Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216481,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216481,00.html</a> Oliver Stone Says He is 'Ashamed for My Country' Thursday, September 28, 2006 SAN SEBASTIAN, Spain — Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted President George W. Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years." Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country" over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of Sept. 11. "We have destroyed the world in the name of security," Stone told journalists at the San Sebastian International Film Festival prior to a screening of his latest movie, "World Trade Center." The film tells the true story of the survival and rescue of two policemen who were trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, after they went to help people escape. "From Sept. 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone. "It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11. "It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more."
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom This is what Neil Boortz has to say about this today: <<TERRORISM: IT CAN BE LIVED WITH Director Oliver Stone, who recently directed the movie 'World Trade Center' about 9/11, is announcing that he is ashamed of the United States. By the way, according to a lot of reviews, some of them from conservative commentators, 'World Trade Center' is a good movie. But back to Stone's comments, made in Spain at a film festival. He says President Bush has "set America back 10 years" and that he is "ashamed for my country." Don't you just love this? Here is a guy who has been a successful Hollywood movie director and screenwriter. He has no doubt earned millions of dollars. It's easy for these guilty liberal Hollywood types to sit back and say how bad of a place America is. But they never seem to mention just how good this country has been to them. And isn't it odd how often they chose to make their anti-American remarks on foreign soil? Then Stone really went off the deep end, giving his real feelings on terrorism: "If there had been a better sense of preparation, if we had a leadership that was more mature. We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with." So there you have it....terrorism, it can be lived with. Perhaps that could be a new slogan for the Democratic party. Start making commercials...print the signs...there's only 5 weeks to go. Just imagine Nancy Pelosi signing off each national Democratic ad with that slogan!>>
Originally Posted By DlandJB Oliver Stone is an American and therefore entitled to his opinion like the rest of us -- but beyond that, I don't know anyone who really cares what he thinks or would change their mind or their thinking about something because they heard that "Oliver Stone said..." Only the media cares...and apparently the right. To quote Oliver Stone or Michael Moore is the same as the left quoting Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell -- do they really speak for you? Probably not. So who cares what Stone thinks?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Does Neil Boortz have any opinion on what I'm having for lunch? Because I couldn't care less about that, either.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Althought I agree with your statements JB. I don't recall Pat Robinson or Jerry Farwell going onto foreign soil and saying "unAmerican" things. Here's an example: <a href="http://www.uncorrelated.com/2006/08/carter_dixie_chicks_us_israel.html" target="_blank">http://www.uncorrelated.com/20 06/08/carter_dixie_chicks_us_israel.html</a> <<Carter "Dixie Chicks" U.S., Israel The worst U.S. president in a century is up to his old tricks. Jimmy Carter, in an interview with German news magazine, Der Spiegel, calls U.S. and Israeli actions "immoral" and "unjustified". Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon. SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked? Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no. Carter's megalomania was remarked by his own operatives early in his administration. Bob Shrum, late of the Kerry campaign, resigned ten days after Carter was elected, remarking in a letter to Carter, "I don't believe you stand for anything other than yourself..." (Politics Lost, Joe Klein, pg 38) Now in his eighties--nothing has changed--Carter still only stands for himself and his personal "glory". Having failed to win any during his presidency, and disappointed with the plaudits elicited from good works, Carter has done much better being an ex-presidential useful idiot for the Europeans, and various fascist dictators around the world. He finally got that Nobel prize he always wanted. Ultimately though, history will not be kind to Carter. He's an anachronism who doesn't have the class to moulder quietly in rural Georgia. His current criticism has considerable irony attached to it in light of intimate history and his own actions. His greatest achievement as president were the Camp David accords, which were a direct result of the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Carter, in a stroke of good fortune, just happened to be president as Anwar Sadat was looking for peace with Israel and some economic help from a superpower. Stone is just the next celeb to say on foreign soil his loathing for the US. I'm sure there will be plenty more.
Originally Posted By mele You know, continually posting *someone else's* opinions isn't really participating in a conversation/debate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Stone is just the next celeb to say on foreign soil his loathing for the US. I'm sure there will be plenty more." WHO CARES what "celebs" say besides you??? Stone can shoot his mouth off all he wants wherever he wants, but it has no bearing on what I think or likely most other people. You can re-animate John wayne for all I care. So Stone is "unamerican" in your eyes? Big frickin' deal. He's entitled to be a jerk. Does anyone take Stone seriously? Does anyone seriously think he represents anyone other than himself? Get a grip.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Althought I agree with your statements JB. I don't recall Pat Robinson or Jerry Farwell going onto foreign soil and saying "unAmerican" things.>>> No, they do it right here. Of course, to them, they are not unAmerican...but then I'm sure Oliver Stone feels the same about what he says. I guess you could make the case that his hanging out with Liberian dictator Charles Taylor for diamond mines was a bit un-American too (and he even went on his show to complain about the American government's treatment of Taylor and Liberia at one point). Now he has moved on to the more American vitamin tablets and diet aids.
Originally Posted By DlandJB His = Robertson And although I don't always agree with Jimmy Carter, I do think he has earned the right to be considered a statesman and I do give his words more credence. We live in a country where we have the right (and even the duty) to call our government to be accountable for its actions. Carter has that right too.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't think Stones remarks were terribly far off the mark. I agreed with most of them. And yes, I'm sure we can live with terrorism. We have little choice because there is absolutely no way we will ever eliminate it. Iraq is pretty firm proof of that. All we've done is double the number of U.S. citizens killed by terrorism without reducing it one little bit.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I don't believe for one minute that we can "win the war" on terrorism. It's like saying we end all crime in America... it's an unrealistic goal. We _can_ win battles; take out cells of terrorists, and prevent terrorism before it happens. But to say that we can end terrorism once and for all is a fallacy. I do support many if not most of the actions that have been taken on the fight against terrorism, but the "we can win the war on terrorism" message is overly simplistic, and should not be the focal point of our national policy and interest. IMO there are greater fish to fry.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Besides, how do we "wage war" against a tactic? It would be like describing WW2 as the "war against blitzkrieg". We have to stomach the fact that we are at war with another civilization.
