It sure seems that politics excites some people more than the 5th or 6th of september the new album comes out. Personally I can't wait for 9-5 to happen. I want that bigger bang, coz it will be a rocking peaceful one, and everybody will be very happy with it. BTW, were some parts of the song aired in all this press coverage?

Well, I'm sure that George Dubbya will get all his best people on to it right away, or at least , when they come out of playschool....

Regards,

Ian.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

Whale - I'm very excited, probably more than with the release of the previous 4-5 albums.

Still, this has been an interesting thread with the contributions of drake and dennysmith being extremely insightful and thoughtful. I have to say though that the Bush bashing side hasn't been able to offer up much in the way of solid argumentation. But you're right, it's not a board for politics. Still, if I see a semi-intellectual post, I'll respond to it as it is my right, just as it is theirs to share an opinion. As for the simplistic "Bush Sucks" or other posts without substance, I'll refrain from comment. It demeans the importance of what is the most serious issue of the day.

Mick has offered up a song that whether penned for publicity or politics, may reinvigorate the debate. That's what democracy is all about and people should be aware and active- no matter what side their own! :-)

4tylix//

"..have to say though that the Bush bashing side hasn't been able to offer up much in the way of solid argumentation"

...and I haven´t seen much of solid (for me) argumentation from the Bush-faithful either. Surprised?


This is what most non-american citicens DO NOT want:

*[www.newamericancentury.org]


"• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;"

Well we all know that there are "good" dictators - dictators that jump when told to jump, and dance when told to. They are safe, as long as thay "behave" in a - for the U.S - profitable way.


"• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;"

So the U.S can be influental.


"• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

Of course the U.S wants whats best for the U.S, but to force (in many different ways) their "principles" upon others is totally wrong.

"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

"Moral clarity" - yeah you know whats best for the rest of the world...My god in half your states you more or less bash the evolution theory. Frightening. And your administration talks about fundamentalism in other parts of the world...

Edit: Yeah im VERY excited about the new album, it will be great.








Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-11 17:25 by Magnus L.

Good article and well chosen as it's from a neocon think tank...still it's from 1997...a bit dated, but still captures the philosophy.

Evolution is taught in all public schools. However, I don't see the relevance to this debate. You're not seriously comparing fundamentalists to Al Qeada or Baathists are you? Not to say that some aren't nuts, but they're far from forming a majority government here. Bush's recent statements on the issue only indicate an openness to have all sides of the creation debate explored in schools. Again, it's more about allowing, not disallowing debate.

Well, 4tylix, some would say that extremists indeed formed a majority goverment there. Not Al Qaeda extremists but somewhat extremists anyway...

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

sure, the some being Baathist punks. I'll admit to a HUGE mistake in this war. The Iraqi army should have been hel intact with only those who had committed war crimes being removed. I think idealism took over a bit, but perhaps it was a political reality that a Shia majority nation wouldn't want a SUnni dominated military, edpecially one that had terrorized the population. Either way, the decision fueled the Baathist portion of the insurgency.

I was refering to the US, 4tylix. Maybe I didn't understand what you tried to explain, but my point is that the Bush administration would be considered "extremist" by many "european politics standards", so to say.

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

ahhh, but bruno the nature of American politics is such that any truly extremist entity's actions would be balanced by other branches of government. I can't think of a single piece of sweeping legislation on a social issue that's been enacted here in the past 5 years. The Patriot Act was enacted in light of 9/11 and given wath England is doing now is not very extreme. In fact, Democrats here may say they oppose it, but most Democratic leaders voted for it. The legislation is really not extreme by historical standards after such a crisis event. I expected a much worse attack on civil liberties after 9/11 and that's another reason I respect Bush. I think Gore would have led a much greater assault on foreigners living in the US and been a greater proponent of surveillance.

Was invading Iraq extreme? Perhaps, but I'd say it was bold.

By the way, I apologize for staying on this longer than even I expected, but I'm interested in everyone's ideas. Question - how do people feel about Churchill? I just read a book about him and it's clear that @#$%& never would have had a chance if Churchill, not Chamberlain had been in power in 1938. Instead, he was discredited at the time for warning about Nazism and calling for a military buildup.

Tsev

I am against the war in IRAQ but please don't be naive

Have you read how the UN had thee hands in Iraq' Pocket

Food for oil program?

Are how they failied in Bosnia until US went in

2-How after Vietnam thet did nothing about canmbodia and its slaughter
3-It does not condemn terrorism.
4-It cannot even define it..
5-It allows terroris countries to run panels.
6- Did nothing about slavery in Sudan

the French and Germans had thee hands in Saddams pocket.

It is a morally relatavist organization and you want there approval?

Who helped bring an end to slaughter in Bosnia?

Or the situation in Ireland was it not Clinton and the Pressure he put on?

Or Got Missles out of Cuba?

Who freed South Korea you want to compare the North and South Korea quality of life?

Was it not Bush who sent sweet Neo Con Condi over to Sudan to focus on this?
Not the UN.

Was it not US force that got Libya to turn over weapons?

For years they ignored it.

As for no WMD. After 9/11 we had to be premtive the only way to know if he had or not was to go in he refused to stand by post war agreement.

It is a Catch 22 the only reason we know he does not have WMD is because we went in

What choice did we have? Guess? Hope he does not?

Where I disgree with Bush we should have bombed instaltions then gone in with inspectors even if we have to clear Irag troops to do it. Any one that got in the way we deal with. sadam was give two choice agree or we take over.

Instead of stay in but we are going with UN inspectors full force if you don't stop hindering

And we don't know if he sent to other countries. We stupidly waited so long for the UN he could have done anything

Then Get out. I think Saddam did not have to be thrown out and I think after the Bombings he would have allowed inspections or let some other leader take over. But occupation is insane. This could have been done if the wold supported it would they have ?Maybe Turkey maybe?

BTW TSEV would you have been for bombing Syria Iran well documented supporterss of terorism? Bet not which makes your arguments non-secutar

THE UN accomplished nothing never do without our power.

Oh yea I forgot Bosnia when only UN troops was a big success NOT

Vietnam Cambodia after America big UN success story NOT

And with our keep a Major democratic Military force Russia was starving and could not keep up OOOPS sorrry that was UN forces that pushed the wall down. NOT

And Kuwait yea that was UN also there troops NOT

Most countries there are anti Democratic and that is who you depend on

Without US force they acccomplish nothing

Rememeber how did you get knowledge of no WMD'S by us going in you are caught in a quandry there.


US foriegn Policy is inconsistant and many times self serving and I disgree with it many times.

But your arguments and many others on this group against the war are the exact reason your argument failed you use ad homenin attacks old hippie argunents and relativist ones intead of logical ones.

I disagree Wth Pat Buchanan many times but read his arguments against the war logic

Not these "imagine all the people" Bullshit...... (Love the song althought not realistic)

There are plenty of reasonds to be against the War in Irag but can we lose the useless UN and the naive "War is bad arguments"

Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany or South Koreans it is an Evil Necessaty at times.

Ghandi though we should just let the Nazi's take over Pacifisim. Yea that would work ask the peole in the Ukraine who thought at first the Germans were liberetors until they were slaughted.

Like I said I am against war in IRaq for reasons stated but if the UN had backed itself up and had any power to enforce resolutions during the Clinton years we would not have needed to go in at all
But they are powerless

If not why did they allow Saddam to toy with them for ten tears?

If we inspect a bag and no bomb is found was it wrong to inspect the bag?

There was enough doubt to have a forced inspecion. Even without any WMD eveidence just the fact he has used weapons gased his own in the past and refused inspection

I don't compare @#$%& and saddam except both evil but Saddam did not keep to Versailes treaty and saddam did not keey to Gulf war treaty
shot at plans etc

When @#$%& went into Rhineland and nothing was done history shows he could have been stoped there his forces were limited. But world did nothing

Get out of Iraq.. Bush went too far but please the 60's are over.

Lets live in reality

If cops invade Dillingers house and finf know weapons would you brag about that?

After all the evil he has done? And he resisted inspection?

It appears that MIck's got all the bushies pretty agitated.

another reason to love the guy.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Jagger can sing what ever he wants. But actions speak louder than words. The Stones have been sponsored by Clear Channel, Cohl is a consultant to Clear Channel, Clear Chanel was among the largest contributors to the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004.

Clear Channel make their dollars from their connection with the Stones and Michael Cohl, then sends those dollars to George. Forget the lyrics - follow the money trail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-08-11 20:10 by skippy.

I have no proble with speaking is mind

But Jagger did not go to Businees school fro nothing

Excellent post Skippy!

Skippy:

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course corporations are in bed with BushCo - corporate America has always aligned with the Republicans - they rub each other's backs.

Does that mean that Jagger must be a neo-con? Is that your point - because he is associated with a major corporation?

I think he's making no bones about it with the references in this song that I've read and the quick interiew about it that was shown on TO TV. In this case I think words speak louder than so called "actions."

4tylix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Still, this has been an interesting thread with
> the contributions of drake and dennysmith being
> extremely insightful and thoughtful. I have to say
> though that the Bush bashing side hasn't been able
> to offer up much in the way of solid
> argumentation.

Neither have you, my friend. Neither have you.

I think--Bush doing just his Job. Still vote for him.He is on the right way!!!

The idea that those leaning to the left (or right) have to somehow win some argument is silly. Clearly nobodys going to convince anybody of anything, & there are stark fundamental differences - a polarized culture - regarding the Iraq war, role of the US (& west) in international affairs. And of course mr democracy (shrub) was seriously considering secretly funding preferred Iraqis in the January election. Speaking of elections, good Harper's (current issue)article by MarK Crispin Miller about what happened in Ohio in the 04 election.(A: much the same as Fla 00) Well some might like it.Naturally the right wingers would think drake & dennysmith have been 'especially thoughtful.'

My point is, if in fact the song is about GWB being such an ass, and an important factor, Jagger believes his own lyrics, then Jagger's principles are for sale to the highest bidder.

John Florida agian

Oh Brother...................


The only votes not counted in Florida are the ones not counted in every election

The ones that can not be read are kicked over two million were kicked out that year

On a nation basis. Did Gore want them counted NO because maybe he would lose hie national popularity lead.

The same he say he would have won florida if all votes counted brag about winning national vote when not all votes were counted sound like hypocrsey?

Did he want every vote in Florida counted NO just democratic counties

When confronted with it Gore said "that is not for me to push for republicans should push for those counties" Boy there is a man who cares about every vote it was a nice sounding mantra but thats all it was.

Even NY Times said that was a bad move.

I though he wanted every vote counted? BULLSHIT.

That is why the Supreme court came in

The Florida court went along with Gore and selected counties only would be counted which is unconstitutional. And by no set standard. They legislated from the bench when Florida law strickly stated election must be certified by late November.

Courts are not suppose to rewrite laws but interpret them

The supreem Court at first just vacated the ruling they had questions
The supreme asked how did they come up with that? They arrogantly did not answer.
Then made a secound rulling backing Gore and ignores state law and the supreme court

They pushed the Supreme court into a situation where thay had no choice.
Equal representation. Not one vote counted in certain counties by no standards but not others or the nation as a whole. What you do for one you must do for all.

Not to forget the state of Florida has two time zones the one later his in a more conservative area. TV called Gore the winner before the polls in those areas cloes so how many conservative voters turned around? We will never know.
was Gore going to allow them to vote again NOT

Is that equality?

And the Buterfly ballot was created by a democrat in a democat city.

And Gore lost his own state and Clinton's state if he would have won one of them them he wins.

Gore unlike Clinton had no respect for people with conservative values That is why Clinton won the south and Gore did not.
And Kerry did not we can disagree but respect.

No democart wanted every vote counted nationally or in Florida.

All the same votes were counted that were counted in all states the ones that kicked out well they are never counted

Every recount showed Bush won SO PLEASE

Unless you want to count every vote nation wide that kicked out.?

How can Gore brag about winning National vote millions of poor souls votes were not counted.

He says every vote should count he means that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4tylix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > Still, this has been an interesting thread
> with
> > the contributions of drake and dennysmith
> being
> > extremely insightful and thoughtful. I have
> to say
> > though that the Bush bashing side hasn't been
> able
> > to offer up much in the way of solid
> > argumentation.
>
> Neither have you, my friend. Neither have you.


hmmm...guess ya never bothered to hit any of the links I provided (as robert_stone1 too)...never heard me just say "Bush Sucks" or "smell the coffee"...guess the truth hurts ,eh? I notice that only the anti-Bushites want this thread shut down...not unusual though. They're the one who promote political correctness and try to promote "freedom fro hearing" rather than freedom of speech...so sad to see what 60'd Democrats have become...today their main issue is protected of terrorists at Guantanamo. It's no wonder they can't win an election. :-)

martingo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It appears that MIck's got all the bushies pretty
> agitated.
>
> another reason to love the guy.
>
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

hey martingo...still sleeping? how about waking up? seems to me that the anti-Bushies are the upset ones....liberals just hate to read long posts it seems...

how do you know what I've read or not read? nothing i read about "why we are in Iraq" is compelling. Americans are slowly (we are a "slow" bunch as a whole) waking up to reality and realizing what's going on. 38% and slipping, my friend. you keep holding onto to your support for this idiot. history will not be kind to him or his crooked cronies (oh, I suppose Rove and company have completely honest, right?).

you're gonna predict history? Jury's gonna be out quite some time on this one. Let's hope we all live that long. Of course, I have lived long enough to know that Reagan was going to cause a nuclear war with his confrontation of the Soviet Union....hmmm...don't see any radioactive fallout near me. How's Reagan judged now? Pretty damn well...

38% and still the President for the next 3+ years...and kicking ass! Go GWB!!! You sweet neocon!

I want to thank you all for keeping this thread on top most of the evening, when such minor happenings as a club gig was played less then 24 hours ago....and snippets of the new album was posted thanks to rocksoff. Are you guys sure you are in the right place????

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

4tylix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How's Reagan judged now? Pretty damn
> well...
>
>

Not where I come from he isn't. That charade/funeral bit last year was amusing in its bombasity, though.

Sweet Neocon is a top story...why not? You can always click to the second one, no?

Besides, I'll call a truce if I don't see people posting anti-Bush babble. If they use the song as a way to vent their views, I will respond.

And dude, I have every album and most boots the Stones have ever done and have been a fan (and remain one) since 1973 when I was 11. But the song started people on a tirade against Bush, and I will not let them own a thread without any debate at all. As I've said, I'll be here to keep it at the top if thats what they want, otherwise, let's rock on and focus on music.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4tylix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How's Reagan judged now? Pretty damn
> > well...
> >
> >
>
> Not where I come from he isn't. That
> charade/funeral bit last year was amusing in its
> bombasity, though.
>


and where do you come from? He's near the top of great presidents lists now, even my liberal think tanks...again, I've offered a truce.

Well the reason for my above posting is that I am pretty much sure that this thread won´t lead anywhere as neither side will convince the other that they are wrong. Threads like this tend to end in people bashing eachother. And "dude", I am pretty sure most of us have all albums and boots, I am not questioning if anyone is a fan or not. Now I´m off to the second one

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings