does U2 still have a political stand? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-09-2005, 08:32 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:06 PM
Instead of repeatedly exclaiming 'That's a fact!' as if it might magically render your statements factual, why not try citing some actual quotes from Bono to support your interpretations. Or else stick to articulating your own stance (which you do quite well)rather than also trying to make it out to be Bono's, which you're altogether less convincing at.

P.S. There's really no need to quote the entire post you're responding to...

*************
(FROM Sunday Times Magazine, 7 Nov '04)

Suddenly there's a change of atmosphere, an adrenaline rush. Larry and Edge disperse and Bono tells me: "Tony Blair's just asked me to do an address at the conference." I tell him I don't think he should do that. He looks bemused and tells me that Mandela and Clinton had done this same spot for an international speaker. I tell him that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose, and why would he want to align himself with a party that is now alienating so many people? He says: "I am happy to stand alongside him and say I believe in him. I think he's one of the greatest leaders the UK has ever had. He has done extraordinary things for his country. There has to be applause. So far, it's my job to give him applause for what he's done, even though I didn't agree with the war. He believed in it, and isn't it extraordinary for a British prime minister to do something that was unpopular with the British people and his own cabinet and his Labour base? I believe that he is sincere... But sincerely wrong."
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 08:36 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I'm sure Dick Cheney's daughter and log Cabin Republicans would object to much of what you have said. There are Gay people who showed up on November 2, 2004 and voted for Bush.
Dick Cheney's daughter is a traitor. It's nice when you can mooch off your daddy's power and connections. After all, the elite don't abide by the same laws as us "common folk." If she didn't have daddy's power and money behind her and had to live like 99% of LBGT people in the U.S., then I don't think she would be so "silent."

As for the gay people who voted for Bush, they're traitors too.

And the Log Cabin Republicans aren't exactly your "friends" anymore. LCRs are more like "New England Republicans" like former MA Gov. William Weld. Put Weld next to former Sen. Zell Miller and you wonder why they just didn't switch parties. Likewise, I don't know why the LCRs don't switch parties either, unless Ann Coulter was right and New England Republicans are just liberals who like to think they're better than the blue collar folk.

Quote:
When you say "Republican Party", I hope your not refering to myself and the others in the forum who are proud members of that party.
I spit on that party. The GOP is the antithesis of everything that is remotely ethical in America anymore, and the way they manipulate morality to win elections is shameless. I'm sure the baby Jesus is crying.

So here's my challenge to all you "proud" Republicans: lobby Bush and his GOP Congress to pass full and unequivocal equal civil rights for LBGT people *minus* marriage (but if it includes marriage, I won't complain). I've heard the GOP say over and over that it isn't about "discriminating against gays," but about "protecting traditional marriage." Well, I'm calling your bluff, Republicans. Now show me your true colors.

The day I can sponsor the love of my life to immigrate into the United States like any other hetero couple is the day I will finally believe the GOP isn't Satan incarnate.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 09:27 PM   #33
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Bono said: "Any civilian target hit is unacceptable."
The estimate is that as many as 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq due to the war since March 2003. That does not count the 500,000 children who died due to US policy under Clinton. And for the record, Kerry still supported the war, too, right up to election day.
And as for the Log Cabin Republicans: they refused to endorse Bush in the last election.
The amazing thing is, he's not even a conservative; he's borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for this ridiculous war.
The humanitarian rhetoric about Iraq is a little hard to stomach. If the troops had to be somewhere for humanitarian reasons, I wish they were helping to keep the peace in Sudan.
Anu
__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
Old 02-09-2005, 09:36 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:06 PM
That 100,000 figure has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and I am clueless why it has become accepted dogma among anti-war circles. The estimate was actually that as many as 198,000 civilians had died in Iraq mainly due to American air strikes. The range was 8,000 - 198,000 and when you included the clusters from Fallujah to get the results the figures were even higher. This is in sharp contrast to the number given by the anti-war site iraqbodycount.net which places the figure at under 20,000. It does not stand to reason that there are 80,000 dead civilians that the media simply failed to find out about especially considering the hostility towards this war from certain quarters.

A proper refutation of the Lancet survey can be found at Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

The oil for food program and sanctions were an abysmal failure on all fronts, it failed to prevent Saddam from staying in power (it actually entrenched his position), it failed to prevent the regime from smuggling weapons and oil, it was totally corrupt and the food and medicines did not get to the people. The blame for the dead Iraqi's rests upon the regime and it's use of the supplies as weapons against the Iraqi people and the United Nations which did nothing to adress the problem.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 02:09 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
...even though I didn't agree with the war....He believed in it...I believe that he is sincere... But sincerely wrong."
STING, plenty of people, Bono included (myself included) were okay with Afghanistan, very not okay with Iraq. You would say yourself that the 'War On Terror' is a very broad, wide ranging thing. I'd bet only 20% of people agree with everything, 20% with nothing, 60% with some, disagree with some. So if someone says "I agree with the US action in Afghanistan" don't say that they agree with the War On Terror.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 05:44 AM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:06 AM
I felt the same way, I supported the action in Afghanistan because it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere. This was supported by people everywhere. There weren't even any controversies over this. We've debated Iraq to death. It's something intelligent people can disagree on. But it's safe to assume that not everyone who supported the actions in Afghanistan supports everything Bush does in the War on Terror. I'm against terrorism as much as anyone. Bono, being from Ireland, knows what awful stuff terrorism is. We all have our own ideas about the best way to stop terrorism, and heck, even Colin Powell said the military can't do the whole thing.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 07:15 AM   #37
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 11:06 AM
"That 100,000 figure has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and I am clueless why it has become accepted dogma among anti-war circles."

Since the findings were reported by a reputable and refereed medical journal, it has more cred. than you give it.

A reported and debated, and possibly refuted fact is not the same as *dogma,* by the way. A dogma is "A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church."

War kills civilians--even if it is the lowest figure detailed by "Iraq Body Count," that's too many lives; 1500 Americans is too many lives. And since this thread began on the basis of where Bono stands politically, particularly on the question of war, his statement against *any* civilian death is important here.

The "democracy" emerging in Iraq looks likely to be a form of Shiite Muslim theocracy, is the *victory*???

And just for the record, the sanctions, Clinton's "soft" shock and awe, may have been worse.

And why did Saddam's secular government that "we" once supported deserve the singular attention it got, considering all the other atrocious regimes in our fragile world?

Anu
__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 07:35 AM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 06:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I'm sure Dick Cheney's daughter and log Cabin Republicans would object to much of what you have said. There are Gay people who showed up on November 2, 2004 and voted for Bush.

When you say "Republican Party", I hope your not refering to myself and the others in the forum who are proud members of that party.

actually, the Log Cabin Republicans declined to endorse Bush in 2004. most of their members didn't vote for him, paid for ads attacking Bush (using Cheney's own words from the 2000 debate wtih Lieberman!) for his stance on the anti-marriage equality amendment. i believe the overall gay vote for bush was somewhere around 17%. take this in conjunction with the fact that a surprising amount of gay people are registered republicans because many tend to be very libertarian in their politics, combined with the fact that your average income for your average "out" gay man is probably well above that for your average straight man -- and since people with higher incomes tend to vote Republican because it is in their self-interests to have their taxes cut -- and you'll see that, African-American voters aside, gay people are probably the least likely group to vote Republican, despite these two (high incomes, libertarian values) usually Republican characteristics.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 04:04 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anu
Bono said: "Any civilian target hit is unacceptable."
The estimate is that as many as 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq due to the war since March 2003. That does not count the 500,000 children who died due to US policy under Clinton. And for the record, Kerry still supported the war, too, right up to election day.
And as for the Log Cabin Republicans: they refused to endorse Bush in the last election.
The amazing thing is, he's not even a conservative; he's borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for this ridiculous war.
The humanitarian rhetoric about Iraq is a little hard to stomach. If the troops had to be somewhere for humanitarian reasons, I wish they were helping to keep the peace in Sudan.
Anu
Yes, there are wild liberal estimates that 100,000 or 200,000 people have died do to the war, but none of them are based on fact. Even the anti-war group bodycount, does not have figures nearly that high.

More importantly, your forgetting all the life saving work the US military is doing in Iraq and the US military does not TARGET civilians unlike Saddam or the insurgents do.

While Saddam was in power, the deaths of Iraqi's do to conflict or the withholding of supplies was Saddam's, doing and Saddam's ALONE. Saddam was the one that invaded and attacked 4 different countries, violated every resolution passed against him, used WMD more times than any leader in history and is responsible for the murder of 1.7 million people. In light of what Saddam had done to the region and his people, think about what would happen to the region and the Iraqi people if he had remained in power.

I don't see why its better to have US troops in Sudan than Iraq. Its in the interest of global security that Coalition troops are in Iraq building a democracy do to the regions importance to the planet. Its not that people in Sudan are any less deserving of the troops, but that with limited resources, one has to apply those recourses to the area's that have the greatest impact worldwide.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 04:07 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


STING, plenty of people, Bono included (myself included) were okay with Afghanistan, very not okay with Iraq. You would say yourself that the 'War On Terror' is a very broad, wide ranging thing. I'd bet only 20% of people agree with everything, 20% with nothing, 60% with some, disagree with some. So if someone says "I agree with the US action in Afghanistan" don't say that they agree with the War On Terror.
Bono has said he supported the way that Bush went after the terrorist after 9/11 happened. It involved a lot more than simply the invasion of Afghanistan.

Its hard for me to understand how anyone could not be ok with the elections in Iraq this past week, elections that would have been impossible had the coalition not removed Saddam.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 04:23 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anu
"That 100,000 figure has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked and I am clueless why it has become accepted dogma among anti-war circles."

Since the findings were reported by a reputable and refereed medical journal, it has more cred. than you give it.

A reported and debated, and possibly refuted fact is not the same as *dogma,* by the way. A dogma is "A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church."

War kills civilians--even if it is the lowest figure detailed by "Iraq Body Count," that's too many lives; 1500 Americans is too many lives. And since this thread began on the basis of where Bono stands politically, particularly on the question of war, his statement against *any* civilian death is important here.

The "democracy" emerging in Iraq looks likely to be a form of Shiite Muslim theocracy, is the *victory*???

And just for the record, the sanctions, Clinton's "soft" shock and awe, may have been worse.

And why did Saddam's secular government that "we" once supported deserve the singular attention it got, considering all the other atrocious regimes in our fragile world?

Anu
The Bush administration and most Americans are against "Any" Civilian deaths. But civilians die all the time, not just in wars, but when criminals committ crime and police try to catch them. The US military does not target civilians! Any deaths do to US military operations are accidents.

If your "reputable" source can name all the 100,000 people it claims has died and provide evidence that shows they were all killed as a result of the war, then you could say you have a legit source.

For example, in 2002, the Israely army when into the West Bank town of Jenin to kill or capture terrorist cells. The media and many of the same organizations that accuse Israel of attrocities claimed that the IDF murdered 7,000 Jenin Civilians. After the fighting was over, United Nations forensic experts went in to examine the situation. They found that only 48 civilians had been died and all had died as a result of accidents.


Let me remind you that SADDAM was not like any other dictator. SADDAM invaded and attacked four different countries in the region. He threatened the planets energy supplies with sabotage and siezure through his actions and could have created a global economic disaster if he had succeeded in cutting the planet off from the Persian Gulf energy reserves. He has used WMD more times than any leader in history. His actions have led to the deaths of 1.7 million people. He refused to comply with the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement including VERIFIABLY DISARMING of all WMD. This is why military action to remove SADDAM was necessary.

The Sanctions during the 1990s did not kill Iraqi civilians. Iraq was allowed to sell its oil to buy enough food and supplies to feed and support a country double the size of Iraq. Saddam would withhold supplies though from various communities which caused hardships in those area's.


How many SHIAT Theocracy's do you know have democratic elections where minority rights are respected. A constitution is going to be drafted by the new elected assembly followed by new elections at the end of the year. Its going to be a bad year for those hoping that democracy does not succeed in Iraq!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 04:29 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Dick Cheney's daughter is a traitor. It's nice when you can mooch off your daddy's power and connections. After all, the elite don't abide by the same laws as us "common folk." If she didn't have daddy's power and money behind her and had to live like 99% of LBGT people in the U.S., then I don't think she would be so "silent."

As for the gay people who voted for Bush, they're traitors too.

And the Log Cabin Republicans aren't exactly your "friends" anymore. LCRs are more like "New England Republicans" like former MA Gov. William Weld. Put Weld next to former Sen. Zell Miller and you wonder why they just didn't switch parties. Likewise, I don't know why the LCRs don't switch parties either, unless Ann Coulter was right and New England Republicans are just liberals who like to think they're better than the blue collar folk.



I spit on that party. The GOP is the antithesis of everything that is remotely ethical in America anymore, and the way they manipulate morality to win elections is shameless. I'm sure the baby Jesus is crying.

So here's my challenge to all you "proud" Republicans: lobby Bush and his GOP Congress to pass full and unequivocal equal civil rights for LBGT people *minus* marriage (but if it includes marriage, I won't complain). I've heard the GOP say over and over that it isn't about "discriminating against gays," but about "protecting traditional marriage." Well, I'm calling your bluff, Republicans. Now show me your true colors.

The day I can sponsor the love of my life to immigrate into the United States like any other hetero couple is the day I will finally believe the GOP isn't Satan incarnate.

Melon
I think for some of the Gay people who did vote for Bush, there were other things that were important to them and these other things were important enough to them to override whatever feelings that had about Bush administration policy on Gay Marriage.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 04:30 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:06 AM
so that explains the 17%
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 04:47 PM   #44
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Bono has said he supported the way that Bush went after the terrorist after 9/11 happened. It involved a lot more than simply the invasion of Afghanistan.
Don't kid yourself into thinking Bono supported going into Iraq. I know you'd like to believe it, but there has been plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Its hard for me to understand how anyone could not be ok with the elections in Iraq this past week, elections that would have been impossible had the coalition not removed Saddam.
I don't think anyone here is against the elections per se. It's just that the elections in Iraq were more symbolic than they were a real democratic election. One can appreciate the fact that Iraq is moving towards a democracy and still not approve of the means to which it got there. It's hard for me to understand why some can't see that.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 02-10-2005, 05:22 PM   #45
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I felt the same way, I supported the action in Afghanistan because it was so clear that the people in Afghanistan wanted to be rid of the Taliban, who were just about the most despicable people I have ever seen anywhere. This was supported by people everywhere. There weren't even any controversies over this.
Substitute Afghanistan for Iraq and the Taliban for Saddam.

Or perhaps you'd like to retract this statement?
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com