Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Charlie Daniels' letter to Hollywood

  1. #1
    Senior Member Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Argao, Cebu, Philippines

    Charlie Daniels' letter to Hollywood

    "Charlie Daniels' Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch"

    OK - Let's just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children
    had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.

    Let's say that you really get your way
    and we destroy all our nuclear weapons
    and stick daisies in our gun barrels
    and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back,
    so proud of what we've done for world peace.

    Let's say that we cut the military budget to
    just enough to keep the National Guard
    on hand to help out with floods and fires.

    Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody.

    I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world's trouble
    would have disbanded it's horrible military
    and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit.

    After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.

    Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical,
    idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning.

    Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?

    Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.

    You people need to get out of Hollywood
    once in a while and get out into the real world. You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.

    Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.

    Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States
    has no right to defend itself.

    Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folks down there think about you.

    You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I've ever
    had the displeasure to hear about.

    Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, "fact finding trip" to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think
    that we didn't have the stomach for war.

    You people protect one of the most evil men
    on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby.
    Freedom of choice you say?

    Well I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own.

    If I see any of your names on a marquee,
    I'm going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to movies if I have to.
    In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.

    You scoff at our military whose boots you're not even worthy to shine.

    They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury.

    The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.

    America is in imminent danger.
    You're either for her or against her.
    There is no middle ground.

    I think we all know where you stand.
    What do you think?

    God Bless America!

    Charlie Daniels
    Copyright © 2003 Charlie Daniels

    ~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion ~

  2. #2
    Jeff, this pathetic drivel barely deserves the energy I'm putting into this reply.

    - Bruce

  3. #3
    Senior Member mk99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    toronto, canada
    "You people protect one of the most evil men
    on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby."

    Can we get a "You're all going to burn in hell" thrown in there too for good measure? How about "God hates Fags" and "You're paralyzed cause God is punishing you"?

    Strangely enough I actually find the majority of American mainstream films are VERY patriotic and predictable. Always get a flag blowing in the wind to some moving music and some Brave American Hero saves the day. How does this make Hollywood "Liberals" anti-American and out of touch with the average Joe?

  4. #4
    Senior Member alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Baltimore, MD
    Why is there always the stupid assumption that if someone is against war, they support the target of the war? I have yet to see or hear anyone against our attacking Iraq claim that Saddam is a wonderful guy who treats his people like pampered children.

    Some people are against war because people get killed, civilians as well as soldiers. That makes these people evil and/or treasonous?

    Saddam is but one of many brutal dictators in the world (he's not even the only one in his neighborhood), but we don't seem bothered by them (we even deal with some.) And let's remember that he's accused of violating UN resolutions, not US resolutions. If the UN isn't bothered, what right do we have to attack a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked us? Are we the UN's attack dog? ObL's terrorists (15 of 19) were Saudi - if we should be attacking anyone, it's Saudi Arabia.

    Meanwhile, North Korea threatens us with nuclear war.

  5. #5
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    beaumont tx usa
    alan...your shortsighted-ness is the same as in 1937 when winston churchhill tried to warn the world about hitler and 90 percent of ppl said hitler is no threat and hitler never attacked us. pearl harbor is nothing what a nuclear saddam is capable of doing.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Newcastle, Australia
    Comparing Saddam to Hitler - and Bush to Churchill - is an absurd and dangerous over-simplification, writes Robert Manne.

    As part of the ideological preparations for war against Iraq we have been bombarded by reminders about Europe in the 1930s. Saddam Hussein has frequently been likened to Adolf Hitler. As leader of the anti-Saddam opposition, George Bush has been likened to Winston Churchill. Those opposing war have been dismissed as naive "appeasers". When the arguments of the appeasers have threatened to dominate discussions at the UN, the "irrelevance" of the League of Nations, in the face of Hitler's brutal aggression, has been recalled. If only the lessons of the '30s were properly understood, the war party has repeatedly told us, the world would grasp the need for immediate action against Saddam.
    In almost every particular, this argument from analogy seems to me quite false.
    By the late '30s Hitler was the leader of what was already arguably the greatest military and economic power in Europe. Saddam is the leader of what is a desperately impoverished Third World country which has been crippled by more than a decade of economic sanctions and whose conventional military capacity is far smaller than at the outbreak of the 1990 Gulf War..
    By the mid '30s Hitler had managed, without significant diplomatic cost, to break every single aspect of the disarmament provisions imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. Unilaterally he had reintroduced conscription, announced his plans for the creation of a major airforce and remilitarised the Rhineland. By comparison, since 1991, under the disarmament resolutions of the UN, Saddam has (most reluctantly) been compelled to destroy most of the chemical and biological weapons material he had accumulated and, according to different interpretations, either to abandon altogether or to make no substantial progress with his nuclear plans.

    Nor are the comparisons of Hitler and Saddam as "serial aggressors" much more plausible. In less than two years Germany annexed Austria, dismembered Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland. In 1980 Iraq attacked Iran and in 1990 occupied Kuwait. At this point, the comparison ends. Although neither of Saddam's acts of aggression can be justified, neither, according to the objective historians, were they entirely unprovoked. In 1980 Saddam had grounds to fear hostile actions of the new Islamist regime in Iran. In 1990 Kuwait was threatening the postwar Iraqi economy by demanding debt repayments and, through overproduction, by driving down the price of oil.

    More importantly, concerning the claim about serial aggression, in 1991 Saddam suffered catastrophic military defeat at the hands of the US-led forces. From that time any act of external aggression was certain to trigger a massive Anglo-American military response. Not only was Saddam incapable of external aggression, he had even lost control of large parts of his own Kurdish territory in the north.
    The description, then, of Saddam as a Hitler-like serial aggressor is a simplification with regards to the war with Iran and the invasion of Kuwait. The revival of such a description under contemporary conditions is absurd. Saddam has always been a foul and criminal dictator, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people and for genocidal attacks upon the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds. As I argued in my last column, the danger that his regime now poses is to his own people and not his neighbours, let alone the West.
    Because world opinion has overwhelmingly resisted the Anglo-American case about the external threat posed by Saddam, and because as a consequence the UN has put a brake on US determination for a war to destroy his regime, the US and its supporters now warn the UN that unless it shortly gives the green light to Anglo-American military plans, it will become, like the League of Nations, "irrelevant" to world affairs.
    This argument is both arrogant and wrong. There are a number of reasons why the League of Nations failed. One was that the potentially greatest military power in the world, the US, withdrew into isolation shortly after World War I and refused to join the League. Another was that between the wars, of the six other great powers only two - Britain and France - were members for the entire time. In the '30s the fascist powers - Japan, Germany and Italy - not only withdrew from the league but became its bitter enemies.
    No sensible comparison can be made between the failure of the league to restrain Hitler and the supposed failure of the UN regarding Saddam. The league could not restrain Hitler because by the time of his challenge it had already effectively collapsed. The UN has not failed to restrain Saddam but has, rather differently, refused to support Anglo-American plans for war. For the US the "relevance" of the UN, apparently, is to be measured by its willingness to bow to America's will. For many countries its relevance lies rather in its capacity, on one hand, to take action in cases of clear aggression and, on the other, to resist the revolutionary new American strategic doctrine of preventive war.
    Given this, the vision of Bush as a contemporary Churchill is no more plausible than the image of Saddam as the Hitler of our time. Until 1939, in his understanding that Hitler's military appetite was insatiable and that concessions would simply seem to him evidence of others' weakness, Churchill was virtually alone. It was in his courage and independence but above all in the penetration of his intellect that his greatness resided.
    Bush, to put it mildly, has demonstrated none of these qualities. It is only if Churchill is reduced from the prophetic leader of Britain's anti-Hitler forces to the inventor of an all-purpose hardline anti-appeasement foreign policy, suitable for every circumstance, that Bush can be portrayed as a Churchill for the present age.
    The stirring story about the threat of Hitler, the blindness of the appeasers and the percipience of Churchill provided the foundation for Western foreign policy during the Cold War - the containment of communism. As a strategy, containment might have been responsible for the calamity of Vietnam but it was also responsible for the maintenance of superpower peace for 40 years and the Western victory of 1989.
    During the Cold War the Hitler-Churchill story congealed into the Western world's most potent political myth. Following the trauma of September 11, through the influence of Cold Warriors in the Bush Administration - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - the myth was pressed into new service, this time as one of the rationales for the war against Iraq, perhaps merely the first in a series of preventive strikes against non-conventionally armed "rogue states".
    In its contemporary reincarnation the Churchillian myth has become extremely dangerous. It is time that the story was relegated from the status of myth and restored to the realm of mere history.

    Robert Manne is professor of politics at La Trobe University.

    "You can stand me up at the gates of hell
    But I won't back down"
    Tom Petty

  7. #7
    Sorry Charlie,

    Our folks in the military, past and present, have put their lives on the line so that Americans would have the freedom of political protest.

    "I may not agree with what they have to say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it." This is one of the greatest attributes of America, if not THE greatest. Political opposition to the war represents our strength . . . not our weaknesses. And opponents/proponents on both sids of the issue show patriotism to the extent that they stick to the issue of whether or not we should go to war.

    One caveat

    Don't don't mess with our troops. They're there to carry out their duty. Its their job. Start mocking them, their children, or their families and then you need to reconsider your position, your patriotism, and your humanity. To be clear . . . without them you would be speaking either German or Japanese today and living in a totalitarian state where free speech would put you in a prison from the bowels of hell itself.

    BTW: I wonder how Charlton Heston, Arnold, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, etc., feel about being lumped in with Barb and Sean? Generalizations are dangerous.

  8. #8
    Gotcher rogue nation right here

    JON CARROLL Wednesday, March 12, 2003
    SF Chronicle

    Let's say that a rogue nation is one that shows disregard for the opinions of other nations and takes as a given its right to attack any other nation at any time for any reason it finds compelling. It either refuses to sign treaties or breaks the treaties it does sign. It uses a disproportionate amount of its budget to build and maintain a powerful military, even when its people are going hungry and its economy is in free fall.

    North Korea is a rogue nation. The United States is a rogue nation. Certainly, the citizens of the United States are infinitely better off than the citizens of North Korea. Still . . . see those "Wrong Way" signs all along the highway? Maybe we should pay attention.

    Another feature of rogue nations is the messianic fervor of their leaders. They act as though (and often say) that they are on a mission from God, that they have the bestest nation in the world with the bestest leaders, and everyone should bow before their majesty.

    Even if that were true before, it becomes instantly untrue the moment it's said. Running a good nation requires a healthy dose of humility because things are always going wrong, and errors are always being made. The Bush administration routinely denies that it makes mistakes. It edits transcripts to erase comments it doesn't like; it withdraws reports containing conclusions it does not want to be true.

    Every time the president says he doesn't want war, the credibility gap widens. Hey, it's not as if anyone is forcing you. You're the president; you could tell Paul Wolfowitz that his 15-year plan for world domination is no longer operative.

    (You'd think, given the nature of the 2000 election, given that Al Gore got the majority of the popular vote and that it took the Supreme Court to decide who won, that Bush might consider that humility would be a prudent course. On the contrary, he realizes that his hold on the office is tenuous, so he's gonna mess things up so bad in four years that it'll take three decades to make them right.)

    It is weird how far we have come from traditional Republicanism. Remember that, Goldwater fans? Small government, fiscal prudence, protection of personal freedoms. I did not support that point of view -- it didn't leave a lot of room for the civil rights movement -- but God it's looking pretty good right now.

    Adam Smith, the guy who believed that an "invisible hand" guided the free marketplace in the right direction, said that "little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."

    Sounds nice, doesn't it? But we have rumors of war at every hand, and a conflict likely before April Fool's Day; we have a system of justice that favors the rich and practices law enforcement by subterfuge and arrest based on rumor; and we have easy taxes only for those who can afford to pay the taxes regardless.

    It can be scary, if you think about it. Money rushing out of the country to support the war in Iraq and later to shore up the fractious new state, increased deficits and decreased funding for every service the government provides, states going bankrupt, schools going bankrupt, citizens going bankrupt. The oligarchs and the defense contractors get rich while the rest of us wonder where our country went.

    It is our duty to pray for a short war and few casualties; if the United States is going to win anyway, then let the victory be swift, let surrender come soon. But then fear the peace because when a rogue nation gets what it wants, it just wants more.

  9. #9
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    beaumont tx usa
    32,389 the end is near and the world is doomed to become hell after president bush 4 years. interesting. 1 question for you, name 1 country that is not a rogue nation according to your definition.

    andrew i didnt compare bush to churchill or saddam to hitler. i compared the situation of the world being naive to the threats of ppl like hitler and saddam. first, saddam is much smarter than hitler. have you heard the saying about the devil greatest trick was to convince the world he doesn't exist. well saddam did the same thing, convince the world he is no threat. he didnt have to invade russia like hitler did, he bought them. he also bought france and china. saddam is also more dangerous than hitler. hitler didnt have the technology or the extremist to carry out world terror. papa bush stopped the 4th largest army from doing any major damage. had you or your kind been in power, appeasing saddam, he would be holding the world hostage. so ppl are just able to see a train coming and get out the way, others have to get hit by the train.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by DA: the end is near and the world is doomed to become hell after president bush 4 years. interesting. 1 question for you, name 1 country that is not a rogue nation according to your definition.

    DA - damn straight we're in trouble.
    Just 1? Why don't you pick, in case you don't like my choice: Canada, Mexico, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Greenland, Australia, Tibet, New Zealand, Chile, Equador, Brazil, Luxemberg, Lithuania, Poland, Jamaica...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts