Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#504487 - 12/30/02 12:37 AM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Louis Bright-Raven Offline
Member

Registered: 08/24/99
Posts: 185
I think the real issue was that they were supposed to be there to talk about the film, and it was curtailed into the political discussion. I would like to actually see Viggo carry on a more straight-forward conversation where he knows that's what he's there to discuss, and not worry about the LOTR connection.

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment expressed by his shirt (I think it's too generic a comment and doesn't rightfully address all of the concerns involved in this dispute). But I have no problem with him questioning whether or not America has any business being involved with the Middle East, or expressing himself in such a manner so as to suggest to us that maybe we should be questioning things also. Perhaps Viggo planned to make a statement because as he said, he'd heard a lot of comments about the similarities to LOTR and he didn't like what he was hearing. But I don't think he really intended for the entire conversation to be stilted in that direction. I blame Charlie Rose for that more than Viggo Mortensen. JMO.

Top
#504488 - 12/30/02 02:08 AM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Matt Hawes Offline
Member

Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1965
Loc: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally posted by Louis Bright-Raven:
...But I don't think he really intended for the entire conversation to be stilted in that direction. I blame Charlie Rose for that more than Viggo Mortensen. JMO.


In fairness to Charlie Rose, Viggo's shirt was crying for attention. Viggo may not have intended the entire conversation to be about his shirt, but he obviously was making a statement that he knew would invite comment.
_________________________
"Mainstream" Matthew Hawes

COMICS UNLIMITED
654-B E. Diamond Avenue
Evansville, Indiana 47711
(812) 423-6952

www.comicsunlimited.biz

Top
#504489 - 12/30/02 07:34 AM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Finar Offline
Member

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 600
Loc: Boston Ma
Hola Out Luva's

Quote:
Originally posted by The Cutting Edge:
Being raised in a very religous household, I can't help but reflect on my teachings as a child and wonder if that is in fact the direction inwhich the world as a whole is now heading. I guess if there is a more appropriate time to pray, now is it.


Hummm Religion Very good Cutting Edge time to pray and time to reflect on what to do to a people who have vowed to kill us in a Jihad....

Yes I see it now the Muslim people rising up in
moral indignation over being connected to a crime as heinous as 9-11, I didn't see any
dancing in the streets, None at all. I donít see Sadam paying bounty for corpses, I see no gassing of a people I see no wanton
expansion territory grabs nope nothing here.

I suggest we pray that we are successful and no
more 9-11's happen upon our shores....

And on the question of unproven accusations
I'd like to know where the 8 metric tons of Anthrax went to Mr. Sadam and just what went on
with those S. African and Swedish biological
companies Mr. Sadam ??? What was ALL that money
for ???
_________________________
See-Ya
Finar
Just for Comicon Members use Coupon # Con1 At check-out and Receive $5.00 off any purchase over $20.00 at www.finarcomics.com

Top
#504490 - 12/30/02 12:41 PM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
MerkSAT Offline
Member

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 104
Loc: Point Pleasant, NJ
(Edited to put proper number of posts above for ?s)
Look up about 8 posts for the full questions

Quote:
#1> Why when we Americans know that there are
---SNIP---


Because we like things that are bigger and more powerful. Anyone can buy an electric car now, but no one does. Because it's more important to save money than to make a statement to 99% of the American Public. As long as that's the case, the Big Manufacturers have no reason to change. You realize it well enough it seems, do you have solar convertors on your house and store energy and live solely off this efficient clean and inexpensive source of power? If you do, good for you. I don't. I don't expect many others do.

Quote:
#2> Why wasn't Saddam
---SNIP---


Been asked consistently since then. And it will partially play into my response to Question 7 below.

Quote:
#3> How will a war effect
---SNIP---


Less than you think. A war would have no effect on NAFTA since we wouldn't be at war with any of the countries involved in it and those countries rely too much on US Dollars to keep their populace in their current conditions, for good or ill. Ditto most Asian Countires and European Countries. It would create a temporary Stock Market Drop (for fear of the things you mention above) and a lot of panic in the country, gas prices will go up (they always do), but otherwise it won't change things much.

Quote:
#4> What will happen
---SNIP---


No country in the world among the general populace hates the American Monolith more than France. Always have. They still love to own our products. George W. can't overrun 40 years of hate/love by bombing any Middle Eastern Country. They hate the American Monolith, but they love Americana around the world. That won't change soon. The US is one of the few countries as a whole that has a problem differentiating between the two.

Quote:
#5> Why did the American govt.
---SNIP---


It generated more revenues for munitions manufacturers and guaranteed the US would have an alliance with the winner. It's been done other times throughout our history and will be again most likely.

Quote:
#6> Does anyone still remember the Iran Contra hearings?


Sure. Does anyone remember us putting Bin Laden in power? See my answer to # 7.

Quote:
#7> Why wasn't Osama Bin Laden
---SNIP---


Because you have to have a better solution to put into place. It's why Saddam wasn't taken out in '91, it's why Bin Laden was put into Power way back when and was essentially left alone until 9/11. You take these guys out, what happens? You have the same problems you had in several South American Coup D'etats in the 80s and multiple revolutions where everyone with a dream causes more bloodshed in their own personal quest for power. Say what you will about Saddam (and you can say a lot of bad things that hae been mentioned multiple times), if you are looking for something in Iraq, you at least know it goes through him.

The devil you know...

And among the people we put into power previously were Bin Laden and Hussein. The U.S. has a real good track record at this, don't we?

Quote:
#8> Why was the U.S.
---SNIP---


See # 7

Quote:
#9> Other than religous and
---SNIP---


Because the government at the time belived in the rights of the Israeli people to build their own country the way the founding fathers did so many years before. While they knew there would be problems, I doubt the Eisenhower Administration imagined the problems facing the State of Israel today and it's place in the Region.

Quote:
#10> Why are the American
---SNIP---


Unfortunately, that's not Conservatives, that's those in the political structure that make a living by attending Senate and House Luncheons and being part of the big machine and don't want the Gravy Train to end. That's not a Republican/Democrat thing. That's a greed thing that all parties are heavily into.
_________________________
Erik Merk

Top
#504491 - 12/30/02 04:29 PM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Pishkapa Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/18/02
Posts: 27
Hey, I've been reading this discussion for a while. I usually don't like to bud in on conversations like this but I gained some insight on the whole Iraq thing recently by reading Woodward's BUSH AT WAR and Michael Moore's STUPID WHITE MEN in the same week. Basically I think these two books sum up the main arguements for both sides of this argument -Moore being the celebrity, Woodward being the politician.

The interesting thing about BUSH AT WAR is that it basically says (and was mostly written before the US publically stated anything about going into Iraq) that 11am Sept. 11 2001, Rumsfield and others were pushing to forget about the Taliban and attack Iraq and Bush Jr. said no firstly because he didn't want it to seem like he was finishing daddy's war and secondly because the US didn't have any troops ready and wouldn't have any troops ready for at least 5 months. So the plan always was to go into Iraq because (lets face it) Saddam is a bad man and has been screwing around in that country since the 'end' of the Gulf War.

BUSH AT WAR is interesting because it talks about how the US sent the CIA in to Afghanistan to bring together the Northern Alliance, basically buy their temporary allegiance with the US, so they could get the Taliban out of the country. I personally think it was a very smart way to get what they wanted done. Very little bombs, working with the people there to set up an uprising and giving them the weapons and support they needed to help themselves - the whole thing cost around $70 million - less than the cost of one of the LOTR movies.

The problem with Iraq as I see it is that the US seems to be going back to their old ways - it's like there are now all these soldiers who joined after Sept. 11 who have been training for combat and no where to put them since the war on terrorism is basically fought with intelligence and not fire power. So they're going after Iraq because they can and they have the man power to do so.

Meanwhile (as BUSH AT WAR and numerous other people have been reporting for a while) there are somewhere around 200 highly trained Al-Quida members running around the US and very strong indication that they have a nuclear bomb, surface to air missiles, and free access to weapons. And look at how much destruction just 11 of these guys did on the country before with just a few cardboard cutters. The war on terrorism isn't over but everyone's turned their attention to Iraq now - all that's going to do is piss more people off so they'll attack again as a reaction to what the US is doing.

I love Michael Moore and celebrities like Viggo who speak out against the US government but I think their outlook on the situation is somewhat black and white. I don't think Bush and the US government is evil and they're fighting for oil. I think their heart is in the right place but they're not thinking straight. I think they're being ignorant and concentrating on the wrong thing right now. There's this opinion that they have to police the world and they can't. If they really want Saddam out of there, do the Afghanistan thing - send in the CIA and get the people to uprise against him. He's not exactly loved in his own country. Or at least get some other countries involved in the process - get the approval of the UN. The problem is that even if the US does win the war on Iraq, in two years or six years US foreign policies will change with a new president and everyone will forget the long term goals of Bush and company and another Saddam or Bin Ladin will be allowed to flourish. Even as it stands now, there were some really unsavory allies made in the Northern Alliance for the sake of getting the Taliban out of there. The US knows who they are and are presumably watching these people but no one else does so if the country gets distracted with Iraq or North Korea or which oriface a cigar is being stuck into, there's no one around to pick up the slack. The US is making too many enemies and not working with their allies which is just going to end up screwing them in the end.

Again, sorry for butting in. But I learned a lot from reading those two books which has given me a completely new outlook on the situation and compelled me enough to butt into a few other online political discussions too.

Top
#504492 - 12/30/02 05:18 PM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Sock Puppet #9.5 Offline
Member

Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 523
Conversations containing gray opinions do not hold attention like those containing black and white opinions. Such is life.

Top
#504493 - 12/30/02 07:04 PM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Doctor Awesome Offline
Member

Registered: 09/30/02
Posts: 842
Loc: Citadel of Cool
I haven't read BUSH AT WAR, so this is a bit unfair, but:

Isn't that book a smokescreen?

I mean- I don't know. It might be me but the book's placement and packaging give it the appearance of yet another little piece of propaganda arriving just in time for the holiday season.

Understand, my quick judgement of its content isn't completely unjustified:

This past summer, as the result of an argument over whether McDonald's was a collection of opportunistic corporate fuckwads, and by extension, over the exploitative tendencies of corporate America in general, my father gave me this book called WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA. By Dinesh D'Souza.

It was basically a collection of essays debunking "unamerican" arguements with backwards logic and manifest destiny justifications. Really horribly thought-out stuff, like (and I'm paraphrasing here):

"Black people have it good, folks. They're much better off because of SLAVERY. Y'see, if there was no slavery, they'd still be in third-world africa, dying of AIDS and poverty. So there."

I'm not kidding. That's basically what he said. That was his position, his argument.

Never mind the stupidity of the original assumption that black people have it good, but as for his argument- Y'know, I have a feeling that if the enslavement of Africa hadn't occurred, that would have ALTERED THE ENTIRE COURSE OF HISTORY. So, y'know, who's to say what the state of Africa- or for that matter, the rest of the world- would be today?

But D'Souza doesn't really address that. Hence the poor, ridiculous conclusions he comes to. Hence the rest of the book, which basically follows the same autodidactic train of thought.

Sorry. Didn't mean to get off track, but maybe you can see, with my past experience, how I can be skeptical of such a thing as BUSH AT WAR.

I mean, the cover is intended to make him look heroic, isn't it? He's stoic. Contemplative. At the ready, looking towards the horizon, towards the frontier.

I mean, it's obvious its something he had to pose for, right?

They had to set up lighting and camera angles and put him through make-up and hair and whatever else they needed to keep him from looking like some sort of inbred Damien. It was planned. It wasn't some spur-of-the-moment "This is how he is at any given time" snapshot- It was put together and designed to make him look good.

Not to say that everything in BUSH AT WAR is a planted media spin. Some of it may be very true- I don't know. As I said, I've not read it, but hopefully my doubts aren't entirely irrational, either. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it represents the truth. I mean, there's glorifying Reagan and Thatcher biographies floating around out there. Shit, I bet Saddam has one. I bet it was a bestseller in Iraq (or at least reported to be).

And I understand defending oneself, but, as a general thought on the War on Terrorism, I'll quote David Cross:

"The War on Terrorism is a ridiculous notion, it's stupid. It's like having a war on Jealousy. At no point are we ever gonna go, 'Whew! Got 'em all!'"
_________________________
"I gotta a whole rack of baseball caps- from kids I beat with chains!"

- The Gorch

Top
#504494 - 12/30/02 09:03 PM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Pishkapa Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/18/02
Posts: 27
Oh yeah, absolutely BUSH AT WAR is from Bush's perspective but Woodward (he of Woodward and Berstein the Watergate/ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN guys) is a pretty established journalist and as a result got access to the transcripts of the meetings between Bush and his cabinet during the first 100 days after Sept. 11, got access to the players themselves - like Condoleza Rice, Rumsfeild, Cheney, etc. and interviewed Bush himself on two occassions which is a lot for any journalist.

Of course he's going to be biased though because if he doesn't paint Bush in a good light, obviously he's not going to invited to do any more in depth presidential portraits. I just think it's good to get *both* perspectives. Like don't completely dismiss CNN because they're biased against Sean Penn.

Like I said I love Michael Moore, but he brings up a couple points in STUPID WHITE MEN that are completely out of left field for me. Like his Chapter on Women taking over the world for instance, citing the fact that in his family only one boy has been born to his generation of the family - this is the basis for his argument. Personally my family is experiencing the exact opposite - out of 10 children born to all my cousins only one is a girl. If I can point out the holes in this theory of his - why should I take everything he says as gospel.

After reading BUSH AT WAR I have a hard time believing anybody who says that US corporate interests are controlling the government. Honestly I think that's giving them too much credit. The government is run by a group of people all with their personal prejudices and interests - yes some of them are going to be oil related. But basically they're people who are going to have a lot of ignorance when it comes to certain subjects because of the nature of their job, and the nature of their upbringing and the nature of life really because nobody can know everything - not even the President - especially not Bush Jr.

It's kind of funny to hear all of the people who point out all the stupid things Bush has done over the years he's been in office - mispronounciations, waving at Stevie Wonder, not knowing the name of the Canadian Prime Minister, etc. - yet somehow this borderline moron is the mastermind behind an elaborate plan to take over the middle east. I really don't believe the US government has any sinister plan behind attacking Iraq - I think they're just being ignorant and getting caught up in their own image as the 'Freedom Fighters'. Bush I think has his heart in the right place but he's ignorant and has simplistic visions of the world and his role in it and as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm recommending BUSH AT WAR only as a really good way to understanding how the government works during wartime and how decisions are made. The biggest wake up call I got in the book is to learn that the US has all these plans around on how to attack/defend different countries around the world like Russia, North Korea, Iraq etc. that they keep so that if something major happens they can just pull out the plans and go right to war without having to spend years coming up with a good plan - which seems pretty obvious, right - but when Sept. 11 happened they had absolutely no plan on how to go after Al Quida even though Bin Ladin attacked the US Cole and had been basically threatening the US for years.

It just seems to me that the war department is like - look we've got these plans on how to attack Iraq why don't we use them. Meanwhile there's a much bigger threat from the terrorists living in the US who pose a lot more immediate threat not even neccessiarily Al Quida members - there's Timothy McVeigh's everywhere in the US, people who have been stockpiling weapons for a long time and who are just going to get pissed off if the US starts bombing a country. It's just stupid to go to war with a country when you *know* you're so vulnerable at home.

Anyway, I'm not saying BUSH AT WAR is a great book to be taken literally but if you've already read all the other stuff out there - Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, etc. - it's a good book to balance your perpective out a bit and to understand at least a more realistic view of how the government works. I think there's a tendency to think that if you get elected into office, immediately you're let into a secret club like the Masons or something when the reality is that it's probably just like every other kind of job - full of stupid people and burocratic bullcrap and a tendency to do things based only on the fact that they've been done that way for years. Unfortunately in the case of the government when you make stupid decisions it usually ends up screwing up a lot of people.

Top
#504495 - 12/30/02 10:36 PM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Doctor Awesome Offline
Member

Registered: 09/30/02
Posts: 842
Loc: Citadel of Cool
Of Woodward and Berstein, huh?

Well, yeah I've been meaning to see some perspectives from the right lately, just to know how it works and all.

The problem with that is that side usually says something completely ignorant and stupid before I get very far with it, discounting anything relevant they might bring to the table, before or after.

I guess I'll try, though.
_________________________
"I gotta a whole rack of baseball caps- from kids I beat with chains!"

- The Gorch

Top
#504496 - 12/30/02 11:18 PM Re: Aragorn speaks out on Iraq!
Pishkapa Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 02/18/02
Posts: 27
Quote:
Of Woodward and Berstein, huh?


smile
Sorry dealing with head cold right now. Spelling and grammer are usually the first to go when the cough syrup kicks in.

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >