T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> robert_stones1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > T&A Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Dude, you are no social scientist!
>
> Never claimed to be. But, if you think we are in
> Iraq for some "altruistic" endeavor - neither are
> you.
>
>


I never claimed it was altruism that brought us there. Quite the contrary, I believe it was necessary as part of a national security threat. Look man, all due respect...Saddam had sponsored terrorism oin Israel. He had agreed to many things at the end of the Gulf War to remain in power. He didn't abide by those agreements as a fact (I have quoted from Clinton, Kerry, andf others that attest to this). I mourn the death of every Iraqi, every Marine (I now work on a Marine base and see the loss up close), but this happens in all wars. The enemy in Iraq now are Baathist thugs and Al Queda terrorists. We didn't give birth to them. They've been in Iraq and the Middle East long before we got there. They're cruelty should be self-evident. Yes, some Americans have shown their cruelty in this war too, but we as a society condemn them. The Sunnis in the Triangle glorify such people, Palestinian extremists put suicide bombers on baseball cards. We're the bad guys?

Robert - yeah, we're bad guys when we change the reason we went there and then lie about ti. Yeah, that's right. We never said anything about establishing a democracy there (it'll never happen by the way - and if you believe that - you don't begin to understand the complexity of the region) until we ran out of excuses when our initial premises/lies didnt' add up. We have no business being there - we never did and we never will. Period, amigo!

"The Stones Are Rolling Against Bush" was one of the headlines today on austrian tv!!!

>We never said anything about
> establishing a democracy there (it'll never happen
> by the way - and if you believe that - you don't
> begin to understand the complexity of the region)
> until we ran out of excuses when our initial
> premises/lies didnt' add up. We have no business
> being there - we never did and we never will.
> Period, amigo!

Oh really...here's Bush at the UN in 2002 PRIOR to the war begging for support from those suckers where he clearly states the goal of democracy for Iraq:

[www.whitehouse.gov]

He said he wanted: "a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq."

Comprende amigo???

Dennysmith61 wrote:

"Here you have a group that has never gotten into politics I mean they hated the Hippie movement said it themselves. They though it was phoney
Never talked about Vietnam or against it or gainst LBJ who man then tripled the troups there from 50,000 - 500,000"

The Stones may have generally avoided making simplistic political statements but songs such as Streetfighting Man, Undercover, Highwire & now seemingly Sweet Neocon show how they have often engaged with political issues. It's bullshit that they hated the hippie movement. They allied themselves with it, they threw two of the the Movement's biggest free parties in Hyde Park & Altamont. They recorded their own psychedelic album, wore all the threads, befriended the Movement's leading figures. They gave @#$%& Blues to Oz magazine during it's trial. They did talk about Vietnam & Jagger famously went on the anti-Nam protest outside the US embassy in '68. Brian Jones on more than one occasion damned the war in interviews. The "phoney" remark, which I believe was made by Keith was reflecting on the naff bandwagon-jumping straights & commercialisation of flower power. The liner notes on the back of Out Of Our Heads explicitly target LBJ by the way & although these were written by Oldham rather than the band, they obviously had to sanction them.

Oh, and before you say we "intimidate through cruelty and conquest"...guess we did that on D-Day too??? On Iwo Jima???

If you're a pacifist say so, nothing wrong with that. But if you're gonna pick and choose your wars, let me know when it's justifiable...and by the way @#$%& didn't bomb Pearl Harbor and the South didn't invade the North to provocate the Civil War!

robert_stones1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> Oh really...here's Bush at the UN in 2002 PRIOR to
> the war begging for support from those suckers
> where he clearly states the goal of democracy for
> Iraq:
>
>
>

right - and that's how he cajoled congress into funding this fiasco, right? get a grip on reality please....

not sure how he got them to do that...there were several reasons stated, but the only one I ever cared about was democracy.

btw...you're okay in my book...this shit is never personal to me...I just like people being free to speak their minds. Rock on man!

I don't think Jagger is just "jumping on a bandwagon." I think he realizes that this particular president is a horrilbe, horrible man and has done so much more bad than good on all issues that he at least wanted to get his word in. Jagger's not doing it for publicity, he's doing it b/c it's right and he knows that he should at least put his word in. He has every right, probably moreso than most other liberal celebrities. Good for him, it makes me even more of a Stones fan.

me too...it's in the tradition of the 1960's....more power to him :-)

> We never said anything about establishing a democracy there
> (it'll never happen by the way - and if you believe that -
> you don't begin to understand the complexity of the region)

If you honestly believe than then you're being plain racist. To say that people of that region or religion are incapable of handling democracy is pure bullshit. Look at all the other democratic nations in the world. The US is a great example of the whole meltingpot scenario. Every religion coexists in the United States, yet "those people" are incapable of enjoying a democracy.

racist? huh? that came out of nowhere, drake. Never is a long time - but certainly not in our lifetime. I hope I'm wrong - but centuries of history suggest otherwise.

He was re-elected so he must be doing some good
wait till Bush leaves office
Terrorists will have a field day.
I have friends coming back from Iraq telling me the Iraqis are scared as hell of America leaving them.

Donkey Girl Scout Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was re-elected so he must be doing some good
> wait till Bush leaves office
> Terrorists will have a field day.
> I have friends coming back from Iraq telling me
> the Iraqis are scared as hell of America leaving
> them.
>


Because then the thugs that were there before we came in win...this is exactly what I hear all the time...the insurgency makes up less than 2% of the native population, 3% sympathizes with them, many others cooperate out of fear, but the huge majority of Iraqis (see the elestions in January?) despise it.

By the way...from a Yahoo headline "Jagger Says Song Not an Anti-Bush Tirade":

[news.yahoo.com]

OT: The Stones

I saw this news story tonight thru Associated Press


1 hour, 50 minutes ago


NEW YORK - The Rolling Stones' upcoming album contains a song seemingly critical of President Bush, but Mick Jagger denies it's directed at him, according to the syndicated TV show "Extra."

"It is not really aimed at anyone," Jagger said on the entertainment-news show's Wednesday edition. "It's not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn't be called 'Sweet Neo Con' if it was."

The song is from the new album, "A Bigger Bang," set for release Sept. 6. There is no mention of Bush or Iraq. But it does refer to military contractor Halliburton, which was formerly run by Vice President Cheney and has been awarded key Iraq contracts, and the rising price of gasoline.

"How come you're so wrong? My sweet neo-con, where's the money gone, in the Pentagon," goes one refrain.

The song also includes the line: "It's liberty for all, democracy's our style, unless you are against us, then it's prison without trial."

"It is certainly very critical of certain policies of the administration, but so what! Lots of people are critical," Jagger told "Extra."

A representative for the Stones said the group had no further comment about the song.

The Rolling Stones intend to kick off a U.S. tour in Boston Aug. 21.

Sounds like some good Andrew Loog Oldham style press.

T-SErverin

Jagger himself said the hippie movement was Bullshit case closed on that.

Rolling Stone
We fight the war on terror one of two ways

fighting them in the pocket book and by fighting covert wars this type of war we are not built for (What is going on in IRAQ like Vietnam). And while doing this use all thee other troops to protect our plans and cities and borders.

Our Borders are wide open it is insane and because of politics no one wants to say anything it would sound anti immigrant

Most of thE terrorists came from Saudi Arabi not Iraq are we fighting them?

Bush said we will not be held hostage by oil oh yea what do you call SAUDI ARABIA?/OIL

Instead of having all of them over there we should be protecting ourselves more here.

The second option is all out war against militant facist states Syria Iran etc like we did during WW II All out or get out. the only reasom democracies like Israel did not do this with us is because of the anti-Sematic backlash in Europe could you imagine the reaction if we teamed up and took out facist regimes with Israel?
Imagine the French!

I mean Europe is so blind they equate facist run Palastinian leadership and suporters to a free Israel. Not to say Isarel has not done plenty wrong but always support democracy over facism

Clinton said Arafat was offered 97% of what he wanted and turned it down

At the same time bombing went up in israel the closer they got to a deal.. Why because the ultimate goal is the ending of Israel

Clinton was stupid that treaty like Munich would never succeed. @#$%& had a goal and so does Militant leadership

I was for going into Iraq because he broke promise to allow us to inspect over and over again. We could have bombed supposed sights and forced him to allow inspections are go in. But all out occupation NO there was little resitance when we went in we could have inspected and left are put some kind of combination force into Iraq.

Even the so called Sudo democracies like Turkey did not support it what does that say about ME thought? And left borders wide open for terrorist to come in.

I voted for Bush no option Kerry is a naive chamberline thinking hippie type
who is anti Judeo Christine values

I don't want a realtivist as President.

And if socialist Europe loves you you can't be good for America.

If there is one thing 20th century taugh us is there will be no utopia.

Nitche was right he said it would be bloodiest century WHY because God is dead and without him what rules do we live by?

Bush is wrong to think all men want to be free sadly they don't

If we would have taken patten's advice during WW II and fough the Russians when we were at our strongest and they lost 20 million people we would have avoided 50 years of Communist oppression

We handed some cointries from Nazism to Communism.

Instaed we fough war here war there.

This Iraq war will solve nothing.

I pray I am wrong

4tylix

You create great Dialog wish all did

Very Bright

A society must learn to disagree with respect for human choice an dignity

First gifts God gave us was values and freedom

Not relativism

Relativism will = anti Religious values and secularism to the extreme


that will keep us from oppression of any extreme

My favorite Soloman comment

"a man of God avoids all extremes."

The term "Neo-Con" was made up by US Liberals in politics to attack a certain member of Bush's cabinet who is Jewish and is perceived as a warhawk. It is no mistake that the "Neo" was put in front of it to remind people of the term most associated with "Neo", that being 'Neo-Nazi".

As one (like possibly many other's on this site) who responded to the World Trade Centers and witnessed the carnage, helpless people jumping to their death and hitting the ground with such impact that it sounded like an explosion, leaving their bodies in an unrecognizable form and the ground shaking as the Towers came down (with several colleages and friends being literally pulverized into particles) I find it hard to disagree with the US strategy of fighting OUR (and maybe your country as well) enemies within their stronghold. The US has not been attacked in 4 years and I know for a FACT, due to my line of work, that several large scale attacks that were planned, and close to happening, for here in the US (NYC, DC and LA) and in Europe (London & Paris) were stopped because of information we and the British are gathering in the mideast. It kills me to see the bombings that have taken place in London, innocent people killed. What does this have to do with the Stones?

I love them, but I have ALWAYS hated when Mick pens a political song. Sure the song is getting them lots of press, and Mick is playing up to that but he does not need to do that. He has his political opinions...thats great, keep them off the records. Lets the resident American bashers..Springsteen, Streisand, The Dicksy Chicks, 9/10's of Hollywood and some other shitty little bands spew out their political feelings and get their their 15 minutes, all the while missing the point of what we are trying to do is secure the saftey of our country and our allies. We are in the age of nuclear weapons and thats what these people want. Imagine that situation?

Regarding Keith's reaction: He is not being a pansy. His wife is from NYC, Staten Island specifically. Out of the 3,000 people murdered on 9-11-01 Staten Island residents accounted for the majority of those 3,000. Every other street, literally, in Staten Island is now named after someone murdered that day. I live not far from the Hansen Family and KR is a regular at some pubs in Staten Island. Maybe Keith has a different perspective, due to his daughters, his wife and his extended family in NY. Maybe he believes that what Prseident Bush is doing is right and better in the long run ? Who knows....but at least he ain't saying it. People are now focusing on one song instead of the bigger picture...the music and the tour. I'll bet anyone a ton of money that "Neocon" will not be played live ONCE in the US.

Believe it or not, many people support the President....they did elect him again, a process Mick Jagger has no involvment with. I feel it is a desperate publicity stunt by Mick and proof that their is at least one Jagger solo track on the new album.

Those of you who live in major cities across the globe should be thankful that there are men and women out there, right now, working to protect you and your famiies.......because these Bastards are not going away AND THE THREAT IS REAL. They have stated that and they have stated that they are driven by the fundamentals of their religion. THEY CHOSE THE METHOD OF WAR.... and now people, and Mick, are apparently angry that the response of the US is to give them all the war they want.

I wonder what Mick's reaction would be if he was in the same postion he is in now, in 1939, 1940, 1941, when Germany was bombing the crap out of London on a daily basis and firing V2's into innocent peoples homes? England responded by burning Dresden Germany (among other cities in Germany), a non military target, to the ground with'round the clock bombing, killing THOUSANDS of civilians. Would Mick write a song bashing Churchill or would he find the action of deliberatly destroying a civilian target to be acceptable ? He should have kept his mouth shut and left the song off the album. It is just a distraction and a cheap publicity stunt that is beneath the band.

It could be argued that London still has the same skyline right now because President Bush decided to make a military base out of Iraq and have US and several allied soldiers hunt these bastards down.

Didn't Mick say at The Concert For New York "Don't @#$%& with New York!". Well now he seems annoyed that the US is telling the world "don't @#$%& with us". How dare The United States be pro-active in defending itself. Nobody complains that Isreal has had the same policy for 30 years. Too bad Mick. Stop the publicity because it all leads back to 9-11-01.

The Stones should just play Rock n Roll and keep the politics in the back pocket. Mick wants big record sales and is attempting to benefit from a situation that started on 9-11-01. NOT A SMART MOVE.

I sincerely hope that your city, town, etc does not go thru a day like NYC went thru on 9-11-01 or something worse. People are sacrificing their lives, right now, to prevent attacks. I remember all the NYC Liberals (they are easy to spot) running up to us on 9-11-01 begging for help and swearing revenge, now they sing a different tune because war is ugly and yes, people do get killed. I guess it's only ok if Americans get killed because we are spoiled and deserve it, all the while proping up half the @#$%& planet with all types of aid.

It's like the Cops.....everybody hates them until they need one.

Milo, NYC
Too disgusted to leave a song quote.

<Well now he seems annoyed that the US is telling the world "don't @#$%& with us".>

Iraq???

Al Quaida has admitted to sending money, weapons and personnel to Iraq to fight the "Infidels".......just like we want them to.

And if anyone brings up the fighting for oil gag.....OF COURSE WE DO !!!!
Oil makes the world go round, if a machine moves, it's got ball bearings which
oil. Do some research and see how many products come from oil, you would be
amazed at how different your life would be without oil.

Plus the world is sucking the mideast dry and when the oil runs out over there that place is gonna be a giant dust bowl worth nothing.

The US is sitting atop billions of gallons of oil....but we can drill for it cause we might hurt an owl or frog. Its ok, we can afford to buy all their oil now but someday its gonna be the other way around. Irony.

Iraq is a strategic location that for the most part we control. We are like the worm inside the apple. Don't believe all the (constant) negative press.

Milo, NYC
With Hot Guns

<Al Quaida has admitted to sending money, weapons and personnel to Iraq to fight the "Infidels".......just like we want them to.>

Your source must be "Sweet Neo Con"

In my opinion that the most annoying thing to many people in Europe is the fact that the US don't hold a coherent position at all, its actions being opposite to the principles of the so-many-times-invoked "in the name of democracy and western way of life".

They promote a war in Iraq because of this country not obeying (sp?) the UN resolutions, when Israel has been doing that since...

They then say that the war is to bring democracy to Iraq, well, is there anything more antidemocratic that forcing other country into democracy? On the other hand, ask half of the countries in Latin America about how many help did they have from the US when the societies wanted democracy and dicatators were supported by the US.

They say that the war is to combat extremist Islam terrorism, but the main house of that is Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. But the problem is that Saudi Arabia is an alley, so it doesn's matter: let's invade Iraq.

Thay take the leader role against terrorism, but by promoting a war. Here in old Europe most of people is convinced that war isn't the way to combat terrorism and the US take its position as if terrorism was born 9/11, when some countries here have been suffering it since at home thirty years ago.

Things like that make people in Europe see the US politics from a critical point of view.

Being the main power in the world means the rest of the world is gonna see you with a critical point of view. And you can't avoid that fact. It has been that way since ever: all the "main powers" in history were seen negatively by the rest: the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, France, Britain... Accept that it's the price of being the main power.

Just my opinion

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

Jagger also said he'd rather play for free than charge (Stones In The Park)

That bootlegging was okay (Amsterdam Press Conference 1973)

Etc.

He can change his spots when he likes unlike the proverbial leopard.

it's all good pre-album release p.r.

It's stirring interest and will help shift afew more copies.

Looking forward to the release date!

I always say to GWB fans or supporters, read Greg Palast's book,

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"

and then we can discuss what a truly wonderful guy (IRONY) GWB is.
The books makes Michael Moore's documentary seem like Bambi.

AND just for the record GWB is one of the most misguided, ignorant, stupid and corrupt politicians of modern times AND a 22 carat RIVET-HEAD.

Tony Blair is only marginally better, but at least he is intelligent.

SD

"Those of you who live in major cities across the globe should be thankful that there are men and women out there, right now, working to protect you and your famiies.......because these Bastards are not going away AND THE THREAT IS REAL."

Please spare us this sort of shit. Bush sent these people in to Iraq in an immoral and illegal war without UN backing on the flimsy pretext that there were WMD's. None have been found. He also implied Saddam was involved in 9/11 knowing this to be untrue. I am not grateful to the US or British troops for the killing of 25,000 Iraqui people (so far). Not in my name! What makes a pre-emptive strike on another non-hostile country part of a war on terror rather than a war of terror?

Good on Mick for sticking it to Bush's cronies & policy-makers especially the allusions to the scandalous Guantanamo Bay situation.

i'm just glad Gore wasn't in office on 9-11
could you imagine!!

Bush inheirted all theis crap from past presidents
No matter who is office people will still blame thier own problems on the president

A lot of craptalk about Bush attacking Iraq because of 9-11. What is with you people? Watching Fox too much? Theres NO links between Saddam and Al-Quaida. And you STILL talk about Iraq and 9-11. Its VERY amusing and SO dumb....


...so is many other aspects of the Bush/Blair against the world discussions.

A little knowledge about US atrocities in the world the last 50 years wouldnt hurt. You´re up there among the worst.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-11 15:16 by Magnus L.

SonicDreamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always say to GWB fans or supporters, read Greg
> Palast's book,
>
> "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"
>

And I'd ask you to read "Saddam: King of Terror" by Con Coughlin and the 9/11 Commission Report. Was there proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a tie? No.
But the level of proof was not required in the post-911 world given Saddam's track record and refusal to comply with UN resolutions.

Another thought...Zarqawi's cell was in Iraq before Saddam's regime fell. THere's a debate over whether Saddam knew about it or supported it. Even if he didn't, as one write alludes to above, perhaps a goal and benefit of being in Iraq is that it makes Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists focus
their efforts there rather than in Western cities. Where would Zarqawi be sponsoring suicide bombers if we weren't in Baghdad? You think 9/11, 3/11, and London was bad? I'm not saying there will never be another major attack in the U.S. or Europe, but clearly Iraq has become Al Qaeda's major field of battle and it reduces their capability to fully realize their dream of terrorizing other countries. Meanwhile, Saddam's torture/rape chambers are gone and most Iraqis (outside the Sunni Triangle where the Baathists and Al Qaeda stir trouble)live a better life than before.

By the way, @#$%& never attacked the US, China/North Korea didn't, Milosevic didn't, and Lincoln invaded the South, not vice versa. Based on the premise of NEVER waging preemptive war...Nazism may have prevailed, communism would rule the day in the entire Korean peninsula (watch out Japan!), ethnic cleansing would have been complete, and slavery would not have been ended as it was by the deaths over 500,000. It's hard to see that history would have been much different without courageous leadership and brave sacrifice while living in the present, but I shiver to think of what the alternatives were for the war on terror, if we didn't take a stand against a fascist regime in the heart of the Middle East. And please, Saudi Arabia has never invaded its neighbors!

> A little knowledge about US atrocities in the
> world the last 50 years wouldnt hurt. You´re up
> there among the worst.
>

Can you share a list of these atrocities? I'm assuming most will refer to U.S. inaction rather than U.S. military action and if it's about not doing enough to end world hunger, everyone has blood on their hands, Europe as much as the U.S..