ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board


With the Youngs at the Enmore Theatre, Sydney - February 18, 2003
With thanks to Kate (Exile's sister) - More here
WEBRADIO CHANNELS:
[Ch1: Bill German's Stones Zone] [Ch2: British Invasion] [Ch3: Sike-ay-delic 60's] [Ch4: Random Sike-ay-delia]


[THE WET PAGE] [IORR NEWS] [IORR TOUR SCHEDULE 2003] [LICKS TOUR EN ESPA�OL] [SETLISTS 1962-2003] [THE A/V ROOM] [THE ART GALLERY] [MICK JAGGER] [KEITHFUCIUS] [CHARLIE WATTS ] [RON WOOD] [BRIAN JONES] [MICK TAYLOR] [BILL WYMAN] [IAN STEWART ] [NICKY HOPKINS] [MERRY CLAYTON] [IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN] [BERNARD FOWLER] [LISA FISCHER] [DARRYL JONES] [BOBBY KEYS] [JAMES PHELGE] [CHUCK LEAVELL] [LINKS] [PHOTOS] [MAGAZINE COVERS] [MUSIC COVERS ] [JIMI HENDRIX] [BOOTLEGS] [TEMPLE] [GUESTBOOK] [ADMIN]

[CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [RESTROOMS]

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED) inside.
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: The Politics Of Leah Wood. Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
02-03-03 09:20 AM
Fiji Joe "Self-hate"...Oh well then, perhaps they just need a good counseling session?...I think you missed the point of my posts...this is a lot bigger than Israel vs. palestine...
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
02-03-03 09:29 AM
gypsymofo60
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Damnit GypsyMofo...get out of my head...and leave my thoughts alone

OK Fij', on the proviso you stop tampering with my family snaps.
02-03-03 09:49 AM
gypsymofo60 Has anyone here heard the expression- Appeasement?....Chamberlin visits Hitler, circa 1938. Those unwilling to heed the lessons of history are bound to repeat it, or some such thing. Different time, different geography.....but- if we don't cut this cancer out now, we may not even have the luxury of "I told you so."......1991, Iraq was told in no uncertain terms, GET WITH THE PROGRAM! 12 years, count them! 12 years later Saddam & his merry men are still taking us all for a bunch of wankers. I know it's terribly sad to think of innocent civilians dying because Nebuchadnezzar is still waiting for his moment of glory, but what I would say to those who condemn an attack on Iraq is this, consider the consequences. If you let tyrants like this get an inch, they'll take 100 miles, he wont make the same mistake twice, and in my opinion- we may have left it too late already.
02-03-03 12:17 PM
sasca gypsymofo, we've already dealt with all that. The fact that I'm South African has nothing to do with it - the fact that jb trumpets his Judaism IS worth bringing up because he questioned the right of Europeans to have an opinion on this because of THEIR past. What exactly is your point about Ivory Coast? I mentioned it to counter some statements of glencar's.

When, Pants, have I defended Saddam? I presume you are with Max and Fiji on that ship in the Gulf.

Ghandi is a much greater man to me than Churchill.

Why if the problem is so self-evident now was it not so a couple of years ago?

For what it's worth, here's Osama on Saddam: 'An apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam'.





p.s. Highwire Rob, did you pick up any Farsi in Iran? I'm becoming very interested in its poetry.
02-03-03 12:58 PM
sasca And gmf, the WW2 analogy is weak. Not only is this a different situation but those in whose name you wish to speak do not support you. Polls show that only 35 - 41% of US citizens who lived through WW2 support war on Iraq.

The apartheid government of South Africa wished to conscript all healthy white males. I was one of only two people in my year at school to refuse to have anything to do with it. Not all that important in the greater scheme of things but perhaps next time you'll pause before making snide comments about my nationality.
02-03-03 01:14 PM
telecaster [quote]sasca wrote:
"And gmf, the WW2 analogy is weak."

GMF's analogy is a direct hit and we don't govern by polls
in the US anymore since Clinton left office.

Back in the 1930s, Germany's military forces were limited by a ban on conscription, by limitations on the number and kinds of weapons it could have, and by a requirement that it station no troops in its own industrialized Rhineland. These requirements were in the treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War.

Demilitarizing the Rhineland was perhaps the crucial provision of these international restrictions.

Like Saddam Hussein today, Hitler at first pretended to go along with these restrictions, all the while clandestinely building up his military forces. However, this was clandestine only in the sense that the general public did not know about it. British intelligence was well aware of what he was doing and kept the Prime Minister informed.

The Liberal Party in 1935 demanded "clear proof" of a need for rearmament against the Nazis, much as many in politics and the media today are demanding "clear proof" of a need to act against Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile the Labour Party was advocating disarmament and innumerable groups were promoting international agreements and diplomatic exchanges as a substitute for military power. Diplomatic agreements and arms limitations treaties proliferated throughout the whole period between the two World Wars.

None of this had any practical effect, except to lull the Western democracies into inaction while Germany and Japan rapidly built up their military forces.

Hitler began openly violating the restrictions put on Germany, one at a time, allowing him to gauge what reaction there would be among the Western powers and in the League of Nations. Each violation that he got away with led him to try another -- and then another.

The key violation -- without which he would not be able to wage war -- was moving German troops into the Rhineland in 1936, in open defiance of the treaty of Versailles. Both he and his generals knew that the French army was so overwhelmingly more powerful at this point that German troops would not have been able to put up even token resistance if France sent its troops in to oust them.

France did nothing. It was the first of many nothings that France did in a series of crises that led up to World War II.

When Hitler had built up his clandestine forces sufficiently, he simply stopped keeping them secret and confronted the West with enough power that he knew they would not dare to challenge him. The opportunity to stop him was past.

Those who wanted "clear proof" now had it. In just a few years, they would have even clearer proof when the Nazis invaded France and subjugated it in just six weeks -- and then began bombing London, night after night.

While history does not literally repeat itself, sometimes it comes very close.




02-03-03 01:15 PM
Riffhard He who has a thorough knowledge of the enemy and himself is bound to win in all battles.

He who knows himself but not the enemy has only an even chance of winning.

He who knows not the enemy and himself is bound to perish in all battles.

Sun Tzu
------------------------------------------------------------

Ok Highwire Rob,let's go through these quotes one by one.

1. He who has a thorough knowledge of the enemy and himself is bound to win in all battles.

Well,I would argue that the USA has more knowledge of Saddam's Iraq than anyone here does. Apparently,the evidence that Colin Powell is going to lay before the feet of the Security Counsel is beyond compelling.

As for the US knowing ourselves. That is self evident. We know that we,like it or not,are in a position of standing up for the safty of our country and Western civilization. How many times must you hear a tyrant say that his stated objective is the destruction of the West before you act?!

2.He who knows himself but not the enemy has only an even chance of winning.

Again the USA has been keeping tabs on Saddam for years now. Not only is there some very compelling intelligence on Saddam's plans,but all of the Iraqis who have fled Iraq have been revealing some very sinister plots he has in mind.

3.He who knows not the enemy and himself is bound to perish in all battles.


This line cetainly is more telling of Saddam than it is of the USA.
____________________________________________________________

Sasca,while you may consider Ghandi a greater man the Sir Winston Churchill. I would argue that Churchill was one of the major players directly responsible for the liberation of much of Europe not to mention the demise of fascism that ruthlessly descimated the entire region! Ofcourse this is the historical truth.

Gahndi was a great man that led a pascifist revolution that led to the independance of India but, would you want him in charge of repelling Nazism?! He would have been one of the first ones marched into the showers! Apples and oranges if ever there were. Both were great men. To deny the greatness of Churchill,or for that matter FDR,is to show a complete lack of historical clarity on your part!


Riffhard
02-03-03 01:17 PM
glencar Except for one or two offensive posts by our South African pal, this has been a great discussion. It helps to be on the winning side, natch.
02-03-03 01:33 PM
jb Thank god the great Israeli airforce took out Iraq's reactor in 1981...imagine what we would be facing if this was left intact...That's why american administrations support Israel...only real friend they can count on to get the job done....not b/c they like jews.
[Edited by jb]
02-03-03 01:38 PM
telecaster
quote:
jb wrote:
Thank god the great Israeli airforce took out Iraq's reactor in 1981...imagine what we would be facing if this was left intact...That's why american administrations support Israel...only real friend they can count on to get the job done....not b/c they like jews.
[Edited by jb]



Great point JB, plus everyone that criticizes US support for
Isreal forgets Isreal is the only democracy in the region.
02-03-03 01:41 PM
jb I'm surprised the Arabs weren't dancing in the streets saturday like thye did on 9/11...yasser must have them under house order.....On the other hand, Saddam said god 's will prevailed to destroy the evil americans ans Israeli....Yes...Islam is a religion of love..LMAO
[Edited by jb]
02-03-03 01:41 PM
glencar I'd be happier with our support for Israel if it reigned in some of the Israelis' more outrageous acts. Plowing over Palestinian homes & stealing land outright is guaranteed to cause trouble. But yes, Israel is a democracy & clearly that needs to be encouraged over there.
02-03-03 02:12 PM
jb It was and always shall be our land ...the Arabs, when in control, used our cemetaries to graze their cattle and goats, and pissed on the Western wall ...We give them far greater freedom then their tyrannical leaders...
02-03-03 02:18 PM
glencar "Our land"? You got a mouse in your little pocket? It's attitudes like your's (ingrained over a lifetime of hate-filled propandistic family meetings) that leads to such hardened attitudes. When those losers start building "new" villages on Palestinian land in the West Bank ("Judea & Samaria" to some racists) it deepens the troubled state over there. Yes, Arafat & his ilk are no bargaain but neither are half the Israelis. And at $60 billion & counting, I'm getting a bit fed up with it.
02-03-03 02:18 PM
Pants Make the Man
quote:
sasca wrote:
gypsymofo, we've already dealt with all that. The fact that I'm South African has nothing to do with it - the fact that jb trumpets his Judaism IS worth bringing up because he questioned the right of Europeans to have an opinion on this because of THEIR past. What exactly is your point about Ivory Coast? I mentioned it to counter some statements of glencar's.

When, Pants, have I defended Saddam? I presume you are with Max and Fiji on that ship in the Gulf.

Ghandi is a much greater man to me than Churchill.

Why if the problem is so self-evident now was it not so a couple of years ago?

For what it's worth, here's Osama on Saddam: 'An apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam'.





p.s. Highwire Rob, did you pick up any Farsi in Iran? I'm becoming very interested in its poetry.

Already been there, done that.

You quote Osama Jinn Laden? Do you believe a single word he says? Saddam and Osama were in together on Sep. 11, you fucking half-witted twit. And Farsi poetry turns you on, does it? Your faggoty DH Lawrence routine is pathetic and...well...sick.

sasca's dillema: so many Arab men, so little time.
02-03-03 02:23 PM
jb God gave us this land, we were driven out, and we rightfully returned to our historic homeland....the arabs should go live with their beloved breathren in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and saudi-Arabia...but guess what..they don't want them either...
02-03-03 02:26 PM
Fiji Joe Yeah...give me Rudyard Kipling anyday...now that sum bitch knew what he was talking about
02-03-03 02:33 PM
glencar Josh, as I said above, the Israelis should keep what's theirs. But the stuff happening with the nutty settlements is wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm surprised a self-proclaimed liberal can't see that. LOL
02-03-03 02:35 PM
jb So...we've given back the Sinai and 1/2 of the liberated territories...if we give back the rest, and we still face terrorist attacks(which even you know will continue as most arabs do not recognize the right of a jewish state to exist), then what?
02-03-03 02:43 PM
sasca
quote:
jb wrote:
God gave us this land,



BWAHAHAHA! Now let the Scots and Welsh demand back London because their ancestors once lived there. You fucking idiot. Let the Celts sweep down on Paris!

glencar : 'except for one or two offensive posts by our SA friend'. So you don't call jb's statements offensive?

Yes, Arabs weren't dancing in the streets. If I were you I'd be ashamed to bring up my hate-filled propoganda when it was shown to have even less basis than usual.

Pants, you only post to annoy. Farsi poetry is amongst the greatest in the world. To deny it...well, you get a reaction but so would you if you stood behind someone, flicking their ears. It's no reason to be proud.
02-03-03 02:49 PM
jb ...........
[Edited by jb]
02-03-03 02:55 PM
Maxlugar Hi Josh!

11 days are up!

So, how are ya?

MACKY!
02-03-03 02:57 PM
jb Good, thank you! Did you make denver?
02-03-03 03:12 PM
Maxlugar You're not going to believe this but I missed my flight!

I went home and put on my new Kansas City '81 with Mick Taylor and forgot about it!

Silly me.

It was worth it though. That's a real gem right there.
02-03-03 03:13 PM
jb Looks like your buddy Joey made it...apparently he met Keno, Stonesdoug, Jaxx, and the other lawyer who posts here.
[Edited by jb]
02-03-03 03:15 PM
Maxlugar My buddy?

My muse maybe....
02-03-03 03:31 PM
sasca 'Pacifist' is a term useful to a certain extent, but like many such it obscures as much as it reveals. The world is not divided between those who delight in violence and those who do not. Most people find violence objectionable at some point, though those points vary.
The following is a summary of an article in the Financial Review (http://afr.com)by John J Mearsheimer and Stephen M Watt, whose tolerance of violence is higher than mine but lower than many of yours':

- Saddam is scum. But what danger does he pose? He has started 2 wars - both times he felt Iraq was vulnerable and attacked weak targets (Kuwait and a disrupted Iran) to bolster himself with a military victory.

- The US (and many other countries) backed Saddam while he was committing many of the deeds which are now shown as proof that he must go.

- C. Rice in 2000 said that if Saddam got nuclear weapons they would be unusable - if he used them it would result in national obliteration. And he is not seeking that - he only attacks weak targets.

- What about giving weapons to Al-Quaeda? For one, he is under such scrutiny that this would be seen. And for another, he and Osama despise one another. Even if they didn't, would he be likely to share such power? Look at the USA's last arch-enemies, the Communists - did the Soviets and Chinese ever do so?

- Saddam is scum - but cautious scum.
[Edited by sasca]
02-03-03 03:32 PM
Highwire Rob First, I echo glencar's statement that this has been a great discussion. The members' educated posts I read here put much of the politics board at Rollingstones.com to shame. Leah Wood should really join us at Rocks Off! (Maybe she'll see the thread come up on a web search of her name?)

Quote from Riffhard:
"As for the U.S. knowing ourselves. That is self-evident. We know that we, like it or not, are in a position of standing up for the safety of our country and Western civilization. How many times must you hear a tyrant say that his stated objective is the destruction of the West before you act?!"

Riffhard, you make a compelling argument. However, Sun Tzu's cautionary quote refers to knowing the other's (and one's own) ideology as much as knowing their physical movement and armament. Simply stating that someone's motivation is "destruction of the West" is not knowing the ideology under that tag line. More importantly, it's not knowing the ideology of masses of people who would in mind--not necessarily action--share that persuasion. Unfortunately, the tag lines--the mass news and TV blurbs on this subject are all that most (otherwise intelligent, caring) Americans that I know choose to absorb.

The average U.S. citizen (I live in the U.S., I witness its monopolistic mass news coverage) has a pitiful understanding of even basic ideologies that unify or diversify Arabic peoples. Contrary to statements made in this thread, the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy is, as far as Arabs see it, inextricably bound to each action that the U.S. takes in the Middle East.

Do despots like Qaddafi, Hussein, and Bin Laden exploit the issue of the I-P Tragedy for their own opportunistic advancement? Yes. And they exploit the tragedy because it is the region's paramount issue with the U.S. If the masses didn't feel deep resentment about it, the despots wouldn't use it to effect!

That is why I earlier provided the 1995 quote from Bin Laden. And yes, when one is attacked or placed in imminent threat of attack one does not just try to understand motivations. One acts; one defends oneself. But we now seem to have had a lot of time to uncover and make ourselves aware of Bin Laden's motivations. We haven't caught him yet! After how many months? Years? How many Americans knew of the content of that 1995 Bin Laden quote? Our news media certainly hasn't picked up on it! The fellow Americans that I know, all rightly call Bin Laden enemy, but very few want to make themselves aware of his motivating ideology.

And that, I believe is what Sun Tzu's caution speaks to as much as knowing the physical prowess of a foe. Because no matter how many terrorists and opportunistic tyrants you take out, it isn't going to lessen the underlying resentment (at best) and hatred (at worst) in the masses. And winning wars, or better yet, winning peace is in the final analysis all about our people's ideology meeting with their people's ideology. We should not generalize them as enemy, and we should not think that as individuals, they neither think for themselves, nor understand how America's policies impact on them.
02-03-03 03:38 PM
sasca Oh, and Pants - you proclaim your love of India, don't you? So I presume you know that Farsi is one of the great languages of Indian history.

No? There's a surprise.
[Edited by sasca]
02-03-03 04:01 PM
Fiji Joe Highwire wrote:

"The average U.S. citizen (I live in the U.S., I witness its monopolistic mass news coverage) has a pitiful understanding of even basic ideologies that unify or diversify Arabic peoples"

Yes, and I'm sure the average Arab has a much better grasp of the ideologies that unify or diversify the euro-centric nations....what with most muslim nations being bastions of the free flow of information and ideas...

Look, to the extent that I have argued with you Highwire, I do not care to understand the ideology of those who would deliberately kill innocents to achieve their objectives...much like Jeffrey Dahmer, I do not give a damn why he kills...You know, Bush branded these people "evil" for a reason...and I thought it was the smartest thing the administration has done to date...the import of using the term "evil" is to say that we are not going to endeavor to understand these savages who would intentionally kill innocent citizens by the most disgusting of means...their ideology means shit...they're evil and will be exterminated one by one where they crawl and where they fester and no sympathy or attempts to understand them should be made...and I agree 100% with the administrations stance on that issue
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Visits since January 9, 2003 - 10:46 PM EST