Larry rightly criticizes Bono for palling around with war criminals!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Muldfeld

Refugee
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
1,893
Location
Canada
I've been saying this for a long time and people get pissed off with me for criticizing Bono for his political connections and apologies for politicians with deplorable records. If Bono was right to criticize Pinochet or the first Bush (for the Gulf War's cruelty), he's wrong to back off Clinton (pro-Israeli record and guilty of bombing sites in Africa and Afghanistan to distract from the Lewinski affair, as well as signing the legislation for "extraordinary rendition" that Bush used to torture people) as well as George W. Bush.

Now, ladies and germs, from the mouth of what many women would call a babe:
'Bono's friendship with war criminals makes me cringe' - News & Gossip - Independent.ie

'Bono's friendship with war criminals makes me cringe'

The Irish Independent, December 28, 2008

Anne-Marie Walsh

Monday December 29, 2008
U2 drummer Larry Mullen has admitted he "cringes" when he sees Bono associating with "war criminals" George W Bush and Tony Blair.

The normally reserved musician has launched a stinging attack on his frontman for his involvement with the two world leaders in an interview with music magazine Q.

It is not the first time Mullen has criticised Bono for his campaign work, but this is his most scathing criticism to date. From his appearance at Live Aid and Band Aid in the 1980s, Bono has been involved in numerous charities to raise awareness of crises in Africa, including AIDs.

He praised Mr Bush for increasing aid to Africa and most recently appeared with him during the G8 summit last year. In 2007, he also saluted outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair for "doing the things he believed in", despite the "accusations of a slick PR machine, spin doctoring and the like".

But his work outside the band has caused a deep rift between Bono and at least one other fellow band member.

In his interview, Mullen suggests the singer's campaigns have taken their toll on his family life. He admitted that Bono is "prepared to use his weight as a celebrity at great cost to himself and his family, to help other people", adding: "but, as an outsider looking in, I cringe."

He brands Mr Blair and Mr Bush "war criminals".

"Tony Blair is a war criminal and I think he should be tried as a war criminal.

"Then I see Bono and him as pals and I'm going, 'I don't like that'. Do I think George Bush is a war criminal? Probably -- but the difference between him and Tony Blair is that Blair is intelligent. So, he has no excuse."

Six years ago, in an interview on American TV, Mullen said he believed Bono's political crusades were unsettling the band. He told the '60 Minutes' programme that the lead singer's absence was felt each time he took a break to campaign on issues.

"It does interfere with the band," he said. "It's a four-legged table, and with one leg missing, even for short periods of time, the thing becomes a little unstable."

Bono has also come under attack from critics less close to home, including writer Paul Theroux.

Mr Theroux described Bono, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as "mythomaniacs, people who wish to convince the world of their worth".

He said he was not complaining about humanitarian aid, disaster relief, AIDS education or affordable drugs.

"Instead, I am speaking of the 'more money' platform: the notion that what Africa needs is more prestige projects, volunteer labour and debt relief."

The U2 singer responded by calling his critics "cranks carping from the sidelines".

"A lot of them wouldn't know what to do if they were on the field," he said.

(c) The Irish Independent, 2008
 
from the mouth of what many women would call a babe:

:giggle:

Do I think George Bush is a war criminal? Probably -- but the difference between him and Tony Blair is that Blair is intelligent. So, he has no excuse."

I hate that. He is not unintelligent. Even if he is, the people behind him aren't. He's just out there to make sure the US government's actions never rise above late night comedian fodder.
 
I commend Larry on having the balls to speak honestly when asked. We shouldn't read too much into this, since Larry and Bono have a long "love with mutual antagonism" relationship, and they both know that disagreements are crucial to the U2 working relationship. I'm sure they can respect each other's opinions.

Still, I'm glad Larry says this when the question is directed to him. Clearly, in humanitarian matters, Bono has an "end justifies the means" attitude, meaning that he is willing to climb into (metaphorical) bed with any powerful person whose ear he can bend. And I understand that and respect it -- especially in that Bono (as Larry himself points out) acts at a great cost to himself and his family in doing things as he does. But . . . I also cringe because a war criminal is still a war criminal. It's a complex issue and nobody has all the answers.

Still, nobody remembers Neville Chamberlain as the "man who did anything to procure peace"; they remember him as the sleaze leader who cut an embarrasingly futile deal with Hitler.
 
I'm sure they'll find some way to use this as an excuse to delay the album.
:lol:
:giggle:

I hate that. He is not unintelligent. Even if he is, the people behind him aren't. He's just out there to make sure the US government's actions never rise above late night comedian fodder.

I think you're absolutely right. I have arguments with my mother all the time about this. Bush couldn't have gotten to where he has without a strong sense of ambition and talent for understanding people and power. He just chooses to not care. He's definitely smart enough, but he's so grossly immoral that he doesn't care. He was trying to hide the bodies of the dead US soldiers who came back from Iraq, for crying out loud. And no one can tell me he couldn't have ensured funds to the victims of Katrina! Blair helped legitimize Bush, though, just like Colin Powell, and they have to pay for that; however, I still don't think they should suffer as much as the master deceiver and manipulator, George W. Bush. On the environment alone, he's a criminal.

Bono should be ashamed for making apologies for people like him. They weren't well-intentioned; not then and certainly not now!
I would even go further and say that Bono's actions have been more destructive than Larry suggests. He's actually encouraged a hypocritical view that sees Muslim terrorists as "monsters" and "evil" -- proudly declaring the 2001 bombing of Afghanistan as the "right war" on Jay Leno without any concern for civilians. Meanwhile, he makes all kinds of excuses for the West and especially the US. He keeps telling Americans, including many right wing fans one finds on atu2.com, that they are inherently superior to others. This should be a time for deep reflection, and instead he's essentially saying it's okay to be like Bush because the real source of all these problems is "out there"; it's not in America or in its corrupt politics; the only danger coming from the West, according to Bono lay in its temptation to react inhumanely to the evil provocations of fundamentalist terrorist Muslims (no mention of Christian or Jewish fundamentalists, of course, whose money and political support he wants for African aid); he never argues that perhaps these Muslim terrorists might have, in some indirect way, been equally provoked into folly by the West, by American bases and political and military interference in the Middle East dating back to WWII that includes supporting despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia that America wanted to prevent from becoming democratic.

U2 saw the first Gulf War and the American fight for "democracy" and "freedom" in the Cold War for what it was -- a delusional complement to economic imperial interests and cheap domestic electoral political fear-mongering by Reagan, Bush and those before them. U2 has to return to that again -- to a sense of being fair and honest about ascribing responsibility, and not just discouraging Americans like Sarah Palin or the 27% of Americans who think Bush is A-Okay from thinking things through because their support is needed on Africa. Saving Africa is fine, but don't sacrifice everyone else to do it, Bono!
 
How many threads to we have to open for this topic?
I think there is already enough discussion about this going on on the forum.
Sad to see this overshadowing the news about the U2 album in the media.
 
How many threads to we have to open for this topic?
I think there is already enough discussion about this going on on the forum.
Sad to see this overshadowing the news about the U2 album in the media.

I'm sorry I looked through this section and couldn't find a topic for this article. I wouldn't have created the thread if one already existed.
 
"I believe Tony Blair is sincere in his beliefs on Iraq. I also believe he's wrong."
 
my first reaction to this would be ........ so what?

Larry and Bono don't fully agree or something
so ......... ?

Mudfeld and Larry might agree on something
so ......... ?


does this means Mudfeld, Larry or Bono wins a prize?
 
Wow, I expected this thread from you days ago...

Politically speaking you are one of the most one dementional posters in here, whereas I often agree with some of your sentiments, your understanding of nuance is almost nill.

I dare you to show me an instance when Bono got more done back when he just criticized politicians...
 
Or, perhaps Bono is concerned enough with his causes in Africa that he's willing to rise above ideology and work with whomever he needs to to try to get that problem fixed.

Blind liberalism is annoying.
 
Can I just add that the most annoying thing about this forum is how all the posts get booted out and moved to the various sub-heading forums? I posted something once about a year ago, after checking carefully that the topic didn't fall under any of the ones listed. The response to the topic was 90% about where it should get moved to, not the topic itself, until it was (arbitrarily I'm sure) moved. After that I couldn't even find my own post and I lost interest in it.

This topic, while not my own, strikes me as another general interest topic that should be left under the main one. It almost seems like (dare I say it?) the more controversial or unique the topic, the less comfortable the moderators are, and thus the topics get moved (hence, Internet fascism).

I like this forum, but I just wanted to point out that it is by the far the most anal-retentive such that I've ever seen, and not in a good way.
 
Can I just add that the most annoying thing about this forum is how all the posts get booted out and moved to the various sub-heading forums? I posted something once about a year ago, after checking carefully that the topic didn't fall under any of the ones listed. The response to the topic was 90% about where it should get moved to, not the topic itself, until it was (arbitrarily I'm sure) moved. After that I couldn't even find my own post and I lost interest in it.

This topic, while not my own, strikes me as another general interest topic that should be left under the main one. It almost seems like (dare I say it?) the more controversial or unique the topic, the less comfortable the moderators are, and thus the topics get moved (hence, Internet fascism).

I like this forum, but I just wanted to point out that it is by the far the most anal-retentive such that I've ever seen, and not in a good way.

You should really look up the word fascism before throwing it around so recklessly...

There's a reason for sub-forums, and when the topic is mostly political in nature it belongs here, just because a topic mentions Bono or U2 it doesn't always make it EYKIW material.
 
Can I just add that the most annoying thing about this forum is how all the posts get booted out and moved to the various sub-heading forums? I posted something once about a year ago, after checking carefully that the topic didn't fall under any of the ones listed. The response to the topic was 90% about where it should get moved to, not the topic itself, until it was (arbitrarily I'm sure) moved. After that I couldn't even find my own post and I lost interest in it.

This topic, while not my own, strikes me as another general interest topic that should be left under the main one. It almost seems like (dare I say it?) the more controversial or unique the topic, the less comfortable the moderators are, and thus the topics get moved (hence, Internet fascism).

I like this forum, but I just wanted to point out that it is by the far the most anal-retentive such that I've ever seen, and not in a good way.
the mods and admins who run this forum are definitely not fascist. such language about them is definitely not allowed on this forum.

in the future i suggest you contact a mod if you feel a thread's been wrongly closed, moved, etc. as for why this one was moved...it's about politics first and foremost. just because a band member is mentioned does not mean it belongs in eykiw. and i'm not sure which thread you're referring to in the past, but if the topic goes in a different direction, then yes it can be moved. the thread's topic as a whole is taken into account when it's moved, not just the original post.

as bvs said, we have lots of sub-forums and there's a reason they existed. this forum is way too large to just have a couple general forums. years ago when the forum was still big but not as big, there were a lot less forums and even then it was difficult to navigate. so while you may find it a bother to have so many sub-forums to navigate and such, the majority of the members find this better and while we try to take everyone's opinions into account, it's impossible to please everyone.
 
the mods and admins who run this forum are definitely not fascist. such language about them is definitely not allowed on this forum.

in the future i suggest you contact a mod if you feel a thread's been wrongly closed, moved, etc. as for why this one was moved...it's about politics first and foremost. just because a band member is mentioned does not mean it belongs in eykiw. and i'm not sure which thread you're referring to in the past, but if the topic goes in a different direction, then yes it can be moved. the thread's topic as a whole is taken into account when it's moved, not just the original post.

as bvs said, we have lots of sub-forums and there's a reason they existed. this forum is way too large to just have a couple general forums. years ago when the forum was still big but not as big, there were a lot less forums and even then it was difficult to navigate. so while you may find it a bother to have so many sub-forums to navigate and such, the majority of the members find this better and while we try to take everyone's opinions into account, it's impossible to please everyone.

Don't tase him, bro.
 
I do not blindly follow anything. For that matter, I do not follow anything at all.

I didn't necessarily say you blindly followed anything, I just said you displayed blindness in that post by only pointing out that blind liberalism is annoying.

The next line was to expand on your rather narrow point...
 
Just to clarify, I DO like the forum and I am not calling anyone a fascist! (I said "internet fascism", which is different in the sense that internet sex is not the same as sex.)

I certainly agree that this large a forum needs subsections and I wholeheartedly support them. However, I do think it's overdone here to the point where a lot of general interest topics are getting sub-foldered into oblivion. (The posters on this forum also seem to take a unique delight in calling out whose posts need to be moved, which I also find rather strange.)

Anyhow, if the majority disagrees with me, then I'm happy to exist under the hyper-sub-folder system. After all, I'm not a fascist!
 
Just to clarify, I DO like the forum and I am not calling anyone a fascist! (I said "internet fascism", which is different in the sense that internet sex is not the same as sex.)

I certainly agree that this large a forum needs subsections and I wholeheartedly support them. However, I do think it's overdone here to the point where a lot of general interest topics are getting sub-foldered into oblivion. (The posters on this forum also seem to take a unique delight in calling out whose posts need to be moved, which I also find rather strange.)

Anyhow, if the majority disagrees with me, then I'm happy to exist under the hyper-sub-folder system. After all, I'm not a fascist!

Generally, when a post is moved, there's a link in the old thread indicating it was moved, so it's easy enough to find.

As for this entire topic, it's BS. Sounds like some reporter trying to stir up shit where there isn't any. Larry has stated long ago that he's not a big fan of Bono's political activities, this isn't exactly a new thing. However, it's not like it's caused some giant rift in the band. Friends agree to disagree all the time, no big deal. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom