Oliver Stone, on terrorism.....

M

mjrodney

New member
From CNN, a quote by Oliver Stone, the director of the movie Platoon, who stated that he is "ashamed for [his] country" for not just the war in Iraq, but over the US response to the 9/11 attack on the twin towers. According to him, "we [the US] have destroyed the world".

He went on to say....."Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with." :eek:

Lived with. Right.
 
To the extent that he might be arguing that "Terrorism" is not something you declare War upon, he may be spot on. All of Europe has known terrorism for decades. England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain have all lived thru terrorism periods and survived.

Now it's our turn. I don't know how to defeat it; no one does, because a belief cannot be "defeated". But I do know that declaring War on any noun is declaring War for eternity. You can destroy a country, if you're at War with a country; you can kill enough of your enemies to make the rest surrender, if you're at War with a People.

But how does one effectively wage War a noun?
Rich
 
A simple explanation that I errantly clicked on the wrong heading would have sufficed, Bud.

It's not necessary to add demeaning commentary.

I'll be more careful next time.
 
I sorta agree with Mr. Stone. In the abstract it *can* be lived with. We would all prefer to not live with it, so we try to find intelligent ways to mitigate it's effects and make it an unattractive option for the bad guys.
Question is are we finding intelligent solutions, or just lopping heads off the hydra?
 
Im old enough to remember, the Weathermen, The PLA, the Bader-Meinhoff Gang and the japanese Red Army. We still gots the IRA, the ETA and Sendero Luminoso, along with myriad other numbnut psychos with axes to grind becasue mommy spanked em.

They will be here today and long after Im gone.

You cant eradicate losers, they just keep being losers or new ones grow.

Not giving in makes you a winner.

WildandiaintchangingmylifestyleandoyeaholiverstoneisanidiotAlaska
 
I semi-agree with Oliver Stone. Going into Iraq made no sense. Most of the hijackers were Saudis, trained in Afghanistan and other places, but probably not Iraq. Saddam is not a nice guy, but he was more of a local thug, not a global terrorist.

I thing George 2 was just trying to finish the job that George 1 started, and saw the WTC attack as a good excuse.

Going after Afghanistan made a lot more sense. If we'd have put all the resources there instead of spreading them across Iraq, it might have been a better tactic.

The U.S. has destroyed the world? That might be a slight exaggeration.

Regards.
 
Not giving in makes you a winner.

WildandiaintchangingmylifestyleandoyeaholiverstoneisanidiotAlaska
Click to expand...

<cheering and clapping> Precisely. +1.

Springwemaygetattackedbutwedonothavetobevictimsmom
 
I think going to Iraq made plenty of sense. At the time we really wanted to make a very strong statement in the middle east, and that is one place where we should have had no problem doing it. Bush may have been over eager to start a fight, but Sadam was the one guy on planet earth who should have seen he wasn't bluffing (apparently not - Libya figured it out pretty damned quick and started getting friendly with us before there was any talk of retaliation against anybody).

Instead of "liberating" Iraq we should have "conquered" it (as well as Afghanistan). Everyone is accusing us of imperialism anyway. We've spent so much time trying to convince the world that we aren't engaged in any sort of aggresive takeover that it is now a self fulfilling prophecy and we aren't making any gains at all. Had we gone with the intention to conquer, we probably already would have been out of there by now (just because you conquer a nation doesn't mean you have to keep it).

I agree that declaring war on terror is pointless. When I first heard "the war on terror" I thought it was a cool metaphor. I didn't realize the people running the world were actually going to take it literally. More than "terror" being a noun, it is an emotion. So, the war on terror is relative to whomever it is that is being terrorized. Ridiculous! If you want to wage war on your emotions then take lots of drugs. Oops, I forgot there is an unsuccessful war on those too.
 
What's this crap about not giving in making us winners?

I've given in -- BY PROXY.

What I mean by that is, people who claim to represent me, in my government, have decided that I gave in, out of fear of terrorists and terrorism, and consented to embarrassingly stupid and futile searches at the airport; to not being allowed to bring a 2.75" pocket knife on a commercial flight; to being subject to random searches if I want to get on a NY subway; to not being allowed to take a bottle of Pepsi with me on a commercial flights; to random Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) that prohibit me from going flying any time the President is within 30 nm of the airport where I rent... and the list goes on.

Everyone around is talking tough about not giving in, not letting the terrorists win, but it's the most absurd doublethink ever witnessed -- they are saying it even as they are dumping their stuff into bins at the airport for disposal, they are saying it even as they say, out the other side of their mouths, that losing a little privacy or a few rights is worth it because the government is trying to keep us safe. :barf:


-azurefly
 
The Threat Is Manageable ...

I sorta agree with GoSlash27 and therefore sorta agree with Stone. Generally speaking, both sides of the aisle tend to stereotype and kneejerk, but if Oliver Stone hadn't said it, if it had been Neal Boortz or some other conservative, ala libertarian, we'd probably be giving the manageable threat comment more serious consideration.

Those of us that profess the belief that we are responsible for our own safety are, in effect, saying the same thing. To advocate concealed carry on commercial air carriers, for example, is to advocate the same thing, in effect.

If I say that I don't want the gubmint to create another agency to make me safer, the price for which is a reduction in my personal liberties, then I am saying, in effect, I can live with the threat. I take reponsibility and I'm willing to take the risk. We say that here everyday.

But when Liberal Socialist Hollywood Producer Oliver Stone says it ... those knees go into the jerk mode and away we go.

As for his shame at being an American and his indictment that we have destroyed the world, that is expected of his ilk. I'd venture a guess that if he knew the ramifications of his "manageable threat" remark, i.e., the taking responsibility for your own personal safety version of managing a threat, he would not have said it quite like that. It turns out that is exactly how many Americans feel on the personal level.

That does not translate to TFL membership rushing down to the Mexican-American border to take over. That is still the gubmint's responsibility and I wish they'd get on with it.

He came dangerously close to endorsing taking responsibility for your own safety, and I would bet my next paycheck that isn't what he meant. That said, I would surrender my next paycheck to the next conservative talking head that interprets it that way on national television. Actually, I'd settle for any one with a television camera and a microphone to just ask him if that is a logical conclusion of his manageable threat remark. Then sit back and watch the spin.

We know that this is no way what he meant, but it would be great circus to watch him deny that logical derivative conclusion from his own words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top