John Mellencamp's open letter to Bush - 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 10-27-2003, 11:02 AM   #31
Refugee
 
Tabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Pleba Mansion Hair Cuttery *snip*snip*
Posts: 1,094
Local Time: 07:25 AM
I never knew he was that kind of activist! Intesting points, Johnny Cougar It is good to see an activist caring more about the American service people and their families than the foreigners for once.
__________________

__________________
Tabby is offline  
Old 10-28-2003, 07:35 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 07:25 AM
I thought JM's letter was intelligent and well-written. And his music definitely does NOT suck, although that's probably a matter better discussed in Just the Bang and the Clatter. I totally disagree with his opinion on U2, but otherwise I have a great deal of respect for the man.
__________________

__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 10-28-2003, 07:50 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
How is that really important Dread?
I was referring to the Whitewater rant.

There is no way any charges are going to be be brought against this President for anything with a republican controlled House and a republican controlled senate. It will come down to someone in the CIA losing thier job before anyone in here can jump up and down gleefully at the demise of this President. That indeed was my point.

[Q]Unless it is of more importance for one to have a party to blame or a particular politician. That's buck passing. [/Q]

No, Iam not passing the buck, but I find it histerically amusing how I can come into this forum and see this administration SLAMMED for LEGAL actions. Actions that were authorized by a vote of their representatives. The President could not have taken any action if the House of Representatives and the United States Senate gave the President the Authority to wage war.

It is an EXTREMELY valid point. The BUCK still rests with the people who gave him the power to wage war. If they did not do their job and look at the evidence more closely in the Fall of2002 then we should not be so hypocrytical as Americans and hold them responsible as well too.



As to Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, I do not like em, never did, and there are scant places on this board where you can find me defending them.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-28-2003, 08:07 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:25 PM
I agree, Dread, I have some big time questions for the pols who voted to authorize the war and are slamming Bush for it *now*. Why'd they vote for the authorization? They didn't have to. This pissed me off because I was protesting the damn thing when they voted for it.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-29-2003, 06:57 AM   #35
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:25 PM
In terms of finding fault with Bush and his administration, yes you are right Dread. I know I've tried not to do that and I dont think you have exactly done that either lol.

Anyways...til January....
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-29-2003, 08:42 AM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 07:25 AM
What did he say about U2??
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 07:08 AM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
Maybe you should ask Bono or the Edge about that namething,..
Rono-
Last time I checked, Bono has never changed his name from-
Paul David Hewson
to
P. David Hewson
or to
Paul Hewson, in an attempt to sell records.
The same w/Edge.

The bigger question is why you are attempting to defend a grade B American Pop Star that makes crap music.


DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-02-2003, 10:37 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Based on the so called information/documents the White House won't give up, there was evidence to go to the house and senate and pass the vote's to go to war. Since the President was duped and therefore duped his cabinet. Then everyone else was duped into believing what the President said or be considered unpatriotic
by John Ashcroft and company. It seems to be a case of not having another opinion to go on. WMD's or whatever, one had to go with the general consensus that there was something going on in Iraq that was a major treat to the US. With the exception of course of a hell of a lot of people asking and questioning exactly what proof of anything was justification for going to war. They still have to answer these quesitons. IMHO
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 11-04-2003, 01:23 PM   #39
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 07:25 AM
You know, Bush is not the first to bring up the WMD item. President Clinton while in office also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (BTW, what do they look like? Big massive bombs with labels that say WMD?! Doubt it.) I mean, President Clinton and many Democrats wanted to do the same thing as Bush has done, they just did not have the political capital or excuse to do it. Now, it is not so much that they disagree with the war, but that it is now politically expedient for them to bring opposition to the war.
__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 11-04-2003, 01:30 PM   #40
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 07:25 AM
"Now, it is not so much that they disagree with the war, but that it is now politically expedient for them to bring opposition to the war."

I totally disagree. The facts coming out of Iraq are a lot different than the ones we were given going in. Also the lack of planning on the part of DOD for post active conflict not only suck but are/were non-existent. While certainly there is an element of political advantage to question the admin. it's coming from not only politicos but the general public.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 11-04-2003, 02:51 PM   #41
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ft. Worth Frog
Now, it is not so much that they disagree with the war, but that it is now politically expedient for them to bring opposition to the war.
You honestly think someone would just flippantly change their view on something as detrimental and serious as war because now it's the other side proposing it. That's ridiculous. The U.S. would never have ever participated in any wars if that was the case.
You think Democrats wanted this same exact thing? They didn't have the excuse, where do you think the intelligence came from, do you know where it dates back to? I think you're reaching here. I'd really like to see what information you're basing your opinion on.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-04-2003, 04:25 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:25 PM
The Justification for the war is very simple.

Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement at the end of the 1991 Gulf War in which he agreed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD or face renewed military action to achieve verifiable disarmament.

Despite 12 years and hundreds of opportunities to verifiably disarm 100%, Saddam did not. Saddam was given one last chance by Bush to Verifiably Disarm and did not.

Saddam never complied with any of the 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1443 authorized the use of military force to bring about compliance if Iraq was in violation of its obligations.

The only one required to "prove" anything was Saddam. Saddam was required to prove he no longer had WMD through verifiable disarmament. Saddam failed to do this requiring disarmament through military force.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-04-2003, 07:00 PM   #43
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Ok, here are some things that back me up.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...ical.analysis/

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm

These are just a couple of links that show what some prominent Dems have said in the past. Of course, Clinton's view of force meant lobbing a few cruise missiles. However, it is clear that voices have been pretty bipartisan when it comes to Iraq as a threat. It is not like Bush just thought one day "Hey, what about Iraq." Note the sources are reputable news sources, not from some random blog. All I am saying is, we can't just suffer from some political amnesia here and forget that Bush built his case on information that has been pretty widely accepted.
__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 11-04-2003, 11:59 PM   #44
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ft. Worth Frog
Ok, here are some things that back me up.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...ical.analysis/

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm

These are just a couple of links that show what some prominent Dems have said in the past. Of course, Clinton's view of force meant lobbing a few cruise missiles. However, it is clear that voices have been pretty bipartisan when it comes to Iraq as a threat. It is not like Bush just thought one day "Hey, what about Iraq." Note the sources are reputable news sources, not from some random blog. All I am saying is, we can't just suffer from some political amnesia here and forget that Bush built his case on information that has been pretty widely accepted.
I DID NOT DENY THAT CLINTON WAS LOOKING INTO IRAQ. But you said Democrats wanted to do the "same thing Bush has done", and I don't believe they wanted a poorly planned unilateral war. There's a lot of gray that you, by assuming, ignored when making that statement.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-05-2003, 03:41 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:25 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,

The Majority of Democrats in the US Senate voted to support Bush's policy on Iraq. Unilateral means only one. At no point in this conflict has the USA been the only country involved in the war, so we should stop using "unilateral" as a way of describing US action because it is incorrect. The USA, United Kingdom and Australia all used military forces in operation Iraqi Freedom and now nearly 30 countries have military forces on the ground in Iraq.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 07:25 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