Bono with the US on the war in Afghanistan

[hiphop]

Excellent points, ladywiththespinninghead
(pls could you leave your emailaddress somewhere?) and sv. Couldn?t have said it any better.
I must say I am disappointed of Bono, and ashamed for him. Everyone is entitled to have his free opinion, but Bono surely has realized that sales would go down if he says to be against the war. Also with the Hollywood changeofmind.
Well, everyone has a prize, especially former pacifists...

Jesus can you take some time to throw a drowning man a line?

 

[Hitman]

Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:

I must say I am disappointed of Bono, and ashamed for him. Everyone is entitled to have his free opinion, but Bono surely has realized that sales would go down if he says to be against the war. B]

Yes, that must be it! Bono is protecting his sales! I can see him now talking to Edge..."Hey Edge, I'm against US military action, but I fear that if I say so publicly, it will hurt the sales of All That You Can't Leave Behind...so I'm going to say that I support what the US is doing."
"Good Idea Bono!"

He always has been afraid to take an unpopular stance, hasn't he?


------------------
Live As If You'll Die Tomorrow, Dream As If You'll Live Forever!

 

[hiphop]

You?re being very cynical, Hitman, and referring to your nick I guess you might have read the book.
I don?t think Bono discusses every interview with The Edge, and I do think that in reality he has stayed a peace - loving person. Plus, I don?t know how this interview was interpreted.

Instead of blahblahing about Bono blahblahing with the Edge, you should consider that the current state in the music and film industry makes censorship a big deal. So some artists are in fact lying, because they want to be respected artists tomorrow too. They do this because they have seen, after stating their true opinions mildly, that American media and the American public is , also locally, NOT as democratic and free speech loving as it sometimes seemed to be.

Instead of talking with the Edge, Bono will have talked with Paul and maybe with Jimmy.
And he may have realized that his opposition is worth zero, because it changes zero. Being engaged in Drop the Debt too (I hope he continues this at least) he has to be careful about what he is saying.

Even if I surely can?t talk for Bono, because I am not him and maybe he has a different opinion from mine, I think he might self - censor himself if he wants to.
And he has the right to do so. He is a rockstar, not Jesus. Me, a fan in this case, has the right to be ashamed for him, too.

You might notice that some artists simply say nothing on the media. Because some don?t want to bite the hand that feeds them. Bono could have token this route, too.

 

[pub crawler]

I'm quitting my U2 fanaticism.

 

[TheU2]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:
I'm also one course short of finishing my M.A. in conflict resolution/international relations so I like to think I've explored the issue on a much deeper level than y'all think I have!!

Haha.....

Lets all have our very own education bragging ceremony!!

And, I think you should refund your money back to your university....

CK

 

[I AM WHO I AM]

Yeah I agree with Bono....

But lets face the fact.....

USA have brought this upon themeselves........

Look no one hates USA just out of jealousy....

But because they play around with peoples fate in this world.....

 

[NicaMom]

"It's real punk rock, some really great guitar sounds and some
beautiful melodies."

I can't wait to hear it!
The Edge is going to rock the town!

"If somebody was threatening my wife and kids I would not turn the
other cheek.

I'm very moved by this comment.
War is something too close to home for me and it's certainly not strange to Bono, and I'm also a parent, so I fully understand where he's coming from.

 

[I AM WHO I AM]

And ladywiththespinninghead.....I only wish if the americans in general were bit more educated like you.....btw....you people now crying out loud...horrible tragedy of WTC.....but didnt you feel anything...when you read in the paper...that 5 million children died in Iraq because of the sanctions....So USA you are punishing the whole country because of Saddam...Why didnt you take his out while you had the chance....and ladywiththespinningheade..or Julie I might say....you are dead on right about all the things USA should do now....

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by I AM WHO I AM:
And ladywiththespinninghead.....I only wish if the americans in general were bit more educated like you

I wish people from all over the world were more educated like some people in this forum.

.....btw....you people now crying out loud...horrible tragedy of WTC.....but didnt you feel anything...when you read in the paper...that 5 million children died in Iraq because of the sanctions....

When I read that n million children died in Iraq in the 90s, I feel sad, and angry at Saddam Hussein. When I read that they died because of the sanctions, I disagree with the author of the article.

So USA you are punishing the whole country because of Saddam...

Well, I'd like to believe that our intent is to cripple Saddam Hussein's ability to carry out his nefarious plans, and that his government alone is causing his people to suffer. (Feel free to ignore any of the nonsense you've heard out of the mouth of Madeline Albright.) I've heard this point debated quite fiercely on both sides.

Why didnt you take his out while you had the chance....

Beats the hell out of me. We might have a chance to do so soon. Will you let us?

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:


[1] Willingness to recognize Palestine as a state: this has already happened and the US should be commended for that.

[2] Remove all US military presence from Arabia, recognizing that this is a sacred land for very many Muslims, with Mecca and Medina, opening the way towards democracy in that dictatorship.

[3] Lifting the sanctions on Iraq, negotiating with the regime, and apologize for Albright's "it was worth the price" remark. More difficult, this would require real statesmanship.

[4] Accepting the invitation by President Khatami for an open, public, high level dialogue on the relation between Iran/US, and West/Christianity vs Islam in general. The US fears a dialogue of this type will be used for propaganda, and some disagreeable things will probably be said about the USA-CIA supported coup against the elected prime minister, Mossadegh and in favor the non-elected shah. But after that critique, which any mature person is able to stand, comes the constructive phase where one could only hope Iran is well prepared: "OK, OK, where do go from here" is an excellent, standard American formulation.

[5] Hands off Afghanistan. This is partly because any US presence will strengthen the argument about ulterior motives and may stimulate an anti-US coalition, partly as a sign of respect. A UN presence up to trusteeship level is a viable alternative.

Economic-political:

[6] Globalization-free zones, in the regions where people die from globalization because of too little money to buy from the market for their basic needs. The Kyoto protocol already had the Third World as an exemption so there is nothing new in the idea of differential approaches. The alternative would be a Marshall plan for the poorest areas of the world in the Andes region, Black Africa and South Asia. strengthening the local, informal economy with a view to basic needs satisfaction for all.

[7] Reconciliation: learn from the German approach to the 18 countries they conquered and the 2 nations they tried to exterminate, the Jews and the Sinta/Roma. Today Germany has reasonable relations to all, and a key element went beyond apologies and compensation to including rewriting of textbooks.

[2] is a bear. Despite the fact that students in schools and seminaries in Saudi Arabia learn to view the West as infidels, hardline Islamic terrorists despise the Saudi government for its Western ties and for not being a "properly" Islamic government.

If Saudi Arabia became a "properly" Islamic government, it'd become even more of an oppressive government. And if Islamic terrorists still had grudges against certain governments, it'd become an even better base of operations.

I think it's unlikely that Saudi Arabia would become a democracy unless the US applied significant pressure (economic pressure, military support for some indigenous movement, etc.). Once it were to become a democracy, it'd get the terrorists even more pissed off.

[3] I think is impossible. (The part about negotiating with Iraq, that is.)

I like the other ideas though.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 12-22-2001).]

 

[DoctorGonzo]

When I read that n million children died in Iraq in the 90s, I feel sad, and angry at Saddam Hussein. When I read that they died because of the sanctions, I disagree with the author of the article.

So, you are saying innocent civillan deaths can be blamed entirely on the actions of the government and those who are actually casuing them to die should not be held accountable?

Madeline Albright was asked wether the deaths of all the innocent civillans in Iraq due to the sanctions that do not affect Saddam Hussein were worth it to try and get him out of power, and she said "Yes".

How we can take the moral high ground when people kill our innocents is beyond me.

There is no fucking excuse for killing innocent people, ever

None!

No foreign policy concerns can ever justify killing innocent people. Especially when those being killed are being diliberately targeted! I don't fucking care how righteous you think you are. Whether you're in Washington or Kabul. It doesn't fucking matter. No one can say they are justified when they pull this kind of shit.

This is a prime example of why people around the world hate the United States and view it as a hypocricical nation that will commit atrocities far beyond those commited on September 11th to achieve its goals.

Americans need to wake the fuck up and look at what their government is going. And why people all over the place - not just crazies, but normal, rational people are extremly annoyed with us. It's not about "jelousy", that is a cop-out. And don't try to tell me that just because terrorists are concerned about something we do, that we should ignore the issue entirely. The victims of our foreign policy did not ask Osama Bin Laden for him to use their suffering as an excuse to attack the U.S. Allowing innocents to die overseas because Bin Laden said it was bad for them to die is probably the most inane, utterly inexcusable, morally and intellectually bankrupt thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

The United States is setting the example its enemeies are following. They are pulling the same shit on us that we've been doing to other nations for decades.

All of this shit needs to stop on both sides.

It needs to stop now. And most of all, Americans need to jettison their comfy illusions about why they are hated across the planet. It isn't because of fancy cars and a high standard of living. You don't see Canada being attacked, do you? Much of Western Europe has not been targeted. Americans are hated because of what their government does and their refusal to even care, or notice what it does.

Americans can no longer afford to simply allow themselves to be spoon-fed what CNN and FOX News tells them. They need to realize that everyone else in the world is a hell of a lot better informed about where their money is going and what their leaders are doing then they are.

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:

Anyway, you can try persuading me otherwise but I've been struggling with this issue since day one and if all the posts by Achtung Bubba and U2Bama, etc in Free Your Mind didn't convince me otherwise, then I'm afraid I'm a lose cause for you folks!

Thank you for the endorsement.

I am not surprised at Bono's gesture of support. I expect some of you to be disappointed in him and I won't try to change that. He has merely done what other liberal rockers such as Elton John and Paul McCartney have done and verbally condoned, in general, the efforts by the U.S. and allies to respond.

In addition to what Matthew_Page2000 said regarding Yugoslavia and Bono's urge for U.S. military involvment, I also recall being a young teenager in the late 1980s and Bono encouraging trade sanctions against South Africa due to their apartheid system. Today, Saddam Hussein IS making chemical weapons (to be used not only on international enemies but also on his own people who oppose him), he IS making nuclear weapons, and who's to say that he will never launch another attack to conquer a sovereign neighbor (although in 1991, his military took quite a blow, but this could be replaced by the thugs who fled Afghanistan like cockroaches in the dark, and I am NOT talking about the civilian refugees - I am talking about the non-Afghan Arabs who were there doing the Taliban and Al Qaeda's dirty work against Afghan civilians).

I unequivocally support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. But I do not think that such a state should replace ALL of the lands known as present-day Israel. A common goal of the not-always-unified terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Jihad, and southern Lebanon's Hizbollah have a different goal: the total destruction of Israel as a state, to be replaced by a Palestiniant state. Yes, some of them DO want Jews and other "non-Muslims" and/or "non-Arabs" removed from the entire Arab peninsula region. I see that as racist and theocratic, considering I am one who has a Dreidel hanging on my Christmas tree. It is not anti-semitic to criticize Ariel Sharon and Israeli policy, but it IS anti-semitic, and INTOLERANT, to call for the "expulsion of the dirty jews from Palestine."

Also, many of us, myself included, often confuse this while U.S. vs. bin Lade/Al Qaeda/Taliban conflict confused with a typical conservative/liberal debate. But that is not at ALL the case with the players in this conflict.

Believe it or not, Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and MANY of the individuals and groups who support them are part of an ultra-conservative, fundamentalist, racist, intolerant and ultimately theocratic movement that has a fetish for power. Sure, they allegedly take on the plight of the "poor" (as Hitler did, ironically, against "dirty Jewish" bankers and merchants), but their goal is a racially and religiously homogenous region (like that of America's KKK).

Religion and government do not mix well, adn thus should not be mixed. It only leads to oppression. And, yes, that goes for Saudi Arabia as well.

~U2Alabama

 

[The Wanderer]

As an American I am extremely disappointed to the point of shame and embarrassment at what is going on right now in Afghanistan. While I do feel that the invasion of Afghanistan was neccessary, I am no longer able to overlook the mishandling and abuse of power that is taking place; there is no need to continue inhilating Afghanistan, this mission couild be completed without this excessive display of brute force.

 

[DoctorGonzo]

It is not anti-semitic to criticize Ariel Sharon and Israeli policy, but it IS anti-semitic, and INTOLERANT, to call for the "expulsion of the dirty jews from Palestine."

I agree with that.

But what do you think about removing the illegal settlements from The West Bank and The Gaza Strip?

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 12-22-2001).]

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
What do you think about removing the illegal settlements from The West Bank and The Gaza Strip?

I think it is STUPID for Israelis to "settle" in those areas. Why would they want to? And Sharon encourages it, and this is another one of my gripes with him. If it's illegal, it's illegal.

~U2Alabama

 

[garibaldo]

DoctorGonzo, you said that the murdering of innocent lives is NEVER justified. What would you have done in WWII? Would you have let Hitler and Stalin continue? Please please please respond to this. I'm really anxious to see an intelligent response here.

 

[DoctorGonzo]

DoctorGonzo, you said that the murdering of innocent lives is NEVER justified. What would you have done in WWII? Would you have let Hitler and Stalin continue?

What do you mean by Hitler and Stalin. By the time the U.S entered the war, the Soviet Union was an ally.

I don't belive in the carpet bombing of civillian population centers. I especially don't believe in incendiary bombings of such locations, where the whole point of the boming run is to kill as many people as humanly possible in a city. (See: firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo)

Responding to a threat is not the problem, targeting civillans to do it, is. We set out on a city-busting campaign during World War II in an attempt to "demoralize" the citizens of the enemy nations. Demoralize in essence, by wiping out as many innocents as we possibly could. Using every means at our disposal to erase civillan population centers from the face of the planet. That is immoral, that is illegal and it is not justified by any means.

Sure, taking extreme care not to kill innocent people is not convient. But few things are. And having to worry about how many innocent people you are killing may slow you down a bit, but it prevents you from engaging in the kind of wholesale slaughter that the worst criminal leaders of this world are often criticized for. Saying that killing civillians is somehow justified is pointless. Anyone can come up with an excuse for soemthing. However, there is a huge difference between a justification and an excuse.

When a government decideds that the loss of innocent human life is something that is acceptable to acheive a particular goal, and beyond that, such losses are not even to be taken seriously, or many times aknowledged (which is something that often occurs today) then the leadership loses the moral high ground it starts out on as a victim of agression.

When you lower yourself to operating on the same moral level as the enemy, you instantly lose any justification for your actions, as they are no different than those you are fighting to prevent.

 

[Zoo Schabow]

Originally posted by TheU2:
Haha.....

Lets all have our very own education bragging ceremony!!

And, I think you should refund your money back to your university....

CK

HAHA! That was GREAT! CK!

------------------
THE DUCK HAS DIED

 

[Dane-Dane]

Why all this hoopla over Bono's comments?
I don't know why we feel we have to elevate rock stars to something more than what they are. Bono is not Gandhi he's had a violent
nature for years, John Lennon loved to sing about peace and love but couldn't even hold his family together (ask poor Julian about this subject) I just think we should not stress so much importance on a musician's
views and politics. It's all about the music and if the music has a positive message that's cool. It doesn't mean
the person who wrote it lives by these words, possibly aspires to, but not lives by.

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
So, you are saying innocent civillan deaths can be blamed entirely on the actions of the government and those who are actually casuing them to die should not be held accountable?

I think that the economic sanctions on Iraq are at worst a second cause to all of the civilian deaths in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein's rule is the first cause in the chain of events. To put it another way, I think Saddam Hussein has the power to fix things, but refuses to do so. If Iraq's current economic situation existed independent of the sanctions, then the US (UN) obviously wouldn't be blamed for anything. Of course these points can be argued, and I've heard them argued extensively on both sides.

The question I infer from your tirade is "if the US knows that Saddam is going to abuse the economic sanctions to starve his own people and keep himself in power, should the US maintain the sanctions?" I'd say no. I think we should take Saddam out as soon as it is feasible. But I don't think you can say the US is evil for imposing the sanctions. What you can say is that the US should recognize that they aren't having the desired effect and that we should try something else.

[This message has been edited by speedracer (edited 12-23-2001).]

 

[sharky]

I wish all of you who are so adamently against our military in Afghanistan were able to see Ground Zero. There is nothing left. NOTHING. Its all dust. Nothing that looks like computers or desks or chairs. Out of 3,000 bodies they have found about 500 and they aren't likely to find many more. As I have said many times in this forum, if you saw it you would realize there is no way to put a boundary on this. It wasn't an attack on America, it was an attack on humanity. You have the benefit of sitting on you couch watching it all on TV and I'm sorry, but its not the same.

You all also seem to be forgetting that this is not something that Bono all the sudden decided. Last year on VH1 someone asked how having children changed his life and one of the things he said is "I can now understand why people fight wars." He is still a humanitarian but he understands that humanitarianism-- like anything is life-- is not black and white.

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:


I don't belive in the carpet bombing of civillian population centers. I especially don't believe in incendiary bombings of such locations, where the whole point of the boming run is to kill as many people as humanly possible in a city. (See: firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo)

Responding to a threat is not the problem, targeting civillans to do it, is. We set out on a city-busting campaign during World War II in an attempt to "demoralize" the citizens of the enemy nations. Demoralize in essence, by wiping out as many innocents as we possibly could. Using every means at our disposal to erase civillan population centers from the face of the planet. That is immoral, that is illegal and it is not justified by any means.

Sure, taking extreme care not to kill innocent people is not convient. But few things are. And having to worry about how many innocent people you are killing may slow you down a bit, but it prevents you from engaging in the kind of wholesale slaughter that the worst criminal leaders of this world are often criticized for. Saying that killing civillians is somehow justified is pointless. Anyone can come up with an excuse for soemthing. However, there is a huge difference between a justification and an excuse.

When a government decideds that the loss of innocent human life is something that is acceptable to acheive a particular goal, and beyond that, such losses are not even to be taken seriously, or many times aknowledged (which is something that often occurs today) then the leadership loses the moral high ground it starts out on as a victim of agression.

When you lower yourself to operating on the same moral level as the enemy, you instantly lose any justification for your actions, as they are no different than those you are fighting to prevent.

Do you not think that the US has taken extreme care to avoid civilian casualties in Afghanistan?

 

[garibaldo]

DoctorGonzo, are you trying to make the case that we could have fought WWII without any civilian casualties? Please please please tell me you're not trying to argue that. You also said that even one civilian death can't be justified. So, if you were confronted with a dictator (ie Hitler) and you were given the option of stopping him and causing 10 civilian deaths, you would refuse to stop him? I like how you suggested that we prolong wars in order to avoid civilian casualties as an option. What about the Jews? If you were leading us, how many more millions of Jews would have died in WWII. I'm glad you're not in a position of power. WE need someone with the guts to make these decisions, not someone who's only concerned is with who takes the moral high ground. We may not always take the universal moral high ground, but guess who's standing at the end? Not Hitler, I can tell you that.

 

[DrTeeth]

Originally posted by garibaldo:
I'm glad you're not in a position of power.

I wish everybody in the position of power shared DoctorGonzo?s opinion.

Db9, I never really felt comfortable with NYC?s self-proclaimed title of "City That Represents The Entire World". Same with the statement that the USA was supposed to represent the entire free world.

 

[Se7en]

So basically,

most of you are saying that if your family and friends were threatened you'd turn the other cheek...

that's humor.

------------------
I wanna dance, dance, dance in the dirty rain....where the streets have no name...

 

[DrTeeth]

What I was saying is that if everybody shared DocGonzo?s opinion, nobody would ever threaten my friends.

So basically,

Some of you are saying that if your family and friends were threatened you'd kill 5000 innocent people to get to the one who threatened them?

that's humor.

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by sharky:
You have the benefit of sitting on you couch watching it all on TV and I'm sorry, but its not the same.

yep, I've been watching both the attack on the WTC and the bombings on Afghanistan sitting on my couch

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Originally posted by sharky:
I wish all of you who are so adamently against our military in Afghanistan were able to see Ground Zero. There is nothing left. NOTHING. Its all dust. Nothing that looks like computers or desks or chairs. Out of 3,000 bodies they have found about 500 and they aren't likely to find many more. As I have said many times in this forum, if you saw it you would realize there is no way to put a boundary on this. It wasn't an attack on America, it was an attack on humanity. You have the benefit of sitting on you couch watching it all on TV and I'm sorry, but its not the same.

You all also seem to be forgetting that this is not something that Bono all the sudden decided. Last year on VH1 someone asked how having children changed his life and one of the things he said is "I can now understand why people fight wars." He is still a humanitarian but he understands that humanitarianism-- like anything is life-- is not black and white.

I am w/Sharky on this one.
When I was in NYC at the end of Oct. you could see an entire city that REPRESENTENTED THE ENTIRE WORLD slowy dusting herself off,
collecting herself,w/steely eyed determination getting ready to shut down terrorism and the appearance of terrorism in all areas of the globe.
From the shopkeepers to the shoeshiners it was silently decided that it was time to stand up to faceless cowards..seek them out, expose and eradicate them.

DB9

------------------
"...The big guy is made of STEEL." - Bono as we stood together on stage at Boston #4, June 9th, 2001.

---
-curious? click
links for
Bono/Dimon-
Bos.4 Story
Pics..

http://www.arizonaautoweb.com/bono/

http://members.aol.com/diamondbruno9/

 

[sv]

Sharky, Ground Zero is what Afghanistan looked like in about 1982. Except that there were a few thousand (most say many thousand, but I don't really know the exact number) more legless cripples crawling around, a few thousand more landmines, a few thousand more craters, a few thousand more starving people than in lower Manhattan . . . and that was before the Soviets completed their destruction, before the U.S.-sponsored mujaheedin took over and further ruined the country, before the Taliban did even worse.

So I guess bombing Afghanistan was the right solution to the Ground Zero problem.

 

[sv]

Speedracer, you directed a question at me a couple days ago: could a situation exist where killing thousands of civilians was truly the "lesser evil"?

My answer: Yes, but the criteria would have to include (at a minimum): 1) the "intervention" would save many more lives for 100% sure; 2) there were NO viable alternatives; and 3) the intervention is deemed necessary by very broad consensus.

In this case, none of these criteria were met. The U.N. (which in itself hardly represents civilian consensus but at least is something) was not consulted and did not give approval. There's no solid proof that bombing the civilians will save lives.

I can think of a number of alternatives (some of which I like, some of which I don't, but all of which are better than murdering more Afghani civilians) which were just as likely to fulfil the various goals.

For those who think removing the Taliban/Al Queda was necessary/justified, the U.S. could have deployed land troops to remove the Taliban and Al Queda - there would have been more U.S. military causalties, but let's remember that military personnel VOLUNTEER to fight the bad guys, unlike WEAK and INNOCENT CIVILIANS who have been successively victimized by the Soviets, mujaheedin, Taliban, and now the U.S. Or, the U.S. could have isolated the Taliban and Al Queda diplomatically and economically.

Looking at the bigger picture, the U.S. could say from now on we will not sell arms to anyone and everyone. We will not support any more mujaheedins or Bin Ladens (let's not forget whose creation they are) with money and arms, regardless of whether we think they will kill our enemies for us. From now on, we will not treat other nations (and yes, even Muslims) unfairly around the world - militarily, economically, diplomatically. We will not use our economic power to enslave other nations to our companies, and to support dictators and human rights abusers. We will accept a UNIFORM definition of terrorism, and we will never support terrorists no matter whether or not they make us money.

Lots of good alternatives. The ones in the last paragraph have a much better chance of preventing future deaths from terrorism than bombing Afghani civilians.

So while there may be rare situations where killing civilians en masse may seem like the lesser evil (and I think we all struggle with this one), this was clearly NOT one of them.