And this forum WILL be going away to make room for a MUSIC related forum for our new show. Since Matt is so hip to mix progressive rock and politics on the air, he can create a forum on his own website for that purpose.

Avian

"Truth is subjective, so everyone's right and wrong at the same time. Don't presume you have the answers just because you've convinced yourself."

Now we just need a thread on religion and we will have completely broken the first rule of polite conversation. Polite, hahahaha.

Tommy

ROFL, Tom! That, and abortion!

Avian

Boy oh boy! You're just hurting for a bad thread. Kill this baby before it gets out of control. The last thing we need is ANOTHER Roger Waters.

Tommy

<<Could he have been disarmed peacefully? Of course>>

Hey Avian-

"It's NOT refreshing to see such a naive opinion about world politics expressed,
so stop confusing YOUR opinion with a well-reasoned one."

Perhaps you would rather see Kurds and opposers continue to be tortured by acid bath, plastic shredder, and other creative forms of extreme torture. Why don't you just say it- you hate this war because it makes President Bush look like the true leader he is, and makes the previous administration (and their entire party) look like the weenies they truly are.

For F***S sake.
 

Right or wrong we're there!

I watched 'Live' as THAT Statue came down and the joy that came over the air was phenomenal. The locals were SO grateful for the help they've got from the US troops the sight of it made me weep.

Yesterday they wouldn't even have dared to THINK about what they were doing for fear of reprisals. Today with the US' and Britain's 'assistance' they're free.

As I've said before in this Forum, I hate EVEN THE IDEA of violence but sometimes, when you're up against a brick wall, it's the only way out. The news tonight made me realise that we probably did the right thing by going in.

It ain't over yet...............in fact the most important thing is yet to come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Music please?????

Long live free speech, but keep it out of the programming.
 

I've followed this thread with increasing dismay.
We are all prog heads and take some pride in having that certain more discerning taste, compared to most music fans. Some would say this comes from a more intelligent viewpoint, and an acceptance of things new and different.
Unfortunately, that open viewpoint appears to be lacking in much of the above political discussion.
"I am right and you are wrong, futhermore, you're a weenie."
Can it be possible that we have learned nothing from the VietNam war?
Then, those with an anti-war philosophy (including many of our music legends) were also branded 'anti-patriotic', whatever that is.
I believe Saddam must be removed from power. I also believe that since the USA could not convince the UN to take action, then more evidence needed to be gathered, and presented in public.
It is extremely difficult to argue that a country should be converted to democracy while at the same time acting unilaterally.
Instead, the USA, along with the UN, should have found a way to remove Saddam without the use of bombs. A true embargo beginning ten years ago would have worked, but we allowed people to buy oil from Iraq, resulting in a pile of money for Saddam, who used it to build palaces with nasty weapons hidden inside.
Worse, once the world finds out that we've already begun to split up future profits from Iraqi oil, our problems will have just begun. Doesn't anyone else notice the rotten smell cause by the fact the Dick Cheney's Halliburton has already won a contract related to rebuilding Iraqi oil production? (Note: if the last election had gone differently, it very likely would have been Gore, and his own oil companies, instead of Cheney.)
It is not necessary that people must fall into one camp or the other. One can be firmly in favor of removing Saddam (for the sake of Iraqis) without resorting to violence.
Now that I've added my two political cents (in this forum, which not a program!), I'd like to add my support for Avian's decision to keep political rhetoric (whatever flavor it might take) out of the programming itself.

Again, I respect everyone's opinion, and love all you guys. But when challenged, I'll defend my viewpoint on this subject vigorousley. Debate team all over again, eh? So...

Are we talking about the same leader who goes to bed at 10 every night?

According to Bush, we didn't go in there to save Iraqis. We went in there because there were supossed weapons of mass destruction in there - because Saddam was not disarming. And that he was "threatening" to use those supposed weapons on us. So NOW the reason was to wrestle down a brutal dictatorship? Which was it? Both? The reasons to invade Iraq change so constantly, that it has baffled the entire international community, including America itself.

Because if we're in the business of wrestling down corrupt, inhumane regimes like Saddam's, then you should prepare to invade Iran, Syria, Libya, China (talk about human rights violations!), North Korea, and a few others. And that's World War III, folks. Really. And WE would be the agressors. And if we went in to destroy this regime in teh anme of saving those poor Iraqis, what does this say about the Reagan and Bush administration, who let him get away with gassing his own people, and commiting these atrocities for decades? Why are there pictures of Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush shaking hands with Saddam during this period? So maybe you can answer again - why are we there when the huge majority of Iraq, and the rest of the region and the planet DO NOT WANT US THERE? There may have been about a thousand people and LOOTERS in the streets today. But where were the other 5 million residents of Baghdad?

Okay - maybe the reason WAS weapons of mass destruction after all. We're still waiting to see these weapons of mass destruction, BTW. The so-called evidence has been hyped, manipulated, misrepresented in a snowjob of epic international proportions. Any link to Al Qaeda is essentialy non existent - even the white house essentially admits to that (but it didn't stop them from using it as a scare tactic). Still waiting after all this time to see these weapons (or any SCUD missiles for that matter).

All of this could've been done peacefully, and we could've saved a lot of innocent and brave lives that way, wile saving our resources and world reputation for real defense. The rest of the world can see it. I'm sure you'd feel differently if it was your 5 year old lying dead with a piece of a coalition bomb stuck in her skull.

It didn't have to be this way. We were wrong.

Avian

Sheesh!
 

If it pleases everyone, continue the thread - just stop saying "I don't want to talk about this anymore" and then write really long diatribes about it! Do a thread about it for crying out loud! I won't be offended! Just stop justifying your decision about the Canvas thing - it's done, move on. Do a political thread if you want. As long as you continue to play music, fine. The people who want to discuss this can do it here.

There was a little known portion of the Declaration of Independence that dealt with the separation of politics and prog.

And to the Delicious Agony DJ, I know you're still listening!

I agree with RnR; there's no reason to restrict the board to prog. People argue about the war in every other public place, why not here, too? Public debate, no matter how maligned lately, is about as "American" as it gets.

And besides, the music we're here for, while it is generally post-Vietnam, certainly grew out of Vietnam-era protest music. Music is not some delicate, pristine thing that must be protected from the harsh realities of the real world. Current events is part of what makes music what it is. In fact, if this war dragged on for years, I suspect we'd see protest rock return, along with a lot more protest in general. And we may yet, as the regime change & rebuilding phase is certainly not going to be accomplished without more bloodshed, and in my opinion, will run much longer than the 6 months the Bush administration says it will.

The hand-wringing posts insisting that we stop discussing this or somehow risk "damaging" AM seem really odd. By this time, everyone knows what they're going to see when they view this section. If they don't want to see it, they don't need to click on it.

Give it a new section with a representative title, perhaps. Many other boards have a "miscellaneous" section. But there's really no reason to stop, and these issues need to be aired.

This is by far the most interesting discussion I've seen on this board in my few months of visiting it. Music is about emotion and emotions run high on this issue.

A Wise, Wise Woman
 

My late great-grandmother had a saying:

"If you stir the pot, the s***'s gonna stink."

Drop this forum like a MOAB. I can watch CNN and Fox if I want different opinions. I've got mine, you've got your's. Prog rules. I'm requesting some Godspeed You Black Emperor! right now.

Yesspaz out.

Avian-

We already have found a number of missles- what more proof do you want?
Do you really think Saddam Hussein wanted to be good? Do you really think we can just act like Ghandi and sit down and sing "Kum Ba Ya" and the world will be a better place?

There is a lot of intelligence information that has yet to be released until our agents are out of harm's way. If you are intellectually honest, you will say "I was wrong" when the chemical weapons and nukes are uncovered. Based on your comments, though, I don't think you WANT to be honest.

Perhaps you would've preferred Saddam be left in power so the FRENCH could sell him more military equipment, especially equipment for manufacturing nukes? We have that information.

The suffering of Iraqi citizens at the hands of coalition forces is sad. The freedom and stability that will result from our actions is a cause for rejoicing and celebration. Saddam killed many more innocent people than we have come close to hurting. Saddam also killed Christians simply because they were Christians. I somehow get the feeling that doesn't bother you either.

The United States was founded with the Declaration of INdepence, not the U.N. Declaration. We have a right to act in our own best interests. I believe we have, and I believe this will cause other nations to respect us. We should never have to stoop to bribing other nations to do what is right. If that is what they require, then they are NOT allies.

Call yourself a patriot if you want. The fact of the matter is that Patriots back the plan of their Commander-in-Chief.

Excuse me if I question America's motives when it comes to invading countries to "liberate" them from oppressive regimes. You see, we seem to make a lot of exceptions - like the one 90 MILES OFF OF OUR COAST that has gone on for 50 YEARS. Plus, we didn't lift a finger to stop the huge massacre in the Balkans, and never even considered sending in the troops to help prevent the genocidal slaughter of two million Africans just a few years ago. And two years ago (if that), you, and everyone who is "crying havoc" to loose the dogs of war didn't care two pieces of crap about the poor Iraqis.

So when GW, who dodged the draft with the other rich kids, but then blew off even the meager national guard service he had while coked up, says we're going in to free these poor people, throw in the huge oil connection between GW and the world's second largest oil reserves, and you have to start thinking for yourself - it all stinks to high hell.

We aren't even one bit closer to finding Osama Bin Laden, the newly-reformed Al Qaeda network, and other terrorists with plots against the U.S.



We want proof of ILLEGAL missles! All of the missles fired at us and found so far are UN-legal, to my knowledge. We're looking for SCUDS and other long-range missles, which are missing along with any trace of weapons of mass destruction.

But even if we DO find something - that just bolsters the anti-war argument. By going to war, we've now risked out troops, Israel (who are still on chemical weapons alert), and others to attack from these weapons. In peacetime, by letting the inspectors do their work, Saddam would've been disarmed, thousands of Iraqis would still be alive to go back to thier families, and you wouldn't see grieving parents of young lives barely begun here in America.

I haven't seen one post here dealing with the facts and arguments laid forth here. All I see posted here use words like "weenies" and "Kum Ba Ya". Again, if there ARE WMD, you've PROVEN the anti-war argument - it all could've been done peacefully, and without killing thousands.

I don't think you want to get into a discussion about financially and militarily helping what evolved into evil, corrupt regimes. No one has done more of that than the U.S.A. Afghanastan? Iraq in the 80s? Panama? Come ON! And what information are you referringto EXACTLY when it comes to French equipment to build nukes??

Freedom and stability? From the occupation by the UNITED STATES in the MIDDLE EAST? I think anyone who knows anything about that region would laugh at that statement. No one is hated more in the middle east than the United States and Israel. To suggest that our military presence and occupation is going to calm things down is ludicrous. Osama bin Laden started his crusade against us because we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to fight Iraq the first time! Stability? Freedom? I couldn't think of a better way to start World War III!

Almost all of our allies from the last Gulf War told us that this was wrong. So did the rest of the free world. We're the odd one out, here. We're the "rogue nation." And we're wrong.

That's the silliest statement I may have ever read. Republicans were talking about impeaching Clinton over the bombing in Kosovo! Protesting the vietnam war was the most American thing you could do in the 60s and 70s (and popular culture has glorified that protest as right and just). I'm all red, white and blue, baby, and it is my DUTY as an American to raise my voice in protest for this war, or any other stupid and dangerous course of action this country takes. And there are millions and millions of us.

Avian

Spoken like a true Republican Guardsman.

War: Offseason football?
 

o yeah

So far the conservatives in this forum are following the game plan step by step:
-- impugn the patriotism of their opponents and accuse them of "not supporting the troops," being "Saddam-lovers," and the like
-- personally insult them, particularly their sexual preferences -- "we know you just want to s#ck Saddam's c#ck" and the like
-- take what is provided to them by the US gov't as absolute fact and ignore everything else from any other sources
-- ignore 50 years' worth of historical fact when these facts cast doubt upon the motives of anyone in the Bush administration
-- ignore anything the opponents say, i.e. "Hell, yes, I support our troops!" and continue attacking as above

They can do very well in a grade-school level mudslinging contest, but they tend to lose badly in rational debates. Hence the mud flying from right to left.

Since I haven't said much about the war...
 

I found a great post on another site that summed up my feelings about the war better then I could have myself. You can find it (and other stuff) here: http://blog.kynn.com/shock/

The writing below is taken from that site:



Imagine that there's a very bad man in your town -- say, a drug dealer who is preying on kids. He was caught, he's out on probation. Everyone thinks he's still dealing, but so far there's no evidence that can be used to convict him.

One cop steps forward and says, "I know he's bad, and I'm going to execute him." The rest of the town, fearful of this policeman-turned-executioner, says, "Wait, hold on, we have laws for a reason. You can't just kill him because he's bad. We have to catch him doing something wrong."

The cop keeps trying to get the goods on the guy, and keeps failing. He gets search warrants, and can't find anything. He tries to get people to give evidence, but nobody is willing to step forward and testify. The cop even gets some proof which looks like evidence, but it turns out that it certainly won't stand up in a court of law.

"Okay," says the policeman. "I'm just going to go in and blow him away."

"No, no," says the town. "We don't do that."

"Well, if you don't agree with me shooting this guy in the head, I guess you're in league with him. Screw it, I'm not listening to you."

So the cop picks up his gun, and goes down to where this bad guy lives, and opens fire. A few other people get caught in the crossfire, but the bad guy is dead.

Do you cheer?

From one point of view, hell yeah, the bad guy is dead. He won't inflict his harm on anyone else.

But from the other point of view, what sort of town do you now live in where the cop decides who lives and dies? When the rule of law is ignored and the rule of might reigns? Where he who fires first is right?

Were this to happen in a town, the cop would undoubtedly be fired from the force and tried for murder -- even if the dead guy were a bad guy. Even if the people on the scene cheered the bad guy's death. Even if they found drugs on the villain's corpse -- the smoking gun proving that he was, indeed, a bad person.

The rule of law had been shattered, not by the villain but by the cop entrusted with the responsibility to uphold it. Could you again trust that police officer, now wielding the power of judge, jury, and executioner? Could you live in a such town where his right to take out anyone was unchallenged and unchallengeable?

I could not. That is why I oppose the war even while I agree that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq.

When one takes an indefensible position, mudslinging is about all one can do to support one's stand.

Unfortunately, the liberals are also following the game plan.

We are reactive instead of proactive. We fail to elect liberal politicians because the last Democratic (though more centralist than liberal) president slept around and questioned the meaning of "is". We don't speak out soon enough or loud enough.

It surprised me to see that there are 3 pro-war posters here, 7 anti-war, and 2 trying very hard not to express an opinion. I don't know about you, but my perception before actually counting (Counting? Geez, I gotta get a life!) was that it was the reverse. Likewise, war-related posts (I wish people would stop posting about music!:)) run 9 pro- to 15 anti-. I guess mudslinging works.

Many are bullied into not speaking out at all by the aforementionned mudslinging. I've personally been guilty of that. I wanted to post that Goering quote from the start, but didn't want to get in the middle of it. But our politicians have also been bullied into silence: The Democratic party has moved to the center where it's safe.

It's generally accepted that conservatives are more likely to vote than liberals. With the last election having been nearly 50/50 (at least in the electoral college) and with neither party having had an advantage of more than a small percentage in Congress, it's clear that if liberals were as good as conservatives at getting out the vote, the outcome would have been quite different.

Again, in this thread it's 3 to 7. 70%. A landslide. Sample size is infinitesimal, AM listener demographics are likely left-of-center, my interpretation and count of posts might be wrong, and pro- vs. anti-war is an imperfect predictor of political preference. But if it's anywhere near representative of the country, our elections should not be as close as they are.

There was a time when it wasn't like this, but these things run in waves. A silver lining of this war would be if it galvanized liberals into proactivity for the next few decades. Including me. Maybe a 3rd party if that can ever really happen again. Here's hoping.

Brilliant analogy! Can any of the pro-war folks find a flaw in it?

Yes, unfortunately I think we just have to attribute that to being human. Most people have a hard time seperating their ideaology from who they are. So, any attack on their beliefs is a personal attack.

Hell, I feel the same way when someone bad-bouths Zappa or Crimson . . .

Personally, I'm somewhere right of the middle (politically).

The war itself is necessary. It was probably rushed but still justified. A conflict in the middle east was unavoidable (regardless of who's involved). There's been too much ethnic in-fighting and global terrorism for this to ever be resolved by anything other than a direct conflict. Unfortunately, the UN is too slow to directly solve this and too indirect to ever fully decide on an adequate solution. The UN's version of anything other than humanitarian aid is just insulting, full of meaningless threats that dictators can just laugh at.

It seems surprising that more humanitarian groups haven't spoken out about the insanity that has gone on in Iraq and their neighbors. Maybe it's just assumed that everyone knows of the problems in the Middle East.

The above cop vs. bully analogy is pretty pretty close but leaves out the inner conflict of the "bully". It would be much closer if maybe it was on a corporate level, instead of just individuals (i.e. auditors vs. enron). There's more to this than just us vs. them. There's also the internal situation to consider.

If you're able to look at both sides of the argument here, I don't think either one has managed to be fully objective. Of course, there's no argument if everyone can see both sides.

Tommy