The DMB on the DMZ (well... sort of).

[Dave_7]

I just thought that subject line was too clever to wait for when he spouts off about Korea. So here's Dave Matthews' view on Iraq.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Dave Matthews Speaks Out About the War

I hope this letter finds you all well and that in these uncertain times you find moments to be joyful.

I want to speak my mind about this war with Iraq, or I will choke on my conscience.

What is the motivation? Regime change? Shouldn't that be up to the people of the region and the people of Iraq? The only real threat from Saddam Hussein is to his neighbors and none of them support a U.S. invasion. Is it to stabilize the Middle-East? Wouldn't it only do the opposite by causing further death and suffering in a country that has had more than its share?

Is it to weaken Al Qaeda? Saddam Hussein is a genocidal maniac but he is not Al Qaeda. He is certainly more visible though. Is he our target because he is easier to identify than the illusive terrorist network? Surely it is more likely that an attack on Iraq would only strengthen Al Qaeda by feeding Anti-American sentiment. Putting out the fire with gasoline, so to speak. It is certainly not to liberate the people of Iraq who suffer under Hussein's rule, unless we call killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis liberation.

Saddam Hussein is a barbaric murderous dictator. I wish the world were free of him. But the answer is not to bomb this great culture of Iraq out of existence to stop him. Why must the children of Iraq die by the thousands to stop a tyrant? It is not justice. And if we kill him what will we achieve? We will have taken the most unpopular leader in the Middle East and turned him into the greatest martyr radical Islam has ever had. The U.N. weapons inspectors must be allowed to do their job thoroughly and any military action should be internationally agreed upon. We must not allow our government to turn us into a rogue nation.

I fear that our true motivation is about oil and our own flailing economy; about the failure to destroy Al Qaeda and about revenge. It is criminal to put our servicemen and women in harm's way and to put the lives of so many civilians on the line for the misguided frustrations of the Bush administration.

Bottom line: this war is wrong and this war is un-American.

Peacefully submitted,
Dave Matthews
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




Alan Smithee.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Dave_7
...Is it to weaken Al Qaeda? Saddam Hussein is a genocidal maniac but he is not Al Qaeda... Saddam Hussein is a barbaric murderous dictator. I wish the world were free of him. But the answer is not to bomb this great culture of Iraq out of existence to stop him... And if we kill him what will we achieve? We will have taken the most unpopular leader in the Middle East and turned him into the greatest martyr radical Islam has ever had. ...

Peacefully submitted,
Dave Matthews

I love how he acknowledges that Saddam is a "genocidal maniac" and a "barbaric murderous dictator" and then asks if we kill him, "...what will that achieve"?

What happened to rock stars calling out to free the weak people under brutal dictatorships? Human rights, etc.? Does Free Tibet ring a bell? Why not Free Iraq?

He obviously has no idea (or chooses to remain ingnorant) about the fact that Saddam rules a police state. What he says, goes. It is not a democracy in Iraq. You speak out, you die (along with those close to you, probably) at the hands of Saddam's henchmen. It's Stalin-esque.

Why don't you take another toc, Mr. Matthews.


Comments?





Dave.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Dave_7


I love how he acknowledges that Saddam is a "genocidal maniac" and a "barbaric murderous dictator" and then asks if we kill him, "...what will that achieve"?

What happened to rock stars calling out to free the weak people under brutal dictatorships? Human rights, etc.? Does Free Tibet ring a bell? Why not Free Iraq?

He obviously has no idea (or chooses to remain ingnorant) about the fact that Saddam rules a police state. What he says, goes. It is not a democracy in Iraq. You speak out, you die (along with those close to you, probably) at the hands of Saddam's henchmen. It's Stalin-esque.

Why don't you take another toc, Mr. Matthews.


Comments?
i guess the thing that i tire of is that rock stars are always bitching against going to war. i guess i have a very hard time taking their comments seriously because they sound so cliche' and hackneyed.

i mean, come up with some original ideas, for once. you're a rock star. everyone knows that you oppose war in iraq, think bush is a bumbling idiot, and want increased funding for aids research (oh, and belive that mummia abu jamal is innocent and should be freed :rolleyes: )

instead of gravitating to an issue already populated by every other artist at your record label, think about something new and actually form your own opinion. you might actually look like you genuinely care about it and aren't just copying every other musician on the block.

[oblongmelon]

Originally posted by Dave_7


I love how he acknowledges that Saddam is a "genocidal maniac" and a "barbaric murderous dictator" and then asks if we kill him, "...what will that achieve"?

What happened to rock stars calling out to free the weak people under brutal dictatorships? Human rights, etc.? Does Free Tibet ring a bell? Why not Free Iraq?

He obviously has no idea (or chooses to remain ingnorant) about the fact that Saddam rules a police state. What he says, goes. It is not a democracy in Iraq. You speak out, you die (along with those close to you, probably) at the hands of Saddam's henchmen. It's Stalin-esque.

Why don't you take another toc, Mr. Matthews.

Comments?


Dave.
I LIKE DMB alot..but this is coming from a guy who moved back out of his homeland (South Africa) because they were calling him up for service. Peace is great-but you have to work for it-IE: military services..he's too old to be drafted so why does he have to worry right? Maybe he thinks that some of his shows will be hurting for $$$ if all his loyal followers get sent abroad to defend the nation that took him in when he didn't want to defend his own..He's a peace loving man for sure-but come on, if a great big bomb of sorts was aiming at his million dollar spread in Charlottesville, you know damn well he'd want the military to come in and stop it.

[Cantacuzene]

I wouldnt want to be in teh SOuth African army either.

[oblongmelon]

South Africa is a beautiful place to visit-and while I agree-their government and it's turmoil is a total turnoff-he still fled so he wouldn't have to do his time...

[psycho-]

The only real threat from Saddam Hussein is to his neighbors and none of them support a U.S. invasion.


Umm...yah...

They don't necessarily verbally support it, but they haven't complained about it. Fact is that every country in the region wants to see Hussein go. They don't voice vocal support in many cases to placate their constituencies, be it electorate (masses) or selectorate (mil. regime? royal family? etc).

Qatar, Arab Emerites, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi, etc. all have already allowed US landing rights and have promised (albiet quietly) some logistical support.

NOne of the surrounding countries, EVEN IRAN, want to see Hussein in power.

Sorry Dave, you just lost quite a bit of credibility among anyone who is in the international relations field; and anyone who keeps up to date with international affairs with that statement.

Now, I'm not saying I do or don't support the "war" either, I'm just stating his stupidity in his argument

[skynet]

War is not a good thing, but it is in no way wrong. If there was no war none of us would be here now. If there was no conflict, there would have been no reason for the people way back when to travel.

Lets just say we kept our butss in America, didn't do anything. Then some time in the future, another incident like 9/11 happens. Now I doubt it will be the exact same situation, but who of us though anyone would ever make an airplane a weapon? Ok back to my other though, so Ladeda We are peaceful and doing crap about crap. Well guess what, Hussein isn't peaceful. So he attacks us, then what? Even if his level of destruction is minimal, he still caused damage. Are we going to go on a wild goose chase tring to find a mole hiding in a mountain? Going to slap his wrist if we ever find him?

I saw we flex our muscle and show damage. Just out of no where, send some stealth bombers over and carpet bomb anything considered a threat. I consider it a win win situation. No American Lives lost, and less possiblity of them attacking us.

Think about it this way, do you have a kid, or a sibiling? Now when they are bad and you say "Don't do that, that is wrong!" They just go and do it again. It is because they do not understand the consiquencies. But there are ways to make them understand, punishment. Some may be a bit extreme with children, however when the parent isn't a nut ball, I see some of the most well behaved children.

I think America has gotten a bad rap as the country who just says "Don't do that, that is wrong!" Because of all those damn protesters. People in America complain more about anything and everything just because they can and have nothing better to do with their pethetic lives. Instead of standing outside with a picket, do something possitive. So because of this bad rap, Binladen saw the vulerability and knew he could get away with it. Just like a little kid who has never been properly punished.

Americans need to be more disciplined, and I am not saying beat your kid for snatching a cookie, I am in no way that extreme. I am saying Americans have become too damn fat lazy and complain way too much. Punishment needs to be justified. There is no one size fits all solution.

I have ranted enough for now. Maybe I will explain some of my thoughts better when it is not 1:46am

[Cantacuzene]

No one is saying war isn't necesary sometimes, but the idea of pre-emptive war is of dubious merit and has scary implications for the future.

If we are allowed to attack countries that we feel someday may be a threat, cannot other countries do the same? India and Pakistan are on the edge of a nuclear war, I would hate to see one of them attack and use "pre-emptive strike" as their excuse.

[psycho-]

No one is saying war isn't necesary sometimes, but the idea of pre-emptive war is of dubious merit and has scary implications for the future.


...every war has a first strike.

[psycho-]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
No one is saying war isn't necesary sometimes, but the idea of pre-emptive war is of dubious merit and has scary implications for the future.

If we are allowed to attack countries that we feel someday may be a threat, cannot other countries do the same? India and Pakistan are on the edge of a nuclear war, I would hate to see one of them attack and use "pre-emptive strike" as their excuse.


let me clarify. Japan saw it fit and necessary to strike pearl harbor after believing failed negotiations with the US in regards to "pullback" of japanese forces in the asia pacific region in 1940 and 1941.

They believed that the US will become a future threat and enemy and attacked based on a possible trade embargo.

Pre-emption in this case is just strategy and has been around for hundreds of year in security theory....it is hardly new nor setting any precedent in any case at all.

[Cantacuzene]

:heh: Thanks Pyscho. You just compared our attack on Iraq with Pearl Harbor. I'm sure thats the imagery the government wants to display to the public.

Yes preemptive wars have been around for a long time but they are not legal. If you were to read the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html) you would see that war is only justified as response to attack. So basically, the precedent that US Presidents have been trying to preserve for teh past 50 years or so is going to go out the window.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by psycho-



let me clarify. Japan saw it fit and necessary to strike pearl harbor after believing failed negotiations with the US in regards to "pullback" of japanese forces in the asia pacific region in 1940 and 1941.

They believed that the US will become a future threat and enemy and attacked based on a possible trade embargo.

Pre-emption in this case is just strategy and has been around for hundreds of year in security theory....it is hardly new nor setting any precedent in any case at all.

are you implying that what the japanese did was ok?

[blueindian]

Originally posted by skynet
Lets just say we kept our butss in America, didn't do anything. Then some time in the future, another incident like 9/11 happens.


Originally posted by skynet

I saw we flex our muscle and show damage. Just out of no where, send some stealth bombers over and carpet bomb anything considered a threat. I consider it a win win situation. No American Lives lost, and less possiblity of them attacking us.



Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11. i'm sick of people trying to use 9/11 as a means to justify pre-emptive, unilateral strike on iraq. it's insulting to americans and the rest of the world, and disrespectful of those who lost their lives that day.

win win? we bomb the hell out of a country and kill thousands of innocent folks, that's win win?

[skynet]

Originally posted by blueindian



Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11. i'm sick of people trying to use 9/11 as a means to justify pre-emptive, unilateral strike on iraq. it's insulting to americans and the rest of the world, and disrespectful of those who lost their lives that day.

win win? we bomb the hell out of a country and kill thousands of innocent folks, that's win win?

I never said Sadam had anything to do with 9/11. I said what if he does something similar.

If we attack first, then that leaves less means for us to be attacked.

[skynet]

Originally posted by blueindian


win win? we bomb the hell out of a country and kill thousands of innocent folks, that's win win?

War is going to happen no matter what. With that said, what would you rather have, more dead americans, or more dead some body else. I say some body else.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by skynet


I never said Sadam had anything to do with 9/11. I said what if he does something similar.

If we attack first, then that leaves less means for us to be attacked.


right. let's also carpet bomb the following nations, as they may some day want to attack us:

syria
lybia
sudan
jordan
etc
etc

also, let's get japan. because in about 40 more years they can have an army and navy again.

"what if...." is not a valid reason to invade a country.

[skynet]

I think you have a reading problem. I specifically said

"Just out of no where, send some stealth bombers over and carpet bomb anything considered a threat."

"anything considered a threat." being the keywords.

[Cantacuzene]

"anything considered a threat."

And who exactly determines what is and isnt a threat? The Congress has to vote to declare war, the President just doesnt get to go start wars wherever and whenever he likes.

[skynet]

Do you really not know the difference between something considered a threat or not? Are you really that stupid?

"Ohh officer they are just chemical weapons of mass destruction"
"Ahh silly me, go about your business"

[Grimm]

The halt of hostilities with Iraq in the last war was predicated on Iraq meeting certain requirements. Iraq has not met these requirements. Iraq has failed to live up to those agreements therefor we are not obligated to refrain from further hostilities.

[Cantacuzene]

Just because we are "allowed" to attack them doesn't mean we should.

[skynet]

Just because chickens go "cluck cluck" doesn't mean aliens exist.

Support your statements with reasoning.

[Cantacuzene]

I didn't see anything illogical about my statement.

Just because we can attack them doesn't mean we have to. The UN won't get mad at us if we chose not to invade.

[psycho-]

Originally posted by blueindian


are you implying that what the japanese did was ok?


Umm...on a moral standpoint, I have to say that wars aren't the greatest thing.

you have to understand that I AM an International Relations student and researcher. I view things on a very..umm..analytical viewpoint...I don't condone or speak against such activities when I read about them ex post. I just see it in very analytical, theoretical plane. We do talk about security policy like no other.

But, on a personal humanitarian standpoint though, I personally don't believe that it was that great of a thing to do.

[psycho-]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I didn't see anything illogical about my statement.

Just because we can attack them doesn't mean we have to. The UN won't get mad at us if we chose not to invade.

The 5 permanent members of the security council nor the other 10 rotation members have had any harsh words..with the exception of France, but they'll probably abstain on a vote. Russia is now supporting. China won't waste their veto.

Fact is, the UN isn't condoning, but neither are they in an outrage. It's all a two level game of international and domestic politics that many countries have to deal with that create the environment that you see.

[skynet]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I didn't see anything illogical about my statement.

Just because we can attack them doesn't mean we have to. The UN won't get mad at us if we chose not to invade.

Again with reading problems. I didn't say what you said was illogical. I said to support your statements.

[eSDee]

Alright I'll pipe in finally.

I would have expected something a little more "deep" from someone like Dave Matthews, based on the lyrics in many of his songs. However, I agree with some of his points. I am also worried that this might be not solely on the desire to rid the world of terrorism, but may in fact have to do with oil. I do believe that we should wait longer until we have more support from the UN before we do anything. However, if we do end up going to war, and it looks like nothing is going to stop us now, then I will support our U.S. servicemen and women over there. I don't want to be a part of another generation that shuns our servicemen after doing something that they have no power to deny. They will do their jobs, do it well, and then we will have to reflect later if it was a good idea or not. I think it will open the flood gates, but I guess only time will tell. In the meantime though, until the war begins I will oppose it.

My 37 pesos.

[psycho-]

The US could've gone in on its own already if it wanted to. It's amazing they're thus far this patient with garnering support in the UN, petitioning and explaining their stance to people who aren't willing to listen to their argument (I'm not saying their argument is right or wrong here). They are given much less credit than they deserve

[coleslaw]

Maybe the US should swallow the jagged pill and start using the oil reserves in Alaska. There are hundreds of billions of barrels of oil waiting to be pumped up there. Heck, some of the wells are already drilled, yet just sitting there; the oil is waiting to be pumped. Let's utilize the sources of oil in Canada and Mexico more! Get this whole NAFTA thing into high gear. We only get 30% of our oil from outside of North America, anyway. Screw Iraq and the Middle East. We've got our own oil, dammit.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by psycho-
The US could've gone in on its own already if it wanted to. It's amazing they're thus far this patient with garnering support in the UN, petitioning and explaining their stance to people who aren't willing to listen to their argument (I'm not saying their argument is right or wrong here). They are given much less credit than they deserve

I think teh reason we put up with the UN is because we are afraid of settin a dangerous precedent. If we attack without UN mandate that sends the message that fighting an offensive war is OK. This will cause countries like India, Pakistan, countless Balkan countries, North Korea etc to think that its OK to invade a country that they feel to be a threat.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by coleslaw
Maybe the US should swallow the jagged pill and start using the oil reserves in Alaska. There are hundreds of billions of barrels of oil waiting to be pumped up there. Heck, some of the wells are already drilled, yet just sitting there; the oil is waiting to be pumped. Let's utilize the sources of oil in Canada and Mexico more! Get this whole NAFTA thing into high gear. We only get 30% of our oil from outside of North America, anyway. Screw Iraq and the Middle East. We've got our own oil, dammit.
the oil reserves in alaska wouldn't last particularly long.

they estimate that it would be about 10 years before the oil would really start to make it into the market and then it would only last for a couple years.

the problem is overconsumption, not underutilization of resources.

[psycho-]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I think teh reason we put up with the UN is because we are afraid of settin a dangerous precedent. If we attack without UN mandate that sends the message that fighting an offensive war is OK. This will cause countries like India, Pakistan, countless Balkan countries, North Korea etc to think that its OK to invade a country that they feel to be a threat.

Umm...right....


There is no precedent set in invading a country w/o UN mandate. the UN didn't exist until after world war II. As i recall, there were wars before that...

Even after the creation of the UN, many countries have gone to war w/o UN mandate. What makes you think we're setting a dangerous precedent? Remember what the US did in grenada?

The reason the US can go in without mandate only on the reason of "security"...and actually get away with it, and what seperates it from India, Pakistan, and all those other countries, is that the US is essentially the sole hegemonic power.

If North Korea, pakistan, or india decided to do something along those lines, they can be decimated very quickly diplomatically, ecnomically, and even militarily.

If the US did it, it'll just get some scolding and a slap in the wrist. Fact is, even if a country isn't too fond of the US, they are still fond of US cash, trade, and economic aid. NOBODY wants to get on the bad side of the US....the defacto hegemonic power.

[coleslaw]

Originally posted by whitak24
they estimate that it would be about 10 years before the oil would really start to make it into the market and then it would only last for a couple years.I have heard that some insiders (who really know what's up) estimate that there is enough oil in Alaska to last about 200 years at the current consumption rate.