Dixie Chicks Suck

[couriers]

"and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view."

Chicks' Critical Remarks About Bush Create Controversy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81093,00.html)

[Bee]

I think the short fat one is kinda cute.

[CAsterling]

Just curious - why ?
Its only their opinion

[ShovelMonkey]

Originally posted by couriers
"and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view."


While I don't agree with their point of view...it seems to me that it IS the privileges of being an American to be able to voice your own point of view.

Oh, and whoever said the short chubby one is cute was right...;-)

[couriers]

They suck because of their contradiction in opinions between their original statement and their apology. Either speak your mind and back up your opinions or keep your mouth shut. They themselves admit that their statement was inappropriate and I am simply agreeing with them.

[samifan24]

While I do not agree with her comment or any celebrity using their celebrity status to throw comments in everyone else's face, she does have the right to her own opinion and I have to respect that. But I totally disagree with her comments.

[couriers]

Originally posted by ShovelMonkey
While I don't agree with their point of view...it seems to me that it IS the privileges of being an American to be able to voice your own point of view.

Never said it wasn't.

[Radii]

FWIW, I pretty much agree with her comments, though I know I sure as hell don't go to a concert for political commentary and would have been annoyed by it being thrown at me while I was there.

[Draft Dodger]

I'd hit them dixie style

[GrantDawg]

Love their music, don't agree with their politics. I think it is the height of dis-loyalty to go to another nation and insult the President. Do it home if you want to, but you shouldn't take family squabbles out of the family. I've lost a lot of respect for them.

[Ben E Lou]

I'll say this much. Natalie Maines is either incredibly gutsy or incredibly stupid. THEY DO COUNTRY MUSIC. Their fan base isn't exactly the core of the anti-war crowd. Their U.S. tour opens May 1st in Greenville, South Carolina??? Boy, THAT ought to be an interesting night.

[RawIsDan]

I think what bothers most about it and to some extent me about her comments was it seemed to be made to suck up to the crowd. She admitted it as much when she said they saw all the anti-american sentiment going on.

[FBPro]

Originally posted by SkyDog
I'll say this much. Natalie Maines is either incredibly gutsy or incredibly stupid. THEY DO COUNTRY MUSIC. Their fan base isn't exactly the core of the anti-war crowd. Their U.S. tour opens May 1st in Greenville, South Carolina??? Boy, THAT ought to be an interesting night.

Can you say "increased security"?

[Senator]

We used to rent these girls - different singer - for all our political fundraisers.

I think it cost around 500 for the night if I remember.

[sooner333]

It is their freedom to say what they want about the country and leadership (although I'm not sure what could happen if she said she hoped he was shot). It is also the freedom of the radio stations to not play their music on the radio. I don't understand why they would do that, considering their fan base is pro-America, pro-conservative values. Look, Toby Keith had success with "we'll stick a boot up your ass, its the American way". Not good marketing by the Chicks, in my opinion.

[JPhillips]

My problem with this is the way some are bashing them for being just celebrities. Why is someone's opinion less worthy because they are famous? And why is it that the people bashing celebrities aren't saying thesame thing about Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels or Ron Silver? Aren't they just celebrities who don't know what the hell they are talking about?

Everyone in America has the right to speak out regardless of what they want to say. It is disturbing how some on both sides of the political spectrum want to limit the ability to speak out. Logically if we limit opinion on Iraq to those with real expertise the debate would be between a few dozen very academic types.

[GrantDawg]

Toby Keith has lost gigs and television time because of that "boot" song. It cuts both ways.

[Maple Leafs]

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. It means you can speak you mind. It does not mean that people have to agree with you, or that there won't be consequences. I don't have a problem with them saying what they believe, just I like I won't be bothered if it turns out to be career suicide.

[mrskippy]

It's not right to bash a president. Not many evangelical Christians supported Clinton. But I was against his impeachment and the whole investigation into his private life. Instead I respected him as a leader who did a good job for our nation.

What the Chicks did was also wrong in that it happened outside the US. It looks bad.

Add to that they ripped into a fellow Texan, in a Republican state, that typically falls to the right and you ruin yourself.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Senator
We used to rent these girls... I think it cost around 500 for the night if I remember.

We get Clinton out of office for this?:redface:

[Buddy Grant]

If they are not with us they are traitors - it's really that simple. We are all free to make our choices, as long as it is the right choice - they have obviously not chosen wisely.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Buddy Grant
If they are not with us they are traitors - it's really that simple. We are all free to make our choices, as long as it is the right choice - they have obviously not chosen wisely.

This is a totally ridiculous statement. If people disagree with the choices the president is making they're traitors?

Oh and I love this - we are free to make choices as long as they are the RIGHT choices?

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

[Radii]

Originally posted by Buddy Grant
If they are not with us they are traitors - it's really that simple. We are all free to make our choices, as long as it is the right choice - they have obviously not chosen wisely.

That's a joke right?

[couriers]

Follow up articles

Some Texas Stations Stop Playing Dixie Chicks Songs After Bush Remarks (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81177,00.html)

Have The Dixie Chicks Gone Too Far? (http://www.kscs.com/)

[samifan24]

Originally posted by JPhillips
My problem with this is the way some are bashing them for being just celebrities. Why is someone's opinion less worthy because they are famous?

When they use the fact that they're famous to grant "credibility" to their political statements in a completely inappropriate forum.

In my opinion, she can say whatever she wants to say, but like Radii said, to have something like that thrown in your face at a concert of all places seems out of place.

[JPhillips]

But the crowd cheered when she said it. That doesn't seem like it was "thrown in their faces". How did Natalie(btw I too like her trashy hotness) use her fame to grant credibility to what she said? I have seen no reports that she said she disagreed with Bush and because she is a singer everyone else should too.

As much as I am against political correctness, I am equally opposed to this new patriotic correctness.

[kcchief19]

Frankly, this is yet another example of the following two things:

(1) Americans giving a HUGE rat's ass about the wrong things. We are all following the Dixie Chicks Controversey closely, while I'd bet even money that more than half of the people who think this is important or are angry about what Natalie Maines said couldn't pick freakin' Iraq out on a map, much less identify more than three members of NATO

(2) Right-wing PC thugery gone mad. All these wakos like Limbaugh love to accuse the left of taking part in policital correctness gone astray, yet so many of them want to tar and feather any way who doesn't think like them and relish in casting as un-American anyone who has the gall to question their boy. If you think that loving Bush and loving America are the same thing, then you are confused. It is possible to love your country and yet disagree with the policies and decisions of its leaders. You would have thought we had learn this lesson already.

Let's keep our on the ball, shall we?

[andy m]

It is possible to love your country

i've never gotten this part at all. why love a piece of land? it's all about people. people are worth caring about, a piece of mud with pre-determined borders and all that jazz is not worth even one smooch of your love and hugs.

[KWhit]

When people from the US say they love their country, it means they love the life they can live here because of the freedoms and opportunities they are given. It has nothing to do with mud.

I can't believe I just had to explain that.

:rolleyes:

[KWhit]

Originally posted by kcchief19
Frankly, this is yet another example of the following two things:

(1) Americans giving a HUGE rat's ass about the wrong things. We are all following the Dixie Chicks Controversey closely, while I'd bet even money that more than half of the people who think this is important or are angry about what Natalie Maines said couldn't pick freakin' Iraq out on a map, much less identify more than three members of NATO

(2) Right-wing PC thugery gone mad. All these wakos like Limbaugh love to accuse the left of taking part in policital correctness gone astray, yet so many of them want to tar and feather any way who doesn't think like them and relish in casting as un-American anyone who has the gall to question their boy. If you think that loving Bush and loving America are the same thing, then you are confused. It is possible to love your country and yet disagree with the policies and decisions of its leaders. You would have thought we had learn this lesson already.

Let's keep our on the ball, shall we?


I couldn't have said it any better. I agree completely. Excellent points, KC.

[couriers]

Originally posted by KWhit
I can't believe I just had to explain that. :rolleyes:

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by kcchief19
... yet so many of them want to tar and feather any way who doesn't think like them...For what it's worth, my impression as a non-American is that this is disturbingly true on both sides of the debate right now. Nobody is listening to the other side. It's simply a screaming match between those that are anti-war (i.e. the freedom-hating hippy communists) and those that support Bush (i.e. the baby-killing oil slaves). Both sides seem so comfortable in the moral high-ground that no actual debate is happening.

[ISiddiqui]

I think what bothers most about it and to some extent me about her comments was it seemed to be made to suck up to the crowd. She admitted it as much when she said they saw all the anti-american sentiment going on.

Same thoughts by me. I think, however, it was very, very, very stupid. Their fan base isn't really happy with this at all. Economically it was dumb for them.

[rexalllsc]

Man it sure is raining hard today!

[CAsterling]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Man it sure is raining hard today!

First statement in this thread that actually makes sense to me ;)

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I dont know what the bru ha ha is about but it all better stop or the rath of my butt will be unleashed .

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by kcchief19 It is possible to love your country and yet disagree with the policies and decisions of its leaders.

That's quite possibly true but I think it misses the real point here.

What's at issue is what the responding fans think of Maines comments. I for one would never put another dime in her pocket, not because she disagrees with certain policies of certain people per se but rather because I couldn't stomach knowingly putting a dime in the pocket of someone I think is this wrong on something this clear-cut.

Dang, it's tough to get this to come out right minus vocal inflection.

What I'm trying to say is this -- It's because I think she's wrong that I don't want to support her, not because she disagrees with Bush, U.S. gov't policy or anything else.

[AgPete]

Even I who have little knowledge of the music business could have told the Dixie Chicks that making a remark like that that would insult country music fans (and especially Texans!) and would be a disaster for their careers. It's one thing if Pearl Jam says it and it's another thing if the Dixie Chicks say it. Different audiences.

Why does it seem like every singer and actor is against an Iraq war but every Joe Schmoe is for it? :D

[ACStrider]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and it works both ways. Sure, you can go overseas and say critical/idiotic/disrespectful comments about the President, but in the same light people are free to call them morons and/or insist to the market that measures be taken against them. In addition, one way we express our speech is through money (can we say campain finance). When we buy a product, we aren't just buying a product but supporting where the product is coming from. For the sake of argument, lets say that there were a Bin Ladin family construction (which is in fact how the Bin Ladin family came to wealth) company based here in the US. If they offered services at half the price as the other construction companies, there is still no way in hades that I would consider using their services. In the same light, if a company were a known communist front, or even if they were depreciating the sitting president (Republican or Democrat) in a foreign country. Go ahead and say what you want. Just don't expect my support here on out and don't be surprised if your comments have consequences.

[Radii]

Originally posted by AgPete

Why does it seem like every singer and actor is against an Iraq war but every Joe Schmoe is for it? :D

Pretty sure nowhere close to every joe schmoe is for an iraq war. Anyone got any recent polls? (looking myself now!). It has been very very polarizing. Some communities I go to are very very anti-war and some are very pro war. Of the random places I go, this is the most pro-war forum I have seen. This is the first thread remotely about iraq i've dared posted in for fear of getting stoned :)

[Radii]

Dola.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/news/2003/mar/11/031109453.html

Very odd. Presidential approval dropping in general, the number of people who will definitely vote for bush next time is way down, and then number who will definitely vote against him way up... but amongst all that, support for a war in iraq is above 50% and rising.

Any better numbers anywhere would be more than welcomed :)

[AgPete]

I usually hang with conservative crowds (even though I'm probably moderate :D) but it seems to me most Joe Schmoes are for war against Iraq. The media skews everything but sometimes it seems like actors, singers, and college kids that don't remember the first Persian Gulf War are the only ones against it. ;) Like someone else mentioned a week ago, Bush's approval ratings may be down but throw in one of the disappointing Democratic candidates for President and his ratings suddenly soar! :D

[Havok]

I'll say this much. Natalie Maines is either incredibly gutsy or incredibly stupid. THEY DO COUNTRY MUSIC. Their fan base isn't exactly the core of the anti-war crowd. Their U.S. tour opens May 1st in Greenville, South Carolina??? Boy, THAT ought to be an interesting night.

lol your excatly right. It wont surprise me one bit if they get boo'ed off the stage.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Buddy Grant
If they are not with us they are traitors, eh. It's really that simple you hosers.

Buddy Grant, American sage.

[CamEdwards]

I see a Celebrity Death Match... Toby Keith vs. The Dixie Chicks

[GoldenEagle]

The Dixie Chicks are the most overrated band ever.

[samifan24]

I for one am sick of celebrities pushing their own political beliefs on everyone else simply because they are celebrities. You may not agree with me and that's fine. But I personally feel that too many celebrities just shoot their mouths off just because they're celebrities.
The important thing here is that their opinions are important despite the fact that they are celebrities, not because of it. I feel that they use their celebrity status to voice their own opinions or act as though their stance on an issue is more important than the average Joe's because they are celebrities and I do not agree with that at all. Just my own personal opinion though.

[astralhaze]

Celebrities have just as much as right to spout their political beliefs as any one of us do. The problem is that the media focuses attention on them just because they are celebrities. This, to me, says more about out culture than it does about the celebrities in question. Our society is full of hero worship and idolization. Celebrities are treated like gods when they are just regular people who happen to have (or not have in some cases) a talent to act, sing, look good in fashion, etc. This is the real problem to me.

[Bad-example]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
The Dixie Chicks are the most overrated band ever.

Cough**U2**Cough

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by GoldenEagle
The Dixie Chicks are the most overrated band ever.

I resent the fact you call them a band. I once had to endure a 10-hour car ride with my 2 sisters down to Maryland with them playing the same Dixie Chicks CD the whole time. It was the worst 10 hours of my life.

Originally posted by Radii
Anyone got any recent polls?

It seems that it varies from poll to poll, but about 1/3 of the country is pro-war, 1/3 anti-war and 1/3 fluctuates based on the wording. The pro-war side just doesn't have a vocal Communist minority leading marches.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
The pro-war side just doesn't have a vocal Communist minority leading marches.

You're about 30 years late man. Now it's mostly anarchists and socialists.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by astralhaze
You're about 30 years late man. Now it's mostly anarchists and socialists.

ah yes, the great "anarchist" grass roots movement.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
ah yes, the great "anarchist" grass roots movement.

I didn't say it was great, but a lot of the anti-globalization and anti-war protestors are anarchists.

[Fritz]

a lot?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
a lot?

Indeed.

[Fritz]

when you say "a lot" do you mean like when you whack a wasp nest, or do you mean more like women at a Penny's white sale?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
when you say "a lot" do you mean like when you whack a wasp nest, or do you mean more like women at a Penny's white sale?

I mean like more than a few.

[couriers]

Dear Dixie Chicks,

When I was growing up I was taught that whenever you travel, you are an ambassador for your country, church or community. Like it or not, people judge all of us by the way you act.

I read your comments and apology and it's evident you are not much of a thinker. I am reminded that it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Let's be clear about what we are fighting here. Suppose that at your coming concert at the BiLo Center (Greenville, SC), several men (let's say 19 of them) arrive late. They approach different doors. At the same moment, they pull guns, surprising and killing the guards. They then seal the doors and release a thermous full of VX gas. Not one person would survive. They would have to pull your body from the crush with a meathook. That could ruin your whole tour.

Pretty gruesome.

It's pretty obvious you are scared. We all are. My son is a naval officer and my nephew is an Air Force pilot. But some of us understand what there is to be scared of. We could dawdle and kick the can down the road like the Allies did in the 1930's. That squemishness cost the world an estimated 51 million lives. If we are facing a billion Islamists being whipped up by a madman with nuclear weapons, World War II will look like a birthday party.

Hey! Maybe we could put this conflict off until your kids are old enough to be called to fight instead of dealing with it now. Would that work for you ?

I am sick of performers who reap tremendous benefits from our political and economic system of freedoms biting the hand that feeds them. Mrs. Stewart taught me in the 6th grade that the rights we enjoy as Americans can only endure so long as we accept the responsibilities that accompany them. I guess you didn't have Mrs. Stewart. If you can't do your homework before trashing those of us who are literally trying to save you and your children, at least remember this: Under our constitution you have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Sincerely,

Steve Raines
Greenville, SC

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by astralhaze
You're about 30 years late man. Now it's mostly anarchists and socialists.

I'm sorry I somehow equated ANSWER and the Workers World Party as Communists and not Socialists. I should have remembered the WWP split from the Communist Party in 1956 when the world Communist Party didn't approve of the Soviets going in and crushing Hungarian dissent.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by couriers
Dear Dixie Chicks,

When I was growing up I was taught that whenever you travel, you are an ambassador for your country, church or community. Like it or not, people judge all of us by the way you act.

I read your comments and apology and it's evident you are not much of a thinker. I am reminded that it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Let's be clear about what we are fighting here. Suppose that at your coming concert at the BiLo Center (Greenville, SC), several men (let's say 19 of them) arrive late. They approach different doors. At the same moment, they pull guns, surprising and killing the guards. They then seal the doors and release a thermous full of VX gas. Not one person would survive. They would have to pull your body from the crush with a meathook. That could ruin your whole tour.

Pretty gruesome.

It's pretty obvious you are scared. We all are. My son is a naval officer and my nephew is an Air Force pilot. But some of us understand what there is to be scared of. We could dawdle and kick the can down the road like the Allies did in the 1930's. That squemishness cost the world an estimated 51 million lives. If we are facing a billion Islamists being whipped up by a madman with nuclear weapons, World War II will look like a birthday party.

Hey! Maybe we could put this conflict off until your kids are old enough to be called to fight instead of dealing with it now. Would that work for you ?

I am sick of performers who reap tremendous benefits from our political and economic system of freedoms biting the hand that feeds them. Mrs. Stewart taught me in the 6th grade that the rights we enjoy as Americans can only endure so long as we accept the responsibilities that accompany them. I guess you didn't have Mrs. Stewart. If you can't do your homework before trashing those of us who are literally trying to save you and your children, at least remember this: Under our constitution you have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Sincerely,

Steve Raines
Greenville, SC
Man, that's an incredibly threatening letter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by couriers
Dear Dixie Chicks, ...



Bravo couriers, bravo.

[couriers]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Bravo couriers, bravo.

I didn't write it. Just thought it was an interesting read and that others may benefit from it.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
I'm sorry I somehow equated ANSWER and the Workers World Party as Communists and not Socialists. I should have remembered the WWP split from the Communist Party in 1956 when the world Communist Party didn't approve of the Soviets going in and crushing Hungarian dissent.

My point was that the vast majority of protestors have nothing to do with communism. I'm sure there are some, but they are very much in the minority. Probably less than 1%.

[Fritz]

most communists had nothing to do with communism.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
most communists had nothing to do with communism.

This is also true.

[Buddy Grant]

couriers - that's a well written letter, but it does not go nearly far enough IMO. Some of those people protesting out there in the rest of the world should be a little more appreciative of the country that probably saved their asses in WW2 (or WW1 etc.). Again, freee speech is one thing, but this is just free garbage.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Buddy Grant
this is just free garbage.

Assuming you are referring to what the chicks said and not the letter.?.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
The pro-war side just doesn't have a vocal Communist minority leading marches.

Originally posted by astralhaze
My point was that the vast majority of protestors have nothing to do with communism. I'm sure there are some, but they are very much in the minority. Probably less than 1%.

I'd say closer to 10%, but either way a vocal minority that is leading the marches. Nevertheless, if the KKK was leading a march for better education would many people join it? If not, why do anti-war protestors expect people to just accept the message without looking at the messenger?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Man, that's an incredibly threatening letter.

It also caused a goddammed run on themoses full of VX down at the local Weapons of Mass Destruction Shop. I stopped by earlier to buy a six pack for junior's science fair project. Now we are stuck doing a baking soda volcano. BORING. You can bet your ass he wont win a blue ribbon now.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by couriers
Dear Dixie Chicks,

When I was growing up I was taught that whenever you travel, you are an ambassador for your country, church or community. Like it or not, people judge all of us by the way you act.

I read your comments and apology and it's evident you are not much of a thinker. I am reminded that it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Let's be clear about what we are fighting here. Suppose that at your coming concert at the BiLo Center (Greenville, SC), several men (let's say 19 of them) arrive late. They approach different doors. At the same moment, they pull guns, surprising and killing the guards. They then seal the doors and release a thermous full of VX gas. Not one person would survive. They would have to pull your body from the crush with a meathook. That could ruin your whole tour.

Pretty gruesome.

It's pretty obvious you are scared. We all are. My son is a naval officer and my nephew is an Air Force pilot. But some of us understand what there is to be scared of. We could dawdle and kick the can down the road like the Allies did in the 1930's. That squemishness cost the world an estimated 51 million lives. If we are facing a billion Islamists being whipped up by a madman with nuclear weapons, World War II will look like a birthday party.

Hey! Maybe we could put this conflict off until your kids are old enough to be called to fight instead of dealing with it now. Would that work for you ?

I am sick of performers who reap tremendous benefits from our political and economic system of freedoms biting the hand that feeds them. Mrs. Stewart taught me in the 6th grade that the rights we enjoy as Americans can only endure so long as we accept the responsibilities that accompany them. I guess you didn't have Mrs. Stewart. If you can't do your homework before trashing those of us who are literally trying to save you and your children, at least remember this: Under our constitution you have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Sincerely,

Steve Raines
Greenville, SC

I'm not sure I understand the point of this letter. Is he saying 1 billion Muslims will be whipped into a fervor by Saddam? Saddam can barely control the troops he sends out, let alone 1 billion people. I don't think it is correct to equate the current Iraq conflict with terrrorism, mainly because there is no connection between this and terrorism. Are Islamists the only ones capable of such things? I'd say its extremist of any kind that are capable of such inhumane things, lest we forget Tim McVeigh. I'd say the writer of the letter failed to do his homework. Perhaps he should remain silent.

He is drawing comparisons to WWII? Isn't this war supposed to be easy, in and out? Is that how WWII went down? And isn't this kind of retaliation of Vx Nerve gas the kind of theing we should expect after the war in Iraq, when we are seen as even bigger imperialists by the extremists? but of course that also failed to make the letter, because the writer failed to think of it. Obviously he is not much of a thinker.

I'm sick of people biting the heads off of any leader or political system currently being used. I seem to remeber Republicans consistently making disparaging remarks about Clinton and his policies, but others cannot do the same about Bush? Why, because he is leading us into a war these same people do not agree with? Do I like Bush or his policies, not particularly, I don't wish him any harm, and I will agree he's better than the alternative (except Powell). Do I support the war, no. But will I support anyone who is willing to give their lives for this, of course.

and this is for samifan:

I for one am sick of FOFC members pushing their own political beliefs on everyone else simply because they are FOFC members. You may not agree with me and that's fine. But I personally feel that too many FOFC members just shoot their mouths off just because they're FOFC members.
The important thing here is that their opinions are important despite the fact that they are FOFC members, not because of it. I feel that they use their FOFC member status to voice their own opinions or act as though their stance on an issue is more important than the average Joe's because they are FOFC members and I do not agree with that at all. Just my own personal opinion though.

we all use different forums to express our opinions. TV personalities on the news express their opinions all the time, even when they are supposed to remain objective and report the news. But people don't bitch then, so why should they now. You don't have to like their opinions or buy their CD's, thats fine... personally I think they make shitty music. But it is another thing to call them stupid and uninformed when they make their remarks solely on the fact that they are celebrities, and assume that no one wants to know their stance. Perhaps I don't want to know people's stance onthe issues when I come hear, but the fact remains they are given whether I like it or not. Welcome to the world, deal with it.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I for one am sick of FOFC members pushing their own political beliefs on everyone else simply because they are FOFC members. You may not agree with me and that's fine. But I personally feel that too many FOFC members just shoot their mouths off just because they're FOFC members.

I am so not with you on this. I called up CBS and told them I wanted to run my mouth on national TV and they asked me if I had any credentials. Initially they denied me airtime when they learned that I shy away from affiliations because I am prone to nitpicky tiffs. When I mentioned that I happened to belong to the FOFC they invited me up to an on air round table with a guy from RAND, the underscretary of state for international affairs, a fromer white house press secretary, and a major ADM shareholder. Being part of the FOFC means people want to hear your opinion.

We air Sunday Morning.

BTW, those chairs are not comfortable at all, and their donuts are old.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Fritz
I am so not with you on this. I called up CBS and told them I wanted to run my mouth on national TV and they asked me if I had any credentials. Initially they denied me airtime when they learned that I shy away from affiliations because I am prone to nitpicky tiffs. When I mentioned that I happened to belong to the FOFC they invited me up to an on air round table with a guy from RAND, the underscretary of state for international affairs, a fromer white house press secretary, and a major ADM shareholder. Being part of the FOFC means people want to hear your opinion.

We air Sunday Morning.

BTW, those chairs are not comfortable at all, and their donuts are old.
Oh that I had television and this were actually true. :)

[couriers]

Although many of the points that Easy Mac has stated are legitimate most of them do not actually reflect the true intent of the letter as the writer would have hoped for it to be interpreted, or at least how I have interpreted it. For example, the writer does not draw comparisons to WWII but rather states a possibility of what might happen if the problems in the Middle East are ignored as the similar problems that existed in the early 1930s were. As well, he does not claim that Saddam has nuclear weapons or 1 billion followers but rather the possibility that some madman might come along down the road who may acquire both if something is not done sooner rather than later. Furthermore, for anyone who does not relate Saddam to terrorism needs to do a little refresher research to remind themselves of the terror that he has brought upon people over the past 15 some odd years. Claiming that Saddam had his hands in on 9-11 my be a far cry indeed but denying the realities of his atrocities of terror over the years would be a greater cry of ignorance.

[Radii]

I find that 'dear dixie chicks' letter to be greatly offensive. There are two ideas here that make me very scared to voice my opinion on US vs Iraq.

One is the opinion implied by this statement:

"I am sick of performers who reap tremendous benefits from our political and economic system of freedoms biting the hand that feeds them"

Ok, so you're saying people who prosper in America aren't allowed to disagree with American actions in a time of conflict? Because I take advantage of the opportunities and freedoms America gives me, I am not allowed to disagree with our president? This issue is proving to be very very polarizing, and this is one of the most disappointing results of that polarization IMO.

Much much worse to me is this:


"you can't do your homework before trashing those of us who are literally trying to save you and your children,"

This is a statement I've seen put forth many many times and it scares the hell out of me. I am opposed to the United States current actions regarding Iraq. I disagree with how our president is handling the situation entirely. However, there seems to be an implication here that because I personally do not feel we should be going to war with Iraq, that I do not appreciate our soldiers who are willing to fight and die for this country.

There is a subset of the 'pro-war' people who carry an aura of "If you are anti war you are a bad American" about them, and this truly frightens me. Just because I disapprove of our current policies and behavior in the International community does not in any way mean I do not appreciate the members of our armed forces, it does not mean I hope they die or fail if war does happen, and it does not mean I don't love my country. It truly pains me to see that there are people that would hear someone say "I'm ashamed of my president's actions right now" and jump to such conclusions.

On a personal level, I love my country, I go out and vote, I cringe when a singer hacks up our national anthem at a ballgame, I always take my hat off, I will shed a tear when I listen to Whitney Houston circa 1991 sing the anthem. I respect the members of the armed forces, and I am immensely proud of the good things our country has done in the past 230 years or so.

However, I am ashamed of my president's stance and actions currently with regards to foreign policy. I am embarrassed at the idea of our congress wasting time and money to call the french names because they are not on our side. I am humiliated that in a recent CNN poll 52% of my fellow americans said that the renaming french fries to freedom fries was a worthwhile event. I hope to god our government knows a lot of things its not telling, but I don't believe it does, or it would have produced whatever evidence it had to get the rest of the world on our side. I do not oppose a war in Iraq. I oppose a war in Iraq under the current circumstances. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let anyone imply that I'm a bad American because of it.

Oh, and, for all the offense that I take at the "Dear Dixie Chicks" letter, the author has every right to voice his opinion. I just wish he would accept that people who have different opinions have the right to express theirs as well. (and yeah I know its not someone on this board, I'm not interested in personal attacks at anyone for their ideas here, everyone is welcome to have their own conflicting thoughts and ideals :) ).

[JPhillips]

I really don't agree to the whole comparison with Munich and Hitler. In 1938 Hitler had a large and technologically advanced military. He had a stronger military than any other nation on the globe. The British and French made what they thought was a decision that would save them from a war that they were not sure they could win. Neither country had as strong of a military as did Germany. (As would be proven in 1940) Iraq today does not even slightly resemble 1938 Germany.

Also, people act as if Munich led to WWII and a stand at Munich would have stopped war from happening. A stand at Munich would only have started WWII earlier. Hitler had forces massed aroung Czechoslovakia and by some accounts was angered by the capitulation because he had no grounds to fight. There is a continuing debate among historians in Britain, but some suggest that the outcome of WWII could have been worse for Britain in 1938 because they were less prepared to stop the German airforce.

This is not to say that the Allies should have given in to Hitler, that is a debate for another time. However, I find it ludicrous to say that if we don't attack Iraq now we will cause another global conflagration because that's what happened in 1938. I'm sorry, but the facts just don't back up that argument.

[CoachTD7]

BishopMVP,

Your signature says throw in Zimbabwe and Venezuela, but I was wondering what about Sudan?

Coach TD7

[Buddy Grant]

Originally posted by couriers
Assuming you are referring to what the chicks said and not the letter.?.
Exactly. The Dixie Chicks need a reality check to appreciate who is buttering their muffin. Some things, like liberty, are not free as we all know. These things come with a cost.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by couriers
Although many of the points that Easy Mac has stated are legitimate most of them do not actually reflect the true intent of the letter as the writer would have hoped for it to be interpreted, or at least how I have interpreted it. For example, the writer does not draw comparisons to WWII but rather states a possibility of what might happen if the problems in the Middle East are ignored as the similar problems that existed in the early 1930s were. As well, he does not claim that Saddam has nuclear weapons or 1 billion followers but rather the possibility that some madman might come along down the road who may acquire both if something is not done sooner rather than later. Furthermore, for anyone who does not relate Saddam to terrorism needs to do a little refresher research to remind themselves of the terror that he has brought upon people over the past 15 some odd years. Claiming that Saddam had his hands in on 9-11 my be a far cry indeed but denying the realities of his atrocities of terror over the years would be a greater cry of ignorance.

No offense is meant by this couriers, but we obviously read the letter differently, which is fine, but I feel I need to respond as well.

I think he is drawing a direct parallel to WW2. He feels the rest of the world is sitting on its hads while a man such as Hussein is in power, and we are the only ones who are doing anything about it, and Saddam will definitely lead to something like killing 51 million people, which I completely believe to be untrue, and the parallel unfounded in any sorts of reality.

He nowhere states whom he is referring to in the letter, but there is a larger chance of some madman acquring a nuclear bomb from Iran or even North Korea than there is Iraq, yet we fight this war. I feel justifying the war in this manner is to deny the facts that are actually out there. Saddam has been content to do the killings (not a good thing), and to the best of my knowledge has never lended material support to terrorist attacks (I don't consider paying families of suicide bombers material support, as they are already dead, and SA does this as well, but I think that may be in how you look at material support, perhaps I should have just said weapons. Your terror point in your post will be gotten too shortly). In my opinion, stopping Saddam does very little to stop terrorism and to me the two are not synonymous, and frankly the war should be made solely on the grounds of human rights violations.

As my understanding, other nations use similar tactics to put terror into the hearts of their people. By your definition many things could be described as terrorism. If simply making someone fearful constitutes terrorism, then our own government does this on a daily basis. The duct tape fiasco is one example of this. A sort of panic swept over the country, and many people felt terrified of what may happen but never did. Relaying these messages from the government is to me terrorism. The media and their constant "sky is falling" way of reporting the news is to me a form of terrorism. According to them I should never let a child out of the house for fear they will be kidnapped as soon as I turn around. Interrogating someone, or threatening someone is terrorism by this defenition, but i don't see many schoolyard bullies being brought up on these charges. I do see the atrocities of Saddam and his killing, but we can't be selective in our definition of terrorism, or else we have to apply it in our own borders as well.

But Saddam's atrocities are not the reason we're going to war, its the fear of 9-11 type terror, something Saddam hasn't shown to be a part of. The letter never even mentions Saddam's killings of his people, instead it connects the war to terrorism as a whole, which as I've said is a tenuous link at best (at least based on whats been presented as of, perhaps there IS more info from the government). To me, the connection of a war with Saddam and a war on terror being the same is ignorance, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[CoachTD7]

JPhillips,

If the world would have dealt with Hilter sooner there might have been less Jews and others killed. The bottom line is in todays world we cannot wait for someone to strike us like Saddam Hussein we must act now before we have another September 11.

Coach TD7

[Radii]

I <3 Easy Mac.

I aslo do not see any correlation to taking out Saddam and lessensing of likelyhood of another September 11.

In fact, if we go after Saddam, success or failure, I think it becomes more likely that there will be another 9/11.

[Easy Mac]

editing to show this goes to the post before Radii.

But why is there any reason to think Saddam would strike?

And where was this argument prior to 9-11, because even Bush wasn't making them? According to this, shouldn't we always have said "we can't wait for someone like Saddam Hussein to attack, we need to go in now." Maybe if you changed the name from Saddam to Bin Laden, it would would reflect what we should be doing since 9-11. If you really think Saddam would attack the US 9-11 style, I personally feel you're in a fantasy world. But, everyone has their opinions, so you can feel the same about me if you'd like.

[JPhillips]

Coach: First let me say,as I have in many other threads, that I am reluctantly in favor of dealing with Saddam. However, to use WWII as a justification is ludicrous. There is no evidence that a different stance in Munich would have led to a less catastrophic WWII. What if, for example, Germany still attacked the USSR in 1941? That would have given the Nazis another year to beat down Britain or help the Italians take Egypt or maybe the Spanish would have gotten involved. The point is we don't know what would have happened. What we do know is that Iraq is not the military and industrial powerhouse that Germany was and won't be any time soon.

Like so many of the pro-war arguments, this IMO just makes the case look weaker.

[couriers]

"I am sick of performers who reap tremendous benefits from our political and economic system of freedoms biting the hand that feeds them"

I don’t think that the author was referring to everyone who prospers in America but was simply referring to the chick that said what she did. This statement holds true in light of her contradiction in statements. In the spotlight she said that she was ashamed that he was from Texas and then she turns around and claims to have the utmost of respect for him.

"if you can't do your homework before trashing those of us who are literally trying to save you and your children,"

Once again, this statement was not directed to the majority of people but rather to her instead. Since she chose to voice her opinions in the manner that she did most people, not all but most, feel that she showed disrespect for those that are on our front lines. It is our dedication and appreciation for our soldiers that this statement directed at her holds merit. There are over 40,000 soldiers on those front lines from the UK and many believe that she could have showed her support for them instead of her disagreement with President Bush. Just a thought.

I honestly believe that the author of the letter intended it to be relative to the Dixie Chicks and not necessary meant for it to encompass a broader majority. Otherwise, he would have addressed it accordingly. Then again, I could be wrong.

[couriers]

JPhillips, take a look a little further back from 1938 and go to 1930 thru 1933. Many historians believe that if the cries for dealing with Hitler and Germany back in those years were not ignored then 1938 would have never had been such a terrible year.

[Easy Mac]

I think if he wanted it to be relative to the subject, he shouldn't have used plural nouns like "performers" and "them". To me I feel like he was referring to all celebrities who disagree with him.

As to the "do your homework quote," this seems to be a common line of anyone who is trying to discredit what those against a war are trying to say. Most seem to think if you are anti-war you haven't read anything, but are rather doing it because you think it is the cool thing to do. It seems the only informed ones can be those who are for the war. And if you don't believe me, look at some of the past threads dealing with this subject, you'll see many instances where this is shown.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
No offense is meant by this couriers, but we obviously read the letter differently, which is fine, but I feel I need to respond as well.

Those were the words that I just couldn't come up with in the other post. I truly tried not making it sound like too personal of a response. No offense intended and no offense taken.

Leaving Saddam alone may not lead to 51 million deaths but then again it just may. From everything that I have learned about this particular situation I believe whole heartedly that removing him from power by any means is the best possible solution to the dilemma. I do relate Saddam to terrorism one way or another. I do not believe in fighting terrorism with a half assed approach. If someone can agree that Saddam is in fact a terrorist, which his human rights violations alone dictate, then our war on terror should not stop at his borders. Instead we should fight terrorism wherever and whenever it exists. Saddam must go, now or latter, regardless. North Korea must be stopped and Iran should be close to the top of the list as well. If we find terrorist of any race, creed or color in our own schools and shopping malls then they need to be stopped just the same. Bottom line is that Saddam is one of the worst known terrorists in history and our war on terrorism should not be limited to those involved with 9-11 or to those that have already committed direct attacks on our country. I will most certainly sleep better at night when the world is rid of those whose only interest is death and destruction. This of course will never happen but now that the ball is rolling we need to continue pressing forward at all times.

[AgPete]

Dubya's father really screwed the pooch on this one. We should have taken out Saddam Hussein when we had the chance. Countries would have turned against us back then too but at least we had more allies, our forces already mobilized, poor strategic planning by Iraq and no experience against us (their forces in the desert instead of in Baghdad), a legitimate reason (to liberate an ARAB nation as opposed to our theories that destroying Hussein destroys terrorism which makes us look like an imperialist nation), crumbling morale in the Iraqi military, and probably even more damning evidence in Hussein's arsenal.

I guess the only thing we have going for us now are satellite photos of Hussein terrorist camps and whispers that Hussein has been in contact with known terrorist factions. It's a lose-lose scenario. We do nothing and we know that Hussein will get back to business ignoring weapons inspectors and negotiating even more with terrorist allies; We do something and the world views America as an imperialist country and we probably lose a lot more troops than we would have invading Baghdad during the first Persian Gulf War.

The only non-war alternative I see is waiting it out and hoping Hussein dies soon. He's old and fat, maybe he'll croak sooner or later :D and Iraq would experience a fight for power that would make Alexander the Great's successors proud. He has a pretty tight network though and a regime collapse isn't guaranteed since his family is waiting to take over.

I've always been hesitant about the decision to attack Iraq because many of our nation's top military leaders (including Colin Powell - behind closed doors of course ;) ) have been against this from day one. When the Generals are the ones crying for peace, you know you have a problem. Only after Powell's speech to the U.N. did some leaders like General Schwarzkopf change their minds and we're just now finding out that some of the documents we used as evidence in the U.N. speech were forgeries. I truly believe Bush is a good person but I have my doubts about Rumsfeld and the rest of the warhawks. These are the same weasels that tried to play dirty politics with our nation's intelligence agencies and military planners to push through their legislation for a missile defense system when the defense community was warning them that America should spend the billions elsewhere in areas such as counter-terrorism because the threat of oh...say....a jetliner full of fuel flying kamikaze into the World Trade Center was a far greater threat than long range nuclear missiles. They seem stubborn and cocky to the point of ignoring red flags and practical military matters and remind me of the civilian advisors in JFK and LBJ's administrations that caused Vietnam.

I don't bring up my worries though because A) I don't have the extensive training and knowledge in these matters nor have access to the classified material these people do and B) even if did, contrary to popular belief, one man cannot make a difference in our democracy unless he has millions of dollars and friends in high places. The peace movement can carry out their threats of as they put it, "shutting down the war machine's infrastructure." They can block roads, storm into Wall Street or whatever else suits their fancy but they're not going to make one iota of difference and the federal government will march on. I would tell these peace protestors that we're going to war whether you like it or not, better be prepared. Come back if this turns into a 21st century Vietnam because you'll have a lot more support but right now, a majority of Americans are in favor of this.

I look at the Iraq invasion as a 50/50 proposition. Hussein's former top general and now a defector warns that he does have a sufficient biological weapons cache and I'm sure he'll be more than happy to use any WMD he does have against our troops because he doesn't have anything to lose this time. I hope our intelligence is good enough to find these places and destroy them on the war's first day. If he doesn't use any and we don't find anything significant, we're going to look awfully stupid in the eyes of the world community. He knows how to fight us now and won't waste time in open desert plains. This is another thing I leave to our superb military planning, our intelligence estimates and any possibility of overthrowing Hussein from the inside. A lot of American kids could come home in bodybags if Baghdad puts up a decent fight.

I'm not even sure Hussein's suicide bomber camps are for future terrorist attacks as much as they are for defending Iraq against an American invasion. We'll suffer more casualties there and I'm sure he'll double his efforts to bring Israel into the war because holding out and gaining support from the Islamic community is really his only choice. What better way to do that than unleash a wave of suicide bombers (some possibly with WMD) in Israel and force them into the war? "Bush the First" kept Israel at bay during the first Persian Gulf War but let's remember the last decade of Israeli politics and who is in charge now. Probably the worse consequence of this war will require us to wait ten to twenty years to find out what its results were. The wave of Anti-Americanism and new terrorist recruits it spawns are either going to be eliminated by the U.S. or too much for us to handle.

We know Hussein isn't going to become Nazi Germany. We already kicked his tail when he tried to take over Kuwait. He knows he can't expand. It's almost as if we forced him to pick up terrorism against the United States after the first Persian Gulf War because we left him there knowing he faces sanctions, world retalliation against any aggressive action on his part, a crumbling economy, etc. Terrorism always occurs from desperate societies that don't have the means to fight the "normal" way. We have to take him out now but I wish we would have taken care of business back when we had the chance.

[couriers]

“I think if he wanted it to be relative to the subject, he shouldn't have used plural nouns like "performers" and "them". To me I feel like he was referring to all celebrities who disagree with him.”

Now be fair. He didn’t use terms like “all performers” or “all of them” and it would be foolish to think that there was only one celebrity who falls into this category. Although he was clearly including a grouping of people instead of just one, hence the use of the plural nouns, he was speaking to just one person, or band if you insist.

“As to the "do your homework quote," this seems to be a common line of anyone who is trying to discredit what those against a war are trying to say. Most seem to think if you are anti-war you haven't read anything, but are rather doing it because you think it is the cool thing to do. It seems the only informed ones can be those who are for the war. And if you don't believe me, look at some of the past threads dealing with this subject, you'll see many instances where this is shown.”

I do agree with you that this is a very common copout. Despite this as I have tried to show I really don’t believe that he was referring to everyone but rather to one individual who decided to open her mouth and say what she did. It seems that he does not hold here opinions in the highest of respect in regards to her knowledge of the subject. Whether she really is uneducated in the ways of war and politics is for another argument, many would think she is not, but I don’t believe that he was trying to say that every anti-war individual is uneducated and stupid. I think that it is all too easy for someone to take his letter personally instead of objectively and that is why I feel the need to try and defend it so that others don’t interpret his views in the broader sense and then relate them that way to my own views.

FTR, I take the letter at face value in regards to the Dixie Chicks and in no way imply its broader interpretations as my own personal opinions. Hope that helps.

[JPhillips]

Couriers: That still doesn't provide a backing for using Munich as a reason for war. And in the early thirties there wasn't much oppostion to Hitler in the world. Remember, his first really agressive act was reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936.

In the early thirties it was clear that the most dispicable leader on the globe was Stalin. He was the one killing millions and jailing millions more. In fact they much more closely fit the Iraq model of a country with little offensive capability, but with great military potential.

All I'm really saying is that the WWII arguments when connected to Iraq are ridiculous. Saddam is no Hitler and Iraq is no Germany. In fact a very good argument could be made that Gulf War I was Munich and we did in fact stand up to him. The result has been a contained Iraq with little offensive capability, although the leader is severally suspect.

[couriers]

Points well taken JPhillips. I like your argument that the Gulf War was us stopping Saddam early on. I never really looked at it that way. It seems that the only other point about my own opinion that I would care to clarify is that I don't believe that containing Saddam forever is a viable option. In today’s world the definition of offensive capability has changed greatly and the possibilities of what could happen in the future scare me to death. The same argument could be made about a more passive approach to the situation but for some reason the older I get the more active my stance against negative possibilities become. I guess I could learn to be actively passive. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Since I pretty wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the letter in question, I'd like to comment on something relating to it.

Originally posted by Radii
I just wish he would accept that people who have different opinions have the right to express theirs as well.

Speaking for myself, I recognize the right to express those opinions.

I also recognize my right to express my belief about those who hold those contrary opinions.

And my right to act upon those beliefs in every legal manner possible, in order to limit the impact of those contrary opinions as much as possible.

Some who oppose the use of military force in Iraq have "done their homework" and some haven't. The same can be said, sadly, for those who support it.

But I've done my homework and I've reached what I believe is the only realistic conclusion based upon the available facts. Those who have seen the same information and yet draw a different conclusion or act contrary to that conclusion are now subject to my right to believe (and act accordingly) their decision-making ability is questionable at best, non-existent at worse (depending upon their history). I don't often choose to reward those sorts of people.

American Heritage defines an enemy as: " 1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe."

Please note that last "or" -- opposes the interests of another

That sums up pretty well the polarization you described so aptly. I firmly believe those who fail to support the use of U.S. military force in Iraq are acting against the best interests of America.

Their own actions therefore make them, by definition, an enemy of the United States and I reserve the right to treat them as such under every legal means available to me.

To be clear, I do not find a legal right for me individually to physically impact those enemies at this time. But you fight a battle with whatever weapons you have available.

In this situation those include: Scorn, ridicule and other social techniques designed to reduce the effectiveness of their message; Fiscal action which not only limits their ability to maintain a costly campaign but also distracts them from their contrary purpose by diverting their attention to their own financial survival.

I offer no apology for my beliefs nor my willingness to act upon them. I also ask no apology for those who do likewise against me. That an adversial relationship not only exists but is correctly labeled as such is little more than denial of the obvious. It seems more realistic to accept the fact that the current scenario does indeed create allies and enemies and then act accordingly.

Jon

[KWhit]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA

Please note that last "or" -- opposes the interests of another

That sums up pretty well the polarization you described so aptly. I firmly believe those who fail to support the use of U.S. military force in Iraq are acting against the best interests of America.


Do you understand that most of the US citizens that are against the war are of the belief that war will act AGAINST the best interests of America in the long term?

And yet you still believe that those who are against the war are anti-American and are the enemy.

Just because someone disagrees that war is the best option does not make them a traitor or a "foe".

[couriers]

I woke up this morning hoping that the situation had changed since yesterday but I found that in fact the Dixie Chicks still suck.

[EagleFan]

Damn, from the title of the thread I thought there was going to be pictures involved. :(

[couriers]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Damn, from the title of the thread I thought there was going to be pictures involved. :(

Despite my lack of respect for the "band" your idea of pictures being involved is a good one. No matter what I do I can't stop being a strong supporter for porn. :)

[Fritz]

Originally posted by KWhit
Do you understand that most of the US citizens that are against the war are of the belief that war will act AGAINST the best interests of America in the long term?


I don't think this is true.

[KWhit]

You're wrong.

[RawIsDan]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Damn, from the title of the thread I thought there was going to be pictures involved. :(

Heh...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by KWhit
You're wrong.

do you wake up in the morning trying to be so incorrect, or is it dumb luck?

[KWhit]

So you think that those opposed to the war are just out to screw the US?

No. More likely they believe that a US war with vast world opposition will likely create a rift between us and our allies as well as the arab world.

The US has already lost all respect from the international community. They look at us as a war-mongering nation trying to illegally impose its will on the world. Do I personally think that's true? No. But I see why the Europeans believe it.

Many who oppose the war believe that regime change is not worth the political price we'll have to pay to acheive it.

Oh, and Fritz - you smell bad.

:)

[Havok]

Dear Dixie Chicks,

When I was growing up I was taught that whenever you travel, you are an ambassador for your country, church or community. Like it or not, people judge all of us by the way you act.

I read your comments and apology and it's evident you are not much of a thinker. I am reminded that it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Let's be clear about what we are fighting here. Suppose that at your coming concert at the BiLo Center (Greenville, SC), several men (let's say 19 of them) arrive late. They approach different doors. At the same moment, they pull guns, surprising and killing the guards. They then seal the doors and release a thermous full of VX gas. Not one person would survive. They would have to pull your body from the crush with a meathook. That could ruin your whole tour.

Pretty gruesome.

It's pretty obvious you are scared. We all are. My son is a naval officer and my nephew is an Air Force pilot. But some of us understand what there is to be scared of. We could dawdle and kick the can down the road like the Allies did in the 1930's. That squemishness cost the world an estimated 51 million lives. If we are facing a billion Islamists being whipped up by a madman with nuclear weapons, World War II will look like a birthday party.

Hey! Maybe we could put this conflict off until your kids are old enough to be called to fight instead of dealing with it now. Would that work for you ?

I am sick of performers who reap tremendous benefits from our political and economic system of freedoms biting the hand that feeds them. Mrs. Stewart taught me in the 6th grade that the rights we enjoy as Americans can only endure so long as we accept the responsibilities that accompany them. I guess you didn't have Mrs. Stewart. If you can't do your homework before trashing those of us who are literally trying to save you and your children, at least remember this: Under our constitution you have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Sincerely,

Steve Raines
Greenville, SC



Excellent post couriers

[Fritz]

Originally posted by KWhit
So you think that those opposed to the war are just out to screw the US?


Gosh no.

Originally posted by KWhit
No. More likely they believe that a US war with vast world opposition will likely create a rift between us and our allies as well as the arab world.


Are these the only two possibilities?

I think you give people too much credit. I am speaking of the type who turn from MSNBC so they can catch the tail end of a Will and Grace re-run because it is more interesting. Thems is the meat and potatos or our society.

Originally posted by KWhit
Oh, and Fritz - you smell bad.


Indeed I must if you can smell me across broadband.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by CoachTD7
BishopMVP,

Your signature says throw in Zimbabwe and Venezuela, but I was wondering what about Sudan?

Coach TD7

All the countries listed in my signature are ruled by Dictators who are killing their people. In the Sudan, I really haven't read too much. I know there is a big Civil War on, has been going on for 20 years, is killing thousands of people and the country is a haven for terrorism, but I'm not sure if there is a good side there. It seems in the past when the US has gone into countries that have not yet experienced the totalitarian rule that will be coming reject us and run into the oppositions hands (Vietnam, Somalia, Iran, Cambodia.) In all the countries I have listed in my sig, with the possible exceptions of Syria and Saudi Arabia (where the people support an Islamic Theocracy) a majority of people support Democracy.

EDIT to add Syria to Saudi Arabia

[KWhit]

Originally posted by Fritz
I am speaking of the type who turn from MSNBC so they can catch the tail end of a Will and Grace re-run because it is more interesting. Thems is the meat and potatos or our society.


Too true. Of course, I notice from THIS THREAD (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6542) that you seem to suffer from the same problem.

;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by KWhit
Do you understand that most of the US citizens that are against the war are of the belief that war will act AGAINST the best interests of America in the long term?

And yet you still believe that those who are against the war are anti-American and are the enemy.

Just because someone disagrees that war is the best option does not make them a traitor or a "foe".

I think something got lost along the way, regardless though ...

Yes, I believe those who are against the war are acting contrary to the best interests of this nation. As I tried to show by citing the definition of enemy, ill intent is not a required element of being an enemy, acting against interest is sufficient. In other words, whether they believe that's what they're doing is irrelevant to whether they qualify as "an enemy".

The "traitor" discussion has already been done here (the thread is still around somewhere) but that's not what's on the table for this thread. In other words, there's plenty of room for internal enemies beyond simply traitors.

And really, the point I was trying to address focused more on the polarization of the nation (and it's inevitability) than anyone's intent, belief, or what have you.

[KWhit]

I understand that. My point was that those who are against the war could say that you are an enemy (according to the definition you provided), since many believe that war would be contrary to our own interests long-term.

However, I do not believe it is appropriate to label people with opposing beliefs enemies. It is not a black or white issue. There is a lot of grey here.

Will war lead to an Iraq that is safer for the US? Yes.

Will the war alienate our allies and do political harm? Yes - in fact, it has already done so.

Will the war create more hatred towards the US from the Arab world, leading to a bigger problem with terrorism? Yes, likely.

If we do not go to war, will Iraq create WMD and put those into the hands of terrorists who wish us harm? Maybe, maybe not.

My point is that at this point NO ONE knows exactly what the right answer is. Those that claim to know for sure what is best (including you Jon) are ignoring the unknowns involved. And for you to claim that anyone who is against the war is an enemy of the US is ridiculous and extremely self-righteous.

[Nirvanamats]

I think we're all forgetting the point here, which is that the President of the United States wants very badly to do something and that as Americans it is our duty to never ever question the actions of the president or his administration. It is the American Way after all to go in with guns blazing isn't it? And the last time I checked, those arabs don't have white skin, so the only way to get them to listen is with guns, american history proves this, does it not? Whether or not there is any evidence that Irag had any direct involvement with 9-11 is inconsequential, since the president is always right and could only possibly have the interests of all american people in mind. On that same note, I hope the Fatherland.... oops I mean Homeland Security deparment is monitoring this board right now so that at some point in the future they can "reeducate" those who do no Love and Support their country. Heil Bush!!

[couriers]

Originally posted by Nirvanamats
I think we're all forgetting the point here, which is that the President of the United States wants very badly to do something and that as Americans it is our duty to never ever question the actions of the president or his administration. It is the American Way after all to go in with guns blazing isn't it? And the last time I checked, those arabs don't have white skin, so the only way to get them to listen is with guns, american history proves this, does it not? Whether or not there is any evidence that Irag had any direct involvement with 9-11 is inconsequential, since the president is always right and could only possibly have the interests of all american people in mind. On that same note, I hope the Fatherland.... oops I mean Homeland Security deparment is monitoring this board right now so that at some point in the future they can "reeducate" those who do no Love and Support their country. Heil Bush!!

A sarcastic statement I hope.

[Nirvanamats]

absolutely dripping wet with it.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Nirvanamats
absolutely dripping wet with it.

Some times the most obvious is the most difficult to see. From an intellect the statement can easily be seen for what it is but considering I don’t know you from Adam there was a chance that it was just a racist statement made from an idiot. I am glad that wasn’t the case. :)

[Nirvanamats]

No, I do not personally hold any racist beliefs such as the one mentioned in the earlier comment and would like to make that exceedingly clear.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Nirvanamats
No, I do not personally hold any racist beliefs such as the one mentioned in the earlier comment and would like to make that exceedingly clear.

Right. So that just those who are for the war are racist. Right?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by KWhit
However, I do not believe it is appropriate to label people with opposing beliefs enemies. It is not a black or white issue. There is a lot of grey here.

Then we disagree so completely that further discussion between us would be pointless.

[couriers]

Did Hans Blix see the same news conference that I saw this afternoon? After it was over he was reported as saying that he heard no ultimatum, no deadline and that he still believed that inspections will continue to work. Is this a joke? Could he really be that blind?

"Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world” President Bush

"Now we make a final appeal to make a strong, unified message on behalf of the international community” Tony Blair

“I would advise weapons inspectors, humanitarian aid workers and journalists now in Baghdad to take a hard look at the situation they are in, and it would be probably better for them to start leaving or making plans to leave” Colin Powell

Furthermore, is Jacques Chirac really this naïve?

“I am willing to accept a 30-day deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by U.N. weapons inspectors.” Jacques Chirac

Who the hell are the UN weapons inspectors in so much that we need their approval for the next step in the process?

[Fritz]

Dear Dixie Chicks,

Less political talk and more boobshots please.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Buff
Newport News, VA

[Nirvanamats]

No, people who support the war are not inherently racist. And that was never the intention of that statement. Just commenting on American History and one of the most common ways that the "enemy" in each conflict has been dehumanized based on differences from the majority of the U.S. population. Arab culture and appearance are, quite obviously, different from those of americans and I see media and pro-war forces playing off the differences in often inappropriate and extremest ways.

If I were to imply that all pro-war people were racist I would only be stereotyping a very large group of people and would quite obviously be incorrect. Sorry if you were offended by thinking that was somehow my intention.

[SFL Cat]

Originally posted by sooner333
It is their freedom to say what they want about the country and leadership (although I'm not sure what could happen if she said she hoped he was shot). It is also the freedom of the radio stations to not play their music on the radio. I don't understand why they would do that, considering their fan base is pro-America, pro-conservative values. Look, Toby Keith had success with "we'll stick a boot up your ass, its the American way". Not good marketing by the Chicks, in my opinion.

I think most people are put-off by celebrity opinions because most celebrities act like their opinions are more important than the opinion of Joe or Jane Average for the simple fact of their celebrity status.

That fact that most entertainers are overpaid pricks who need to clean up their own houses before lecturing everyone else about right and wrong doesn't help either.

[Airhog]

Wow, If i made this comment it wouldnt have even made the back page of a newspaper....

[TroyF]

Interesting discussion.

My opinions:

1) I'm for the war in Iraq. I think Sadaam is a butcher and if the United Nations doesn't want to stand up to the bastard, I'm proud that my country will. Just out of curiosity, what exactly would you have to do to get the UN to agree or act on anything? Bosnia and Rwanda happened while they sat on their hands and they've given Sadaam 12 years worth of missed deadlines.

Imagine your 24 year old son walking through the door and you telling him that sinse he didn't take the garbage out yet, he can't go out and play. "Now son, I know you think it's funny to hide the garbage under your bed, under the house, in a hole in the backyard. . . but you still haven't gotten rid of it yet. It's been twelve years, will you please do it for me? Don't make me angry!!!" Think the threat will lose its meaning? The UN has zero backbone and is therefore a worthless entity.

2) The Dixie Chicks are absolute morons. I make that statement not because of their opinions, but because of the lack of forethought put into them. I don't want to hear a forced apology because record sales are going into the crapper. Your an adult. Make an educated opinion before you open your damned mouth. If you think your opinion IS the right one, don't apologize for it. If you made a mistake you are truly sorry for, apologize ASAP. Don't skip the first eight chances you have to back off the statement.

3) I've been waiting for all of the celebrities who said they'd leave the country if Bush got elected to leave. They aren't so much against the war as they are against Bush and the Republican party. Until they tell me why they haven't picketed against Sadaam slaughtering, raping and killing his own people, they can take a leap.

4) Jon had some of the best comments in this thread. I think it's sad that most of them were 100% misunderstood.

TroyF

[Cowtown]

If you caught the interview with Dick Cheney tonight on TV he said something that I had never thought of before. He said these countries that are outspoken AGAINST the war are countries that would feel threatened by a weapons of mass destuction armed Iraq/Saddam. He said once we go in there and quickly remove him from power these other countries will no longer feel threatened by Saddam and will become very appreciative of what we did for them. In other words, until they know Saddam is no longer a powerful man and a threat to them they will NOT speak out against him, but once he is disarmed they will gladly thank us for it.

[couriers]

UN = High School Debate Team
Iraq = High School Football Team

Saddam is obviously playing a football game yet we have been trying to score a touchdown with a debate team. Seems to be a similar situation to having brought a knife to a gunfight. If the game were to win a debate then the UN would be the way to go, which is still questionable. However, when weapons are involved with a madman then we are obviously not trying to win a debate. It is about time we get our football team out on the field and to start winning this frickin thing already.

[couriers]

DOLA:

Am I correct in believing that they didn't even apologize for themselves but had a PR firm representative issue the statement instead? If so this is just wrong in and of itself.

[couriers]

This is from a country radio station website so it clearly reflects the opinions of the "bands" fans and not just the everyday joe blows.


Over 14,000 Votes Cast in KSCS Poll!!

Here are the results of our web site poll:

Do you agree with Natalie's comment about being ashamed our President is from Texas?

93.2% said No they don't agree with her comment.
6.8% said Yes they do agree.

Natalie Maines of "The Dixie Chicks" said at a concert in England and was quoted by a reporter from The Guardian "Just so you know," says singer Natalie Maines, "we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

At 96.3 KSCS we disagree with her...we're not only proud to be from Texas, but we're proud of President George W. Bush and the fact that he is from Texas. In a follow-up quote from The Dixie Chicks, Maines was quoted as saying: "We've been overseas for several weeks and have been reading and following the news accounts of our governments' position. The anti-American sentiment that has unfolded here is astounding. While we support our troops, there is nothing more frightening than the notion of going to war with Iraq and the prospect of all the innocent lives that will be lost."

Maines further stated, "I feel the President is ignoring the opinions of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view."

In a statement released by her publicist late Friday Natalie said, "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American."

[sterlingice]

I feel I've posted this a lot of times here the past few months: "But is it news?"

Why the hell do we care what some singers think? I say the exact same thing she says on a daily basis (hell, I've said it since Dubya beat Ann Richards in a really dirty campaign for Texas governor, close to 10 years ago now).

SI

[couriers]

What? We are not allowed to have a little lighthearted fun at the expense of a celebrity? Party pooper.

[sterlingice]

What? We are not allowed to have a little lighthearted fun at the expense of a celebrity? Party pooper.

Hell, I'm all for making fun of the Dixie Chicks. In fact, I encourage it. But a lot of people got overly serious with this.

SI

[couriers]

Serious? Sure and why not since the underlining topic is Iraq, which is a rather serious issue. All in all the discussion remained very civil and a round of drinks is well deserved by all those who helped in keeping it that way. There is never anything wrong with ragging on the Chicks and there is certainly nothing wrong with a good debate among willing participants.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by sterlingice
I say the exact same thing she says on a daily basis

Which is why I won't be buying your album.

[CamEdwards]

Jon, you really need to return to radio. :)

[BishopMVP]

To paraphrase one of the QOTM's, This will revolutionize the way I don't buy Dixie Chicks Albums

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Jon, you really need to return to radio. :)

What? And miss out on the opportunity to save my "A" material for here? Never !
Never I say :)

[Subby]

I forget how fucking stupid people are some times.