Patterico's Pontifications

7/31/2006

Liveblogging the CSNY Concert During a Lame New Song

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:18 pm

I think they’re against war, or something.

UPDATE: Yup. Four lame new songs later, still definitely against the war.

UPDATE x2: Intermission.

If I had to pick one word to describe these guys, it would be: “jowly.”

Sorry, Graham. I don’t mean you.

75 Responses to “Liveblogging the CSNY Concert During a Lame New Song”

  1. Well, you kinda asked for it, didn’t you?

    Anwyn (8f969d)

  2. Dust in the Wind, dude, Dust in the Wind. Holds lighter up bravely against the gathering darkness.

    Pat Patterson (5b3946)

  3. “Dust in the Wind” was Kansas. FWIW.

    Anwyn (8f969d)

  4. Better to burn out/
    Then to fade away….

    Seriously, would someone explain why Melissa Etheridge wanted David Crosby’s children by proxy? Maybe I don’t dig his music the way she does, or maybe I am too concerned with the whole liver situation.

    I don’t mean any musician ill. But it does bug me that so many folks in the public pay such close attention to what a bunch of parakeets say…when I doubt that said parakeets could name all three branches of government, let along their Senators and congresscritter!

    I’ll just put on “Deja Vu” and try not to be grumpy.

    Mark (57b266)

  5. I was at CSNY in Seattle last Thursday. Same deal. About 70% of the crowd stood & sung along to “Impeach Bush.” But, they did NOT sing “Suite: Judy Blue Eyes,” which is why we went.

    Steven Stills has lost the high registers & the lower notes are not good, either. Sad.

    John Schedler (1d2f46)

  6. We saw Neil Young with Crazy Horse about 2 years ago at Irvine. He looks like the missing link and I can’t stand his politics, but he did put on a great show. The new stuff at the time (Greendale) was decent with lots of old stuff from the Crazy Horse days back in the 70s.

    Amazing how many bald, fat 40-50 year olds smoking dope and shouting “rock and roll!” can afford $100 a seat concert tickets.

    Jeff C. (428193)

  7. I gave up on 60s burn-out acts about a decade ago, especially those with folk-rock leanings. It reminds me too much of watching Chief Wahoo McDaniel wrestle when he was in his 40s — you figure it was once probably pretty darn good, but now it is just a nostalgia act.

    Any of you read that book about the Laurel Canyon music scene? It got a really good review from a newspaper to which I used to subscribe.

    JVW (d667c9)

  8. Styx and the Doobies came to Boise.
    Both great shows with no politics.

    Retired Geezer (2fefeb)

  9. Of course CSNY are against the war. What real choice does any aging 60’s leftist have if he wants to make a buck in today’s market? If Iran can be another Vietnam, these guys are back in the saddle again. That’s heady stuff to a bunch of old fat guys. Heck, the hot chicks might even start in again.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  10. David Crosby was ‘jowly’ looking when he was in The Byrds !

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  11. “If Iran can be another Vietnam, these guys are back in the saddle again.” – Black Jack

    We invaded Iran?

    Neil Cavuto needs you in make-up.

    steve (48abdb)

  12. The Dust in the Wind is a reference to Henry Rollins of Black Flag. Satire by his fans.

    Pat Patterson (5b3946)

  13. 4 and twenty years ago, they were awesome. Hmm, make that 6 and thirty, and even then only Stephen Stills.

    Kevin (51c906)

  14. pshawwwwww….it’s all about money.

    Val (27ad01)

  15. Against the war, eh? Whoda thunk it?

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  16. It is ironic how truth can be found in unintended places. What was meant by, “Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground. Mother earth will swallow you, lay your body down”? Were they referring to the Kent state protestors, or something else? It is true in a sense I’m sure they did not intend, being anti-war and all, for as long as tyrants exist, that will be the cost of freedom. (And no, President Bush is not the Tyrant).

    [I think the all time classic of this phenomenon is found in the New Testament where the High Priest says (rough quote) “It is necessary for one man to die for the sake of the nation”. His meaning was that Jesus needed to die before an uprising was started and the Romans would ruthlessly squelch it. For those who are Christian, we believe the High Priest’s words were correct, but from a totally different perspective.]

    Did anyone else catch the PBS special on music/culture of the 60’s? It was surreal to look at all of these “middle-age suburban looking folk” singing “Born to be Wild” along with Steppenwolf. The band looked like time had treated them fairly well and they were having a great time.
    Same with Clapton, watching him sit and play classic blues songs on acoustic, with two “young pups” playing along on either side who couldn’t stop smiling at each other listening to him rip up that fingerboard.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  17. Hey MD One of the best quotes from Jesus is “How is it you see the speck in your brothers eye but not the stone in your own?” That is a good quote for all the so called Christians who support Bush and his campaign of lies and killing. IMO opinion people have a choice. Either follow Jesus or George. Cant have it both ways as the two are incompatable.
    And Black Jack nice slur. Too bad you cant deal with the facts..

    charlie (e583c4)

  18. That is a good quote for all the so called Christians who support Bush and his campaign of lies and killing.

    What lies and killing who, charlie? Those facts you can’t deal with? We’re soaking in them.

    Pablo (efa871)

  19. Black Jack to elaborate on my previous remarks.. its plain to me that if someone wants to make money and has no conscience the best thing to do is become a right wing talker or writer. Its a great job! Facts dont get in the way and the more viscioius and hateful you are the better the fascists like it. Who would ever have thought that attacks on wounded veterans by draft dodgers, at least one of which is a drug abuser, would reap millions as they preached their morality to the rest of us mere mortals? Who would ever thought that a woman could lie about a man who lost both legs and one arm and make millions doing it and then call for the killing of a war hero and smear the widows of 9/11 whose only crime was demanding answers about 9/11?

    No Black Jack if you want to make millions far better to join the right wing Bush chorus or have the far right Republikan congress give you a subsidy or tax break in exchange for your campaign contribution. Or better yet become a contractor in Iraq and steal millions from the taxpayers!

    charlie (e583c4)

  20. An aside to all: After trying to reason with Charlie long ago, someone encouraged me to use my time more constructively elsewhere, and I have.

    I am sure Jesus is sad about innocent lives lost in the midst of trying to defend people. I am also sure He is mad when innocent lives are being lost and everyone stands around and does nothing.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  21. Pablo To answer your question… Bush lies and the killing of thousands in Iraq both Iraqis and Americans because of Bush’s war..
    The facts are there Pablo it just requires you to be willing to see.

    charlie (e583c4)

  22. Oh there you go MD taking the words of Jesus to justify a war that has no justification. Jesus was and is a Man of Peace.. You surely cant say that about George. Throughout history so-called Christians have twisted the words of Jesus to justify crimes and once again that is happening. Inquisition. Justified. Catholic vs Protestant warfare. Justified. Attacks on Jews. Justified. And now another war in violation of the words of Christ. Justified. Abu Greb. Jusfified. Guantanamo. Justified. Torture Justified. The list goes on and on. Oh Praise Jesus!!
    MD ever read the part where they come to arrest Jesus and someone pulls a sword and cuts off the ear of a Roman? Jesus then heals the man with his touch but they still arrest him!! Ever wonder how they could be so blind? But of course that lesson has nothing to do with good holy folks like us today..as we drop more bombs and do more killing for ever changing justifications..
    And please MD dont give me that malarky about helping people. If the US really wanted to help people they could have given them the money they spend on the war and they would have been far better off.. they would not have had an embargo on them for all those years..they would not continue to support regimes in Equpt and Saudi Arabia. You may kid yourself but the world knows the idea of helping the Iraqi people is a one that ocurred only after Bush could not find the WMDs he insisted were there.
    But you just refuse to see that stone, dont you? Rest well, MD, knowing that you reside in Eternal Love doing the Lords work helping people through war..

    charlie (e583c4)

  23. But Cherlie, we’re not killing thousands of Iraqis. Jihadis are killing thousands of Iraqis. What lies are you talking about?

    Pablo (efa871)

  24. Charlie makes me laugh. Too bad he’s serious.

    sharon (03e82c)

  25. And the funny part is that Charlie is shouting about his point of view in a place where he KNOWS his opinion is not shared. So what is his goal?

    Just trolling.

    Mark (c8876d)

  26. @pablo:
    we are, in fact, killing thousands of iraqis. most are collateral damage, a few are murder victims, as in the recent rape-murder where some of our troops at a checkpoint saw a nice piece of teenage desert tail and set up their move for a week before raping her, killing her, setting her corpse on fire, and oh yes, killing her parents and younger sister too. “oh beautiful, for spacious skies…”
    don’t lie to us, pablo.

    assistant devil's advocate (ba72d6)

  27. we are, in fact, killing thousands of iraqis.

    Thousands, ada? Who? Where? Where are you getting your information?

    Pablo (efa871)

  28. Sigh.

    I suppose this thread is case-in-point in how politics has corrupted music. Especially classic folk-rock acts from yesteryear.

    Can we get back to talking about music? Or is the music not worth talking about?

    Darkmage (4de99c)

  29. yes, thousands!
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount/index.html
    this report counts 24,865 iraqi civilians killed between 3/20/03 – 3/19/05 (there’s been a lot more since).
    37% of the civilian deaths attributed to coalition forces, 9% attributed to anti-occupation forces, 36% attributed to “criminals”.

    assistant devil's advocate (ba72d6)

  30. So, that count ends a year and a half ago, and includes the war between us and Saddam’s military. You statement speaks of the present.

    (there’s been a lot more since).

    How many and who killed them? And how many “civilians” were combatants?

    We are NOT “killing thousands of Iraqis.”

    Pablo (efa871)

  31. Darkmage — politics has “corrupted” CSNY? I find that claim to be odd; if you look at their hits from when they were a hip young band, there’s a clear line of liberal antiwar sentiment running through them.

    It’s reasonable to argue that they haven’t grown in their views at all, or adapted their thoughts to changing times, or what have you … but how can they be “corrupted” by something which has always been part of their music?

    aphrael (e7c761)

  32. They came to Orange County and make some “sly” references to conservatives (read insulting) and of course the reviewer loved it.

    Patricia (5b7822)

  33. OK, I know I shouldn’t but…

    “You may kid yourself but the world knows the idea of helping the Iraqi people is a one that ocurred only after Bush could not find the WMDs he insisted were there.”

    “And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.”

    GWB, SOTU 2003.

    nittypig (4c1c43)

  34. Nittypig,

    Wow, talk about rolling around in the slop. We’ve been over the various reasons given for going to war with Iraq. Not the least of those reasons was Saddam Hussein’s repeated violation of various U.N. resolutions, the human rights abuses, the ties to terrorists, etc. WMDs was considered a “slam dunk,” which is why it was mentioned. I am fascinated when people use the fact that large caches of WMDs haven’t been found (there have been some WMDs found) as some sort of argument against taking out such a ruthless dictator.

    sharon (03e82c)

  35. Nittypig:

    (a) “Your enemy is ruling your country”, said to the Iraqi people in January/February of 2003, seems perfectly reasonable. It’s not as though Saddam Hussein had demonstrated himself to *not* be an enemy of the Iraqi people.

    (b) What’s your evidence for the claim that “helping the Iraqi people” was an afterthought? My memory of the debate leading up to the war is that there was a consensus that Hussein was bad for the Iraqis, and that replacing him would be an improvement for them and for the region, and the debate was over whether or not it was an appropriate thing for us to be engaging in.

    I’m really puzzled lately by how difficult it seems to be for opponents of the war to simultaneously say “the war was a bad idea” and “Hussein was an evil dictator”. Why is it necessary to deny the latter in order to maintain the former?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  36. Pablo – assuming the numbers quoted are accurate, “thousands of Iraqis” have been killed. In fact, if those numbers are accurate, “thousands of Iraqis” were killed by US troops.

    I agree that that does not mean that thousands of Iraqis are still being killed; but it seems to me that those who are in favor of the US action in Iraq should engage with the fact that the action did come with a price in blood, and that that price included thousands of human lives ended by US troops.

    There’s certainly a reasonable argument to be made that the price in blood is lower than the price in blood of almost every war in the last two centuries; and there’s an argument to be made that the US is not responsible for deaths caused by different armed factions within Iraq taking out their frustrations on one another. But neither of those arguments are made when you simply dismiss the deaths of Iraqis out of hand.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  37. What’s up with the Whacko Choir and their “George” fixation. I’m sure it’s meant to be a show of lack of respect, but they just come off looking really petty and trite. And dude, never ever should you actively want to emulate Cindy Sheehan.

    Shawn Carter (be2444)

  38. Gads, these threads are starting to need a full-time editor.

    Nittypig’s first quote was from charlie, comment #22. Nittypig’s second quote was refuting the first quote, which was charlie’s. A word of advice to Nittypig: attribute all your quotes. :)

    Anwyn (8f969d)

  39. Re #11, steve, thanks for pointing out my error. I did intend to reference Iraq, not Iran. But my point holds, if Iraq can be defined as Vietnam Revisited, CSNY can recycle some of their old protest music and to some extent, relive those heady good old days of yesteryear. They were popular then, thin, rich, relevant, young, and had lots of hot looking groupies hanging around. That’s now, as it was then, one heck of a great gig.

    But, all that was before drugs, ego, arrogance, and old age came knocking. Time doesn’t play favorites and not even rock stars get a backstage pass to eternal youth. I don’t blame CSNY for trying to grab the brass ring this time around, heck, I could go for a good time along with a nice fat payday and few hot babes myself. “I know what I want, I just don’t know how to go about gettin’ it.”

    BTW, if you remember the 60’s, you weren’t there.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  40. I agree that that does not mean that thousands of Iraqis are still being killed; but it seems to me that those who are in favor of the US action in Iraq should engage with the fact that the action did come with a price in blood, and that that price included thousands of human lives ended by US troops.

    Yes, and thousands of lives ended by Saddam’s troops, and by al-Qaeda, and by the Shia, and by Baathist nationalists. Some of those lives were Americans, just trying to help. Some were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some people like that are still being killed. But we’re not there to do it, and the vast majority of the time, we don’t. The vast majority of the time, we’re protecting the very people that charlie and a.d.a. like to say we’re there killing. While we have troops making the ultimate sacrifice while trying to keep them alive, to protect them. When thousands of people were dying from American fire, there was, as I recall, a hot war going on. It’s been quite some time since that was the case.

    Recognizing what has transpired is one thing, and only a fool would fail to do it. Pretending that wholesale slaughter of a people is ongoing concern in order to feel contrite or shamed about it is another. One of them is a fallacy, and it’s the latter. Is that what you mean by “engaging with the fact”?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  41. Tin soldiers and W coming,
    We’re finally on our own.
    This summer I hear the drumming,
    For the dead wherever they go

    Asinistra (c493b3)

  42. Al Queda in Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas. And Asinistra thinks Bush is the problem.

    But this raises a serious issue – where are the dead going?

    Sweetie (901f54)

  43. Gone to flowers, every one.

    Speaking of which, if the whole Middle East had actually turned into the Rose Parade the neocons predicted, you folks would be burying Bush in tulips and pansies. But it didn’t. It turned into a major shit storm…and the Worst President Ever is in it up to his stupid chicken lips. Live with it, tough guys.

    Asinistra (02bb24)

  44. aprael,
    Certinly a large but indeterminate number of people -both innocent and vile have died in the last 3 years.Your comments are somewhat(well,very)simplistic though.A better summation would consider the number of innocents killed had SH’s regime remained in power compared to the innocents killed by US forces and terrorists together.This is the kind of calculation Fred Hoyle(an astrophysicst at Cambridge) says are beynd human abilities.Even so,it’s a little strange to blame the allies for the terrorist killings,which you seem to do.
    There is a strange underurrent in some of charlie’s comment.Since I’m not a Christian it doesn’t offend,but does bemuse me.The argument that the evil things done by practitioners of a certain faith or point of view invalidate the central thesis of same is something I’d have been embarassed to argue as a college sophomore.Again,if we try to reduce it to a good works vs evil,charlie should have to include Mother Teresa,Albert Scweitzer,multitudes of nuns toiling/teaching over the centuries,Catholic hospitals,Catholic,Lutheran Social services,Loma Linda Hospital etc.charlie,in a PG Wodehouse?Jeeves story “Stiif Upper Lip,Jeeves”,young Stiify Bingham states,Man must be an Ass.” I’m just saying.
    And charlie,take it from me .Non Christians aren’t scared of the Christians.

    lincoln (ce7ddf)

  45. Pablo — I agree that our intent is not to be there to kill Iraqis, I agree that the vast majority of the time we don’t, and I agree that most of the time our troops are protecting the people fo Iraq.

    I do not say that we should pretend a wholseale slsaughter of a people is an ongoing concern; far from it. I am merely noting that we should acknowledge that people died as a direct result of our intervention, and that we should make the case that that price was a worthwhile price for us to pay, and a worthwhile price for the Iraqi people to pay, for the outcome.

    That’s the way history will judge it, after all: was the outcome sufficiently good to justify the price which was paid in blood?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  46. Lincoln: I’m not going to discuss the issue of a “strange undercurrent” in Charlie’s comments, as I am not Charlie, and do not consider myself responsible for his utterings.

    Whether or not it would be better to compare the number of people who have died as a direct result of US intervention to the number of people who would have died had the US not intervened depends, I suspect, on what the point of your analysis is. I don’t think you can, without ascribing to the United States an affirmative duty to intervene in the affairs of every state which is engaged in evil, assert that the US would be responsible for deaths caused by the Hussein regime in the absence of US intervention. I do think you can assert that the US is responsible for those deaths which were caused by its intervention — and so if the point of your analysis is to determine what, exactly, the US is responsible for, the deaths which would have been caused by Hussein are not relevant.

    However, once you have assessed the total US responsibility, it is important also to assess what the US bought with the actions for which it is responsible — and that is when the death toll for which Hussein is not responsible, by virtue of having been deposed, matters.

    As for whether or not I “blame the allies for the terrorist killings”: I don’t find it strange at all to note that, while the terrorists in question bear the largest portion of the responsibility, those actors who created the field on which the terrorists play *also* bear some responsibility. If I pull out in front of a car, forcing it to slam on its breaks, and the person who is tailgaiting that car hits it, I am in part responsible for the outcome of the events. So, too, if the US deposes a government and people start killing each other in the resultant political instability, the US bears some of the responsibility.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  47. Pablo Both sides are liars. both sides are killers and both sides see themselves as godly decent people.. Dont you see it?

    charlie (e583c4)

  48. Sharon you make me laugh..in a disgusted sort of way.. you and I both know the US could give a damn less about the Iraqi people and that in fact we supported dictatorships in many places including Iraq and that your empty argument about helping Iraqis comes only after you failed to find WMDs there and no connection to international terrorism and on the heals of year and years of boycott that killed thousands of Iraqis. If you are so concerned about people why dont you send troops to the Congo,,what is the matter?? No oil? Wrong color?

    You lament the use of WMDs by Sadam Hussein but you and I both know the US helped him to get those WMDs and continued to do business with him after he used them on the Kurds. No one in the mideast believes this fake arguement..or should I say pathetic excuse for invasion.

    charlie (e583c4)

  49. Charlie — the idea, as I understand it, was that implanting a democracy on Arab soil would have ripple effects throughout the region; that establishing democracy in Iraq would be the first step towards the democratization of the Arab world.

    This may or may not work; the jury is still out, and I am highly skeptical. But that was the idea, which was repeated over and over online, and whose outline can be seen in things said by members of the administration.

    Given that that was the idea, you should be able to answer the question about the Congo: democratizing sub-saharan Africa, while good in and of itself, would not help us with the problems we currently have with the Islamic world; democratizing Arabia might.

    (Note, too, that Congo might well be a more difficult nut to tackle than Iraq is — for lesser strategic gain).

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  50. Pablo Who the hell asked the US to give this “help’ to the Iraqis? The Iraqis dont want this kind of “help” from the very same people that were good friends of Sadam not to many years ago and who imposed a boycott on them that killed thousands. Who the hell are we to determine that they should be killed in our attempt to bring them “freedom”? And what if they vote to join forces with Iran? What then? Another regime change? Tell me how the US is any different from the Russians invading one of their satellite coutries to save them from “creeping capitalism?

    You and I and any sane person knows that Bush created a scare and told us that Sadam Hussein had reconstituted WMD programs and THAT was the reason for the invasion. That reason was shown to be false and knowingly enlarged by Bush and crew to support their already made plans of invasion. Oh they did good job of pretending to want to avoid war but the truth is in the Downing Street memos and plenty of other documents that show they wanted war and just were trying to figure out a way of selling it. Well they got their war and I sure but not the quick and vain glorious one they wanted!!
    If this country had any sense of morality and decency this lying President and his mob of criminals would have been kicked out of office years ago…certainly if they were held to the same standards as Bill Clinton. But thanks to the right wing family of media outlets and the fear and scare created by them on behalf of Bush, he and his band of cronies survives…and this nation is going to pay a heavy price for his arrogance..and the war is already lost..in case you didnt realize it.. The only winner is Iran..
    Thanks George!!

    charlie (e583c4)

  51. Charlie — i’m terribly sorry, but if you really think that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was remotely like the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1969, you have failed in your understanding of eastern european communism.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  52. Charlie’s been watching Farenheit 9/11 again.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  53. Lincoln my arguement is not that Christians have never done good or that their beliefs are invalidated by wrong-doers but simply and observation that an enormus amout of evil has come from misguided people of religion Christians being one group.. Surely you cant deny that? Once you see that then you can recognize that there is a certain blindless that comes over men at certain times and allows them to do great evil in the name of good. In the past they did evil and could not understand or see the evil they did. I suggest to you that history is repeating itself.

    Surely Bush did not make every effort to avoid war but in fact sought reasons for it. I submit to you this is not in keeping with the true spirit of Chritianity but is more in keeping with the abuses of the past for which Christians today are regretful.

    Your calculations as to how many are killed by our actions verses is quite interesting. The fact is that Iraqi killed by Sadam were blood on his hands…. Iraqis killed by the US is blood on our hands.
    And you also make the assumption that this attack was for the benefit of the Iraqi people. I bet not ten percent of the Iraqis believe that and the same for the rest of the world. Dont try to make this some noble cause in which we try to save lives by war. This was and is a power grab gone bad.

    charlie (e583c4)

  54. Of course the attacks are similar. In both cases an arrogant leader defied world opinion and common decency to impose his will on other people ..on in the name of socialism and communism ..the other in the name of Bushism..

    charlie (e583c4)

  55. Charlie: in one case, an arrogant leader defied world opinion to overthrow a government which was cautiously liberalising and granting greater political and economic freedom to its people, and imposed a repressive regime instead.

    In the other case, even if your dark view of it were true, an arrogant leader defied world opinion to overthrow a government which was oppressing its people and replaced it with a government that allows its people widespread political and economic freedom.

    Only if you see no difference between life under a dictatorship and life in the absence of dictatorship, or if you can see the difference but consider it irrelevant, can you equate the two.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  56. Look folks..the fact is the US is now tied down in some foolish project of supposedly trying to bring democracy to Iraq. Ha!! I also felt sorrow at the suffering of the people of Iraq but the fact is the US was perfectly willing to go along with Sadam in the past. The US imposed an embargo on those people resulting in great hardships on the people while Sadam lived like a king. No one cared about them then..No one believes this war was over concern for the Iraqis..or some crazy scheme to change hundreds of years of history, tradition and civil strife in the area. The fact is that Bush told us that the reason for the war was reconsituted WMD programs and that Sadam was defying the UN. Both reasons were false.

    If we really cared about the Iraqis we could have given them the 500 Billion we have spent on the war and stop supporting dictators in the area and we would have all be a lot better off. They know that ..as does everyone else in the mideast. They know we are full of hot air.

    This war is insane and the result is enormus hatred toward the US and the bringing to power a government favorable to Iran. Is that what this is all about? What will you say if the war ends and the Sheites in Iran link up with their fellow Sheites in Iran? That is what this fight is all about?
    You think Democracy will bring about a change favorable to us even if it does miraculously arrive? Look who was elected in Palestine… Hammas.. and look who is the most loved group in the Mideast among the Arabs.. Hezbolla..

    Nice going George!! You have really created a mess..Not to mention the bill for this which you so cunningly pass on to future generations while helping millionaires to get even richer..not to also mention your repeated assault on the constitution.. If that goes we have lost everything!!
    Enough for tonight..not much more I can say to open your eyes to what is happening to our country.. its happened elsewhere and dont think it cant happen here. Economic destruction. Endless war..ending in fascism..

    charlie (e583c4)

  57. Do you really believe Bush invaded Iraq to help the people there? And even if he did, who gave him this right?

    charlie (e583c4)

  58. the original mission was to overthrow saddam hussein and neutralize the threat from the wmd’s. saddam is gone now and we didn’t find any wmd’s, although in one instance we managed to leave 380 metric tons of high explosive unguarded, which got stolen and is no doubt being used today.
    we successfully installed a puppet regime comprised of all three parties, sunnis, shi’ites and kurds. trouble is, this is like mating horses, donkeys and zebras. the kurds want their own state and the sunnis and shi’ites hate each other as much as they hate us. we’re losing one or two people a day just preventing more of them from killing each other.
    so what do we get from this? corporate hegemony over the oilfield! too bad the benefits don’t trickle down to the pump.

    assistant devil's advocate (d155e4)

  59. charlie says:

    The fact is that Bush told us that the reason for the war was reconsituted WMD programs and that Sadam was defying the UN. Both reasons were false.

    Saddam wasn’t defying the UN, charlie?

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  60. When I was doing my psychiatry rotation in 3rd year of medical school I was told that only a very few psychiatrists tried to help delusional people by entering into the delusion with them and trying to help them “from the inside out”, so to speak.
    There is reasonable debate whether or not we should have gone into Iraq when we did, just as there was reasonable discussion about what do do when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in the 1930’s. Yes, we are responsible for what we do and don’t do within our realm of influence. It was not within our immediate responsibility in 1939 (that belonged to France, primarily), not that we would have done different. Putting off the confrontation with Hitler did not result in less death, by most direct thinking. The confrontation with Saddam had been put off for over 10 years, it was either time to DO something about him, or acknowledge that UN and international sanctions are a joke and everyone go home and let the meat grinders continue to give Saddam and his sons something to do. Think of how many innocent Iraqi’s may still be alive if we went in in 1998, or at the end of Gulf War I.
    Does anyone know the name of the Neil Young song that he wrote to commemorate the killing of the graduate student when Sterling Hall was bombed at UW-Madison in 1971? He was a married man with a child, simply working late at night to get computer time (back in the dark ages when computers took up rooms), wasn’t even throwing rocks at people….

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  61. Pat, please tell: we invaded Iraq because it was defying the UN, and the US is and always will be the hand-maiden of the UN? Or we invaded Iraq because we are the Sovereign USofA Sole Superpower of the Universe and we do what we goddam please?

    You folks always seem to want to have it both ways. I’m confused.

    Asinistra (02bb24)

  62. We invaded Iraq because after 10 plus years of attempted cooperation to “contain” Saddam it hadn’t worked, in part due to corruption and the enabling of his reign of terror by member nations of the UN who were supposedly our allies. So when the UN was unwilling to enforce it’s own rulings, we did, taking the course of action that was thought best overall for stability and peace in the region, in which we were already involved (remember, oil or not, we did free a Muslim nation from an invader).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  63. “Sharon you make me laugh..in a disgusted sort of way.. you and I both know the US could give a damn less about the Iraqi people and that in fact we supported dictatorships in many places including Iraq and that your empty argument about helping Iraqis comes only after you failed to find WMDs there and no connection to international terrorism and on the heals of year and years of boycott that killed thousands of Iraqis. If you are so concerned about people why dont you send troops to the Congo,,what is the matter?? No oil? Wrong color?”

    No, Charlie, it’s YOU who are the joke. Your lameass attempts at discrediting the war in Iraq are so completely hypocritical as to be unworthy of the attention you crave. Wasn’t it lefty idiots who thought sanctions were the “humane” way of dealing with Saddam Hussein? And at what point did the U.S. have to go police every quarter of the world, including places without strategic interest to us? Since when is the U.S. required to meet some idiotic definition of strategic interest which means we DON’T go to places where terrorists are camping out?

    And if you hate oil so much, quit heating your house, driving your car, using public transportation, and having anything made from petroleum products. Otherwise, you’re just another useful idiot.

    You lament the use of WMDs by Sadam Hussein but you and I both know the US helped him to get those WMDs and continued to do business with him after he used them on the Kurds. No one in the mideast believes this fake arguement..or should I say pathetic excuse for invasion.

    sharon (fecb65)

  64. “You lament the use of WMDs by Sadam Hussein but you and I both know the US helped him to get those WMDs and continued to do business with him after he used them on the Kurds. No one in the mideast believes this fake arguement..or should I say pathetic excuse for invasion.”

    Thank God people like you won’t ever be in charge of foreign affairs. I mean, if the only people we are ever allowed to deal with are those who are pristine, there won’t ever be much cooperation in doing anything. Yes, we dealt with Saddam when the alternative was crazy Muslim lunatics in Iran. Hmm, given their mindset, it made sense. But in no way does that excuse Saddam’s behavior in recent years. Unless, of course, you’re one of those who thinks his subjects deserved the woodchipper.

    sharon (fecb65)

  65. Charlie, while not everyone has a natural gift for spelling, anyone who reads current events should have mastered the correct spelling of S-a-d-d-a-m by this point in time.
    Same goes for spelling H-a-m-a-s, and the conventional spelling of H-e-z-b-o-l-l-a-h.

    I don’t know how much reading you do outside of Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn.
    But throughout history, you may be familiar with numerous instances when one must side with the lesser of two evils.
    During WW2, we allied with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler.
    By the same token, Stalin was playing the same strategy—he allied with us in order to defeat Hitler, which was also in the Soviet Union’s best interest at the time.
    As you may know, following WW2, Stalin openly declared hostilities toward us.

    But simply because one ‘allies’ oneself with someone/government who later does evil, that does not mean that the former ally is somehow responsible for such evil, as you suggest is the case with S-a-d-d-a-m.

    Nations/individuals are responsible for their own actions, regardless of who they may have been allied with in the past.

    After all, your mother and your elementary school teachers are not responsible for your angry rants in the blogosphere—you are.

    As far as S-a-d-d-a-m goes,the outcome most hoped for in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 was a stalemate where neither side grabbed the balance of power.
    Entering the war, Iran was perceived to be stronger, and with the recent Fundamentalist Revolution, they were feared as an emerging totalitarian power.
    As a result of wishing to counter Iran’s perceived advantage, the U.S. did quietly fund Iraq, but so did Saudi Arabia and Kuwait….you may have heard of Kuwait…the little nation S-a-d-d-a-m would invade just a couple years following the end of the conflict with Iran.

    So, was Kuwait ‘responsible’ for S-a-d-d-a-m’s invasion of itself, since they funded him with BILLIONS of dollars ?
    According to your logic, yes, Kuwait bears some responsibility for its own invasion by S-a-d-d-a-m.

    Your posts suggest you are morally confused about the responsibility for actions.

    Let’s assume you’re of legal age to purchase alcohol, and you purchase a case of beer, drink it, then kill someone in a drunk driving accident.
    The liquor store is not responsible for your decision to drive while intoxicated, nor is General Motors or Toyota, or whomever your car’s manufacturer is.
    Nor does the responsibility fall upon the auto dealer who sold you the car, nor on your father who happened to be the person who taught you how to drive a car when you were a teenager.
    You’re responsible, just as S-a-d-d-a-m is responsible for his actions, and H-e-z-b-o-l-l-a-h and H-a-m-a-s are responsible for their actions.

    All of your histrionics about what Christians may have done centuries ago on other continents…OR how a secret ‘right-wing’ cabal which covertly meets in an underground bunker in West Virginia influenced our nation’s Middle East policies…OR what might have happened if the ball HAD NOT rolled thru Bill Buckner’s legs during Game 6 of the 1986 World Series—they’re all examples of the classic Marxist attempt to transfer responsibility to external forces.

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  66. At the risk of being on topic, we went to the same concert. Those old guys are still pretty good, although I went to listen to the old anti war stuff instead of the new anti war stuff.

    TomHynes (47e7b9)

  67. Yo, MD in Philly (and all Pontifacators are invited to help out on this one):
    Why didn’t we ever invade the Soviet Union? After Hungary? After the Prague Spring? After Afghanistan. After stockpiles of WMD, Cuba, and the Gulags?

    Do tell. Do…do…do tell. Tell us again how much smarter and better we are now. And how the world finally gets it. And how any day now history will be exactly to our liking. And while you’re at it tell us about the rabbits. Frickin’ Delusionists.

    Asinistra (02bb24)

  68. Asinistra — there are those on the right who thought at the time that we *should* have invaded to protect Hungary. Or East Germany, for that matter.

    But they lost the argument because doing so was not strategically sensible. A war with the Soviet Union would have (likely) destroyed east-central Europe and swallowed up tens of thousands of casualties — even if nuclear weapons weren’t used, which they might have been.

    Whatever the potential gains from doing so, the price was unacceptably high.

    How is that relevant to the question today? The price of intervening in the Arab world is in no way comparable; and while the potential gains are also arguably smaller, they are by no means insignificant.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  69. Do tell. Do…do…do tell.

    Mutually Assured Destruction. Look it up.

    Pablo (efa871)

  70. #31 aphrael, It’s not so much that the music of CSNY has been “corrupted” by politics… but that our enjoyment of music has been corrupted by politics. Likewise, our television habits, movie attendence, charitable giving and choice in cars has all turned into an excuse to trot out the rhetorical powerpoint presentations of why we hate/like the current administration and how things would be so much better/worse if the Democrats were in charge.

    I’m just sick of it. I’m sick of every damn little thing being occasion #3357 for the phlegm to be flung about politics. Drive a Prius? You lefty eco-nut limp-wristed self-absorbed gasbag, those things won’t save you money or the environment. Shoot a rifle in your spare time? Is that part of your circle jerk militia training, you racist redneck, or are you just practicing for your upcoming assault on the New York Times building?

    I’m just damn tired of everyone using every reason under the sun as an excuse to whip out the same insults, arguments, ad-hominems, misrepresentations and talking point. It’s CSNY for nog’s sake! Can’t we go back to discussing the lameness of the new music instead of the politics of people who don’t sing?

    I suppose it could be worse. Nobody’s even mentioned the word “Halliburton” yet.

    Darkmage (4de99c)

  71. Thank you aphrael.
    “Containment” was the best that was strategically feasable with the Soviets (once we didn’t invade immediately after the end of WWII, for good or ill). “Containment” was tried, sort of, with Nazi Germany and it didn’t work. “Containment” had been tried with Saddam, hadn’t been truly effective, and would not have been effective once he had operationally WMD, then stakes would be higher, as when the USSR obtained atomic and hyrogen bombs themselves.

    I’m still waiting for the name of the Neil Young song about the killed grad student.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  72. Pablo — it’s really strikingly unclear that in 1956, mutually assured destruction was possible. Estimates of the size of the Soviet nuclear arsenal at the time vary, of course, but the earliest deployed Soviet ICBMS date from the late 1950s, so what bombs they had would have been delivered by bombers; the extent of the damage they could have done is debatable.

    That said, such a war would likely have meant the nuclear destruction of our European allies, and *that* price was unacceptably high.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  73. Darkmage, that’s a fair point, but consider: CSNY are a band who, in part, are known for their political music. That’s not *all* they are known for, to be sure; but, like (say) Peter, Paul, and Mary, their music has always had a political edge to it.

    It is no surprise that their *current* music has a political edge to it, and what that edge is can be predicted by anyone familiar with their old music … and, since lyrics matter to my enjoyment of music, it doesn’t surprise me that political lyrics might trigger complaints from those who disagree with the politics.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  74. I suppose it could be worse. Nobody’s even mentioned the word “Halliburton” yet.

    Comment by Darkmage — 8/3/2006 @ 11:38 am

    If you get a bootleg copy of their concert I’m sure you will find “that word” somewhere if you play it backwards.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  75. saw csny 8/22 jones beach,ny. I wondered where all those people had gone. well they showed up at jones beach theatre that night. I remarked to my wife that I hoped there were some ambulances on standby. Show was 50% good, 50% not. For all the
    Crosby comments, he still has a killer voice and
    I felt that his songs were the best, (almost cut my hair, long time gone, etc.)

    jtfaley (3f542e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3265 secs.