Pearl Jam Censored @lolla

[ikol]

It is all in the perception. To me and you the many many varied and diverse groups fighting for many many varied and diverse causes (no they are not all the monolithic alqueda freedom haters the admin paints them to be) throughout the mid east, these guys are terrorists, yet to many many arabs in the mid east they are legitimate freedom fighters. Heck i think even the Saudi government privately views them as such, why else would they even to this day contiinue to tolerate their actions?

 

This is what I was responding to when I said you can't fight against freedom and be freedom fighters. While some of the people I consider to be terrorists might think they are fighting for freedom (though many of them probably even consider the idea of freedom to be evil), if it comes down to my definition of freedom versus theirs, I'm going to go with mine. I can acknowledge that they have a different perspective and yet still keep my own. And I wasn't just referring to Iraq. There are suicide bombers in Israel, and now even parts of Europe.

[ikol]

I haven't ever made any of those claims. And just because some anti-war activists resort to sloganeering doesn't make your original statement ("You can't fight against freedom and be a freedom fighter") any less simplistic.

 

That was less of a response to you than to others. I just thought it was funny that a few posts after I was accused of oversimplifying things, someone mentioned the "war for oil."

 

I realize I'm picking on your semantics, but it's only because I expect better from you.

 

I'm sorry for being so anti-semantic.

[anodyne]

and the wars in iraq were not primarily about oil?

[John Smith]

This is what I was responding to when I said you can't fight against freedom and be freedom fighters. While some of the people I consider to be terrorists might think they are fighting for freedom (though many of them probably even consider the idea of freedom to be evil), if it comes down to my definition of freedom versus theirs, I'm going to go with mine. I can acknowledge that they have a different perspective and yet still keep my own. And I wasn't just referring to Iraq. There are suicide bombers in Israel, and now even parts of Europe.

 

 

It is all in the persepctive on which side of the picture you are looking at. From the days prior to the Bush admin labeling AQ and OBL as freedom haters their goals were to target the Saudi Monarchy and over thrown them. Why? because the monarchy was not safeguarding the land, or taking care of the people. They allowed Foreign forces to extablish permanent bases on what they consider to be sacred ground, base used to attack other arabs. Is this right or wrong? From my perspective it is a non-issue, from their perspective it was the biggest issue. But since then our government and our media have dumbed it down and made it a good v evil issue, a freedom hater v freedom lover issue. Doing that alows us to avoid critical thinking on any level and still feel comfortable about what is happening.

 

Bush and the admin have gotten a lot of mileage quoting OBL, but qoutes they never use are ones like OBL talking about If AQ hates freedom and the American lifestyle so much, how come they are not attacking Sweeden? Or when OBL discussed that the best way to defeat America is to draw them into a war in the middle east and bankrupt them? The administration studiously avoids talking about stuff like that. Why? It does not fit the picture they want to paint of the middle east. It comlicates things and gets people thinking, and our administration does nto want any of the populace actuallythinking about what anyone on the other side might be thinking. DOes this make the barbarism any more palletable? absoutely not. But at some point you have to look at root causes and adress them. I would bet that knowing everything they know today if the admin and their supporters knew for a fact that that spending $100 billion on peaceful things would solve every issue without a shot being fired, they would still choose to spend a trillion on war, because blowing things up looks far more decicisve than getting the Saudi's to revamp how they teach their young, which is really where a huge part of the problems lays.

 

The admin want us as people to look at the mid east as one monlithic islamofascist mass bent on taking over the US. This couldn't be further from the truth as there are so many groups with so many different agendas, even in iraq. Iraq is much more complicated than sunni v shiite v kurd because even wthin those groups there are factions with differing goals. And face it we have the bulk of our armed forces in Iraq yet we can not even pacify the country let alone govern it, what makes anyone think that even if the terrorists goal was to conquer the US, that they could? I find it sad that so many young people out there claim that this is the greates threat ever to our country, that there has never been more danger to our freedom etc... yet when pressed on why they don't serve, they usually have other committments, school, career, medical reasons etc... Apparently it is not as serious a threat as they would make it to be. Back in december 1941 my father had to wait in lines for hours to enlist when he and millions of others thought our country was in danger. I have a block poster from the time that shows every house on the street and pictures of every person serving and there are far more pictures of people than houses. Those guys backed up their words when they said they felt the country was in danger.

 

Lastly the comment about living in a country ruled by bumper stickers was humorous if only because we do live in a country ruled by slogans. Fair and Balanced, they Hate our Freedom, Never Forget, Good V Evil etc... all with no critical thinking about what they mean. I'm done here.

[Chendizzle]

From the days prior to the Bush admin labeling AQ and OBL as freedom haters their goals were to target the Saudi Monarchy and over thrown them.

 

I thought the Bushes were tight with the Saudis?

[caliber66]

That would be Osama going after the Saudis.

[ikol]

and the wars in iraq were not primarily about oil?

 

Setting aside any problems with arguing about motivations as if they were facts, no.

 

It is all in the persepctive on which side of the picture you are looking at.

 

I can acknowledge that they have a different perspective and yet still keep my own.

 

Lastly the comment about living in a country ruled by bumper stickers was humorous if only because we do live in a country ruled by slogans. Fair and Balanced, they Hate our Freedom, Never Forget, Good V Evil etc... all with no critical thinking about what they mean. I'm done here.

 

And only right wing bumper stickers at that!

[John Smith]

And only right wing bumper stickers at that!

 

 

I'm simply pointing out that your end of the poltical spectrum always accuses the other end of the politcal spectrum yet sloganeering is what the right wing lives by. Moreso in the last 7 - 8 years than any other time in my lifetime.

[anodyne]

if not oil, what then was the real casus belli in this conflict? it certainly was not WMD. the downing street memos alone completely discredit that assertion. it couldn't have been to spread real democracy -- the iraqi people in their purple fingered moment picked a slate of candidates along a party without even knowing in advance who would be on the ballot. there is no given reason for this war that makes ANY sense by any stretch other than the control of the iraqi oil fields and a permanent military spending destination to bolster a post-cold war industrial base.

 

 

this certainly wouldn't be the first time we provoked a war for economic reasons. the spanish-american war was at the urging of the united fruit company to protect their investments in plantations. the annexation of hawaii was a direct result of sanford b. dole asking for interventions so he would not have to pay a tariff on pineapples. the mexican american war was polk's blatent aggression to steal half of mexico not just for expansion, but for extension of slavery and rich pacific ports to exploit chinese markets in the future. is it so hard to believe we're in the middle east again for oil? it was only 1953 when we were covertly in iran for that exact reason.

[ikol]

If the administration was willing to lie about WMDs when they knew there were none, why were they not also willing to plant WMDs so that it would appear that they were correct? It makes no sense to lie about them when they knew that they would be found. If they really wanted oil, they could've just invaded Alaska. But then again, we have gotten all this oil since the invasion, so maybe you're right.

[anodyne]

you're not factoring in the blatant incompetence of the administration.

[ikol]

I try not to think about that!

[anodyne]

it's hard not to think of the oil motive when you consider rumsfeld, perle and cheney all saying that the oil would pay for the war (as well as it'd be over in a few weeks and we'd be greeted as liberators).

[ikol]

Yeah, but that would be a cartoonish oversimplification.

[anodyne]

[John Smith]

if not oil, what then was the real casus belli in this conflict? it certainly was not WMD. the downing street memos alone completely discredit that assertion. it couldn't have been to spread real democracy -- the iraqi people in their purple fingered moment picked a slate of candidates along a party without even knowing in advance who would be on the ballot. there is no given reason for this war that makes ANY sense by any stretch other than the control of the iraqi oil fields and a permanent military spending destination to bolster a post-cold war industrial base.

this certainly wouldn't be the first time we provoked a war for economic reasons. the spanish-american war was at the urging of the united fruit company to protect their investments in plantations. the annexation of hawaii was a direct result of sanford b. dole asking for interventions so he would not have to pay a tariff on pineapples. the mexican american war was polk's blatent aggression to steal half of mexico not just for expansion, but for extension of slavery and rich pacific ports to exploit chinese markets in the future. is it so hard to believe we're in the middle east again for oil? it was only 1953 when we were covertly in iran for that exact reason.

 

I happen to think that it all lies with the PNAC and their enormous presence in the administration. Look at the members Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, William J Bennett, Dick Cheney, Elliot Cohen, Steve Forbes, Scooter Libby, Norman Podhertz, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and other less well known. Read their position papers, read about their history. These guys have been advocating war with Iraq since the mid 1990's. Their main goals are to take area's of the world with critical resources and make sure they are friendly to the US.

 

Their theory all along was that we invade a country like Iraq, make a show of force, remove the government and defeat their military using the minimum amount of force, then install a friendly government and maintain a military presence to keep the other countries in the area on board with our agenda. They believe that as the sole remaining superpower that the US has the obligation to impose our will (because we are always right) on foreign countries, that we are obligated to make the world be more like us or at least bend to our will. You have to read what they say and pull the meaning out of how they say it, but they do advocate the US dominance. This group is the incubator for the Neo Con movement and our country is worse off because of it.

 

These guys have permeated this administration, they have pretty much run our foreign policy. They advocate confrontation and imposition of the threat of force over negotiation. Back in the 1990's the right wing screamed and howled that the Clinton administration as taking too much advice from left wing elitist think tanks, but this administration has been pretty much a puppet of elitist right wing think tanks. I know the right wingers of the group won't agree with this, but the administration has been pretty much run by elitist think tanks with the PNAC taking the lead followed by the American Enterprise Institute, The Hoover Institute, The Federalist Society and Grover Norquist's group being the main ones.

 

When people say that this war is not about OIL, who do they think they are kidding? Which companies have made the most money over the past six years? Which companies report record profits every quarter? Sure the oil supply has not been increased, but the profits have rolled in. Makes me wonder more and more why dirty dick has kept every thing to do with energy policy such a secret, who am I kidding he makes everything a secret including stuff that has been in the public domain for years and years.

[JUDE]

NEWS FLASH-

 

Since the beginning of time, wars have always been about taking other peoples shit/resources/etc.

 

-END

[anodyne]

the only argument that it's not about oil that makes any sense to me is that there are neocons in the administration who want iraq to be permanently unstable. this situation gives us an external enemy to unite against, a place to funnel military spending and chaos so complete that there is no accounting for the dollars spent.

 

i tend not to believe this because i don't think the bush administration is competent enough to pull off a plan like that and there is no existing historical model for that sort of policy. this is much more akin to the war in cuba and the philippines 100 years ago.

[Tweedling]

Are there any Democrats in the PNAC.....hmmm?

[MrRain422]

I think Lieberman is probably an unofficial PNAC member. Of course he isn't even officially a Democrat anymore, and for the last several years that he was, he was really a DINO.

[Reni]

I'm guilty of oversimplifying things? I guess I just don't understand the complexities involved with evil/stupid Bush's invasion of Iraq for oil. I would hate to live in a country ruled by bumper sticker slogans. Otherwise, I might have to "give peace a chance."

 

you don't have to "give peace a chance" in the bumper sticker world

 

 

 

 

or you could just slap a yellow ribbon magnet on your car.

[John Smith]

Pearl Jam not first to be censored by AT&T

 

August 11, 2007

BY JIM DeROGATIS Pop Music Critic

AT&T

[ikol]

Why doesn't AT&T just admit that they did it on purpose? Censoring Vedder's bumper stickeresque lyrics is a silly thing to do, but they have every right to do it. It's not at all a First Amendment issue. I have the right to spout my nutty libertarian/right-wing opinions, but the moderators are free to delete my posts.

[Atticus]

*content deleted by moderator*

 

good point

[anodyne]

if at&t admits it, they might not have the cool market to sponsor events and have a captive audience to subject to their cool market. or something. when i think of cutting edge alternative hip, i definitely think of at&t - the only carrier for the iphone!