I am failing miserably at keeping my two cents to myself... the struggle is killing me... so I give up... here goes...

cha ching

I have absolutely no problem with individuals having their own opinion on the war... I don't even have a problem with hearing the opinions of others... it is their RIGHT to speak their minds.. that is one of the founding freedoms of this country.

That being said, I do have a HUGE problem with the likes of the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen, Jessica Lange, Sean Penn, George Clooney, and others...

First, I don't believe for a moment that their is ONE person in the USA that WANTS war.... not even President Bush... for those celebrities to claim that, is completely ignorant.

Secondly, there is a difference between voicing your opinion in a rational manner (and not making it appear that our country is not united) and the way that these celebrities have chosen to do so. I don't recall contacting any of the celebrities in question and asking their opinion, nor do I honestly care what they think.

The celebrities in question are crying foul (no doubt Natalie Maines will too) that they are being punished for voicing their opinions and exercising their right to do so. Sean Penn has claimed that he has lost a $10 Million dollar role due to his outspoken behavior... I say toooo bad Mr. Penn.

I look at it this way... if you were shopping in a grocery store and everytime you checked out the clerk began to preach to you about his/her political view... would you not consider shopping elsewhere? or at the very least go thru another checker... I know I would. That being said, the celebrities in question cannot expect continued support from their fan base if those individuals do not agree with thier stance.

As for Mr. Penn losing his $10 million dollar role, oh well. It is the RIGHT of the director/producer/author to cast individuals in their movie that they believe will lend to the ultimate success of the film... he shouldn't have to risk his dream and hard work on the possibility that Sean Penn's actions will illiminate moviegoers.

I find it ironic that these celebrities have absolutely no problem living in this country and reaping the benefits of doing so... but are the first to attack our government.

As for Natalie Maines, she opened her mouth and will no doubt pay a price for doing so. Her words were sharp and uncalled for and embarassed this country as a whole. I find it amusing that she issued an apology to Pres. Bush citing that he deserves the utmost respect. My guess is that the other Chicks met her back stage and gave her a lashing... one very deserved.

I for one will NOT purchase any Dixie Chicks music (sad because I really enjoyed their talent), I no longer watch the West Wing, I have no desire to watch Sean Penn (sad again because I think he is talented beyond measure), and don't plan on drooling over George Clooney anytime soon..

All of this being said, no doubt some people may claim that I am guilty of the reverse.... speaking out in support of our government. The difference is, that I am doing so on a small scale, amoung friends and those who know me well enough to already have a understanding of my opinions. I am NOT standing in front of thousands and giving other countries the image that our country is not ununitied.

This is no longer a political issue, for me it is about the THOUSANDS of soldiers & sailors that we have on far away soil. Imagine what those men and women are thinking... fighting for the freedoms that we hold dear yet some seem not to respect.

okay.. off my soap box... and I apologize in advance if my post offends anyone..

>>First, I don't believe for a moment that their is ONE person in the USA that WANTS war.... not even President Bush... for those celebrities to claim that, is completely ignorant.<<

Well, do a little research. The Bush administration this week released a list of the top contractors who will rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq after we defeat them. Among the top five are Haliburton (Dick Cheney's company) and the Carlyle Group (G. Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, and many other familiar names). We are paying $2.14/gal for regular out here in CA; do you not think that the Texas oil industry is not profiting from this? Someone does want war, and it is the people in power in Washington who are making money now and will reap tremendous profits when this is done.

>>Secondly, there is a difference between voicing your opinion in a rational manner (and not making it appear that our country is not united) and the way that these celebrities have chosen to do so. I don't recall contacting any of the celebrities in question and asking their opinion, nor do I honestly care what they think.<<

Please, do not buy their records, attend their concerts, watch their shows, or attend anti-war rallies where they express opinions. This is your personal choice, as is it theirs to express their opinion (no matter how poorly chosen or positioned). Just do not question their right to say what they want. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Or move to Iraq, where they won't be able to express these opinions, and you won't be able to hear them (through the burka):rolleyes: :rolleyes:

>>Sean Penn has claimed that he has lost a $10 Million dollar role due to his outspoken behavior... I say toooo bad Mr. Penn.<<

Could it be because the little weasel can't act, and hasn't had a profitable movie in ten years?

>>I look at it this way... if you were shopping in a grocery store and everytime you checked out the clerk began to preach to you about his/her political view... would you not consider shopping elsewhere? or at the very least go thru another checker... I know I would. That being said, the celebrities in question cannot expect continued support from their fan base if those individuals do not agree with thier stance. <<

You have choice of grocery stores, you don't have choice of other Dixie Chicks. Neither Natalie Maines nor your checker has a lock on clear political thinking, but they were in this hypothetical situation speaking on common legal ground: expressing an opinion in a non-public place. The owner of the establishment (in the case of the concert, the promoter) would have a legal right to silence the speaker, unlike the protection we all have under the constitution to publicly speak our minds. In each case, vote with your pocketbook.

...

>>I find it ironic that these celebrities have absolutely no problem living in this country and reaping the benefits of doing so... but are the first to attack our government. <<

Again and again, they have a right to say whatever they want (as long as it is not slanderous or libelous) anywhere, anytime about anyone. This is what this country is built on.


>>I for one will NOT purchase any Dixie Chicks music (sad because I really enjoyed their talent), I no longer watch the West Wing, I have no desire to watch Sean Penn (sad again because I think he is talented beyond measure), and don't plan on drooling over George Clooney anytime soon.<<

well, I'll give you a week over Clooney :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;)

>>...The difference is, that I am doing so on a small scale, amoung friends and those who know me well enough to already have a understanding of my opinions. I am NOT standing in front of thousands and giving other countries the image that our country is not ununitied. <<

No difference. Don't forget this.

And this country is far from united on this.

>>This is no longer a political issue, for me it is about the THOUSANDS of soldiers & sailors that we have on far away soil. Imagine what those men and women are thinking... fighting for the freedoms that we hold dear yet some seem not to respect.<<

It is these soldiers and sailors whose blood will be spilled for the profit of a few wealthy, powerful men. I think we have all learned that it is awful to treat these soldiers and sailors as the bad guys, as some were after Vietnam, and I see zero chance they won't get all of our respect.

...

Jenna, thanks for your reasoned opinions.

IMO, considering the overwhelming opposition to our plan of action from nearly every other country in the world, Natalie Maines' statement probably sounds, right or wrong, like a solitary voice of reason to those outside the US. The fact that she can express her opinion is probably the strongest example of our freedoms that we can portray.

And I like you up on that soapbox. The view's pretty good from down here :D

jennaflower---I agree with ALMOST everything that you said.
The only thing is that being strictly hetrosexual,I have never
drooled over George Clooney.
It isn't very often that you will find an Irishman and an English
man agreeing on anything.I have to say that I admire Tony
Blair,for sticking to his beliefs instead of bowing to the majority
of political beliefs,other then his.In most cases it's called"Political
Suicide!" Irish
P.S.You don't find many people willing to fight City Hall!

Seriousfan.....

believe me.. I can last much longer than 3 weeks without drooling over Mr. Clooney... I actually don't find him overly attractive (I know.. I know.. I must be crazy).

You are probably pretty close to the truth when you say that Texas is going to make out well over the oil issue... personally I don't have a problem with that... I would rather see companies in Texas (or any other state in the USA) make money on the oil situation than the forgein countries that do currently. In my opinion that comes back to taking care of our own before taking care of the rest. (But I think that is entirely another issue).

Like I said before, I won't be giving my hard earned money to those celebrities that are outspoken on their anti war stance... I do agree that it is their RIGHT to do so and that they should be allowed to excersize it. However, Freedom isn't free in any aspect and excersizing this RIGHT at this particular time comes at a price... and those that wish to be outspoken are taking the risk of me and millions of others boycotting their films, music, books, etc.

I am a staunch supporter of the RIGHTS that we have in this country including freedom of speech. People seem to fail to remember that these Rights come at a price.

Irish.. up until the last couple years I have paid little attention to the Prime Minister (which I am completely ashamed of since my Mom is from England) but I must say that I am pleased with Mr. Blair's performance thru all of this.

stepping off the soap box again :)

Note: My strong opinions is probably one of the reasons I am single.. ROFL...

Here, Here Jenna !!

I know that supporting your soldiers,doesn't seem that
important,to most of the younger members,but I can tell you,
from my own memories,that when you come home,filled with
pride,because of the good job,that your Govt.,has told you that
you have done!It doesn't make you feel that good,when people
spit at you and call you a baby killer! Irish
P.S.REMEMBER,HANOI JANE!

Do you know that she is actually receiving an award as one of the "Women of the Century"?

Whatever you do, don't slip her a note of desperation!

To this day I wonder, does she even realize that WE know what she did? How can she sleep at night?

LixyChick---I can ASSURE you that any friends that I have,that were POWs at the time,will never forget her! Irish

A different take on warfare gentle folk.


The U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) as a combat vessel carried
48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no evaporators (i.e. fresh water distillers!).

However, let it be noted that according to her log, "On July 27,
1798, the U.S.S. Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons of fresh water, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds of black powder and 79,400 gallons of rum."

Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping." Making
Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum.

Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November. She
provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese wine.

On 18 November, she set sail for England. In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchantmen, salvaging only the rum aboard each.

By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted. Nevertheless, although unarmed she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland. Her landing party captured a whisky distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn. Then she headed home.

The U.S.S. Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February, 1799,
with no cannon shot, no food, no powder, no rum, no wine, no whisky and 38,600 gallons of stagnant water.

GO NAVY!

Irish why did you have to mention her. I will kept my comments to myself, yes I will, I really will........

You keep on speaking out! A strong, smart woman turns me on.

Dammmmmittt....I tried to keep my mouth shut, but cannot any longer.

1st I hated the Dixie Chicks before this so, the feeling is nothing new to me.

2nd, I have not the smallest problem with what Ms. Maines said about the President.

3rd. With that said, I have the biggest problem in the world with where she said it. No citizen of any country should ever go to another country and speak against their home country. For some reason that just strikes me as one of the most traitorous things one can do.

So Martin Sheen, Sheryl Crow, Alec Baldwin (Wait wasnt he supposed to move to Europe if Bush won....but I digress) or any of the others that speak out while they are on AMerican soil are free to do so, as long as they dont speak out directly against the soldiers (that I cannot handle). That is what makes the US the US.

jay_ba---My wife took yesterday,off from work!She is a HUGE
C&W fan.I showed her your album cover.I have known her for
approx. 40yrs.I don't think that I have EVER seen her laugh
harder! Irish

jay_ba,

The jpeg is too cool!

I agree that North Korea presents the world with quite a different set of problems than does Iraq. Their relative isolation from the world removes many opportunities to manage their international behavior. In that sense, they are rather like the Spartans of ancient Greece.

One of the benefits of not listening to C&W music is that what the Dixie Chicks say is as irrelevant to me as their music.

Oops, I put that in writing, didn't I?

Seriousfun, In re research…

Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time - claims cannot be proven or disproven.

Is the war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure.

Is it so difficult to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe - rightly or wrongly - that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. After all, the Thatcher and Bush "senior" administrations were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favorably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?

Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what's being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan "No Blood for Oil!"

If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about 100 billion dollars cheaper - and less politically risky - than going to war.

If the argument were that war is being undertaken to grab Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of big oil companies. That's because low prices equal low profits. But if the market were flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, it would also wipe out the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends.

Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry. If oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots - as is often alleged by the protesters - President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections. Because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices, (and thus, oil profits,) will remain at current levels.

If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how can we account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? If outright ownership of oil is the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.

If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war, primarily to protect their cozy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.

Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development contracts are overstated. The post-war Iraqi regime would certainly ensure that most of the profits from development were captured by the new government, whose reconstruction needs will be monumental. In fact, Secretary Powell has repeatedly hinted that Iraqi oil revenues would be used for exactly that purpose. Big money in the oil industry goes to those who own their reserves or who secure favorable development contracts, not to those who are forced to surrender most of the profits up-front through negotiation.

If the argument is that the United States is going to war to tame OPEC by ensuring that a puppet regime friendly to America holds the second largest reserves within the cartel, then it runs up against the fact that the United States has never had much complaint with OPEC. Occasional posturing notwithstanding, both have the same goal: stable prices between 20 and 28 dollars a barrel. The cartel wants to keep prices in that range because it maximizes their profits. The United States wants to keep prices in that range because it ensures the continued existence of the oil industry in the United States without doing too much damage to the American economy. The United States doesn't need a client state within the cartel, particularly when the cost of procuring such a state will reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue, which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal. That's why the United States and Great Britain care more about containing the ambitions of Saddam Hussein than, say, the ambitions of Robert Mugabe. Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?

In sum, the argument that the war with Iraq is fundamentally about oil doesn't add up. While everyone loves a nice, tidy political morality play, I doubt there is one to be found here.