "Haliburton" or some other reason isn't getting us anywhere. In my opinion.

I respect one thing you're saying...I'm also sick and fucking tired of conspiracy nuts. Everywhere you look there's a crazy conspiracy theory. But do you know what? Look at this country. This isn't the complete "leftist nuts" starting arguments up. This is half the damn country sick and tired of being lied to by CNN and FOX NEWS. This is a President who is not backing up his claims. This is a war that has NOT been justified. It is not the job of the people to de-justify the war. It is the job of the President who declared it necessary to back such a claim up. If he cannot, his actions are then called into question. It's called democracy.

You know, not everything is a "conspiracy nut" theory. Do you deny that Saddam was working for the U.S.?

As for my negative attitude, I don't want to fight. The conversation SHOULD BE kept respectful. But it's kinda hard to come in with a smiling face considering the name of this thread.

[John Ashcroft]

This is kinda funny. Rikk we all just wish we were as intelligent as you!

After all, only intelligent people latch on to crack-pot conspiracy theories...

[Rikk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
So HE DID have his tail between his legs. Thought so. :gulp:

What the hell is your argument there? Are you proud that the Hutus got away with killing 900,000 people? Is that something that warrants a comment about having your "tail between your legs"? Trust me, you don't want me to start posting pictures of what these men were trying to stop. I have a picture of a 5-year-old Tutsi boy with his arm in severeal pieces sliced like salami and his throat cut...and all around him are the other murdered citizens of his town. This was the fastest genocide in human history. 900,000 murdered in 3 months. So, if you think it's fun to point out that the Canadians only saved 100,000 lives or so and Clinton's administration (and now Bush's) are claiming there was nothing they could do, then I think that's kinda sick.

Nobody left with their tails between their legs. They did the best they could, made the genocide known to the world, and left when it was over after saving a lot of lives with no help from any other country.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
This is kinda funny. Rikk we all just wish we were as intelligent as you!

After all, only intelligent people latch on to crack-pot conspiracy theories...

Crack-pot conspiracy theories, huh? Funny, it doesn't seem that crack-pot when practically half the country is talking about it. I sure hope you don't still think it's crack pot when you're Texan is kicked out of office by the American people come November for doing a shitty job.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
This is kinda funny. Rikk we all just wish we were as intelligent as you!

After all, only intelligent people latch on to crack-pot conspiracy theories...

LMAO!

Gotta take my mom to get blood drawn...

Be back later...:D

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
I respect one thing you're saying...I'm also sick and fucking tired of conspiracy nuts. Everywhere you look there's a crazy conspiracy theory. But do you know what? Look at this country. This isn't the complete "leftist nuts" starting arguments up. This is half the damn country sick and tired of being lied to by CNN and FOX NEWS. This is a President who is not backing up his claims. This is a war that has NOT been justified. It is not the job of the people to de-justify the war. It is the job of the President who declared it necessary to back such a claim up. If he cannot, his actions are then called into question. It's called democracy.

You know, not everything is a "conspiracy nut" theory. Do you deny that Saddam was working for the U.S.?

As for my negative attitude, I don't want to fight. The conversation SHOULD BE kept respectful. But it's kinda hard to come in with a smiling face considering the name of this thread.

Yes, the thread headline and the graphic are definitely a big poke in the eye to the "Vote For Change".

I disagree that GW has not properly justified but for now I'll lay that aside and just center on one of your claims - that Saddam was an employee of the U.S. WHy do you think that?

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Yes, the thread headline and the graphic are definitely a big poke in the eye to the "Vote For Change".

I disagree that GW has not properly justified but for now I'll lay that aside and just center on one of your claims - that Saddam was an employee of the U.S. WHy do you think that?

Because I saw an interview with Donald Rumsfeld on the CBC where he admitted as much. And also because the Clinton administration pointed out that American weapons were used in the Kurdish gas attacks of 1988 and no Republican denied that but simply hoped this would go away. In fact, few people have denied that the Americans funded the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. It's pretty much common knowlege among intellecturals by this point anyway. The fact that you don't believe so actually has me a little surprised, but also does away a lot of your credibility for me anyway because it's been acknowledged by various people in the Bush administration at various times that Saddam received a lot of help from the Americans during the 1980s. In fact, about a year before the Gulf War, with full knowledge of the gas attacks, Bush called Saddam "one of our greatest allies.". You obviously aren't doing your research.

That's not an insult...I really want to keep this civil.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Rikk
Because I saw an interview with Donald Rumsfeld on the CBC where he admitted as much. And also because the Clinton administration pointed out that American weapons were used in the Kurdish gas attacks of 1988 and no Republican denied that but simply hoped this would go away. In fact, few people have denied that the Americans funded the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. It's pretty much common knowlege among intellecturals by this point anyway. The fact that you don't believe so actually has me a little surprised, but also does away a lot of your credibility for me anyway because it's been acknowledged by various people in the Bush administration at various times that Saddam received a lot of help from the Americans during the 1980s. In fact, about a year before the Gulf War, with full knowledge of the gas attacks, Bush called Saddam "one of our greatest allies.". You obviously aren't doing your research.

That's not an insult...I really want to keep this civil.

Of course I am aware of all of this. My point of contention is with your definition of Saddam as an "employee" of the U.S. If your definition of "an employee of the U.S." is the leader of a country that receives aid - military or otherwise - then, well you'd have plenty of other despots & dictators that could be called an "employee" of the U.S.

The U.S. supported the Iraq militarily in their war against Iran but that doesn't make Saddam an employee of the U.S. Yes, there is a photo of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand but how is that relevant NOW? Chamberlain also shook Hitler's hand. Roosevelt shook Stalin's hand etc etc. Alliances and relationships are sometimes made with unsavory characters if it is thought that it is to be advantageous at the time. This is nothing new. Hitler and Stalin were allies. Argentina wanted us to help them fight Britain in the Falklands war becasue of an American Hemishpere treaty.

My point is that circumstances change, alliances and enemies change. Dictators get more power hungry and cocky, U.S. administrations change. American opinion changes.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Of course I am aware of all of this. My point of contention is with your definition of Saddam as an "employee" of the U.S. If your definition of "an employee of the U.S." is the leader of a country that receives aid - military or otherwise - then, well you'd have plenty of other despots & dictators that could be called an "employee" of the U.S.

The U.S. supported the Iraq militarily in their war against Iran but that doesn't make Saddam an employee of the U.S. Yes, there is a photo of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand but how is that relevant NOW? Chamberlain also shook Hitler's hand. Roosevelt shook Stalin's hand etc etc. Alliances and relationships are sometimes made with unsavory characters if it is thought that it is to be advantageous at the time. This is nothing new. Hitler and Stalin were allies. Argentina wanted us to help them fight Britain in the Falklands war becasue of an American Hemishpere treaty.

My point is that circumstances change, alliances and enemies change. Dictators get more power hungry and cocky, U.S. administrations change. American opinion changes.

Dude, honestly...if you think the Bush administration is not extremely corrupt, then all power to you. There's nothing I will say to convince you, and there's nothing you will say to convince me. It's as simple as that. I've been following their actions for years...I've done research a lot deeper than CNN. This is one pretty sick administration. And I consider myself "fiscal conservative." This whole right/left crap is meaningless and idiotic. You can't oversimplify various people's points-of-view by reducing it to "leftist jargon". Governments are corrupt. It's in their nature. It's natural. And there should be a checks-and-balances system. And this current administration is so damn tight with the media that they've gotten away with far, far too much.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by Rikk
And also because the Clinton administration pointed out that American weapons were used in the Kurdish gas attacks of 1988 and no Republican denied that but simply hoped this would go away.

That's not accurate.

The U.S. didn't give any "weapons" to Iraq. We gave them Anthrax spores to use for vaccines, and they turned around and used the developed Anthrax for terror purposes.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by wraytw
That's not accurate.

The U.S. didn't give any "weapons" to Iraq. We gave them Anthrax spores to use for vaccines, and they turned around and used the developed Anthrax for terror purposes.

Not true...the weapons in the gas attack were American-made, and other weapons, money and aid were given to Saddam in the 80's both to fight the Iranians and to keep his administration strong. Keeping the oil countries from becoming democracies makes good business sense for the U.S. It helps keep gas prices down, for one.

[wraytw]

Feel free to provide some proof to back up your statements.

[Viking]

Maybe Culture Club, Phil Collins, and ABC will headline the UK version of it. Don't laugh - I see it coming........:rolleyes:

[HELLVIS]

Originally posted by Rikk
Yeah, Pearl Jam. Maybe they're not selling tons of records anymore, but they sure as shit still sell out the arenas when they tour. Funny, every time they come to Toronto they sell out the ACC. Better than a certain other band, huh?

And what has The Boss done since the river? Hmm. Have to think about this one. Oh, I don't know...a certain record called BORN IN THE U.S.A., maybe? I think it sold a few copies. And gee, he still sells out stadiums, multiple nights. (Again, much better than a certain other band we all know, huh?)

R.E.M...no, they're not big at all.:rolleyes:

Seriously, dude...putting down these big names isn't going to win you points. Your corrupt little Texan murderer is going to be sent out on his ass and his dad will be crying because he and the Saudis won't be making nearly as much money without little moron Jr. in the White House.


1. I never said that Pearl Jam couldn't sell out venues. I said their last few records are shit.......and they are!

2. BORN IN THE U.S.A.......While trying to debunk me, you further make my point. That was the best you could come up with? Fuck, women have given birth to kids who, in turn, have grown up to have kids of their own since that was recorded. Like I said, what is Bruce singing on our little radios nowadays?

3. R.E.M.? I didn't bring them up by name, but since you did........
they record, they tour, I snore, hey R.E.M. you still suck!
(Just like playing in a hockey game, huh?)

4. I could give a rat's ass if I "win points". I didn't know that this was a game, and if it is, who's keeping score?

5. I don't recall any "certain band" or for that matter, any certain singer sticking their noses into this shit, therefore I don't find them relevant.

6. As for the Texan Murderer, I'm not a republican. I could give a steamy shit what you say about him. I'm on this thread because I'm sick of a bunch of multi-millionaires patronizing me with their "Oh, I'm a down to Earth, compassionate, and smart, I'll gladly educate and guide the masses). To them I say, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND PLAY ME A SONG BE-OTCH!

[freak]

Originally posted by Viking
Maybe Culture Club, Phil Collins, and ABC will headline the UK version of it. Don't laugh - I see it coming........:rolleyes:

In terms of relevancy, you nailed it :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by wraytw
Feel free to provide some proof to back up your statements.

[wraytw]

FORD, how does shit like that go over your head so easily? You obviously don't know what the fuck I was referring to.

[lucky wilbury]

that pics pre saddam massacaring people. here's pic of a president meeting people in the white house AFTER a massacare. theres a difference plenty more where this came from as well:

President Bill Clinton holds a White House meeting with People's Liberation Army General Zhang Wannian, whose 15th Airborne paratroopers mowed down Chinese civilians during the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. This photo ran in Chinese newspapers, helping rehabilitate the image of the "butchers of Beijing."

[Rikk]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
that pics pre saddam massacaring people. here's pic of a president meeting people in the white house AFTER a massacare. theres a difference plenty more where this came from as well:

President Bill Clinton holds a White House meeting with People's Liberation Army General Zhang Wannian, whose 15th Airborne paratroopers mowed down Chinese civilians during the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. This photo ran in Chinese newspapers, helping rehabilitate the image of the "butchers of Beijing."

No, it doesn't pic pre-Saddam massacaring people!! Man, you guys should really check your history. Saddam was a brutal, murdering dictator from day one! Go read a history book. He has one of the most brutal uprises in history!

You'd think you never heard of Iran-Contra!! The U.S. government frequently supports dictators and criminals and then takes them out when they're no longer cooperating (and then use the criminal history as an excuse to do it). Noriega, anyone?

[Rikk]

Furthermore, it's not all left and right. Both the Democrats and Republicans have done a lot of shitty stuff in office (Clinton ignoring Rwanda is just the tip of the iceberg). But the Republicans have a more blatant criminal history... Again, you'd think people forgot all about Vietnam, Watergate, the Star Wars contracts, the U.S. being supremely plunged into debt in the 1980s to keep defense contracters rich... But you have a man like Johnson who bloody well created a fake firefight in order to compell the U.S. into the Vietnam war, and he was a Democrat.

[lucky wilbury]

no theres a point here saddam may have killed some people but didn't go on his murderous rampages till years AFTER that pic was taken before anyone really knew the type of person he was. at the time he only killed a few polictical opponents. it wasen't until years later in 88 and so on did he go and committ mass genocide to the kurds,shites and marsh arabs. it's like world leaders meeting hitler pre 1938 and shaking his hand. after 1938 we all know what he did. would a world leader shake his hand then and say how you doing? most likely no becuase they knew what kind of person he was and what he did which brings us to the clinton picture. that picture is POST Tiananmen Square we knew who did what and what type of people they were because of what they did. if that pic was pre Tiananmen Square i would have no problem with it because at that time the person pictured did nothing wrong. it's like saying you became friends with jeffery dahlmer. if you were friends with him before he went nuts people would understand because they'll say he wasen't bad then but they'll think your and idiot if you became friends with him after he killed everyone. there's a difference and it's the same with those pics. which is why theres a problem with meeting a murderous thug in the white house and PRAISING him after what he did. would you invite hitler to the white house in 1946 if he lived shake his hand and praise him? i think not.

[lucky wilbury]

some more pics like the follwoing can be foundd in this thread and i would also like to point out rumsfeld was just an envoy and wasen't part of any cabinet at the time unlike the people in the pic below:
http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5902&highlight=square

People's Liberation Army General Chi Haotian (left) and U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen (right) celebrate a toast; Chinese General Xiong Guangkai (behind Cohen, partially obscured) looks on. The hard-line Chi and Xiong both played pivotal roles in the brutal Tiananmen Square massacre.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by freak
...and this makes them socio-political wunderkinds?

These are babied entertainers who have less a conception of reality than... hell... you..

I'd say there's a moron here. You're just pointing in the wrong direction.

I'd say they carry about as much weight as those chicken hawk bible thumping inbreds over then on team Shrub?

It works both ways. You can't call our morons out without admitting your own Deliverance Crew you've got.

No, their vote / voice doesn't count any more than your's or mine, but I don't see anyone lining you up for a photo-op

My guess?, you'd pose right along side to show off your love of Shrub if asked.

Let's call a spade a spade.

YOU'VE got your morons too. What do you want o do next?, start quoting chart positions, soundscan numbers, and ticket sales to determine who'll win????

Give me a fucking break.

Go watch neck car, you red state living poseur

[freak]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Go watch neck car, you red state living poseur

WTF is "neck car"?

Obviously the blue state school systems are in worse shape than presupposed.

[tobinentinc]

I like some of these musicians' music, but the musicans themselves are douche bags. Bruce Springsteen a known Reagan hater wouldn't vote republican if God him self ran for the GOP. Most of these guys are out of the spotlight anyway. They are trying to shove their socialist views down your throat while playing the hits that made them big. Sorry guys, stick to your music. It's not like they know more than I do, they are just musicans and should remain that way. If more just kept closed mouthed about politics and other issues, their concerts would be more enjoyable.

[HELLVIS]

Originally posted by freak
WTF is "neck car"?

Obviously the blue state school systems are in worse shape than presupposed.


I think you were called a red neck and told to watch Nascar simultaneously.

[freak]

Originally posted by HELLVIS
I think you were called a red neck and told to watch Nascar simultaneously.

Oh. Wasn't sure if that is what our little freind was implying or not. I've never heard tell of a speech impediment so bad that it affected typing.

Someone might refer him/her to a Ear,Eye,Nose and Throat professional. They do wonders with cleft palettes nowadays.

Anyway...

What does "neck car" have to do with the fact that musicians would better serve humanity by playing their damned guitars, singing their little songs and keeping their idiotic opinions to themselves?

[Sgt Schultz]

Political Rock, 2004
Kissing cousins go all the way.
by Chris McEvoy

For one long week this October Bruce Springsteen will be something more than a musician, songwriter, singer, and rock god. He'll be a political operative. That's fine. There will be a lot of operating going on that month. His vehicle for this career switch is a new "group" called Vote for Change. Under this umbrella there are several seasoned acts, like R.E.M. and Pearl Jam and John Mellencamp. These political operatives will stump separately or together and with many other acts at more than 30 rallies in seven days. Their intent is plain.

Should you attend any of these "concerts" — all strategically placed in battleground states where a few hundred kids could quite literally change the election outcome — be quite certain of where you are, of why you're there. The venue will be a political arena; you will be there as a political partisan. Each stop on the Vote for Change tour will be a politically charged event aimed at helping remove George W. Bush from office. If that's your thing, join the rally. If not, voice your opposition.

Politics requires such decisiveness. So does rock. Since its inception rock has demanded that its listeners say yea or nay, and often. You choose your bands. You pledge your allegiance at rock concerts, record stores, and across the radio dial. If your band starts to fade you move on to other acts. Rock pulls no punches. Rock is about choice — your choice.

These days, however, that choice may not seem so apparent for about half the fans of Bruce Springsteen — or Michael Stipe or Eddie Vedder or Dave Matthews. What do you do if you like a band's music but not their overtly stated politics? Worse, what if you like a band's music but have no politics? Do you then vote with the band?

All of this is unnecessary haze. Politics is about choice. Rock is about choice. So political rock must also be about choice. If you're voting for Bush and have long liked Bruce, you must now decide between the two. It's that clear-cut. Bruce, for the time being, no longer plays in a band — he fronts a political machine. He is no longer a rocker — he's a political rocker.

But hasn't rock been political before? Isn't rock always out to change the world? Hasn't the Boss, himself, always been political? Of course, on all counts. Political rock has been around for at least as long as Bob Dylan's "Masters of War," the chicken-hawk protest song that hit in 1963. But you could have hummed its generalized bars ("You that never done nothin' / But build to destroy / You play with my world / Like it's your little toy") and still pulled the arm for Goldwater. In the Reagan 1980s you could have loved the Clash and not sided with the Sandinistas. You can be pro-Bono today and anti-third-world debt relief. Up until now, an Eddie Vedder tirade against Bush was just another Eddie Vedder tirade against Bush. You could have cheered and pumped your fist, or yelled, "Shut up and play 'Jeremy.'"

While it's true that politics and rock have long been drawn to each other, they've historically been more like kissing cousins. If you went to Woodstock in 1969 you went for the counterculture and all its trappings — which included mind-enhancing herbs and low-entry-barrier sex and the electric atmosphere of social change. But you wouldn't have gone if it weren't for some of the best rock and roll ever.

Admit it. If you bought the No Nukes album or went to the movie in 1980 it was for the music, not the message. In 1985, if you watched Live Aid all day in front of your television, you saw several dozen bands play thousands of miles apart and you made 48 trips to your refrigerator. You ate and drank and partied and loved the music. If you went to Woodstock II in 1994 or Woodstock III in 1999 you borrowed your neighbor's tent and got drunk and mugged for MTV.

If at any of these events your thoughts were locked — truly locked — on Vietnam or nuclear proliferation or the starving in Africa or world peace you were among the minority — or you're lying. To be involved with any of these events was in large part to be appropriately involved with yourself — and pleasure.

But in 2004, political rock is something new altogether. Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder agrees: "Right now, it's a different situation. It's hard to talk about remodeling the house when the basement is on fire." Political rock is an entity now, a true genre. Rock sperm has successfully fertilized political egg, turning out a hybrid spawn. This spawn has more than policy suggestions — which rock is filled with, from the inane to the plausible — it has a candidate. It is a partisan political machine. Don't think otherwise.

This newborn plays a familiar beat — mammalian and driving like its rock-and-roll parent. But after it slings a guitar over its neck it tells you how to vote. Its lyrics are still general in nature and most are sung with trademark passion. But other lyrics are preached between songs or polished for interviews and op-ed columns. Its images, gracing big-screen backdrops, are crafted to persuade: Down with Bush, the Evil One. Political rock in 2004 is purely political. Vote for Change wants Bush out of office.

Writing last week in the New York Times, political rocker Bruce Springsteen delivered familiar left-wing phrases. The war in Iraq was "unnecessary," he wrote. The circumstances of the war "are now discredited." We have run "record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs." Tax cuts have gone "to the richest 1 percent."

This is the new stage on which Springsteen is to be judged. Like his bandmates in Vote for Change, he has exited rock-and-roll proper. He is a political rocker now; the songs he plays at his rallies are political tools. Springsteen's words "no retreat, no surrender," once part of a passionate song of rebellion, hope, and fraternity, are now weighted with a specific message: No retreat from the fight against George W. Bush; no surrender until Bush is back in Texas.

Politics and rock make decision-makers of us all. That's America, and what makes it great. Sad that so many of us now have no choice but to vote against Bruce and Eddie and Dave and all the rest. Should they return to good ol' rock we'll be there waiting, and with somewhat open arms. In the meantime we'll listen to the bands we like that still play rock and (for the most part) shut-up about politics. We already know how we're going to vote.

[Sarge's Little Helper]

Political Rock, 2004
Kissing cousins go all the way.
by Chris McEvoy

For one long week this October Bruce Springsteen will be something more than a musician, songwriter, singer, and rock god. He'll be a political operative. That's fine. There will be a lot of operating going on that month. His vehicle for this career switch is a new "group" called Vote for Change. Under this umbrella there are several seasoned acts, like R.E.M. and Pearl Jam and John Mellencamp. These political operatives will stump separately or together and with many other acts at more than 30 rallies in seven days. Their intent is plain.

Should you attend any of these "concerts" — all strategically placed in battleground states where a few hundred kids could quite literally change the election outcome — be quite certain of where you are, of why you're there. The venue will be a political arena; you will be there as a political partisan. Each stop on the Vote for Change tour will be a politically charged event aimed at helping remove George W. Bush from office. If that's your thing, join the rally. If not, voice your opposition.

Politics requires such decisiveness. So does rock. Since its inception rock has demanded that its listeners say yea or nay, and often. You choose your bands. You pledge your allegiance at rock concerts, record stores, and across the radio dial. If your band starts to fade you move on to other acts. Rock pulls no punches. Rock is about choice — your choice.

These days, however, that choice may not seem so apparent for about half the fans of Bruce Springsteen — or Michael Stipe or Eddie Vedder or Dave Matthews. What do you do if you like a band's music but not their overtly stated politics? Worse, what if you like a band's music but have no politics? Do you then vote with the band?

All of this is unnecessary haze. Politics is about choice. Rock is about choice. So political rock must also be about choice. If you're voting for Bush and have long liked Bruce, you must now decide between the two. It's that clear-cut. Bruce, for the time being, no longer plays in a band — he fronts a political machine. He is no longer a rocker — he's a political rocker.

But hasn't rock been political before? Isn't rock always out to change the world? Hasn't the Boss, himself, always been political? Of course, on all counts. Political rock has been around for at least as long as Bob Dylan's "Masters of War," the chicken-hawk protest song that hit in 1963. But you could have hummed its generalized bars ("You that never done nothin' / But build to destroy / You play with my world / Like it's your little toy") and still pulled the arm for Goldwater. In the Reagan 1980s you could have loved the Clash and not sided with the Sandinistas. You can be pro-Bono today and anti-third-world debt relief. Up until now, an Eddie Vedder tirade against Bush was just another Eddie Vedder tirade against Bush. You could have cheered and pumped your fist, or yelled, "Shut up and play 'Jeremy.'"

While it's true that politics and rock have long been drawn to each other, they've historically been more like kissing cousins. If you went to Woodstock in 1969 you went for the counterculture and all its trappings — which included mind-enhancing herbs and low-entry-barrier sex and the electric atmosphere of social change. But you wouldn't have gone if it weren't for some of the best rock and roll ever.

Admit it. If you bought the No Nukes album or went to the movie in 1980 it was for the music, not the message. In 1985, if you watched Live Aid all day in front of your television, you saw several dozen bands play thousands of miles apart and you made 48 trips to your refrigerator. You ate and drank and partied and loved the music. If you went to Woodstock II in 1994 or Woodstock III in 1999 you borrowed your neighbor's tent and got drunk and mugged for MTV.

If at any of these events your thoughts were locked — truly locked — on Vietnam or nuclear proliferation or the starving in Africa or world peace you were among the minority — or you're lying. To be involved with any of these events was in large part to be appropriately involved with yourself — and pleasure.

But in 2004, political rock is something new altogether. Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder agrees: "Right now, it's a different situation. It's hard to talk about remodeling the house when the basement is on fire." Political rock is an entity now, a true genre. Rock sperm has successfully fertilized political egg, turning out a hybrid spawn. This spawn has more than policy suggestions — which rock is filled with, from the inane to the plausible — it has a candidate. It is a partisan political machine. Don't think otherwise.

This newborn plays a familiar beat — mammalian and driving like its rock-and-roll parent. But after it slings a guitar over its neck it tells you how to vote. Its lyrics are still general in nature and most are sung with trademark passion. But other lyrics are preached between songs or polished for interviews and op-ed columns. Its images, gracing big-screen backdrops, are crafted to persuade: Down with Bush, the Evil One. Political rock in 2004 is purely political. Vote for Change wants Bush out of office.

Writing last week in the New York Times, political rocker Bruce Springsteen delivered familiar left-wing phrases. The war in Iraq was "unnecessary," he wrote. The circumstances of the war "are now discredited." We have run "record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs." Tax cuts have gone "to the richest 1 percent."

This is the new stage on which Springsteen is to be judged. Like his bandmates in Vote for Change, he has exited rock-and-roll proper. He is a political rocker now; the songs he plays at his rallies are political tools. Springsteen's words "no retreat, no surrender," once part of a passionate song of rebellion, hope, and fraternity, are now weighted with a specific message: No retreat from the fight against George W. Bush; no surrender until Bush is back in Texas.

Politics and rock make decision-makers of us all. That's America, and what makes it great. Sad that so many of us now have no choice but to vote against Bruce and Eddie and Dave and all the rest. Should they return to good ol' rock we'll be there waiting, and with somewhat open arms. In the meantime we'll listen to the bands we like that still play rock and (for the most part) shut-up about politics. We already know how we're going to vote.

Oops. I wasn't paying attention. Tell me again what is going on.

[Sgt Schultz]

What's this Sarge's Little Helper crap?

[Rikk]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
no theres a point here saddam may have killed some people but didn't go on his murderous rampages till years AFTER that pic was taken before anyone really knew the type of person he was. at the time he only killed a few polictical opponents. it wasen't until years later in 88 and so on did he go and committ mass genocide to the kurds,shites and marsh arabs. it's like world leaders meeting hitler pre 1938 and shaking his hand. after 1938 we all know what he did. would a world leader shake his hand then and say how you doing? most likely no becuase they knew what kind of person he was and what he did which brings us to the clinton picture. that picture is POST Tiananmen Square we knew who did what and what type of people they were because of what they did. if that pic was pre Tiananmen Square i would have no problem with it because at that time the person pictured did nothing wrong. it's like saying you became friends with jeffery dahlmer. if you were friends with him before he went nuts people would understand because they'll say he wasen't bad then but they'll think your and idiot if you became friends with him after he killed everyone. there's a difference and it's the same with those pics. which is why theres a problem with meeting a murderous thug in the white house and PRAISING him after what he did. would you invite hitler to the white house in 1946 if he lived shake his hand and praise him? i think not.

I have to say the world just doesn't work like that. In 1990, Donald Rumsfeld can be quoted as saying that Iraq is one of the U.S.'s greatest allies. This is AFTER the genocidal actions towards Kurds, Shites, etc. And the U.S. (as were the rest of the world) were fully aware of his actions and behavior. Furthermore, the weapons used for these attacks (chemical weapons) were stockpiled from the Iran-Iraq war and were later stated in several sources to be American-made.

The U.S., Britain and other countries do not ride the high road. It's a sad truth that the U.S. has no problem going to bed with a mass-murderer if it is better for them. Look at Vietnam...the South Vietnamese administration the U.S. was supporting was a murderous dictatorship, with its own people starving. People had no food, but millions were spent on a giant marble palace for the people's leader! Why do you think the South Vietnamese citizens were often helping the North to fight back against the Americans?

Rumsfeld and the U.S. were FULLY AWARE of Saddam's actions and potential...but he was working well with them and remained a good ally. How it truly fell apart in 1990 may never be fully known. But as with Noriega, a drug-dealing murderer working for the CIA (there is also little dispute on this), it fell apart and "freedom-fighting" was the excuse used to take him down.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by tobinentinc
I like some of these musicians' music, but the musicans themselves are douche bags. Bruce Springsteen a known Reagan hater wouldn't vote republican if God him self ran for the GOP. Most of these guys are out of the spotlight anyway. They are trying to shove their socialist views down your throat while playing the hits that made them big. Sorry guys, stick to your music. It's not like they know more than I do, they are just musicans and should remain that way. If more just kept closed mouthed about politics and other issues, their concerts would be more enjoyable.

So, because Springsteen is a Reagan-hater, that makes him a douche bag? I mean, c'mon. If you don't agree with someone's politics, you don't like him/her?

My best friend is staunchy conservative. We have structured, rational debates all the time, nobody's feelings get hurt and he will always be my best friend. He's like a brother to me, and I enjoy the fact that he thinks for himself and he enjoys the fact that I think for myself. I don't hate Conservatives. I disagree with Conservatives. I do not like someone that lies or insults to get his or her point across...but I'll admit that things get heated and I've certainly insulted someone (though never lied) in a debate...as I did with Schultz.

Also, as for Springsteen, the dude's huge. He's part of rock 'n' roll royalty...so don't try to use the "these people are nothing" excuse. His last album was still big...he got a lot of radio play and he even played the stupid MTV awards (although I must say, I didn't like the album at all).

[John Ashcroft]

Interesting, I've actually said some of those very same words here (I.E. about differences in ideology not neccessarily making you enemies).

And yet your party's platform is almost exclusively based on a deep hatred for George Bush.

So much so that they've nominated a clown simply because of supposed "electablility"...

Yep, you guys should've nominated Dean.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Rikk
I have to say the world just doesn't work like that. In 1990, Donald Rumsfeld can be quoted as saying that Iraq is one of the U.S.'s greatest allies. This is AFTER the genocidal actions towards Kurds, Shites, etc. And the U.S. (as were the rest of the world) were fully aware of his actions and behavior. Furthermore, the weapons used for these attacks (chemical weapons) were stockpiled from the Iran-Iraq war and were later stated in several sources to be American-made.

The U.S., Britain and other countries do not ride the high road. It's a sad truth that the U.S. has no problem going to bed with a mass-murderer if it is better for them. Look at Vietnam...the South Vietnamese administration the U.S. was supporting was a murderous dictatorship, with its own people starving. People had no food, but millions were spent on a giant marble palace for the people's leader! Why do you think the South Vietnamese citizens were often helping the North to fight back against the Americans?

Rumsfeld and the U.S. were FULLY AWARE of Saddam's actions and potential...but he was working well with them and remained a good ally. How it truly fell apart in 1990 may never be fully known. But as with Noriega, a drug-dealing murderer working for the CIA (there is also little dispute on this), it fell apart and "freedom-fighting" was the excuse used to take him down.


again this is BEFORE all that and is dealing with that picture and the pictures alone. theres a difference. hindisght is 20/20 on what went down. would you apporove then of having saddam in the white house telling him he did a good job and praising hing in 1995. i think not.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Interesting, I've actually said some of those very same words here (I.E. about differences in ideology not neccessarily making you enemies).

And yet your party's platform is almost exclusively based on a deep hatred for George Bush.

So much so that they've nominated a clown simply because of supposed "electablility"...

Yep, you guys should've nominated Dean.

It's not my party. And don't try and claim that the Democrats are based on hatred. This line about Kerry being only a candidate as an alternative is all fine and good until you realize how much more integrity he has then Mr. Bush. Who actually served and still spoke out against the war? Who actually supported the war and still went AWOL and had his rich daddy bail him out of it?

And who was the coke addict with a DUI conviction but now can preach his newfound faith to the country?

If you want to talk integrity, it's pretty clear.

Anyway, I won't get into it anymore with you. But the Republican party sure seem to me like they hate Kerry an awful lot. You guys are frightened, even if you keep denying it.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
again this is BEFORE all that and is dealing with that picture and the pictures alone. theres a difference. hindisght is 20/20 on what went down. would you apporove then of having saddam in the white house telling him he did a good job and praising hing in 1995. i think not.

Are you just ignoring me on purpose? Rumsfeld and many others have quotes one can easily look up, talking about the great ally Saddam Hussein is, all after his genocidal actions that were well-reported. That is not a case of hindsight is 20/20.

Do you really believe the Bush administration (both of them) have been so noble as to support a dictator until they find out how scummy he is without questioning his use of their own weapons for questionable tactics? Are you really this naive? He was an ally because he made them money. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that.

If this war on terror has been successful, why are we more frightened of terrorists than we've ever been? Why is there no real link between Al Quaida and Hussein (actually sworn enemies)? And ask a historian, not CNN. Why have they not captured Darth Vader himself: Osama Bin Laden? Because they're too busy making money for their friends, not keeping the country safe. They've provoked the world to hate the U.S. more than ever before. And others will die. And that's the real tragedy. I hope they're stopped before another attack happens. And so do MANY other Americans.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Rikk
It's not my party. And don't try and claim that the Democrats are based on hatred. This line about Kerry being only a candidate as an alternative is all fine and good until you realize how much more integrity he has then Mr. Bush. Who actually served and still spoke out against the war? Who actually supported the war and still went AWOL and had his rich daddy bail him out of it?

And who was the coke addict with a DUI conviction but now can preach his newfound faith to the country?

If you want to talk integrity, it's pretty clear.

Anyway, I won't get into it anymore with you. But the Republican party sure seem to me like they hate Kerry an awful lot. You guys are frightened, even if you keep denying it.

back up your claims. i want EVIDENCE to back up you "coke" claims. witnesses only not someones opionion on it. facts. and your "awol" claims. but here i'll save you the time you can't. the "coke"things were and always have been a rumour and the awol things have been shot down repeatily. can't get an honorably discharge if your awol now can you. i want evidence like this on gore:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/gore/warnecke.html

Before we move on, can we say something more about the pot smoking days. What was it like? You'd go to his house or you'd go to his house? What would you do?

We smoked a lot of grass. Far more than he's acknowledged... Al and Tipper would come over, and the first thing Al would do, usually, to check outdoors, look out the windows, roll down the shades. You know, ask me if I had any marijuana and joints. I always had. I had good connections in San Francisco, so I always had the best dope in town and I never charged him for it. I always gave it away. We had a sort of a motto in the hippie culture that you shared your dope...

Why did he like to smoke dope? Did it relax him? Did it make him more--

I think it relaxed him, but you wouldn't notice it if you looked at him. He was still a pretty stiff person. He wouldn't loosen up and crack a lot of jokes and get silly. That's not-- First off, that's not Al. He's a very serious person. I mean, everyone keeps saying-- I keep reading, "Well, you got to see Al when he lets his hair down. He's really funny." Well, occasionally he does-- But it really isn't Al. Al is a very serious guy and he's always thinking about serious issues and about serious matters. And I think the marijuana stimulated that, stimulated our conversations about different things, political things.

At that time, I think, if I can remember correctly, he was for the legalization of marijuana as I was, as was everybody in America who smoked grass. College kids. But the stories that are out now about Al not smoking very much grass just aren't true. We smoked a lot of grass, and he smoked a lot of grass. He didn't just try it a few times.

What's the first time you guys smoked dope together?

I think we first smoked grass-- I think my reputation preceded me as this sort of legendary hippie who had been with the Grateful Dead from San Francisco. We had a lot of grass. And Al sought it out. I think he wanted good grass. I think that's what he wanted. And I always had it, and I was always giving it away. We probably first smoked grass when he first came back from Vietnam. Maybe before he went. And we continued to smoke on a constant basis. And when I say constant, I don't mean every day, but we smoked several times a week.

We would smoke at his farm, we would smoke in the car. We would smoke-- I remember one big long drive to Memphis to get a certain kind of barbecue for a lunch we were having...and smoking grass all the way down and all the way back in the car. I remember going to beer parties at my neighbor's house and Al always hitting me up for joints... I was his source. Mainly because he always knew I always had grass on me. I always had a rolled joint, usually shoved behind my ear. And I always was willing to share it with my friends. So Al knew I could get him high
---------------------------

prove bush did "coke" with evidnece like that not someones op ed piece where it's just there opinion

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Rikk
Are you just ignoring me on purpose? Rumsfeld and many others have quotes one can easily look up, talking about the great ally Saddam Hussein is, all after his genocidal actions that were well-reported. That is not a case of hindsight is 20/20.


again your missing the point i don't know why it's been so hard for you to understand the point i'm making: the point being the pics i posted were post Tiananmen Square (and those are the actual people whe commanded the troops and carried out the acts in Tiananmen Square) he was praising and clinton was telling them they did a good job there etc etc etc. this is after the fact. it's like saying oj knew how to handle an knife post june of 94.


Originally posted by Rikk
Do you really believe the Bush administration (both of them) have been so noble as to support a dictator until they find out how scummy he is without questioning his use of their own weapons for questionable tactics? Are you really this naive? He was an ally because he made them money. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that.

it was a case of an enmey of my enemy is my friend. like stalin in wwii. we were enemies before then but we had a common enemy in hitler. same with iraq. we both hated iran




Originally posted by Rikk
If this war on terror has been successful, why are we more frightened of terrorists than we've ever been?

yes the war has been successful. 2/3 of al quads leadership is dead or in jail. cells are being rolled up all over the world. money lines are being shut down etc etc etc.



Originally posted by Rikk
Why is there no real link between Al Quaida and Hussein (actually sworn enemies)? And ask a historian, not CNN.
right. here are some threads ont his just from the past few weeks:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7765&highlight=clarke

British report links al Qaeda, Baghdad

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8136&highlight=clarke

Clarke feared bin Laden might 'boogie' to Iraq
9-11 report says counterterror czar believed Saddam offered asylum

but the iraq war waen't just about iraq and al quade it was about saddam and terrorism in general like his support for terrorist groups like hamas and hezbullah who are behind sucide bombings in israel tht have killed amaericans. it was also about his support and his harbouring of the following people who have killed americans:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2002/05/31/image510807l.jpg

Abdul Rahman Yasin an al quada memeber who was involved in the first wtc attack. that pic is from when he was interview on tv from baghdad from 2002.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/02/24/sprj.nirq.main/vert.zarqawi.jpg

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi an al qadea member who was wanted pre-iraq war for murdering a us diplomat. since then we all know what he's been up too.

but like i said it's not just about obl:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0304/timeline.abu.abbas/gallery.abbas.jpg

abu abbas wanted for the Achille Lauro highjacking. he was captured in iraq and later died in us custody.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/26/abu.nidal/nidal.jpg
abu nidal. so many crimes to list it's not funny. he "commited suciede" in iraq a little while before the the us invaded iraq. there has benn evidence that he was the missing link so to speak between saddam and atta which is why saddam had him killed so we wouldn't get him.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/12/jackal.wedding/story.carlos.jackal.jpg

Illich Ramirez Sanchez aka Carlos the Jackal again to many crimes to list. was hanging out in iraq for awhile. he wsa in jordan to where the iraqis tried to pass him of as taqiq aziz's cousins then when the jordaians ot wise to it he went to sudand and was caught.


Originally posted by Rikk
Why have they not captured Darth Vader himself: Osama Bin Laden?

we're trying. we have more troops in afghanistan then at any other time before.but throwing troops at the problem will only get them killed. it's an intelligence game now.


Originally posted by Rikk
Because they're too busy making money for their friends,

right and that why thats why the cbo ruled all the contracts were fine and legal. oh maybe your refering to halliburton right. oh yeah there making money. they just posted a HUGH loss this quater


Originally posted by Rikk
not keeping the country safe.

safer then before.


Originally posted by Rikk
They've provoked the world to hate the U.S. more than ever before.

oh yes we were realy loved before:rolleyes: so loved in fact that were we called and imerial nation hell bent on ruling the world by people like the former french prime minister. there was so much love for us that the us embassys were attacked. same with the cole,kohbar towers, etc etc etc and when that all happen when clinton was president.


Originally posted by Rikk
And others will die. And that's the real tragedy. I hope they're stopped before another attack happens. And so do MANY other Americans.

i'd worry more about canada considering the CSIS director has said as much theat canada is overdue to get attacked by obl.

[Rikk]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
i'd worry more about canada considering the CSIS director has said as much theat canada is overdue to get attacked by obl.

I'll pretty much roll my eyes at your entire post, watching you scramble for the nicely made-up answers to ignore some of the obvious. If you want to believe it's all just and good what the administration is doing, you will...no matter what people tell you. This was, like the last, is corrupt...or there wouldn't be so much goddamn lying going on.

This whole fear thing is working on a lot of people and buying votes. I'm not worried about an attack. The U.S. can claim that Canada and whoever else will be attacked to gain allies. I don't fear it for a second because hardly any of my soldiers are currently exploiting Iraq in the name of freedom for taxpayers that will be hurting from it.

There is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and any terrorist attacks in the United States. You've posted no die-hard evidence of such a link, nobody in the media has posted any credible evidence. And funny...I thought the whole point was to find the evidence BEFORE you actually go to war over it. Shouldn't you only put young American lives in danger once you're sure it's the only solution? People being in Iraq at one point in time is not evidence of an immediate threat worth going to war for. These terrorists were in Canada. Attack Canada too then. We've found NO WEAPONS. NO EVIDENCE of a threat. C'mon...quit trying to search out Cheney, Rumsfeld and CNN's scapegoat answers. Nothing has been solved. People have died for no reason. The country is in a shambles. And in November, Bush will pay the price...but not just for that. Also for a crummy economy and pathetic intelligence in stopping 9-11 (and for this last point I think Condy Rice is especially to blame considering she is the one that didn't even read or pass onto the President an important memo detailing the attacks in August 2001 ).

Seriously, I like you. You seem like a nice guy. I have no issues with you at all. I think we can just agree to disagree. I've had a few little insult wars with people in this forum, and I don't really want to. I'm here to talk Roth Halen. I don't want to get into fights with fellow Roth Halen fans because we disagree on political views. Discussion is good, but we're not getting anywhere.

I think America needs change to thrive. You don't. Let's agree to disagree.

[lucky wilbury]

no evidence! no weapons! no threat!. i guess you missed all the following:

wmd from articles and threads that were posted on this board you can search the board for these articles:

from july
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...1018EDT0516.DTL

Chemical munitions found by Polish soldiers were being pursued by terrorists

or from may

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...lfer/index.html

Gas shell findings a concern for Iraq arms inspector

also from may

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...main/index.html
Tests conclude artillery shell contained sarin


no threat!. form someone who opposed the iraq war:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040618/D839DV0O1.html

Putin: Russia Gave Bush Iraq Intelligence

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

other evidence from 1996:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB:
Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters


it talks about iraq's involvment in the 1993 wtc attack and uses the court case againest Ramzi Yousef and all that evidence to base it on. and in case you did't know Ramzi Yousef is 9-11 planner khalid shiek mohamneds nephew and a member of al queda.

and there was no memo detailing the attacks of 9-11 if you read the 9-11 report you would know that. all that memo said is obl wanted to attack the us. which is nothing new. and before you said it said the word highjacking in it it had many other threats that were out there. i'm not picking a fight here just debating which is what this forums is for. but back to my original first point one last time ultra clear the pics is posted were of the following chinese PLA members:

General Zhang Wannian
General Chi Haotian
General Xiong Guangkai

these were the people DIRECTLY responsable for Tiananmen Square. the posts aren't about the chinese government. it was about clinton priasing and having parties just for the generals in the white house after the fact. it was for them and only them. it would be like roosevelt having Heydrich and Eichman to the white house,if they all lived, and throwing parties for them and saying you did good with those jews. i have a problem with that which is why i posted those pics.

[HELLVIS]

Originally posted by freak
Oh. Wasn't sure if that is what our little freind was implying or not. I've never heard tell of a speech impediment so bad that it affected typing.

Someone might refer him/her to a Ear,Eye,Nose and Throat professional. They do wonders with cleft palettes nowadays.

Anyway...

What does "neck car" have to do with the fact that musicians would better serve humanity by playing their damned guitars, singing their little songs and keeping their idiotic opinions to themselves?


I guess some of us not only have speech/typing impediments, but short term memory as well. As you may have noticed, this thread is about moron musicians for JOhnKErry....but LOUNGE lost track mid-post and strayed straight into "neck car".
No wait! he/she must have been distracted by your personal info at the left of your post, and .....that's it.....attention deficit disorder!

[HELLVIS]

You know, if you're from tenn. you must be a red-neck, nascar lovin', sister fuckin' ( that's why I keep mine out of your yard ), PBR drinkin',
chicken lickin', booger pickin', moron.

Na! I doubt it.

[freak]

Originally posted by HELLVIS
You know, if you're from tenn. you must be a red-neck, nascar lovin', sister fuckin' ( that's why I keep mine out of your yard ), PBR drinkin',
chicken lickin', booger pickin', moron.

Na! I doubt it.

Actually, it's far worse than that.
I am a native West Virginian.

Therefore, it would be *my own* sister who needs to worry. :D

Stereotypes are fun. Especially when bone-headed liberals indulge in them

[HELLVIS]

Oh no! I seem to have misjudged you. I've played some clubs in W.V. and I've seen first hand the kind of breeding that takes place there.
Hell, I've done some of it myself!

[King VH]

Rikk, your my boy, but I think that your so anti-establishment that your not seeing the progress the US is making since we went into IRAQ. Like lucky wilbury said, 2/3 of all top al qaeda have been wiped out, sadaam is behind bars, and we're still trying to hunt down bin laden. You can't tell me that the world in general is not safer w/out sadaam hussein. We made a promise to Iraq that we would stay there during and after they established a new government and we are keeping are word

i'm out. Kind King VH:)

[Sgt Schultz]

According to a Billboard.com poll, the answer is no. Of 3,482 voters, 75% said the opinions of recording artists and other celebrities do not influence their political views. Only 8% admitted that they could be swayed, while 17% said their views were "sometimes" altered by the opinions of artists.


Despite the influx of artists on the political scene, there are opposing views.


"People shouldn't vote for a Presidential candidate just because a rock star says so," veteran artist Alice Cooper (news) says. "And that's true whether it's Bruce Springsteen or Alice Cooper... I think that the rebellious spirit of rock'n'roll doesn't mix well with political fundraisers and electoral campaigning."


Cooper made his comments in a statement released this week to clarify something he believes was taken out context during a Canadian tour stop, where he was asked his opinion on the Vote for Change tour.


"It's true what I said, that most of us dropped out of school to chase girls, drink beer, and play rock n roll ...," he said. "That doesn't mean we don't have opinions, and it doesn't mean we don't care about our country, or what's going on in the world. It just means I don't think our opinions should matter to anyone else."


Singer/songwriter Paul Westerberg (news) agrees. "That's their choice if they want to do it, but I just really hate when rock 'n' roll mixes," the former Replacements lead singer told Billboard.com. "I mean, it's oil and water when rock 'n' roll mixes with politics. To me it's just wrong. It's something that Wayne Newton (news) can do, you know? Don't lower yourself.


"I mean, I'll go out and give a guy money who needs money on the street and I'll go out and help someone and I'll go out and stop a fight myself, but I'm not about to go endorse someone for their purpose."