stusi
|
posted on December 16, 2002 03:27:58 PM new
What the heck do celebrities think gives them the right to interfere in delicate situations such as that in Iraq, whether of not you agree with their position?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on December 16, 2002 04:52:30 PM new
It must be an ego thing stusi. I saw Al Sharpton on TV saying he was going to Iraq to meet personally with Saddam because 'someone has to end the nonsense'. If these people were smart, they'd be headed to North Korea, NOT Iraq. 
|
Linda_K
|
posted on December 16, 2002 04:54:57 PM new
Hi Stu - Glad to see you posting again.
Sean Penn - who knows...maybe he'll turn out to be this generation's Hanoi Jane.
Celebrities do have a lot of influence on their fans. Some celebrities think they're so important and they're going to lead their following to the 'right way of thinking'. Sad part is it will work on many.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 05:07:32 PM new
Linda
There is absolutely no resemblance between Jane Fonda and Sean Penn.
Jane was being friendly with the enemy while they were killing Americans.
Sean Penn, on the other hand, is trying to prevent a war.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Dec 16, 2002 09:43 PM ]
|
stusi
|
posted on December 16, 2002 05:17:20 PM new
Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are on Donahue as I post. The thing that scares me Helen, is that there are those such as you who think that it is okay for Sean Penn and other celebrities to "try... to prevent a war"! What a huge ego! What gives him the diplomatic sanction to do anything on behalf of the US? What if he makes a diplomatic blunder and exacerbates the situation? It is one thing to protest here in the US, but visiting hostile nations is best reserved for governmental diplomats.
|
mlecher
|
posted on December 16, 2002 05:27:16 PM new
Maybe Iraq will keep him...and possibly use him as a human target....SHIELD! I meant shield....
Amd Helen, I wholeheartedly agree...Penn is no Fonda. Fonda should be a war criminal.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Dec 16, 2002 05:29 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 05:35:19 PM new
I doubt stusi, that a warmonger would be welcome in the country. According to the news articles that I have read, Sean Penn has been welcomed and is visiting without a guard. He may be safer there than he would be as a war protester here. We all have the right to travel and speak. Sean has the advantage of being a well known actor and the publicity will help to spread his message.
The Bush administration would like all Americans to think of Iraq as a hostile nation in order to justify killing thousands of innocent people there. Apparently, Sean Penn is being treated well.
Worry about George Bush, not Sean Penn.
Helen
|
stusi
|
posted on December 16, 2002 05:59:20 PM new
Helen- How easy do you think it is for the Iraqis or any other hostile government to show a non-professional like Penn only their "good side"? Do you really think he is getting a true picture of what they're all about?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 06:06:55 PM new
Penn is visiting the people of Iraq....not Saddam. People all over the world want the same advantages such as peace and happiness and freedom. His goal is to promote peace....not investigate or criticize or evaluate their culture.
Helen
|
stusi
|
posted on December 16, 2002 06:23:19 PM new
Do you really think his every move is not being "orchestrated"? BTW-How does one "promote peace" when one's country is threatening war? Smile? Crack jokes? Hand out Snickers? Your naivete is boundless.
|
Borillar
|
posted on December 16, 2002 06:31:53 PM new
>What gives him the diplomatic sanction to do anything on behalf of the US?
The same one that gives famous people like Jimmy Carter and the Pope the right to go do what politicians don't have the backbone for.
Note that Sean Penn has made it a point not to criticise the President while he is over there. He is a father who wants to know why his kids are going to have to fight and die over there. He has the means and the determination to go see what the facts are for himself. He does is because he has to know. I envy him.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 06:35:18 PM new
stusi
"How does one prompte peace?" Putting a face on the "enemy" as defined by Bush is one way. Spreading the message promoting peace all over the world is another. Your silly suggestions lead me to question your thinking process.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Dec 16, 2002 06:58 PM ]
|
stusi
|
posted on December 16, 2002 07:08:08 PM new
Borillar- "...to go see what the facts are for himself"? How is this possible for the untrained person?
Helen- What do YOU think is the actual process of promoting peace when your country is promoting war? My "silly" suggestions are obviously tongue-in-cheek, but no more silly than your being "friendly" with those who kill Americans. Let's not go there again!
|
bunnicula
|
posted on December 16, 2002 07:35:15 PM new
God forbid anyone should try to promote peace!
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 07:39:26 PM new
Stusi
When your country is promoting war, it is not anti-American or unpatriotic to promote peace. In the case of Penn, his presence in the area with the people of Iraq and with the words that he uses, he will hopefully promote peace. As I pointed out before, Bush has led the people of America to believe that the people of Iraq are evil in order to justify killing thousands of innocent people. By being there, Penn is putting a face on the people of Iraq...Letting the world know that these are real people just like we are.
No stusi, Let's not call me Jane Fonda again because it's not true. I am Helen and you are stusi... Let's leave it at that.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Dec 16, 2002 07:40 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on December 16, 2002 07:46:13 PM new
As I pointed out before... Yes, and it's just as untrue as the first time you said it.
Bush has led the people of America to believe that the people of Iraq are evil in order to justify killing thousands of innocent people. Bush has done NO SUCH THING. He has NEVER said what you keep accusing him of saying. Show me his words. You can't. He didn't say that. He's speaking about the leadership of Iraq and you know it.
|
Borillar
|
posted on December 16, 2002 07:47:22 PM new
>Borillar- "...to go see what the facts are for himself"
stusi, wouldn't it be great that every parent and concened citizen in America could get fre transportation to iraq to meet the citizens there unfettered, like Sean Penn was allowed to, and decide for themselves just how eagar they'd be to go bomb them to hell? That's the last thing that Bush wants. He wants his War and he wants it NOW, just like the monarcies back in mid-eaval Europe used to do for sport. If you could take a week off and go over there and meet the epoople on the street for yourself, I think it would be very unlikely that Bush would have any support for his actions.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 07:53:09 PM new
To call anyone who is opposed to war, Jane Fonda is simply crazy, Linda and uninformed.
You are apparently unaware of what Bush has done. You fit right into his mold - easy.
Helen
|
stusi
|
posted on December 16, 2002 07:55:25 PM new
I never said that disagreeing with the government is anti-American or unpatriotic. It is of course that very right that we are founded on. The actual logistics of going to a hostile nation, however, can border on providing comfort to the enemy. Or what if Mr. Penn "promotes peace" and Iraq is bombed the next day? Would he be perceived as having tried to calm the Iraqis so as to make an attack more effective? This whole thing is inappropriate at best. He was on TV tonight demanding that the US prove its position. What will you and he say, Helen, if the inspectors uncover WOMD?
|
stusi
|
posted on December 16, 2002 08:02:25 PM new
Borillar- There is no question but that there are many innocent Iraqis, Afghanis etc. It is a sad truth that innocent people get killed when war is waged. When it is impossible to extract terrorists who hide amidst the innocent this is what happens. The alternative of continued terrorism makes this a necessary evil.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 08:09:59 PM new
What will you and he say, Helen, if the inspectors uncover WOMD?
Sean Penn and I and most of the world will be exceedingly surprised.
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on December 16, 2002 08:17:08 PM new
Agreed Stu - This whole thing is inappropriate at best.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 16, 2002 08:22:31 PM new
Well, we are so fortunate that we don't have to learn from you what is appropriate, Linda.
Helen
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on December 17, 2002 01:12:11 AM new
"determination to go see what the facts are for himself."
God knows what "facts" Sean will find! LOL.
Maybe they'll film him at the "baby milk factory"!
The only effect these silly little trips by celebrities has is negative. In the US most of this stuff comes off as absurd grandstanding. But it does not take into account how ignorant foreigners are about the US government. After one ex-president toured the Middle East, I read how they perceived him as a sort of a "leader of the opposition". It can only embolden the Iraqi government into thinking they have a better hand in a game they're not even in.
|
stusi
|
posted on December 17, 2002 07:06:59 AM new
Helen/Borillar- And what will your position then be if WOMD are found? That we should still not attack Iraq?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 17, 2002 07:14:36 AM new
stusi/Linda - And what will your position be if WOMD are not found? That we should still attack Iraq?
|
Borillar
|
posted on December 17, 2002 07:22:39 AM new
>Helen/Borillar- And what will your position then be if WOMD are found? That we should still not attack Iraq?
stusi, if weapons of mass destruction really are found there, and I have never said that they weren't there, it really would be a good thing to not start a war over there. A ground war, which this one will be, will be dangeous enough for our troops without WOMD aimed at them. Or, stusi, are you saying that you'd feel better if those WOMD were aimed at our ground troops in an action against Iraq?
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 17, 2002 07:25:20 AM new
I can't answer for Borillar. But my position is that Iraq, under the control of the Saddam regime should be encouraged to remove WOMD if found, just as all other countries with such weapons. That list includes the United States of America, (the only country that has used these weapons}, Israel, Pakistan, India and Korea. We know already that these countries have WOMD
Helen
sp.ed
[ edited by Helenjw on Dec 17, 2002 07:33 AM ]
|
stusi
|
posted on December 17, 2002 07:54:20 AM new
Helen- We should encourage Iraq to remove WOMD if found? Have we not already done this ad nauseum? You have a short,selective naive memory!
Borillar- We should not start a war over there if WOMD are found? We should negotiate with the psycho? We should respond with fear of their use? Asking if I would feel "better" if WOMD were aimed at our ground troops is the type of question asked by someone who has run out of sensible defenses for their position.
BTW-It was just announced that Iraq has deployed surface to surface ballistic missiles that can carry biological weapons to our troops in surrounding areas.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on December 17, 2002 01:27:19 PM new
|
