he was referring to the past tense. lots of people got sold on that wmd crap. easy for you to monday morning quarterback. so i guess you knew more than collin powell who sold that crap to the UN?
I knew at the time that it was crap. I sat and watched Powell's, and Jack Straw's desperate attempts to sell that paltry crap - look!! a photo of a lorry in Iraq!! This lorry could be used to transport weapons of Mass destruction!! :eek: - to the world, following Dominque De Villepin's, the French foreign minister's speech which received a standing ovation.
Everyone knew that there were no wmd's. The world knew it was bullshit. This is why millions - 2 million on the streets of London, of which i was a part -took to the streets to protest the inevitable war. It's not difficult to tell when someone's lying, and anyone with just one iota of intelligence could see that we were being lied to. All the talk of "Sadaam Hussein is failing to hand over his wmd's!" "Iraq is not complying with the U.N and handing over it's wmd's!"
Question: What wmd's? There weren't any! How can a country hand over wmd's when they don't exist? The weapons inspectors were never going to satisfy the U.S governent because, as has already been shown, the decision to invade had already been taken in 2002 at the latest.
Bullshit is bullshit, is bullshit! Pure and simple.
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
All this marching with a lame duck President who clearly doen't give a shit what the marchers or congress think? I think the marchers should march back home and start figuring out who the best possible candidate will be in 08 to fix this shit will be and then work on that campaign....
That's a good idea, but I am curious to know.... what do you think that the 60s huge movement and marches against the vietnam war represented? I mean, do you think it affected politics or just remained a folk phenomenon? I think it did affect politics.
This was the biggest march since Bush was on office. Late is better than never, but could it be that something is growing up? I mean, what did it take for the 60s people to create such a huge revolt against war? is it possible that something like that happens again?
I read that a lot of people here think that a number of people protesting doesn't affect politics, and so the protest is a waste of time. I don't understand what kind of concept of democracy lies behind such opinion. In a democracy, people should have a say. They have the right to show consent or dissent. That is a civil right, not entertainment. And in this case it is especially important that the us citizens show their dissent in any way in front of the world, also because other people in the world need to know what the us citizen support and what the us citizen are doing against bush politics.
That's something I fail to understand. Everytime 2003 is mentionned people say that everybody believed the wmd threat, in the whole world. But that's just no true, I remember clearly a number of governments refusing to go to war because of the lack of proof of such a threat. Almost noone bought that crap.
those governments that werent on board never argued lack of real intelligence. they argued sanctions needed more time to work. so thats revisionist euro hogwash. your government in particular regularly does business with any outlaw regime who ghey oil from, iraq included, needs to supply mirage jets or nuclear reactors to. so thats crap. many european countries turned their backs on their long time allies for nothing more than money and the fear of their own growing muslim communities. so zip it
That's a good idea, but I am curious to know.... what do you think that the 60s huge movement and marches against the vietnam war represented? I mean, do you think it affected politics or just remained a folk phenomenon? I think it did affect politics.
This was the biggest march since Bush was on office. Late is better than never, but could it be that something is growing up? I mean, what did it take for the 60s people to create such a huge revolt against war? is it possible that something like that happens again?
I read that a lot of people here think that a number of people protesting doesn't affect politics, and so the protest is a waste of time. I don't understand what kind of concept of democracy lies behind such opinion. In a democracy, people should have a say. They have the right to show consent or dissent. That is a civil right, not entertainment. And in this case it is especially important that the us citizens show their dissent in any way in front of the world, also because other people in the world need to know what the us citizen support and what the us citizen are doing against bush politics.
Different times. Revolutionary times and there was more going on culturally here than just anti war rallys. At that time tens of thousands of americans and many more innocents were being killed. There was a draft and every male of draft age was affected, including my own father. Americans in the street were looking to change leadership. And once again, as in 1968, the american people had a chance to elect an anti war president in Hubert Humphrey, and instead they voted in the Hawkish Nixon. Some things never change. The point is simply that Bush is a lame duck, so the change in regime here in the US is going to be decided at the ballot boxes. Not shit we can do now by marching...
Ahh, Vietnam. Another war we never should have been a part of.
So, does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." give aid and comfort to the enemy?
That was the only decent sized one I have seen in the four years that I have been here.
A half of a million people take up a lot more space than these people took up.
Sheesh, now we're comparing who has the biggest protests. :rolleyes: I don't care which was larger. This turnout looked good to me and I'm happy to see so many out there.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sheesh, now we're comparing who has the biggest protests. :rolleyes: I don't care which was larger. This turnout looked good to me and I'm happy to see so many out there.
i am not sure what 2004 protest is being brought up here...what was it? i was out of commission with reality in 2004.
didn't a number of protestors of the WTO just have a court decide that their constitutional rights were violated?
Sheesh, now we're comparing who has the biggest protests. :rolleyes: I don't care which was larger. This turnout looked good to me and I'm happy to see so many out there.
I'm glad we are both happy. These people stayed away from my house and neighborhood this time which was good.
I was thinking it was the March for Women's lives. That thing was fucking huge.
yeah. the count is about a million. i know counts can be tricky for any kind of march or gathering, but they did have sign ins to help with that.
i only brought that up because that is the biggest march under bush, if not the biggest march on washington in u.s. history. and it was in response to a post, not just to talk about who has the bigger marches.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
yeah. the count is about a million. i know counts can be tricky for any kind of march or gathering, but they did have sign ins to help with that.
i only brought that up because that is the biggest march under bush, if not the biggest march on washington in u.s. history. and it was in response to a post, not just to talk about who has the bigger marches.
Absolutely agree. I've never seen that many people in one place before.
every single one of those people that excercised their right to protest and speak out are hero's, patriots, and most of all inspirational.
they deserve respect and applause not matter what you think about the war or their beliefs.
they are what this country is all about, and it is the people of this country that i love and cherish, not any president, politician, flag, or government. now if everyone could just realize the difference, we could become the most amazing, enlightened society this planet has ever witnessed. i truly believe we could be an unimaginable positive force in the world and it's history. we are only holding ourselves back.
every single one of those people that excercised their right to protest and speak out are hero's, patriots, and most of all inspirational.
they deserve respect and applause not matter what you think about the war or their beliefs.
they are what this country is all about, and it is the people of this country that i love and cherish, not any president, politician, flag, or government. now if everyone could just realize the difference, we could become the most amazing, enlightened society this planet has ever witnessed. i truly believe we could be an unimaginable positive force in the world and it's history. we are only holding ourselves back.
peace
Weren't Tim Robbins and Sean Penn there making fools out of themselves and making ignorant statments?
And I'm sure there were a bunch of morons in Bush Devil masks or other childish B.S.
I don't have a problem with a protest rally or whatever..........its jsut that these people present their point of view so poorly.
It should be noted that not one reputable political entity was there or had anything to do with it.........just washed up actors who live in fantasy land and don't really have any actual in depth knowledge or understanding on the issue.
Sean Penn has no problem with Iran aquiring nuclear ability
Tim Robbins is asked what we can do to stop Iran from doing this and he sarcastically responds ........"we can drop bombs on them and kill innocent people." How about trying to answer a legitamate question with a legitamate answer?
I guess its kind of hard when you don't really understand the situation outside the crazy box he lives in.
And this guys goes o nstage with PJ and Ed probably loves him.........rediculous. At least Ed and the guys stay away from crap like this. I mean, I know Eddie is every bit as politically retarded as Tim Robbins and Sean Penn...........but at least he isn't out wagging his ass in front of the camera like he's someone special.
every single one of those people that excercised their right to protest and speak out are hero's, patriots, and most of all inspirational.
they deserve respect and applause not matter what you think about the war or their beliefs.
they are what this country is all about, and it is the people of this country that i love and cherish, not any president, politician, flag, or government. now if everyone could just realize the difference, we could become the most amazing, enlightened society this planet has ever witnessed. i truly believe we could be an unimaginable positive force in the world and it's history. we are only holding ourselves back.
peace
I love your vibe. It was great to see people taking time out of their day to stand up for what they believe in. The number of people expressing disgust with this war is growing bigger and bigger and that's something to definitely celebrate.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I love your vibe. It was great to see people taking time out of their day to stand up for what they believed in. The number of people expressing disgust with this war is growing bigger and bigger and that's something to definitely celebrate.
But according to Last Exodus, it's a waste of time. I'm still trying to figure that one out.
every single one of those people that excercised their right to protest and speak out are hero's, patriots, and most of all inspirational.
they deserve respect and applause not matter what you think about the war or their beliefs.
they are what this country is all about, and it is the people of this country that i love and cherish, not any president, politician, flag, or government. now if everyone could just realize the difference, we could become the most amazing, enlightened society this planet has ever witnessed. i truly believe we could be an unimaginable positive force in the world and it's history. we are only holding ourselves back.
Comments
I knew at the time that it was crap. I sat and watched Powell's, and Jack Straw's desperate attempts to sell that paltry crap - look!! a photo of a lorry in Iraq!! This lorry could be used to transport weapons of Mass destruction!! :eek: - to the world, following Dominque De Villepin's, the French foreign minister's speech which received a standing ovation.
Everyone knew that there were no wmd's. The world knew it was bullshit. This is why millions - 2 million on the streets of London, of which i was a part -took to the streets to protest the inevitable war. It's not difficult to tell when someone's lying, and anyone with just one iota of intelligence could see that we were being lied to. All the talk of "Sadaam Hussein is failing to hand over his wmd's!" "Iraq is not complying with the U.N and handing over it's wmd's!"
Question: What wmd's? There weren't any! How can a country hand over wmd's when they don't exist? The weapons inspectors were never going to satisfy the U.S governent because, as has already been shown, the decision to invade had already been taken in 2002 at the latest.
Bullshit is bullshit, is bullshit! Pure and simple.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1593637,00.html
Times Online May 01, 2005
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
That's a good idea, but I am curious to know.... what do you think that the 60s huge movement and marches against the vietnam war represented? I mean, do you think it affected politics or just remained a folk phenomenon? I think it did affect politics.
This was the biggest march since Bush was on office. Late is better than never, but could it be that something is growing up? I mean, what did it take for the 60s people to create such a huge revolt against war? is it possible that something like that happens again?
I read that a lot of people here think that a number of people protesting doesn't affect politics, and so the protest is a waste of time. I don't understand what kind of concept of democracy lies behind such opinion. In a democracy, people should have a say. They have the right to show consent or dissent. That is a civil right, not entertainment. And in this case it is especially important that the us citizens show their dissent in any way in front of the world, also because other people in the world need to know what the us citizen support and what the us citizen are doing against bush politics.
Yeah, if you call spitting on soldiers disorderly?
Different times. Revolutionary times and there was more going on culturally here than just anti war rallys. At that time tens of thousands of americans and many more innocents were being killed. There was a draft and every male of draft age was affected, including my own father. Americans in the street were looking to change leadership. And once again, as in 1968, the american people had a chance to elect an anti war president in Hubert Humphrey, and instead they voted in the Hawkish Nixon. Some things never change. The point is simply that Bush is a lame duck, so the change in regime here in the US is going to be decided at the ballot boxes. Not shit we can do now by marching...
So, does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." give aid and comfort to the enemy?
. . . regarding the war maybe.
there was a much larger march in 2004, not regarding the war.
http://www.now.org/images/nnt/200405/march.jpg
cross the river to the eastside
That was the only decent sized one I have seen in the four years that I have been here.
A half of a million people take up a lot more space than these people took up.
Sheesh, now we're comparing who has the biggest protests. :rolleyes: I don't care which was larger. This turnout looked good to me and I'm happy to see so many out there.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i am not sure what 2004 protest is being brought up here...what was it? i was out of commission with reality in 2004.
didn't a number of protestors of the WTO just have a court decide that their constitutional rights were violated?
from my window to yours
Yup, I love the south..no snow, it's sunny the majority of the time, and the people are very nice....
I didn't say anything about 2004. How were you out of comission with reality then?
I've heard anything about that. I'll google it up.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm glad we are both happy. These people stayed away from my house and neighborhood this time which was good.
I was thinking it was the March for Women's lives. That thing was fucking huge.
yeah. the count is about a million. i know counts can be tricky for any kind of march or gathering, but they did have sign ins to help with that.
i only brought that up because that is the biggest march under bush, if not the biggest march on washington in u.s. history. and it was in response to a post, not just to talk about who has the bigger marches.
cross the river to the eastside
Absolutely agree. I've never seen that many people in one place before.
not to hijack the thread, but i also hope you got to see the march for death truck. that was awesome.
cross the river to the eastside
i just thought you might know...anyway..
why was i out of commission? it's a long story...but, it had nothing to do with my parents spanking me as a child.
from my window to yours
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=16871
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There were some really funny things around town that weekend.
they deserve respect and applause not matter what you think about the war or their beliefs.
they are what this country is all about, and it is the people of this country that i love and cherish, not any president, politician, flag, or government. now if everyone could just realize the difference, we could become the most amazing, enlightened society this planet has ever witnessed. i truly believe we could be an unimaginable positive force in the world and it's history. we are only holding ourselves back.
peace
Weren't Tim Robbins and Sean Penn there making fools out of themselves and making ignorant statments?
And I'm sure there were a bunch of morons in Bush Devil masks or other childish B.S.
I don't have a problem with a protest rally or whatever..........its jsut that these people present their point of view so poorly.
It should be noted that not one reputable political entity was there or had anything to do with it.........just washed up actors who live in fantasy land and don't really have any actual in depth knowledge or understanding on the issue.
Sean Penn has no problem with Iran aquiring nuclear ability
Tim Robbins is asked what we can do to stop Iran from doing this and he sarcastically responds ........"we can drop bombs on them and kill innocent people." How about trying to answer a legitamate question with a legitamate answer?
I guess its kind of hard when you don't really understand the situation outside the crazy box he lives in.
And this guys goes o nstage with PJ and Ed probably loves him.........rediculous. At least Ed and the guys stay away from crap like this. I mean, I know Eddie is every bit as politically retarded as Tim Robbins and Sean Penn...........but at least he isn't out wagging his ass in front of the camera like he's someone special.
I love your vibe. It was great to see people taking time out of their day to stand up for what they believe in. The number of people expressing disgust with this war is growing bigger and bigger and that's something to definitely celebrate.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But according to Last Exodus, it's a waste of time.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
To include the ones harrassing soldiers?
Anyone giving shit to a soldier is an asshole. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that, no?