The new Beastie Boys song "In A World Gone Mad" is an anti-war song, not sure if its gonna be on their new album tho, its downloadable via their website
I am a big Beastie Boys fan, but I don't agree with them on this.
Is anyone else starting to become annoyed with non-political public figures trying to make a moral stand on issues which many of them don't fully understand? While I'm privy to how informed the Beastie Boys are, George Michael's foray into the press was an embarassment, although it was highly amusing to watch him being interrogated on BBC.
All celebrity events seem to be orgies of moral vanity, where people express outrage against the war, while failing to contribute any real substance to the debate. Maybe some are cashing in on easy support from fans. Then again, maybe I'm just being cynical.
Probably. Ironically, he falls into the camp of the uninformed on the other side. Everytime someone actually combats his points he stops posting in that forum.
Is there anything wrong with being pro this war? I want to see the Iraqi people, as well as the Kurds, librated from that bastard Saddam. If it takes war to do that, so be it. And don't start that whole "oil" business - if it was about oil, the USA would've made a deal with Iraq or Saudi Arabia eons ago.
Aside from this, I think rufiox has a point. Celebrities in their droves are coming out against the war. But it all seems to me to be a load self-congratulatory bollocks - rich, famous folks trying to assert their "moral superiority" over figures of authority. Big friggin deal. I've yet to hear someone like Ms. Dynamite make one intelligent, constructive point about her anti-war stance apart from her "Blair is stupid", "children will die", and other such remarks. If she really cared about "the children", she'd also be highly concerned about the slave trade in Southern Sudan, where tribal children are killed or sold into slavery en masse by a Taliban-like regime in Khartoum.
Just to point out a couple of things... The USA doesn't care about the plight of the Iraqi people or the Kurds, and I have a couple of points to back up my statement.
As far as the Iraqi people, the USA imposed sanctions on Iraq have according to UN estimates caused the death of 1m civilians in Iraq, including 500k children.
Also, the Northern no-fly zone in Iraq (also imposed by the USA) is supposed to protect the Kurds living there, but how come the US have regularly let the Turkish air force fly bombing runs over the area to take out supposed Kurdish dissidents.
Its not all about oil either, but as long as you read stuff outside this forum you'll find that out for yourself.
//as well as the Kurds, librated from that bastard Saddam,
As part of the "Aid" package offered as a sweetener to allow troops to be based in Turkey, one of the bribes was that northern Iraq will become a Turkish territory, thus giving them controll over all Kurds.
In what way? More will die without a war because the US will continue to push the sanctions that have killed 1m people so far? Sure Saddam might be a badass, but he hasn't killed 1m Iraqis.
//In what way? More will die without a war because the US will continue to push the sanctions that have killed 1m people so far? Sure Saddam might be a badass, but he hasn't killed 1m Iraqis.
Aha! The old sanctions-deaths myth (oh, and don't "dead children" make such great propoganda tools?). You may have a point to back up your statement J, but it's a pity it isn't a fact.
Rather, your good friend Saddam Hussein is the responsible party for the deaths of these people. The UN provides aid in the forms of commodities such as food and healthcare for the Iraqi people. Problem is that Saddam squanders it all on arms and palaces. In short, food, medicines, and other aid that should have gone to the Iraqis were sold in order to raise money to re-arm Iraq and fund weapons research. In addition, the Iraqi government has simply declared any deaths suffered in this way as being the fault of "The Sanctions".
Saddam has squandered the aid, in order to suite his own purposes. Were they to give more aid, it would just advance Saddam's personal agenda at a faster rate, rather than benefit the starving.
Taking this into account, the deaths are a product of Saddam's actions, not the Americans or the UN.
If we have a war, aid will go to where it is necessary, so these deaths actually support the case for war.
Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."
yeah, its a tuff call... fight your war without weapons? hmmm... if they were to, you would find that america would not fire unless fired upon.
End of the day saddam does not want to go, and if he has got weapons of mass destruction it will be very hairy when he goes... whether he uses them or not.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
hehe *downloads* i like some of the ...
hehe *downloads*
i like some of the beastie boys stuff, two stand out ones would be "alive" and "remote control".
// i like some of the beastie boys ...
// i like some of the beastie boys stuff, two stand out ones would be "alive" and "remote control".
you really should listen to their music more.
from my uncles albums i listened to it ...
from my uncles albums i listened to it was sort of boring, but those songs i actually really like :)
I am a big Beastie Boys fan, but I ...
I am a big Beastie Boys fan, but I don't agree with them on this.
Is anyone else starting to become annoyed with non-political public figures trying to make a moral stand on issues which many of them don't fully understand? While I'm privy to how informed the Beastie Boys are, George Michael's foray into the press was an embarassment, although it was highly amusing to watch him being interrogated on BBC.
All celebrity events seem to be orgies of moral vanity, where people express outrage against the war, while failing to contribute any real substance to the debate. Maybe some are cashing in on easy support from fans. Then again, maybe I'm just being cynical.
// I am a big Beastie Boys fan, but I ...
// I am a big Beastie Boys fan, but I don't agree with them on this.
Why? Is is because you are pro this war?
// Is is because you are pro this war? ...
// Is is because you are pro this war?
Probably. Ironically, he falls into the camp of the uninformed on the other side. Everytime someone actually combats his points he stops posting in that forum.
I have noticed rufiox never says why. ...
I have noticed rufiox never says why. Most of his opinions seem to be copied and paste form american media sites.
//Why? Is is because you are pro this ...
//Why? Is is because you are pro this war?
Is there anything wrong with being pro this war? I want to see the Iraqi people, as well as the Kurds, librated from that bastard Saddam. If it takes war to do that, so be it. And don't start that whole "oil" business - if it was about oil, the USA would've made a deal with Iraq or Saudi Arabia eons ago.
Aside from this, I think rufiox has a point. Celebrities in their droves are coming out against the war. But it all seems to me to be a load self-congratulatory bollocks - rich, famous folks trying to assert their "moral superiority" over figures of authority. Big friggin deal. I've yet to hear someone like Ms. Dynamite make one intelligent, constructive point about her anti-war stance apart from her "Blair is stupid", "children will die", and other such remarks. If she really cared about "the children", she'd also be highly concerned about the slave trade in Southern Sudan, where tribal children are killed or sold into slavery en masse by a Taliban-like regime in Khartoum.
God, these topics just go on and on ...
God, these topics just go on and on dont they.
Just to point out a couple of things... The USA doesn't care about the plight of the Iraqi people or the Kurds, and I have a couple of points to back up my statement.
As far as the Iraqi people, the USA imposed sanctions on Iraq have according to UN estimates caused the death of 1m civilians in Iraq, including 500k children.
Also, the Northern no-fly zone in Iraq (also imposed by the USA) is supposed to protect the Kurds living there, but how come the US have regularly let the Turkish air force fly bombing runs over the area to take out supposed Kurdish dissidents.
Its not all about oil either, but as long as you read stuff outside this forum you'll find that out for yourself.
//as well as the Kurds, librated from ...
//as well as the Kurds, librated from that bastard Saddam,
As part of the "Aid" package offered as a sweetener to allow troops to be based in Turkey, one of the bribes was that northern Iraq will become a Turkish territory, thus giving them controll over all Kurds.
//I want to see the Iraqi people, as ...
//I want to see the Iraqi people, as well as the Kurds, librated from that bastard Saddam.
You don't give a fuck about the Iraqi people. A war will kill thousands of them.
ironically more will die with out a ...
ironically more will die with out a war... unless saddam nukes someone.
In what way? More will die without a ...
In what way? More will die without a war because the US will continue to push the sanctions that have killed 1m people so far? Sure Saddam might be a badass, but he hasn't killed 1m Iraqis.
//In what way? More will die without a ...
//In what way? More will die without a war because the US will continue to push the sanctions that have killed 1m people so far? Sure Saddam might be a badass, but he hasn't killed 1m Iraqis.
Aha! The old sanctions-deaths myth (oh, and don't "dead children" make such great propoganda tools?). You may have a point to back up your statement J, but it's a pity it isn't a fact.
Rather, your good friend Saddam Hussein is the responsible party for the deaths of these people. The UN provides aid in the forms of commodities such as food and healthcare for the Iraqi people. Problem is that Saddam squanders it all on arms and palaces. In short, food, medicines, and other aid that should have gone to the Iraqis were sold in order to raise money to re-arm Iraq and fund weapons research. In addition, the Iraqi government has simply declared any deaths suffered in this way as being the fault of "The Sanctions".
Good post Soldierboy. You are quite ...
Good post Soldierboy. You are quite right.
Saddam has squandered the aid, in order to suite his own purposes. Were they to give more aid, it would just advance Saddam's personal agenda at a faster rate, rather than benefit the starving.
Taking this into account, the deaths are a product of Saddam's actions, not the Americans or the UN.
If we have a war, aid will go to where it is necessary, so these deaths actually support the case for war.
//Everytime someone actually combats ...
//Everytime someone actually combats his points he stops posting in that forum.
HUH????
What thread is this? If I remember correctly, you were the first to leave the "position on Iraq" thread.
Oh.. ethnic... social debate.
Those beats are devine....
Those beats are devine.
so how are those Beasties eh?...
so how are those Beasties eh?
fuck, totally sick....
fuck, totally sick.
ahh, sometimes the Onion is right on ...
ahh, sometimes the Onion is right on the money...
Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."
yeah, its a tuff call... fight your war ...
yeah, its a tuff call... fight your war without weapons? hmmm... if they were to, you would find that america would not fire unless fired upon.
End of the day saddam does not want to go, and if he has got weapons of mass destruction it will be very hairy when he goes... whether he uses them or not.
Nice track, cheers Iceman...
Nice track, cheers Iceman
I'm just thrashing this.... Good to ...
I'm just thrashing this.... Good to hear the Beasties after so long.
"Now don’t get us wrong ‘cause we love America
But that’s no reason to get hysterica"
What a crack up!