A question for the conservatives here

[STING2]

I think Bono understands that sometimes the use of military force is necessary to defend oneself. One does not have to be scared or shocked into seeing that or feeling that way. The HOT PRESS article that I was refering to was last years year end issue(BONO on the cover) that I picked up while I was in Dublin in January.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Re: he is pro-choice, not pro-abortion--it's different

BONO: I just have my own ideas. I believe that it's a woman's right to choose. Absolutely.

Yay, Bono!

Also glad to see he's for gay rights and things along that line as well.

Angela

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

And on nonviolence (although now he seems to make an exception on the Iraq thing):

On nonviolence, Bono sticks to his guns. He "understands" violent tactics against apartheid. And he "sympathizes" with the IRA's opposition to British occupation. Still, "there is no justification for killing. Nonviolence is the best way, and
ultimately the most successful."

See, with those sorts of things, I think Bono's saying that he does understand why these people resort to violence, but that doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with their resolving conflicts that way. What do you mean by him seeming to make an exception on the Iraq thing, by the way? Just curious.

Anyway, I still believe Bono's a very peaceful guy, and he always will be that way.

Angela

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

On nonviolence, Bono sticks to his guns. He "understands" violent tactics against apartheid. And he "sympathizes" with the IRA's opposition to British occupation. Still, "there is no justification for killing. Nonviolence is the best way, and
ultimately the most successful."

Those are interesting quotes, even though I'm sort of wary of assuming that a brief quote accurately sums up someone's political beliefs.

I always think, when people condemn the IRA, or condemn Palestinian suicide bombers, that maybe their opinions would change if they were ever in those situations. Perhaps if you were a Catholic person living in the North of Ireland, being discriminated against in housing, in education, in employment, even being denied the right to vote in order to change those things, perhaps even someone who considered themselves to be a pacifist wouldn't be able to hold to their non-violent principles. If you lived in Palestine, if you were under curfew for week after week, not allowed to go to school or work and only permitted to leave your house for a few hours a week to buy food, if you saw the IDF dropping bombs on one of the most densely populated places on the planet, wouldn't you want to resist in some way? Would you really be able to sit back and allow yourself, your family, the people around you to be treated so badly?

It's really easy for me, living my nice cozy life in the UK to claim to be pacifist, to claim to reject violence. It's a little different when you live in a situation where you're on the receiving end of that violence on a daily basis. What right do I have to condemn people for their decision to resist their oppressors?

And, on the original question of this thread, I'd definitely have a discussion about politics with Bono...firstly I'd love to hear more about the work he's done around drop the debt/jubilee 2000 etc, and I agree with most of that. I'd also love to know how he justifies support for the US attack on Afghanistan, and why he supported NATO bombing Yugoslavia, because I strongly disagree with both those positions. If I could choose any musician/actor/celebrity-type-person to talk to about politics, it'd definitely be Bono.

 

[diamond]

I said it once and I will say it again.
Once you think you got Bono figured out..you dont..
Nobody has this guy figured out totally..
Not-
Religoulsy
Musically
Polictically..


I think Bono wakes up somedays w a bright fresh idea, shocking everyone.

So you liberals stop tryin to type-cast him everyday, hes his own man..

DB9

 

[STING2]

As bad as the oppression and suffering of Northern Ireland Catholics and Palestinians has been, its not been as bad as what African Americans have suffered in the USA historically. Yet African Americans did not resort to violence because they new that through non-violent action in a democracy, with the idea's of the framers of the US constitution, that there was a way and a process in which non-violent action would be able to achieve their goals. I think both the Palestinian issue and the Northern Ireland issue could have been solved years ago if both the IRA and Palestinians had acted out in non-violent ways. Israel is not a dictatorship, but a democracy with its own Arab population that comprises 20% of the vote. Same with the United Kingdom. Not that it would be easy though, but the violence route has been totally unsuccessful for the Catholics of Northern Ireland, and the Palestinians.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Those are interesting quotes, even though I'm sort of wary of assuming that a brief quote accurately sums up someone's political beliefs.

I always think, when people condemn the IRA, or condemn Palestinian suicide bombers, that maybe their opinions would change if they were ever in those situations. Perhaps if you were a Catholic person living in the North of Ireland, being discriminated against in housing, in education, in employment, even being denied the right to vote in order to change those things, perhaps even someone who considered themselves to be a pacifist wouldn't be able to hold to their non-violent principles. If you lived in Palestine, if you were under curfew for week after week, not allowed to go to school or work and only permitted to leave your house for a few hours a week to buy food, if you saw the IDF dropping bombs on one of the most densely populated places on the planet, wouldn't you want to resist in some way? Would you really be able to sit back and allow yourself, your family, the people around you to be treated so badly?

It's really easy for me, living my nice cozy life in the UK to claim to be pacifist, to claim to reject violence. It's a little different when you live in a situation where you're on the receiving end of that violence on a daily basis. What right do I have to condemn people for their decision to resist their oppressors?

You make an interesting point.

I personally think I could still manage to hold on to my non-violent beliefs, but I do see where you're going with this, and I know some people who are usually non-violent may not be that way in cases like that.

I have no problem with people resisting their oppressors-I applaud people who do.

I just don't think violence is the best way to resist those oppressors, personally.

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
And, on the original question of this thread, I'd definitely have a discussion about politics with Bono...firstly I'd love to hear more about the work he's done around drop the debt/jubilee 2000 etc, and I agree with most of that. I'd also love to know how he justifies support for the US attack on Afghanistan, and why he supported NATO bombing Yugoslavia, because I strongly disagree with both those positions. If I could choose any musician/actor/celebrity-type-person to talk to about politics, it'd definitely be Bono.

I totally agree with you (I'm curious as to the whole Afghanistan thing, too...hmm...). I'd love to discuss the big issues with Bono. That'd be a very interesting conversation.

Angela

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think both the Palestinian issue and the Northern Ireland issue could have been solved years ago if both the IRA and Palestinians had acted out in non-violent ways. Israel is not a dictatorship, but a democracy with its own Arab population that comprises 20% of the vote. Same with the United Kingdom. Not that it would be easy though, but the violence route has been totally unsuccessful for the Catholics of Northern Ireland, and the Palestinians.

Yes, the UK is a "democracy" but Catholic people in the North of Ireland were denied the right to vote - for example, all the people living in one house (which could include three generations of the same family) would only have one vote. And in any case, the six counties which comprise "northern Ireland" were chosen by the British because they were the only counties to have a unionist majority. I'm not sure that I agree that violence was unsuccessful, after all, people tried to use non-violent means of resistance such as civil rights marches, but the British government responded by shooting them. Eventually the British government were forced to enter into a peace process, in the form of the Good Friday Agreement, the same agreement which is currently being torn to pieces by Unionist politicians.

 

[STING2]

In the 1950s and 1960s, African Americans marching in Civil Rights demonstrations were brutally beaten and attacked by anti-civil rights activist. Even the Police in the south and even in some northern cities helped anti-civil rights activist attack and abuse African Americans. I've seen video of these activities. In addition the homes of many African Americans were firebombed. Many of their churches and the few businesses they had were burned to the ground. But, they new the ideals of democracy in this country would eventually lead them to victory and that non-violent action, even in the threat of this temporary violence by white extremist was the way to go. The British Army's abuse of Irish Catholics does not even compare to what Police in the Southern United States and white extremist did to African Americans. Again, I emphasize that despite the denial of certain freedoms and liberties of the democracy they were living in, African Americans were able to achieve those things through non-violent action because there was a process and a democratic government and legal institutions to work these problems out.

There are alternatives to blowing up innocent civilians which is the basic strategy of the militant wing of the IRA. Again, I don't really see how you achieve civil rights by killing people that have nothing to do with you being denied those rights. What great success did the bombing at Omagh achieve?

When I was in Northern Ireland in January, most of the people I talked to suggested that the violence had dropped because the economic situation of most people in Northern Ireland had greatly improved. I saw all the sites in Belfast, but not a single British soldier while I was there. Guard towers were unoccupied. Northern Ireland was soo beautiful and clearly not gripped by the poverty and violence of the 1960s. I got to see Derry as well.