Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jeebus

Anti-War Celebrities We Fear May Have Been Kidnapped

41 posts in this topic

Let's see, what's different about the White House since 2008? Hmm......

 

Our government is yet again marching us towards a war of choice in the Middle East and our non-partisan, peace-loving celebrities have gone missing since late 2008. We fear the worst

 

5. “I think we’re past that point in human evolution where there’s such a thing as winning wars.”

— Sean Penn

 

7. “You can’t beat your enemy anymore through wars; instead you create an entire generation of people revenge-seeking.”

— George Clooney

 

12. “You know, really good artists have a way of being relevant in their time — but great artists are relevant at any time. So, in the words of William Shakespeare, ‘Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor.”

— Barbra Streisand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These members of the Film Actors Guild may all be hiding in a closet somewhere just waiting to come out when it's safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let's see, what's different about the White House since 2008? Hmm......"

 

He's black and he's gay and he hates America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Asner, who probably knows a bit about the anti-war Hollywood crowd in question, thinks "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,".

 

For such a passionate bunch, that's a pretty thin rational, and it reveals how deep their commitment beyond lip service really goes.

 

 

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Let's see, what's different about the White House since 2008? Hmm......"

 

He's black and he's gay and he hates America.

 

Two of those three describe you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Assad has one of the world's largest chemical weapons arsenals and just launched a chemical weapons attack whereas Iraq didn't have any WMD and wasn't actively attacking anyone. Or, there's the notion that Bush actually wanted to send a hundred thousand or so troops into the country for what everyone except **** "Cakewalk" Cheny knew would be a prolonged, messy, and costly occupation. But hey, why point out relevant details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Assad has one of the world's largest chemical weapons arsenals and just launched a chemical weapons attack whereas Iraq didn't have any WMD and wasn't actively attacking anyone. Or, there's the notion that Bush actually wanted to send a hundred thousand or so troops into the country for what everyone except **** "Cakewalk" Cheny knew would be a prolonged, messy, and costly occupation. But hey, why point out relevant details.

 

We don't need another war right now. I'm sick and damn tired of the U.S. thinking that they have to butt into every world affair they disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't need another war right now. I'm sick and damn tired of the U.S. thinking that they have to butt into every world affair they disagree with.

 

Just a minor ill of having a centrally planned government making sure everyone gets their fair share in every aspect of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed Asner, who probably knows a bit about the anti-war Hollywood crowd in question, thinks "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,".

 

For such a passionate bunch, that's a pretty thin rational, and it reveals how deep their commitment beyond lip service really goes.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326

 

he's a hard core lefty but I respect him because he has come on O'Reilly and had reasonable discussions about the issues ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't need another war right now. I'm sick and damn tired of the U.S. thinking that they have to butt into every world affair they disagree with.

 

We set the mideast on fire.

 

"Iraqi democracy will succeed. And that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran, that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

 

Is it moral or ethical to abandon them to weapons of mass destruction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We set the mideast on fire.

 

"Iraqi democracy will succeed. And that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran, that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

 

Is it moral or ethical to abandon them to weapons of mass destruction?

We wouldn't be abandoning them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Assad has one of the world's largest chemical weapons arsenals and just launched a chemical weapons attack whereas Iraq didn't have any WMD and wasn't actively attacking anyone. Or, there's the notion that Bush actually wanted to send a hundred thousand or so troops into the country for what everyone except **** "Cakewalk" Cheny knew would be a prolonged, messy, and costly occupation. But hey, why point out relevant details.

 

During the late 80's, Iraq was accused of some serious attrocities against its own people. (No, I don't have a link).

 

Most people agreed that Iraq had a good amount of WMD before the invasion. Taking the time to ensure we had a coaltion of forces may have given them the time they needed to get rid of them (to Syria perhaps)?

 

What I think is most relevant here is that Hollywood liberals who were quick to blast the President in the last invasion are quick to SHUT UP for this President. (You are either for or against war, you can not pick and choose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh by the way... (and I mean this in all honesty)*

 

Who the heck made Sean Penn an expert in anything? Last I remember, his 15 minutes of fame was playing a burn out in a mid-80's movie. For that matter, who made any of these people experts in anything?

 

*I really would like an honest discussion on this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During the late 80's, Iraq was accused of some serious attrocities against its own people. (No, I don't have a link).

 

Most people agreed that Iraq had a good amount of WMD before the invasion. Taking the time to ensure we had a coaltion of forces may have given them the time they needed to get rid of them (to Syria perhaps)?

 

What I think is most relevant here is that Hollywood liberals who were quick to blast the President in the last invasion are quick to SHUT UP for this President. (You are either for or against war, you can not pick and choose).

That is absolutely not true. There are necessary wars and there are stupid, useless wars. Not all wars are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/09/the-eternal-hypocrisy-of-the-leftist-mind.php

 

"See, as the story goes, a long, long, long time ago — way back in 2003 — there were these people called “Anti-War Liberals.” They were called “anti-war” because they were really, really, super-duper opposed to war. They believed in peace, you see? They didn’t think any country should be runnin’ around shootin’ and killin’ all willy nilly-like. These Anti-War Liberal folks knew that we had no right to be invadin’ another nation just to take its resources, or put a military base on its soil. They said we should mind our own got-danged business and stop interferin’ in them international type affairs. . .

 

But the Anti-War Liberals ain’t around. Perhaps they were all kidnapped by pirates or abducted by aliens. Or, another theory is that they’re just a bunch of cowardly fraudulent posers who never gave a crap about war in the first place."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't figure why some people find it so difficult to understand the significance of Assad's use of chemical weapons -- that makes this a brand new ballgame. It's not Iraq; it's not Afghanistan; it's not Libya -- it's not even Bosnia. We are the nation most able to ensure that Assad and others like him understand that there are things that cannot be done with impunity. The British can afford to play politics and cater to a constituency still reacting to being lied to by Tony Blair -- we should not. We were wrong to allow Hussein to use chemical weapons in the 80s; that does not mean we must be wrong again today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't figure why some people find it so difficult to understand the significance of Assad's use of chemical weapons -- that makes this a brand new ballgame. It's not Iraq; it's not Afghanistan; it's not Libya -- it's not even Bosnia. We are the nation most able to ensure that Assad and others like him understand that there are things that cannot be done with impunity. The British can afford to play politics and cater to a constituency still reacting to being lied to by Tony Blair -- we should not. We were wrong to allow Hussein to use chemical weapons in the 80s; that does not mean we must be wrong again today.

 

valid points but what is the goal here? ........

 

a couple cruise missiles across the bow does nothing, how do you punish asssad? ......

 

is regime change the endgame? with the rebels, is the cure worse than the poison?

 

is this a humanitarian action or are there US interest here? if there are US interest, how does a limited action help?......

 

what about Iran? where does this go from here? ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't figure why some people find it so difficult to understand the significance of Assad's use of chemical weapons -- that makes this a brand new ballgame. It's not Iraq; it's not Afghanistan; it's not Libya -- it's not even Bosnia. We are the nation most able to ensure that Assad and others like him understand that there are things that cannot be done with impunity. The British can afford to play politics and cater to a constituency still reacting to being lied to by Tony Blair -- we should not. We were wrong to allow Hussein to use chemical weapons in the 80s; that does not mean we must be wrong again today.

 

Maybe, but thats not the point of the topic, which is the silence from the Hollywood libs. It's not as if they are in agreement with the President, because they aren't. They, like Asner are strongly opposed to an attack on Syria. The problem is that using their aged and increasingly irrelevant soapbox to rail against it means ripping Obama. I don't think it's so much a concern about seeming anti-black, but more of "I was an idiot because I supported Obama, and bashed Bush, and now it looks as if I was fooled by another politician."

 

Check out Asner, who implies his "wisdom", but here's a guy, who actually bought into the "hope and change" bit, as if he were some teen or 20 something that wouldn't know better..with respect, because he's vocal in his disappointment (no one is really listening) but I think many Obama supporters are embarrassed.

 

On your specific point, consider, we will more than likely kill at least 1400 innocent men, women and children if we start firing missiles and dropping bombs. And really, if you die from a nerve agent or from having your body ripped apart by conventional weapons, does it really make much of a difference? Your argument seems to say that had Assad killed 1400 innocents with explosives, we wouldn't care. And we wouldn't. If not for the chemical weapon use, he could go on doing his thing with no interference from Obama.

 

Theres no way we simply fire a few missiles and walk away. We can't even strike the chemical weapons themselves...if we do this, it will play out like our other engagements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And really, if you die from a nerve agent or from having your body ripped apart by conventional weapons, does it really make much of a difference? Your argument seems to say that had Assad killed 1400 innocents with explosives, we wouldn't care. And we wouldn't. If not for the chemical weapon use, he could go on doing his thing with no interference from Obama.

 

Over 100,000 have died in Syria since Obama's former SoS Hillary Clinton called Assad "a reformer."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over 100,000 have died in Syria since Obama's former SoS Hillary Clinton called Assad "a reformer."

Syrians lived under a state of emergency, with their Constitution suspended, from 1963 until 2011.

 

Happy to help out again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Syrians lived under a state of emergency, with their Constitution suspended, from 1963 until 2011.

 

Happy to help out again.

 

And the 100,000 dead from the current civil war feel better about that because.......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe, but thats not the point of the topic, which is the silence from the Hollywood libs. It's not as if they are in agreement with the President, because they aren't. They, like Asner are strongly opposed to an attack on Syria. The problem is that using their aged and increasingly irrelevant soapbox to rail against it means ripping Obama. I don't think it's so much a concern about seeming anti-black, but more of "I was an idiot because I supported Obama, and bashed Bush, and now it looks as if I was fooled by another politician."

 

Check out Asner, who implies his "wisdom", but here's a guy, who actually bought into the "hope and change" bit, as if he were some teen or 20 something that wouldn't know better..with respect, because he's vocal in his disappointment (no one is really listening) but I think many Obama supporters are embarrassed.

 

On your specific point, consider, we will more than likely kill at least 1400 innocent men, women and children if we start firing missiles and dropping bombs. And really, if you die from a nerve agent or from having your body ripped apart by conventional weapons, does it really make much of a difference? Your argument seems to say that had Assad killed 1400 innocents with explosives, we wouldn't care. And we wouldn't. If not for the chemical weapon use, he could go on doing his thing with no interference from Obama.

 

Theres no way we simply fire a few missiles and walk away. We can't even strike the chemical weapons themselves...if we do this, it will play out like our other engagements.

Your partisan willingness to use the phrase "the `hope and change' bit" makes any reasonable discussion with you on this issue absolutely impossible.

 

If you can't understand the importance of a world-wide ban on the use of chemical weapons, there's little hope for your ability to follow international events.

 

Missiles and bombs do kill innocents -- chemical weapons kill everyone -- do the math.

 

Google Gen. Dempsey's assessment of the planned attack -- he's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He doesn't make policy; he carries it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over 100,000 have died in Syria since Obama's former SoS Hillary Clinton called Assad "a reformer."

You are a liar: The Clinton clip is two years old (March of 2011), protests in Syria were just beginning, she was asked if we would treat Syria the way we had treated Libya. She said that members of Congress of both parties considered the "new" Assad a reformer, and she went on to say that there was a difference between using more force that she thought necessary against protesters and having your airforce strafe villages.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/clinton-no-longer-a-believer-that-assad-is-a-reformer-says-he-cant-sustain-the-armed-opposition-in-syria/

 

You and the rest of the Anti-Clinton brigade have used edited clips of the Sunday shows where she made the comments, and they have ignored comments from November of 2011 when she showed that she had given up hoping that the younger Assad would be different than his father.

 

You have absolutely no place on any talk forum -- you lie too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this even a topic for discussion?

 

Who cares what an actor, singer, writer has to say?

 

Its all opinion and everyone has one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites