• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W:43]

Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Deuce said:
So, if I'm ok with missile strikes I must be ok with blanketing the country with nuclear missiles. Yes, I guess I'm splitting hairs. My bad.
Click to expand...

Speaking of "strawmen," that isn't what I said. What I said is that war is war, and you're splitting hairs over tactics to justify one being OK and other not.

Of course, the logical conclusion of what you're saying is that the only objectionable thing about Iraq was boots on the ground. Had it been entirely an air war without invasion, it would have been OK. Correct?
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

notquiteright said:
1. There is a HUGE difference between the Iraqi war protesters and now. First the Iraqi war protesters had a WAR TO PROTEST. There was an INVASION of Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis dying from US military action and the chaos we unleashed after we INVADED.
Click to expand...
When President Bush was calling the shots, the protests started long before the war
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

RabidAlpaca said:
Well, the war hasn't started yet, so maybe it won't start at all. How about you wait and see what happens before you condemn someone for something they haven't even done yet?

The vast majority of Americans don't want this war, and if our congress decides to do it anyway, I promise you will see a massive backlash from the citizenry.
Click to expand...

But isn't Obama trying to get support for the vote from the public and Congress?

Usually the self-important Hollywood crowd tell us their opinions, whether we want to hear them or not, but we haven't Heard anything on this.

What is the difference between this subject and all the others?
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

1-He's right. If Hollywood spoke out against Obama, they would be called racists.
2-That speaks volumes to the "true believers"
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

notquiteright said:
Again there is a difference bewteen what a (D) President MIGHT say and the litany of lies the BushII team DID say.
Click to expand...
A politician is a politician. D or R they both lie, especially when banging war drums.

notquiteright said:
First Clinton didn't lob missiles into Iraq but into Afghanistan- THOSE were the missiles BushII derisively referred to when he said he wasn't just going to lob a few missiles at a camel's ass.
Click to expand...
Clinton enforced the HW Bush no fly zone for both his terms, or do you refute that? And during those 8 Clinton years he certainly did lob missiles into Iraq.

notquiteright said:
But speaking of the no-fly zone- the liberals didn't protest the no fly zones- not until Thousands of American troops INVADED Iraq did the serious protests start. Again many Cons refuse to see that difference in a need to attack liberals.
Click to expand...
Wrong. War protests occurred BEFORE the 2003 invasion. I urge you to look it up.

notquiteright said:
Thousands of Syrians are not going to die in the missile attacks- you are just making that up.
Click to expand...
As an ex military man, you should know by now throwing tomahawk missiles and laser guided bombs kill innocents. If you want to quibble about the number... would you accept "hundreds" instead of thousands to ease your conscious?
notquiteright said:
Certainly not the HUNDREDS of thousands that died AFTER we INVADED Iraq.
Click to expand...
Not as it stands now, but any military engagement has the opportunity to escalate and if it does, hundreds of thousands may yet be dead at Obama's hands. Progressives will be wringing their hands in dismay and making up excuses just the way Republicans did. What you don't seem to get is Con or Prog, makes no difference - the war drum, the lies, the cover ups, the excuses and the justifications all go the same way. The difference for me is, Prog's pride themselves as being against war and here they are manning the drums. Priceless.

notquiteright said:
You can keep twisting this to try and make a missile attack the equal to the INVASION which Liberals protested. You can attempt to equate the cost of those missiles to the cost of the Iraq war. You can even attempt to equate the deaths a missile strike causes to the hundreds of thousands who died after we INVADED Iraq.
Click to expand...
Again, either you learned from Iraq and Afghanistan or you didn't. Apparently you didn't.

notquiteright said:
I can't recall our nation EVER caring about West/Central Africa past it's resources. To compare the political clout Central/West Africa has compared to the Middle East is like comparing the political clout of Wyoming to Florida.
Click to expand...
The WH's argument and appeal to emotion is how these poor people died. Either Obama and the WH care about all atrocities where thousands of innocents are maliciously and brutally killed or they don't. I agree - they don't care about West Africa - now the question is "why?"
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Brooks said:
"Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.
A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said."
Click to expand...

Why do they want to kiss the a$$ of a small group? Blacks are a tiny minority in USA and most are very poor and don't even go to movies and/or otherwise support Hollywood. I'm thinking Asner just wants people to remember he even exists. I mean really - Mary Tyler Moore Show? LOL Of interesting note - did you know Asner is very involved in The Democratic Socialist Party in USA? Biggest socialist party in our country. Dunno why those fruitloops love Karl Marx so much; but they do. Guy was just some drunk living in London and talking smack (Marx, not Asner).
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

VanceMack said:
1-He's right. If Hollywood spoke out against Obama, they would be called racists.
Click to expand...

Nah. When someone doesn't like Obama or the DNC I don't call them racists. I equally don't think someone is racist for voting GOP. I doubt highly that anyone would call anti-DNC folks racist just by virtue of the present POTUS being Mulatto.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Snappo said:
Why do they want to kiss the a$$ of a small group? Blacks are a tiny minority in USA and most are very poor and don't even go to movies and/or otherwise support Hollywood. I'm thinking Asner just wants people to remember he even exists. I mean really - Mary Tyler Moore Show? LOL Of interesting note - did you know Asner is very involved in The Democratic Socialist Party in USA? Biggest socialist party in our country. Dunno why those fruitloops love Karl Marx so much; but they do. Guy was just some drunk living in London and talking smack (Marx, not Asner).
Click to expand...

They may be a small percentage of the population but they are are a huge percentage of the people working in Hollywood.

There are no productions of any kind that doesn't have them working in great numbers.

Remember the Hollywood crowd consider themselves to be the most sensative people on the planet so if there is something to be concerned about, they will be the first.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

What I think is more of the issue (ie, not the racist claim in the OP quoted article) is that Hollywood is politically very tight knit. Coming out against Obama, and against Democrats in this case is supporting Republicans would not be a good career move. So it's better to just stay silent during all this Syria nonsense which will assure they will still get scripts, keep their hollywood agents, contacts and friends and continue to work in the future.

Dont' get me wrong, actors/directors like Clint Eastwood, John Voigt or Gary Sinese certainly stay employed despite their conservative political views but they are the exceptions to the rule.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Brooks said:
When President Bush was calling the shots, the protests started long before the war
Click to expand...

Define 'long'. I recall it as during the constant drum beat of lies to try and convince us Iraq was importing yellow cake- a lie, centrifuge tubing- galvanized pipe for 122 rocker bodies, some al-Queera meeting with Saddam operative- another lie all for an INVASION.

What part of INVASION don't a few folks understand. BushII NEVER thought of anything less than INVASION.

When Obama starts a series of 'evidence' in an attempt to push for an INVASION- then we can start talking a similar issue.

Right now we have something more like Clinton's cruise missiles than BushII INVASION. Cons back then thought cruise missiles was wussy... now suddenly cruise missiles are war mongering... :confused:
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

notquiteright said:
Define 'long'. I recall it as during the constant drum beat of lies to try and convince us Iraq was importing yellow cake- a lie, centrifuge tubing- galvanized pipe for 122 rocker bodies, some al-Queera meeting with Saddam operative- another lie all for an INVASION.

What part of INVASION don't a few folks understand. BushII NEVER thought of anything less than INVASION.

When Obama starts a series of 'evidence' in an attempt to push for an INVASION- then we can start talking a similar issue.

Right now we have something more like Clinton's cruise missiles than BushII INVASION. Cons back then thought cruise missiles was wussy... now suddenly cruise missiles are war mongering... :confused:
Click to expand...
That's the rub. Obama can claim limited strikes all he wants, but once Congress gives an approval then Obama can put boots on the ground. If Obama wanted limited strikes he could have done so without permission from Congress.

Remember, Congress approved action in Iraq in the event that Saddam proved to be an imminent threat to the U.S. and to defend American interests. Iraq was no imminent threat and the U.S. was not defending itself.

All it takes is Congressional approval.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Maybe the silence is because this issue has a terrific amount of emotional conflict and nobody knows what to say.

Assad is hardly loved and most of the world would be thrilled to see a missile blow his head off. But at what price?

One the one hand, there is a humanitarian argument but just as strong is a "why am I doing this?" argument. This is a no-win for the US and these other countries are just a bunch of ******s waiting for Goliath to show up and solve the problem.

There is an old saying: "when you don't know what to do, don't do anything at all". Also: "silence is golden".
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

reinoe said:
That's the rub. Obama can claim limited strikes all he wants, but once Congress gives an approval then Obama can put boots on the ground. If Obama wanted limited strikes he could have done so without permission from Congress. Remember, Congress approved action in Iraq in the event that Saddam proved to be an imminent threat to the U.S. and to defend American interests. Iraq was no imminent threat and the U.S. was not defending itself. All it takes is Congressional approval.
Click to expand...

That is a HIGHLY debatable point. Congress put no limit on what military action was approved back when BushII ran the show. The Cons used what many thought would NOT include boots on the ground to do just that.

I don't see Congress giving a President a blank check like that anytime soon.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

notquiteright said:
That is a HIGHLY debatable point. Congress put no limit on what military action was approved back when BushII ran the show. The Cons used what many thought would NOT include boots on the ground to do just that.

I don't see Congress giving a President a blank check like that anytime soon.
Click to expand...

If we start with missile strikes on Assad's forces, one of two things is going to happen.

1) The Syrian military loses control, and chemical weapons will be up for grabs, and we will need to physically go in and get them.
2) The Syrian military widens the theater by involving Israel(easy target), which will cause a larger response by both the US and Israel. See outcome #1.


And at least be honest. Everyone should know by now that Obama is going to Congress solely for the purpose of political cover because the issue is polling unfavorably. 70-80% unfavorably at present.

He also can't use "global red lines" as an excuse for action because no treaty or agreement concerning chemical weapons use outlines a military response, which is one of the reasons why the EU is waiting on the UN to set the parameters.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Samhain said:
If we start with missile strikes on Assad's forces, one of two things is going to happen.

1) The Syrian military loses control, and chemical weapons will be up for grabs, and we will need to physically go in and get them.
2) The Syrian military widens the theater by involving Israel(easy target), which will cause a larger response by both the US and Israel. See outcome #1.

And at least be honest. Everyone should know by now that Obama is going to Congress solely for the purpose of political cover because the issue is polling unfavorably. 70-80% unfavorably at present. He also can't use "global red lines" as an excuse for action because no treaty or agreement concerning chemical weapons use outlines a military response, which is one of the reasons why the EU is waiting on the UN to set the parameters.
Click to expand...

Well to hear some Cons talk missile strikes are an empty gesture- Cons seem intent on forgetting their disgust and disdain for Clinton using cruise missiles. Now suddenly Assad's forces will lose control when Saddam didn't after a much larger shock and awe prior to our unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Assad will not lose control.

Do you REALLY think Israel is an easy target? Saddam tried that and it didn't work... History, study it.

This is not without risk... but I believe the fiasco in Iraq has ruined the tough guy strut Americans enjoy doing. We want our wars like teenage sex- over before the other party knows it even started. :cool:

We were strutting like cocks of the walk before the quagmire. This is our new 'Vietnam Syndrome' that has even Cons fainting at the very thought of punishing villains in areas of strategic importance. WE destabilized Israel and Saudi Arabia's northern border by kicking over the Shiite ant pile in Iraq. Now we want to leave Syria to fester.

Though I think if an (R) gets back in office the Cons will demand we 'get tough' with Russia and China- which most likely means spending a larger amount of the money we don't have of on big ticket weapons. :2wave:
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

notquiteright said:
Do you REALLY think Israel is an easy target? Saddam tried that and it didn't work... History, study it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read up on that to see why Israel didn't retaliate, and then compare the Israel-US relationship at present against what it was in 1991.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Samhain said:
Perhaps you should read up on that to see why Israel didn't retaliate, and then compare the Israel-US relationship at present against what it was in 1991.
Click to expand...

Already know, they didn't strike back because we gave them anti-missile missiles, and most likely a whole bunch of other stuff... bribes work well in the Middle East. :)

Why do some folks think of international relationships as 'friendships'? There are NO, I say again ZERO friendships, just mutual interests.

Being distracted from Iran by a Syrian 'threat' is something BushII would do. Netty ain't the smartest guy in Israel, but I think he is brighter than BushII.

For sure Assad doesn't want Israel storming into Damascus.

Spin it as you will, doesn't make it a fact.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

notquiteright said:
Already know, they didn't strike back because we gave them anti-missile missiles, and most likely a whole bunch of other stuff... bribes work well in the Middle East. :)

Why do some folks think of international relationships as 'friendships'? There are NO, I say again ZERO friendships, just mutual interests.

Being distracted from Iran by a Syrian 'threat' is something BushII would do. Netty ain't the smartest guy in Israel, but I think he is brighter than BushII.

For sure Assad doesn't want Israel storming into Damascus.

Spin it as you will, doesn't make it a fact.
Click to expand...

You got this part 100% correct, "spin it as you will, doesn't make it a fact."

They were going to get the missiles and other stuff anyway.

They didn't strike back because at the time it was not in their best interest to strike back. Whatever strike they would have done was far less than the coalition was going to do. Smart move on their part.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

ItAin'tFree said:
You got this part 100% correct, "spin it as you will, doesn't make it a fact." They were going to get the missiles and other stuff anyway. They didn't strike back because at the time it was not in their best interest to strike back. Whatever strike they would have done was far less than the coalition was going to do. Smart move on their part.
Click to expand...

I recall Israel's missile batteries being manned by US Troops, not Israelis, so we know they were not going to get those missiles anytime soon. Those Patriot batteries were rushed from the US Army inventory and manned by US Troops. So facts still be facts.

So how effective were the Scud attacks Saddam launched? How effective do you think the Scud attacks will be from Syria? What does Assad gain by pissing Israel off? Do you think any Arab country will support Assad if he does launch on Israel?

Assad is talking crap- like Saddam he is promising the 'mother of all....' but he knows he will be a greasy spot on a concrete wall if he uses chemicals outside of Syria.

It still isn't in Israel's best interest to strike back.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

You DO catch the irony there, don't you? Two Hollywood people (Asner & Mike Farrell) say - while in the midst of declaring opposition to the POSSIBLE Syrian strikes - that Hollywood isn't declaring opposition to the possible Syrian strikes. And yet, there they are, proclaiming opposition to the possible Syrian strikes.

It sounds more like they're against the possible strikes, and they're trying to convince others that lots of other people agree with them. Only those other people won't say so 'cause they're scared of being called racist. Come again? So...Sean Penn is a fraidy cat?

It could be because Asner is right. But it also could be because possible strikes in Syria as a direct response to chemical weapons is a murkier issue than declaring outright war with Iraq as a result of an incident Iraq had nothing to do with. The second was clearly a fake reason given for a war that was wanting to be fought and a leader that some wanted killed, on a personal level. The first has ostensibly legitimate reasons. But most Americans are against it, so I would assume actors (since they're Americans, too) are also probably against it, for all the same reasons most of the rest of us are.
 
Re: Ed Asner: Hollywood Silent on Syria Because They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black[W

Brooks said:
Been wondering where the anti-war crowd is this time around?

"Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.
A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said."

Asner: Celebs Quiet on Syria 'Don't Want to Feel Anti-Black' | Mediaite
Click to expand...

ha ha! Ed Asner! He's old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom