Is war good for music?
Just think of all the new songs we can write about the headless children and pools of blood & maggots in the street (you think this is exaggerated? – NOT). Who knows, someone may get the opportunity to right another Kent State song.
Judging by the current political climate, they’d probably get arrested! In Upstate NY recently, someone was arrested at a mall for simply wearing a T-shirt that said "Give Peace A Chance"! And this is America?
Just think of all the new songs we can write about the headless children and pools of blood & maggots in the street (you think this is exaggerated? – NOT). Who knows, someone may get the opportunity to right another Kent State song. Judging by the current political climate, they’d probably get arrested! In Upstate NY recently, someone was arrested at a mall for simply wearing a T-shirt that said "Give Peace A Chance"! And this is America?
They were arrested for not leaving when asked to which, while rather anal in this case, is the privilege of every owner of private property. Let’s not assume we are living in a police state just yet…just a state where mall owners are somewhat uptight. -=weasel=-
Some music "kills". War always kills. JC – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just think of all the new songs we can write about the headless children and pools of blood & maggots in the street (you think this is exaggerated? – NOT). Who knows, someone may get the opportunity to right another Kent State song. Don’t get me wrong. I love America, and I support our troops and pray that they don’t even have to fight or die trying. They need to be home making babies, playing guitars, repairing guitars and such. I even stand behind our leader’s effort to make a difference in this world. In contrast, I am opposed to military states that are arrogant and prejudice to it’s neighbors and is willing to kill 1.5 million of it’s own people, just because they disagree with politics or they were born in a different ethnic group. But one thing that is not discussed often enough, is the cost of war. I have not seen the figures, but I would guess that the US has already spent $20 billion just to get the troops over there to sit, train & eat (and the war has not even started yet). I heard that every round shot from a tank cost between $10K & $80K each (why not catapult BMWs at them?). Each loaded tank cost $1 million just in ammunition. It seems that American warfare is much like the American politicians. The one who spends the most money, will almost always win. I suppose that only time will tell us if we "win" this war. But think of how $20 billion dollars would benefit the domestic economy. It is a possibility, that this war could cost $200 billion dollars. With $200 billion dollars, do you suppose that a new battery technology or energy source for automobiles could be developed or subsidized? I realize that war is a proven formula for a traceable money stream and that government funding of new technology is a proven formula for greed and dishonesty with unclear results. But fewer people die in the process. Is war good for the economy? The advocates say that the defense industry receives the wind-fall from war spending. This in turn reverberates spending throughout the economy. But wait! Where did the defense get all this money? Could it have been from our tax money? How does that help the economy? Is money NOT like energy, you can always create more money from out of nowhere and you can also destroy it (see the NY Stock Exchange)? What does this have to do with a guitar discussion group? Honestly . . . nothing. Roger — Have a nice day! Roger Privitt Plano, TX
"zzzme" fell for this old hogwash: THE GREEN PARTY IS THE WORSE
Whatever party supports education is the one you should be supporting. Start with higher standards in spelling. e — http://tapkae.com
ha ha ha ha take another look. and don’t ignore the crap that jerk pulled in so.america or elsewhere.. and don’t forget to check the economy.. he was a loser.
And your economic background is? Please. I studied Finance in college and I could talke circles around you regarding economics. No president is very responsible for an economy. They can influence it, but a good economy during a stint as president is just being in the right place at the right time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Really, most of the actors and musicians who are getting airtime to talk about their opposition to the war are intelligent, reasonably well informed, and have views that make sense. Sure, you have your Madonnas and Cheryl Crows who look at the anti-war movement as just another fashion trend, but Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Janeane Garafolo, Eddie Vedder, Martin Scorcese, Bono, Bill Maher, the guys from System of a Down, and Tom Morello (as much as I thought his last band was full of shit) are actually getting on TV to say things that need to be said. I guess you missed Janeane Garafolo getting tore apart on Fox News? Her opinions were made to look silly. I guess you don’t realize people dont view things the same way you do, huh? Fox news always looks silly. It’s not news in the first place, it’s biased, right leaning, nonsense and that’s it’s only purpose.
As apposed to the standard big 3 who lean heavily to the left? Regardless, she was made to look like a monkey. I disagree. I think that the majority of these entertainers are democrats of the ones speaking out against the war.. well, no doubt! and they’ll do this when there is a republican waging the war. No one came out crying about war when we went into Bosnia or Rowanda because it was a democrat in office. You don’t know that. You can’t possibly prove it. What you have is a guess. For all you know, they didn’t speak out because they felt the situations were justified. And you can’t argue that in here, if you disagree, as none of us are hollywood actors.
Yes I do. There wasn’t a single outcry against war for either time. No one cried about needing UN approval either time either. How were they justified and this not? Let’s not even get started on the complete lunacy of the CNN cameras greeting the marines who were in the middle of an amphibious landing with lights blaring right at them. Why did they even know where the landing was? There has been ethnic clensing in Iraq. He’s decapitated a nun. He’s ordered the murder of millions. Yet it isn’t okay to do anything about it here, but it was okay in Bosnia? Hmmmm. Sounds hipocritical to me… Now, as a republican, even though there was a democrat in office, I supported both Bosnia and Rowanda efforts. Unlike those crying when a republican gets in office and not when a democrat gets in office, I’m not a hipocrit. We didn’t even have a UN resolution, either. O’Reilly pointed out Mike Ferrel’s hipocracy on this matter last night on The Factor. You know, if you break a rule, or a law.. and get away with it, it doesn’t make the next person less guilty. You understand that concept right? And this is politics.. you can’t even begin to hold the leadership of either side ‘to their word’ on many many matters, for a number of reasons. chief among them is the idea that things are not as simple as they seem.. secondarily, constant attacks from the other side attempting to make a person seem hypocritical don’t really help much.
And constant attacts trying to undermine a president during a period of crisis is completely pathetic and unpatriotic. I believe that most anti-war protesting is a trend thing. yes. demean and denigrate the oppostion after pointing out useless and unproveable hypothesis. how very republican of you.
Absolutely not. Point out to me one single entertainment figure that spoke out during either the Rowanda or Bosnia campaigns. Try and point out a single anti-war demonstration during either campaign. It didn’t happen. Plain and simple. No one cried when he bombed aspirin factories either. There are a few sincere anti-war believers, but I think the majority of the protestors are just on the band wagon. The 1960’s was a BIG bandwagon. Excuse me, shitbird. I’m from the 60’s and that was no bandwagon. You have no sense of history or even current political situation.
Having a debate is one thing, but name calling is a low and unappreciated blow. That was a bandwagon. I have a very good sense of history. Liberal college professors forcefully packed it into my brain. We studied the why’s and all the causes and effects of Vietnam and it’s era to great end. My father was a Vietnam veteran. Basically, you had a few early on that stood out against the war. Then the bandwagon came. Everyone got on and burned their draft cards because they were pussies, not because they didn’t agree with the war. They just didn’t want to fight in it. Most draft dodging protestors were people that could afford to be. Most of the soldiers that fought that war were people from lower class society. And I thought anti-war people were for the lower social rung of the ladder… They hung them out to die while those scared whimps safely stayed home. Many of the protestors of the period have since become respectable REPUBLICANS and done a 180 in their thought processes. Many, also have not. Why do they need to be said? Because it’s _your_ opinion? Do you realize that over 70% of Americans polled want this war to get on with? Do you realize that the current polls say most of America is behind Bush now? That’s not true. a recent nationwide poll said that bush would be defeated by ‘an unnamed democrat’.
How recent? My info came from polls held this week. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – His approval ratings are on the rise. ha ha ha ha Now that all the information has come out about Blix’s hiding of facts and France’s refusal to pass anything relating to Iraq regardless of who sponsors it, people are moving toward Bush’s stance. You mean now that you have some small degree of nonsense to support your war mongering on just about anyone, because there is no way for anyone to be perfectly consistent.. iow: I don’t see blix as you see him. I don’t see anything wrong with france expressing their viewpoint. etc etc etc
Except that it isn’t a viewpoint at all. It’s a stance based on the contractual agreements they have with Iraq. It has nothing to do with a viewpoint at all. They stand to lose money in the process and they’ve been selling arms to Iraq as recent as the last 3 months. How can you even possibly believe anything Blix has reported given the fact he failed to report crucial findings? I think you’re being very selective on what you listen to. I guess they’re all stupid and wrong because they disagree with you? yes. thank you. I guess you would have had the same stance in the 1930s against any war thoughts with Germany? stop with the wwII bullshit.. the situations are NOT the same.
Bullshit they aren’t. You’re just blind. Do you see where that went? There are stiking similarities to Hussein today and Hitler circa 1936. Yes I know.. I heard all of this and I’ve seen time and time again that once you people stop carping and have to show these similarities.. they are, to a one, bullshit, extremist, not pertinent, shallow, surface nonsense. Stop fighting wwII .. it’s over.
Have you heard the term history repeats itself. It does. you want to ‘liberate’ iraq? why? just so you can get all pissed off at them when they don’t agree with you in future? like you do the french or anyone else that doesn’t turn into your personal toady? If the Iraqis have anything to learn about the USA.. they should learn about it from how little we respect our so called allies when push comes to shove. just say it.. you want war because you’re polarised by your culture to be that kind of person. I want peace because we’ve already go saddam where we want him.. he’s giving in all the way. Inspections work. Diplomacy works. We are not threatened by saddam and we haven’t stopped the real terrorists or caught bin laden.
Finding a needle in a haystack is a long and uphill process. Give it time. How do you figure we haven’t stopped real terrorists? We’ve captured many high level Al-Queda and many more middle and low level ones. They’re but a fraction of the size they once were. Not only that, but we took their money too. I guess that didn’t do anything? Finding terroists in a world of sympathizers is like trying to find the Viet-kong among the South Vietnamese. Many sympathized and helped them. They blended in. It’s very difficult. Inspections don’t work when the inspectors’ rooms have been bugged and the Iraqis know where they’re going next and clense the place before they get there. Did you see the photos? Or did you block that out? Do you think that Hussein’s account of destroying chemical and biological agents is even sincere? Do you think, given Germany’s stance against action in Iraq, that Blix is even capable of impartially carrying out inspections? You’re very naive. Yeah, we really got Hussein where we want him… What a f
- When is it time to change psi doctors?
- ADD AND THE COMPUTER
- Waterworld - fun for sailors
- New Orleans
- The nature of intent to baptize
- Hee hee hee!
- Schwarzenegger father a Nazi?
- Women changing their mind
- Ed Hooks do you need a job !!
- Neopagans/Satanists/Christians (was Re: people of the candle