World Wide Suicide

#26
#26
615 Vol said:
I agree with you, there are a lot of phony acts but Pearl Jam is not one of them.
Click to expand...


That is true. Vedder does not support Bush in any way shape or form, and it is not because he is a left wing Dem. He is not even close.
 
#27
#27
rpvol said:
So Bush is not willing to do what it takes....more blood spilled. Great job.

george-bush-sour.jpg
Click to expand...

Bush or any other president over the last 40 years for that matter. And part of what it takes would mean the lives of many more young soldiers. It is a terrible decision for any president to have to make. But they have to be willing to make it, that is one of the requirements of the job.
 
#28
#28
KB5252 said:
Bush or any other president over the last 40 years for that matter. And part of what it takes would mean the lives of many more young soldiers. It is a terrible decision for any president to have to make. But they have to be willing to make it, that is one of the requirements of the job.
Click to expand...


We knew this going in and still went. How many other presidents do you think would have made that same call? All the emotions of 9/11, trying to fix what his father could not...All I am saying is Bush seems to be quite arrogant. I am not that niave that I believe the previous 2 things along with the whole oil situation did not play some kind of role in this whole deal. If it did, that is just sad on his part. I guess the only one that truly knows is Bush himself.
 
#29
#29
rpvol said:
We knew this going in and still went. How many other presidents do you think would have made that same call? All the emotions of 9/11, trying to fix what his father could not...All I am saying is Bush seems to be quite arrogant. I am not that niave that I believe the previous 2 things along with the whole oil situation did not play some kind of role in this whole deal. If it did, that is just sad on his part. I guess the only one that truly knows is Bush himself.
Click to expand...

That goes back to the media. Bush Sr had the war won. When the media showed pictures of the burned republican guard on the highway (it was a slaughter) the public perception turned. Not too mention the fact that we actual thought we had weakened Saddam enough so the people would overthrow him. We also did not want to leave them vulnerable to Iran who would have walked in and taken over.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
That goes back to the media. Bush Sr had the war won. When the media showed pictures of the burned republican guard on the highway (it was a slaughter) the public perception turned. Not too mention the fact that we actual thought we had weakened Saddam enough so the people would overthrow him. We also did not want to leave them vulnerable to Iran who would have walked in and taken over.
Click to expand...

Perception is not always reality. Why would we leave something like that to chance?
Kinda proves my point about Bush jr.
 
#31
#31
rpvol said:
Perception is not always reality. Why would we leave something like that to chance?
Kinda proves my point about Bush jr.
Click to expand...

Because there was a fine line between weakening Saddam enough(taking out the republican guard) while leaving his less loyal troops in tact to so as to give Iran pause in moving in on Iraq. Going in the second time it was known we would have to be there many years later. Another major reason for the war was to have troops on the ground close too Iran. They will be one of our two biggest threats over the next twenty or so years.
 
#32
#32
KB5252 said:
Because there was a fine line between weakening Saddam enough(taking out the republican guard) while leaving his less loyal troops in tact to so as to give Iran pause in moving in on Iraq. Going in the second time it was known we would have to be there many years later. Another major reason for the war was to have troops on the ground close too Iran. They will be one of our two biggest threats over the next twenty or so years.
Click to expand...


I can most defiantely agree with that.
 
#33
#33
KB5252 said:
That is where you are wrong. You punish your enemy long and hard enough they will begin to question their resolve. There is a way to defeat the martyrdom problem too. When Europe ruled the area and were trying to put down revolt they would bury those killed after being bathed in pigs blood, thus making them unclean per the Koran and denying them paradise. They used this method to success in their endeavors. You just have to be willing to do what it takes.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the crusades, the will of the arabs wasn't really broken though they may have lost some battles. They did eventually retake everything they lost.

Jersusalem was retaken a century after the initial conquest by the Christians who inititially took the city from the muslims in probably one of the bloodiest and most cruel conquests in recorded history. For this and other reasons, I'm not sure doing more of "what it takes" will bring about the results you think. If you need European analogues, think of Ireland and Scotland who held out against British rule for century's despite much cruelty.

Moreover, doing what it takes is something pretty closely associated with genocide. There has to be a better way of dealing with the opposition than just killing them.
 
#34
#34
rpvol said:
That is true. Vedder does not support Bush in any way shape or form, and it is not because he is a left wing Dem. He is not even close.
Click to expand...

so what is he?

Pearl Jam: Activism and Information

not a single link on that page or on the "politics, what now?" site that involves helping returning veterans or the families of missing or killed soldiers. Just a bunch of handwringing focused on the current administration. To be fair, there are links to the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity (which has done good things despite Jimmy Carter).

Click on "alternative news" and you're treated to this,
With the number of companies who control our media on the steady decline, it makes sense to check out alternative sources of news to get a balanced viewpoint on current issues. Here are a few we like:
Click to expand...

followed by links to sites like Al Jazeera, Air America, DailyKOS and Salon.com.

To their credit, Pearl Jam doesn't appear to have fallen into the Alex Jones 9-11 conspiracy crowd, but to say he isn't a liberal is as laughable as calling George W. Bush a conservative.
 
#35
#35
He is a person who chooses to call Mr. Bush out.

He did 2 songs for Body of War where all the procedes go to IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against The War). He merely tries to educate people on our current landscape. If that falls under liberal, then so be it. I have heard him say 2 or 3 times in concerts that he does not like to endorse anyone (although he has endorsed a couple of independant candidates in the past) but he does want people to educate themselves on all angles so they can make an informed decision on important things like who to vote for.
 
#36
#36
IVAW and it's parent group, Veterans for Peace are funded by George Soros.
 
#37
#37
jdsa said:
If you're talking about the crusades, the will of the arabs wasn't really broken though they may have lost some battles. They did eventually retake everything they lost.

Jersusalem was retaken a century after the initial conquest by the Christians who inititially took the city from the muslims in probably one of the bloodiest and most cruel conquests in recorded history. For this and other reasons, I'm not sure doing more of "what it takes" will bring about the results you think. If you need European analogues, think of Ireland and Scotland who held out against British rule for century's despite much cruelty.

Moreover, doing what it takes is something pretty closely associated with genocide. There has to be a better way of dealing with the opposition than just killing them.
Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out that to win a war you must have the resolve necessary to do so. We as a nation have been unwilling to do that. The fact that current trends go to gorilla warfare with populations who are "civilian gorillas" make it difficult to know who to fight. That and the fact that these people bully and threaten those who do not cooperate with them. You are correct in your assessment though.
 
#38
#38
MG1968 said:
IVAW and it's parent group, Veterans for Peace are funded by George Soros.
Click to expand...

The fact that IVAW is funded by a liberal does not make Vedder a strict liberal. You said he was doing nothing for the Veterans of this nation and I was merely pointing out that he was.

He prolly does have his own liberal views as do many people in America.
 
#39
#39
I consider IVAW a protest organization. Sure they have links to veteran's resource sites, but they're not unique in that regard. Their sole purpose in life is to parrot George Soros' particular line of America-bashing.

If Vedder really wants to help veterans he needs to ally himself with groups that have nothing to do with Soros.

Vets for Freedom
Freedom Alliance
Anysoldier.com
Move America Forward
 
#40
#40
He does what he does to get the word out that people need to take a look at what is going on around them. It's simple, he does not agree with the war. Could he do more? Prolly so, could I, prolly so. Could you? It's really tough to say on any of that. The man that Body of War is based on is what struck Vedder and led him to that. I am pretty sure it was not Soros.
 
#41
#41
Um, I haven't read every single post, but Vedder is pretty liberal. He supported Nader in 2000. I have a gut feeling that if Obama wins the election, these types of songs won't be around quite as much (plus it's a good way to get some publicity if you bash Bush). But you're right, he just calls it like he sees it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top