There has been a lot of discussion about this on the US news channels. Most of the commentators feel that is purely for publicity. Some conservative groups have called for a boycott of ther song becuase it' not patriotic. I doubt they've even heard it.

I mean, who cares what they the Stones stance on anything is? IT's their opinion. "We're free to speak"

Perfect publicity.

4tylix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hard to believe it was a
> Frenchman (Voltaire) who said "I may disagree with
> what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the
> death, your right to say it"


??????????????

I don't find it hard to believe at all, mate...



[There'll be no wedding today...]

Not ALL conservatives would favor a boycott. I think that's a disgusting idea. Everyone should be able to speak their mind. That's why I'm critical of bv's "no politics" policy that hasn't been applied evenly to these threads.

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4tylix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hard to believe it was a
> > Frenchman (Voltaire) who said "I may disagree
> with
> > what you have to say, but I shall defend, to
> the
> > death, your right to say it"
>
>
> ??????????????
>
> I don't find it hard to believe at all, mate...
>
>
>
> The IORRean formerly known as Cousin Lou
> (There´ll be no wedding today...)

I do today when Muslim girls aren't allowed to wear their headdress in public schools. Most Muslims living in France live in slums outside Paris specifically built for them, as they perform menial jobs for the ruling class. Many reports indicate that the plight of European Muslims has been awful as compared to the opprtunities and freedoms afforded to them in America. This is still the land of the free and the land of opportunity.

Europ is dead politically anyway.

Always been a bunch of appeases

Lets see WW II war on Terror Cold war were against
Reagan puting defence weapons in Europe

Of cause Mikhail himself aid he knew he could not ot spend America without going broke.

The New Europe is much better

Old Europe never learned from Chamberline...

And the French never learned from the Versailes teaty

A peace of paper will not bring peace.

It is easy to be a pacifist when your brother is bruce Lee

What would France England Canada do during the Cold war without us?

Defend themselves now theres a laugh.

So they talk peace while having us protect them.

Preach peace while we carry the load.

How easy is that........

And what's worse than appeasement is that the French and Germans arm tyrants like Qadafi, North Korea, and Saddam. Jacques Chirac was called "Jacques Iraq" by the French press for all the deals he made with Saddam.

And the UN? Those bums made millions off oil-for-food, while Saddam built palaces, began reconstituting weapons programs, starved his people, repressed and tortured ethnic minorities. That's the truth, but must be hard to think about when you're sitting in a cafe in Amsterdam, Berlin, or Paris!!! Ya think these people would smell the coffee!!!

Must be difficult to gain access to any truth when your media stations are owned and operated by the state.

4tylix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many reports
> indicate that the plight of European Muslims has
> been awful as compared to the opprtunities and
> freedoms afforded to them in America. This is
> still the land of the free and the land of
> opportunity.

So black, hispanic and muslim people in the US have got the same income and opportunities as white people, and the percentage of black and hispanic people between those sentenced to death is the same percentage they represent in the US population, innit?

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Hmmmm....I don't see our ethnic minorities streaming over the Atlantic. We must be doing something right.

Could you please be more specific.
What does it mean ?
Europe, sorry Old Europe ... never learned from Chamberline ( guess you're talking bout Chamberlain).
French never learned from the Versailles treaty.

Don't really get it!

This is why they recorded that song. Look at all the talk it had generated.
But i highly doubt (and i say this without hearing the song) they will ever play it live!


<First, above all....Stones don't need "Marketing Ploys". They sell no matter what! If it were a Marketing Ploy Donkey Girl, don't you think that it would have been the first Single? Maybe the Title of the Album? Come on!>

It is a ploy since they are getting there name and publicity in places they have not before.
That story was on the front page of The Drudge Report. Now how many people will now buy that record who haven't before. They want to sell sell sell. They have been using ploys since day one. Mick came from the School Of Economics. He knows the power of this.

Right now people think it's cool to bash Bush. The same people bash whoever is in office. The terrorists did not start and will not end with Bush.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-10 18:52 by Donkey Girl Scout.

regardless of our politically philisophical leanings, I bet there is one thing we can all agree on:

The Stones rule and 99.9999999999999% of politicians are lying, thieving, scumbags.

Can't disagree I am a moderate conservative against War in Irag

But against appeasement and naiveness that European philosophy has

Given us the last century +

But love the music

Olympia - Old Europe refers to most of Western Europe (France, Netherlands, Spain etc.) New Europe refers to former communist nations (Poland, Estonia for example).

Donkey - I agree. I hope that no one takes my posts as being from an "Angry American". I just think it's important to discuss the issues freely and openly and that doesn't happen when only one side is heard. I especially take issue with one side acting as though it were enlightened and the other side are barbarians. Americans, including conservatives and neo-cons, can be thoughtful and cultured while believing that the issues of the day must be grappled with differently. Intelligent discourse is the key to understanding, not shutting it down, whether that's by bv or people who'd ban Neo-con. Neither is helpful to freedom of ideas.

4tylix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope that no one takes my
> posts as being from an "Angry American".

No problem, 4tylix. We see each other as an "weird old european" vs. a "weird american", and that's all...

[There'll be no wedding today...]

OLmp

The Frencj felt we could appease the Germans and have a paper peace

The versailes treaty.

It of cause failed.

Old Europe that was protected by NATO=America during cold war

France spain part Part of Germany England (To a certain extent) Did not face the oppression

of Russia and communism during those years so they came out with a naive attitude toward

Political reality. Eastern Europe the Baltic states etc who suffered tremendously

Have a different attitude They know the world needs a powerful military demporacy

America should have isolated itself after WW II let western europe fen for themselves

Let them face that military giant on there own.

Like we had them face Germany for a couple of years before we got in (Only because of naiveness our miltary spending was so down we could not get involved in 1941)

Believe me Western Europes attitude toward America would be very different today.


They would have suffered without the backing of a powerful democracy and theyw ould not be so naive and so secular humanistic

How anyone could have this realtive faith in man after the wars of the 2th century is beyond me.

That is why I am glad Boulton got in as UN ambassordor.

Do you know the UN cannot define terrorism? Never condemn Palestenian terrorists only Israel?

And allow oppressive nations to run commitees?

Only free nations should have a say

But that is the world for ya.

bruno Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No problem, 4tylix. We see each other as an "weird
> old european" vs. a "weird american", and that's
> all...

It would be cool if both cultures could understand each other better. I certainly have a great respect for Europe's role in the development of Western civilization. None of us is weird. We just have different experiences and ideas.

But I'm with you and Cafaro on this...Stones rule no matter what and the new album, including Sweet Neo-con is gonna rock! I'll probably be singing the bloody song at the concert! LOL

4tylix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I certainly have a great
> respect for Europe's role in the development of
> Western civilization.

Well, Western Civilization was born in Europe, after all




[There'll be no wedding today...]

How can you compare the leadup to US involvement in WWII w/ Iraq? "Naive..." -god. Please don't answer, I know, here we are in another so called political thread, I try & try & avoid even reading them, then when its still up there after days I check out what's being said....btw I take the title as a 3 way pun - neocon as defined, neo con as in con artist, con game, and con - daleeza rice.

BUSH SUCKS - DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY

Amazingly sad to see so much focus on politics. We (USA) have been attacked by terrorists for decades, yet when we try to wage a war against these murderers suddenly its called "war mongering". Since everyone else has gone on a rant, I'm gonna post an excellent article I stumbled upon a while back.

I think all this Bush bashing is bullshit for the most part. Its hip to hate Bush and Republicans in general, so go ahead and jump on the bandwagon. Terrorism isnt a kid shooting spitwads at you, its a kid with an AK47 gunning down his classmates. I guess I'm genuinely suprised that people dont take terrorism more seriously. THE TOWERS ARE GONE! DO PEOPLE NOT REALIZE JUST HOW "REAL" TERRORISM IS???? These towers have been on every postcard ever made of NYC, and now because of Muslim extremists thousands are dead and these towers are gone. Stations in London get bombed... I doubt anyone down there thinks lightly of terrorism.

This is not using scare tactics, this is reality. Wakeup.





*The past as today's politics*
When references to history totally confuse the point

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University: Tribune Media Services
Published July 29, 2005

History is evoked more and more these days, even as fewer of us read it.

That apathy explains why when public figures turn to false historical analogies for political purposes, they're often given a free pass to exaggerate or distort. Take, for example, filmmaker Michael Moore, who once compared terrorists in Iraq to our own Minutemen, or Yasser Arafat who implied that the taking of Jenin was as brutal as the battles for Leningrad and Stalingrad. Even Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) recently likened the conditions found in Guantanamo Bay to those in Nazi death camps.

So the next time someone quotes philosopher George Santayana for the umpteenth time that "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it," just assume that what follows will probably be wrong. Having a Rolodex of cocktail party quotes to beef up an argument is not the same as the hard work of learning about the past.

Thus, we are now warned that the war against terror is failing because it has lasted as long as World War II--as if the length of war, not the cost, determines success.

Yet the nearly 2,000 U.S. combat fatalities in Afghanistan and Iraq, while tragic, are a fraction of the 292,000 American battle deaths in World War II--about 0.6 percent, in fact.

The mantra "Bush lied; thousands died" charges that President Bush altered his reasons for the war from the original worry over weapons of mass destruction. But aside from the fact that the U.S. Senate voted for the war on 22 additional counts, wars, rightly or wrongly, have often had a variety of changing public explanations.

Lincoln led the North into the Civil War emphasizing that it was a struggle to preserve the Union, not outlaw slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was not passed until January of 1863, when enough Union progress allowed Lincoln to publicly redefine a practical struggle of restoration into one of sweeping idealism.

Woodrow Wilson ("He kept us out of war") and Franklin D. Roosevelt ("Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars") won re-election by promising non-involvement in Europe's fighting. Yet, when voted back in, they both prepared for war, convinced that there was no living with either Prussian militarism or Axis fascism.

Since America entered World War I without first being attacked, should we conclude "Wilson lied, thousands died"?

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) intoned of the USA Patriot Act he voted for, "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night." Though, so far, that mild statute pales before exigencies of past liberal wartime presidents who really did jail innocents, night and day, without warning or sometimes even justification.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. During World War I, under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, Woodrow Wilson detained citizens without trial and made it a crime to slander the United States. Franklin Roosevelt convicted and executed saboteurs through military tribunals and sent thousands of Japanese Americans to relocation camps.

We're constantly reminded of the regrettable intelligence lapses from Sept. 11, 2001, onward, but they seem almost minor in light of prior blunders in the fog of war.

Thousands of Americans perished at Shiloh, Pearl Harbor and during the Battle of the Bulge because commanders like Ulysses S. Grant, Adm. Husband Edward Kimmel and Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't have a clue what the enemy was planning.

In our confusion during this war, why do we often ignore history or twist its details to fit our own particular needs?

First, in our schools, formal study of the past has given way to the more ideological agenda of the social sciences. Mastery of historical facts is seen as passe, while the less educated instead "do theory" to prove preconceived notions.

Second, good intentions don't always equal good history. Being politically correct often makes us plain wrong, relegating history to melodrama and negating history's power to put tragedy into context.

Third, we're in thrall to the present affluent age, convinced that our own depressing experiences are unique, naturally dwarfing all prior calamities.

But history is not a parlor game used to prove a political point. Instead, at its best, history should offer us solace that we are never really alone.

John r -let's face it, you wouldn't have favored fighting @#$%& either. Why don't you read up a bit on how Saddam massacred thousands, paid suicide bombers to blow themselves up in Israel (haven't seen that much since the war, eh?), had bought millions of sophisticated weapons from the French, Germans, Russians, and violated every agreement he'd made at the end of Gulf War One.

You're either a pacifist or knee jerk liberal who supported Clinton lobbing bombs there in 99, but just can't stand Bush.

Sure ya feel safe in Boston, but I lived through 9/11 in downtown Manahattan...lost friends...God bless George Bush!!!

To Dennysmith61

Sorry ,I fully disagree.
The Versailles treaty pressurised so much(economically ,financially,politically) Germany that the germs of WWII were already (indirectly) included in the treaty.
That was a big mistake but French suffered so much on their own soil during WWI(if you travel down to Europe ,go to Verdun you'll understand better what I mean)that they wanted to prevent any rearmement(or rearming !!) from Germany.
As far as Daladier or Chamberlain are concerned (we call the event 'the Munich shame') they have perfectly read @#$%&'s intentions but their public opinions were against the war.That's the reason why they've signed (against their will)the Munich agreement.

Being against the war in Irak doesn't mean you are an anti american.
Deploring the fact that America is isolating itself from its traditional allies is not being anti american.
You're way too sensitive over all these issues.

drake - awesome post! let's see if the other side can come up with a better reply than "Bush sucks!" or the Stones are pro-gay...

olympia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To Dennysmith61
>
> Sorry ,I fully disagree.
> The Versailles treaty pressurised so
> much(economically ,financially,politically)
> Germany that the germs of WWII were already
> (indirectly) included in the treaty.
> That was a big mistake but French suffered so much
> on their own soil during WWI(if you travel down to
> Europe ,go to Verdun you'll understand better what
> I mean)that they wanted to prevent any
> rearmement(or rearming !!) from Germany.
> As far as Daladier or Chamberlain are concerned
> (we call the event 'the Munich shame') they have
> perfectly read @#$%&'s intentions but their
> public opinions were against the war.That's the
> reason why they've signed (against their will)the
> Munich agreement.
>
> Being against the war in Irak doesn't mean you are
> an anti american.
> Deploring the fact that America is isolating
> itself from its traditional allies is not being
> anti american.
> You're way too sensitive over all these issues.

Olympia -would you disagree that France has always had an anti-semitic streak? An awful lot of Frenchmen cooperated with Vichy government during the occupation (thank God there was a brave resistance movement supported by the US and British)

Second -we haven't isolated ourselves from our allies, they've left us holding the bag got the past 1/2 century!

Please dont patronise me about what I've read & what I think about "history". Iraq was & is a distraction, had nada to do w/ 9/11, "Islamic" terrorism, & has not been invading other countries.Actually the policy of containment was working in recent years.

Containment was working? Where's your proof?

He'd thrown out the inspectors and only promised to allow full inspoections when under threat of attack. He'd played that game for years and after 9/11 and knowing how he was bribing UN officials, it was too much of a risk to allow a historical aggressor to obtain WMD. Of course, you might think he was a pretty harmless guy. Doesn't matter to me...he's in prison, awaiting a much deserved trial and execution...or we could extradite him to France...or Massachussets!

If you think this is anything but a publicity stunt please consider this, do you feel Mick actually feels strongly enough about politics to do a benefit concert for Hillary to really make a change?

HELL NO!!! All Mick gives a shit about is making money.

drake wrote:

THE TOWERS ARE GONE! DO PEOPLE NOT REALIZE JUST HOW "REAL" TERRORISM IS????
-----------------------------------------------------

Drake, mate, you don't have to shout to tell us what terrorism is. We have suffered here in Europe way before 9/11.

Even we spaniards and brits, apart from being recent targets of radical muslim terrorism, have suffered terrorism at home long waaaaaay before 9/11, which somewhat seems to be "Day Zero" for terrorism. So, as much as 11/9 shocked me and I truly feel sad for the victims and for all the US people, I won't accept lessons about what terrorism is and about how important is to combat it. Here in Spain and in the UK, for example, we've been doing that for thirty years...

Just my opinion

[There'll be no wedding today...]

Is this a american political board?

wild_horse_pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this a american political board?

Are you suggesting that American voices not be heard? Hmmmm....interesting