Bono with the US on the war in Afghanistan

[*Ally*]

i'm sorry if this was already discussed, but i thought that bono's latest thoughts on the war in Afghanistan were worth posting. He also mentions George Harrison. i got this article from www.atu2.com :

The Mirror
December 19, 2001, Wednesday

Bono: Harrison Didn't Like My Band
Damien Lane

ROCK star Bono has revealed that former Beatle George Harrison was not
a fan of U2.

The 41-year-old singer said: "We were great fans of his but he didn't
like U2 very much. "I heard he was very bad-tempered - I think it might
have been more true to say he was the grumpy Beatle rather than the
quiet one."

U2 have started recording a new album in a rundown nightclub in the
south of France.

Speaking for the first time since the band finished their mammoth
Elevation World Tour last month, Bono said: "We've started our album and
it's going to blow your mind.

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

"The band is so tight coming straight off tour. We've hit form. We were
here to write a ballad but we keep knocking out these hard rock tunes."

Bono has also revealed he is no longer a pacifist since the war against
terror.

In an interview with Hot Press he said he supports the US-led war on
Afghanistan.

He added: "I don't see any alternative to what they've done.

"I'm no longer a pacifist but not because I don't want to be but
because I can't live up to it in my own life.

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

"It's patently clear to anyone living in New York or London that whole
corners of their cities were about to be taken out, whether with
chemicals or dirty nuclear devices.

"So I'm not full of criticism for the way the Americans have behaved.
I'm with them."

Bono, a dad of four, added he is looking forward to a family Christmas
and New Year in Dublin.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Bleck, that's very, very disappointing to hear....


(and that's all I'm gonna say on the subject!

)


p.s.: Hi Ally! Thanks for posting that!

[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 12-21-2001).]

 

[U2FReAk]

Originally posted by *Ally*:


In an interview with Hot Press he said he supports the US-led war on
Afghanistan.

 

[*Ally*]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:

p.s.: Hi Ally! Thanks for posting that!

[/B]

hey, girl! i hope all is well up in Canada- Merry Christmas!

 

[Zoo Schabow]

Thanks *Ally* for posting that!

It makes me feel good that Bono is with the US and that the new album will kick ass!

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

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Oh yes, very well indeed!! Merry Xmas to you as well!

(Maybe we'll see each other in Europe next summer!)

 

[Hitman]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:
Bleck, that's very, very disappointing to hear....).]

What is very disapointing to hear exactly? That he understands the American point of view and doesn't want to allow terrorists to run free?



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

 

[*Ally*]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:


(Maybe we'll see each other in Europe next summer!)

LOL! actually, khelia and i are already scheming a way to get over there! she's looking for a summer internship in london, and i'm going to take a couple of months off before starting grad school next fall... so we very well might be in europe. i definitely hope to see you there!

 

[Bonochick]

Originally posted by Zoo Schabow:
Thanks *Ally* for posting that!

It makes me feel good that Bono is with the US and that the new album will kick ass!

Zoo, how come lately I've been agreeing with just about all of your posts?




------------------
"I don't know you,
But you don't know the half of it..."

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Originally posted by Hitman:

What is very disapointing to hear exactly? That he understands the American point of view and doesn't want to allow terrorists to run free?

You obviously didn't read the rest of my post...oh well...it's beyond my comprehension that he can endorses a policy that has killed over 3700 innocent Afghani civilians - more than were killed in the World Trade Centre (and that according to conservative estimates - www.guardian.co.uk)


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!

p.s.: I live more in London, U.K. than I do in Canada and yet I still don't feel the same way he does...

 

[Zoo Schabow]

Originally posted by Bonochick:
Zoo, how come lately I've been agreeing with just about all of your posts?

Because rehab is over and I am finally clean!

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

 

[Bonochick]

Originally posted by Zoo Schabow:
Because rehab is over and I am finally clean!

Heh...I'll believe it when I see it...


------------------
"I don't know you,
But you don't know the half of it..."

 

[Angel]

Originally posted by ladywithspinninghead:

You obviously didn't read the rest of my post...oh well...it's beyond my comprehension that he can endorses a policy that has killed over 3700 innocent Afghani civilians - more than were killed in the World Trade Centre ....

Hey Julie, I think your stats there might be wrong, I thought that it was over 5,000 lives lost in the WTC attacks? Anyway, that's not the point, and I am not going to get involved here because it's so hard for people to see eye to eye regarding political matters, especially ones that involve war. I will say that I admire Bono for his honesty. He said it quite simple - 'If somebody was threatening my wife and kids I would not turn the other cheek'. The truth of the matter is we don't know how we would react if faced with this very situation. It's so easy for us to say there has to be another way, war is wrong, what the Americans are doing is bad. Well, who are we to know what is right and wrong? The Taliban was wrong when they attacked America, but America might be wrong to retaliate. I don't know, all I know is that I am thankful to have America as my neighbour and I believe that they are trying very hard to make the world a better place for all of us.

 

[Zoo Schabow]

Originally posted by Angel:
Hey Julie, I think your stats there might be wrong, I thought that it was over 5,000 lives lost in the WTC attacks? Anyway, that's not the point, and I am not going to get involved here because it's so hard for people to see eye to eye regarding political matters, especially ones that involve war. I will say that I admire Bono for his honesty. He said it quite simple - 'If somebody was threatening my wife and kids I would not turn the other cheek'. The truth of the matter is we don't know how we would react if faced with this very situation. It's so easy for us to say there has to be another way, war is wrong, what the Americans are doing is bad. Well, who are we to know what is right and wrong? The Taliban was wrong when they attacked America, but America might be wrong to retaliate. I don't know, all I know is that I am thankful to have America as my neighbour and I believe that they are trying very hard to make the world a better place for all of us.

Great post!

Just so you know, the number of deaths in the WTC has been decreased to around 3,000(still too many).

I don't want to get in a political debate either, but I want to say one thing.

If we hadn't retaliated, the Taliban would still be in control. And Bin Laden and his dumbass buddies would be planning more attacks on America. It's that simple.

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

 

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

I told you guys long ago that Bono was a 'closet Republican'.

Thank You.
Diamond.

PS-
Osama's actions killed the innocents in Afganistan

------------------
"...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/

 

[Bonochick]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:

Osama's actions killed the innocents in Afganistan

Never thought I'd say this but...

Good point, Diamond.

------------------
"I don't know you,
But you don't know the half of it..."

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Anyway, I'm not going to respond to this anymore. I appreciate everyone's opinions but 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!!

(that's probably why my answers here are short and sweet - I write papers on this stuff day and night..I don't come to a U2 website to continue doing the same! haha!

)

Anyways, I'll let the article do the talking as I'm too tired...(it's from a British paper by the way)

Have a good weekend everyone!


-julie

(Please note the no. of dead on both sides...as well as Rumsfeld's remarks stating that this would not necessarily eradicate terrorism...)

The innocent dead in a coward's war

Estimates suggest US bombs have killed at least 3,767 civilians

Seumas Milne
Thursday December 20, 2001
The Guardian

The price in blood that has already been paid for America's war against terror is only now starting to become clear. Not by Britain or the US, nor even so far by the al-Qaida and Taliban leaders held responsible for the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. It has instead been paid by ordinary Afghans, who had nothing whatever to do with the atrocities, didn't elect the Taliban theocrats who ruled over them and had no say in the decision to give house room to Bin Laden and his friends.
The Pentagon has been characteristically coy about how many people it believes have died under the missiles it has showered on Afghanistan. Acutely sensitive to the impact on international support for the war, spokespeople have usually batted away reports of civilian casualties with a casual "these cannot be independently confirmed", or sometimes simply denied the deaths occurred at all. The US media have been particularly helpful. Seven weeks into the bombing campaign, the Los Angeles Times only felt able to hazard the guess that "at least dozens of civilians" had been killed.

Now, for the first time, a systematic independent study has been carried out into civilian casualties in Afghanistan by Marc Herold, a US economics professor at the University of New Hampshire. Based on corroborated reports from aid agencies, the UN, eyewitnesses, TV stations, newspapers and news agencies around the world, Herold estimates that at least 3,767 civilians were killed by US bombs between October 7 and December 10. That is an average of 62 innocent deaths a day - and an even higher figure than the 3,234 now thought to have been killed in New York and Washington on September 11.

Of course, Herold's total is only an estimate. But what is impressive about his work is not only the meticulous cross-checking, but the conservative assumptions he applies to each reported incident. The figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries; nor those killed in the past 10 days; nor those who have died from cold and hunger because of the interruption of aid supplies or because they were forced to become refugees by the bombardment. It does not include military deaths (estimated by some analysts, partly on the basis of previous experience of the effects of carpet-bombing, to be upwards of 10,000), or those prisoners who were slaughtered in Mazar-i-Sharif, Qala-i-Janghi, Kandahar airport and elsewhere.

Champions of the war insist that such casualties are an unfortunate, but necessary, byproduct of a just campaign to root out global terror networks. They are a world apart, they argue, from the civilian victims of the attacks on the World Trade Centre because, in the case of the Afghan civilians, the US did not intend to kill them.

In fact, the moral distinction is far fuzzier, to put it at its most generous. As Herold argues, the high Afghan civilian death rate flows directly from US (and British) tactics and targeting. The decision to rely heavily on high-altitude air power, target urban infrastructure and repeatedly attack heavily populated towns and villages has reflected a deliberate trade-off of the lives of American pilots and soldiers, not with those of their declared Taliban enemies, but with Afghan civilians. Thousands of innocents have died over the past two months, not mainly as an accidental byproduct of the decision to overthrow the Taliban regime, but because of the low value put on Afghan civilian lives by US military planners.

Raids on targets such as the Kajakai dam power station, Kabul's telephone exchange, the al-Jazeera TV station office, lorries and buses filled with refugees and civilian fuel trucks were not mistakes. Nor were the deaths that they caused. The same goes for the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs in urban areas. But western public opinion has become increasingly desensitised to what has been done in its name. After US AC-130 gunships strafed the farming village of Chowkar-Karez in October, killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official felt able to remark: "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead", while US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld commented: "I cannot deal with that particular village."

Yesterday, Rumsfeld inadvertently conceded what little impact the Afghan campaign (yet to achieve its primary aim of bringing Bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership to justice) has had on the terrorist threat, by speculating about ever more cataclysmic attacks, including on London. There will be no official two-minute silence for the Afghan dead, no newspaper obituaries or memorial services attended by the prime minister, as there were for the victims of the twin towers. But what has been cruelly demonstrated is that the US and its camp followers are prepared to sacrifice thousands of innocents in a coward's war.

[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 12-21-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ladywithspinninghead (edited 12-21-2001).]

 

[sv]

Apparently Bono didn't learn as much from growing up in Ireland as I had thought. And perhaps he would think differently if it was him or his family that was murdered in retaliation for the IRA's attacks on London, for example. Really it's the same thing - a few lunatics do something, the civilians who live nearby and who had nothing to do with it get killed in revenge. Nowadays that's considered OK by most people, apparently including Bono, as long as the people getting killed live far away (and especially if they're Afghani Muslims - after all, those kids would have just grown up to be terrorists and America-haters anyways, right?).

If Bono continues his campaign to suck up to the American media effectively, in addition to continuing to rake in cash and awards, he will one day compete for a Nobel Peace Prize. But then, when you look at the list of previous winners, there are few who haven't actually executed or ordered the murder of at least one person. So while I don't put him in quite that bad company, his views on retaliation will fit in just fine. And he'll continue to make lots of money, too.

But his credibility among those who actually do give a damn about peace will continue to fall.

 

[Zoo Schabow]

Originally posted by sv:
Apparently Bono didn't learn as much from growing up in Ireland as I had thought. And perhaps he would think differently if it was him or his family that was murdered in retaliation for the IRA's attacks on London, for example. Really it's the same thing - a few lunatics do something, the civilians who live nearby and who had nothing to do with it get killed in revenge. Nowadays that's considered OK by most people, apparently including Bono, as long as the people getting killed live far away (and especially if they're Afghani Muslims - after all, those kids would have just grown up to be terrorists and America-haters anyways, right?).

If Bono continues his campaign to suck up to the American media effectively, in addition to continuing to rake in cash and awards, he will one day compete for a Nobel Peace Prize. But then, when you look at the list of previous winners, there are few who haven't actually executed or ordered the murder of at least one person. So while I don't put him in quite that bad company, his views on retaliation will fit in just fine. And he'll continue to make lots of money, too.

But his credibility among those who actually do give a damn about peace will continue to fall.

OK, so what's your plan to catch Bin Laden and end terrorism?

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

 

[Angel]

Originally posted by Zoo Schabow:
OK, so what's your plan to catch Bin Laden and end terrorism?

Oh so true Zoo Schabow.

Sure I'd love world peace and end wars forever... but it's not a possibility and I think the lot of you view life through rose coloured glasses.
I guess next time NA gets attacked, we'll have to just sit back and say ok, and hope it doesn't happen again... Whatever.
Ignornance kills me. Bah. Bono is an intelligent man and knows what he is talking about.

 

[U2FReAk]

well said, sv.
I hate to say it, but my admiration for Bono has definately sunk for the last couple of months. Hugging american flags, superbowl and now this... wow. Who would have thought.

 

[Zoo Schabow]

Originally posted by U2FReAk:
well said, sv.
I hate to say it, but my admiration for Bono has definately sunk for the last couple of months. Hugging american flags, superbowl and now this... wow. Who would have thought.

Yeah, Bono is such a loser.

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

 

[U2FReAk]

Originally posted by Zoo Schabow:
Yeah, Bono is such a loser.

Oooh. Sarkasm at it's best.

 

[U2002revolution!]

Yay! we have Bono on our side!

(oh yeah and we supposedly have God on our side too, not that matters to me since me and the 'big man' arn't getting along to great these days but it can't hurt!

). War isn't the anwser but they arn't willing to make peace, so....

[This message has been edited by U2002revolution! (edited 12-21-2001).]

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Diamond The U2 Patriot:
Osama's actions killed the innocents in Afganistan

I'm sorry, but this kind of reasoning only serves to fit ones own agenda

the reaction to Osama's actions was chosen very carefully, so the results of our actions IS OUR responsibility

Osama is a sad twit who should be dealt with
but I don't think anyone has an idea what exactly we have been bombing over the past few weeks

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

 

[Angel]

Originally posted by Zoo Schabow:
Yeah, Bono is such a loser.

Hey Zoo Schabow, want to be my friend? I like intelligent people.

 

[sv]

Since you asked . . . no regime can totally prevent terrorist acts without wasting all kinds of financial resources and without becoming a police state. And even this doesn't work, really. The best solution is to create conditions that favor peace, not hatred. I certainly agree that this is not a simple problem, but I'm quite confident that these measures would be an excellent start:

1. The U.S. should STOP being the leading financial and diplomatic supporter of terrorists and human rights abusers around the world. U.S. foreign policy is based on the principle of creating a "favorable business climate" for our companies in other countries. In practice, we use our immense financial power to financially support those foreign politicians, business leaders, and media that create conditions (no matter how much they trample human rights) that favor U.S. companies. In these countries, corrupt leaders (of course they're guilty too!) compete for U.S. funds by "proving" to us that they can and will do whatever it takes (death squads, murder, torture, take away freedom of speech, etc.) to prevent unionization of workers, minimum wage laws, laws favoring humane working conditions, public health investments, and environmentally sound policy, and to suppress dissent. The number of countries in which we do this is VERY large, and this is VERY well documented in many sources - and the entire world (including many terrorism-inclined individuals) lives with this reality every day. To name one credible and well-researched source, Ed Herman found in a late 1970s study that U.S. investment in a country directly correlates with the administrative use of torture. It's no wonder lots of people dislike the U.S., and it's shouldn't surprise anyone that their extremists want to hurt us. We should use our clout to help those who need it around the world - our financial support should go towards programs for people, not investments in dictators.

2. Stop selling arms. The 5 U.N. security council nations are responsible for 90% of world arms sales, with the U.S. the leader by far. Boeing, Lockheed, General Electric, Honeywell - yes they make commercial airliners and light bulbs and burglar alarms, but the way they make their real money is by massive government (ours and others) contracts to make tanks, bombers, fighter planes, munitions, etc.

3. Stop providing unjust diplomatic support for our companies' hurtful policies overseas. For instance, the U.S. sues African countries for patent infringement when they try to find alternative ("generic") versions of drugs sold by our companies at prices they can't afford. I'm talking about malaria, TB, and other diseases that could be eradicated with fair policy. Let's give them a break - Africa loses millions of lives a year because of their inability to treat simple diseases. Also, the U.S. threatened trade sanctions against several Southeast Asian countries when they tried to limit cigarette imports in 1996-7 - the countries were forced to back down, and the rate of teen smoking in Japan (one example) has increased by more than 10% PER YEAR since then. That's a lot of deaths. Of course people will dislike us when we do that stuff.

4. Debt relief. Why should African countries that can't feed their people be forced to pay money to the U.S.? Especially when the "loans" were never used for human/social development but to support brutal 3rd world dictators who supported our business policies. Poverty creates violence.

5. Every citizen should learn about what its country is up to by reading many sources, of which many should include foreign ones - the performance of the U.S. press (like any country's media but much more powerful these days) is extremely propagandistic. And get involved in (nonviolent of course) efforts to improve the behavior of our country.

Bono made some comments on U2 music compared with other mainstream music, that went something like this: Anger is easy to create. Joy and peace are much harder to express in songs. I think he hit the nail on the head: bombing those Afghani civilians is easy and makes us feel like we're fighting terrorists. The harder road, but the one which can improve the world, is to fight terrorism by making it unnecessary in the eyes of those who might consider it.

A final comment: the U.S. is the most advanced civilization in history in several ways. If the U.S. was truly committed to solving terrorism and not to serving its own geopolitical and economic interests, I don't think it would be nearly as hard as it looks right now.

 

[IvanClaytonJnr]

FUCK THE PAST

, KISS THE FUTURE

, SARAJEVO - SARAJEVO - SARAJEVO - SARAJEVO - SARAJEVO - SARAJEVO - SARAJEVO -

 

[sv]

Sorry, more.

The premise that catching Bin Laden will stop terrorism is terminally flawed. The most important reason to catch someone who murdered thousands of people is to prevent it from happening again. But if WE kill thousands of people in supposed pursuit of him, and prove ourselves to be equally dangerous, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Or does our right to punish Bin Laden outweigh innocent Afghani civilians' right to live?

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Originally posted by Angel:

Hey Zoo Schabow, want to be my friend? I like intelligent people.

What are you saying Angel? That because me and a couple of fellow Interferencers (not to mention the majority of the planet) are opposed to the U.S.' way of handling this, we're "ignorant" (as you wrote above) and non-intelligent?

Well that's nice to know.