E-MAIL
IM
DIGG THIS
FACEBOOKDon't you people GET IT?!!! I'm a VETERAN of the Marine Corps...I saw so many of my friends get F'd over by our lovely government. To be Anti-war has nothing to do with supporting our troops!!!! The troops DO NOT make the decision to go over there and fight! HELLO? Vietnam? Wade is simply doing what a large majority of people (including troops and veterans) feel - expressing their frustrations with the current government that put us in this loose/loose situation. We are pawns and are the ones dying in Iraq - not the persons deciding to put us there. That is why being ANTI-WAR does not mean we don't support the troops...it means we don't agree with the policies that continue to make the same mistakes and sending our boys to die for oil.
Thursday July 26, 2007
Kelsey S. McNeal/FOX; WireImage.com
Last night’s episode So You Think You Can Dance took a shocking political twist. Some in the military and dance communities were startled when choreographer and judge Wade Robson billed one of his routines as “anti-war.“
In a taped package that aired right before Jaimie Goodwin, one of the ten finalists, performed to John Mayer’s “Waiting on the World to Change,” Robson took his stance, saying “[the routine] has to have something everybody can connect to. It’s about peace…it’s about the war – anti-war.”
In an exclusive conversation with Usmagazine.com, judge and choreographer Dan Karaty, says the routine was the first of its kind this season and its message hit home – hard.
“I was upset. My brother Thomas is a Marine. [The message] was an interesting choice,” Karaty says, adding that his feelings are echoed by his parents, who are former dancers themselves.
Karaty, who counts Robson as a close friend, believes that the primetime program was the wrong place for the choreographer to make his feelings known.
“Everybody has the right to have an opinion,” he says. “Part of the reason our troops are [fighting] is so that we can all have our own opinion. We are given the freedom to do whatever we want conceptually and choreographically, which is a great thing. The producers of the show trust us,” he says, adding that he is unaware of a production policy of clearing routines and themes prior to air. “But,” he insists, “I don’t think So You Think You Can Dance is the right form to express political opinions.”
Adding fuel to the fire was judge/choreographer Mia Michaels, who was wearing a military-style jacket with a military logo. According to Karaty, the judges and choreographers are allowed to select their own attire.
"My family was upset over the jacket that Mia had on just because its a question of who should be wearing that kind of jacket and why....only certain people should be wearing those jackets," Karaty says.
Judge Mary Murphy tells Us she hopes the competition can move past this controversy. "I support our troops and everyone's right to express their opinion," she says. "So You Think You Can Dance features talented dancers with amazing personal stories. It is my hope that after tonight the focus will shift back to the dancers and away from political statements." A rep for Robson and Michaels had no comment but did confirm that last night's events will be addressed on tonight's live broadcast.
|
Posted by Allison Corneau at 6:06 pm ET
Categories:
is anyone else confused by the fact people keep saying that the american soldiers, *not troops*, are fighting for freedom of speech in america or as karaty says "so that we can all have our own opinion." and here i thought america invaded iraq over wmds or to liberate the iraqi people or, hell, even for the oil, just not freedom of speech in america// geez i hate it when people try to throw in irrelevant reasons as to why american soldiers are over in iraq and then no one has the balls to call them out on it// Dan Karaty your a bleepbag
To answer your question, "Have you read the new reports from Iraq that low-level Sunni Al-Qaeda operatives are now turning on their "higher-ups" and becoming informants to the US military and Iraqi police?" Yes, but just as they are turning on Al-Qaeda, members of the Iraqi police are turning to Al-Qaeda. There have always been double agents.
But I am going to just have to agree to disagree with you. You have your opinions, and I have mine. I certainly don't agree with your statement, "Clinton was focused on cheating on his wife and getting blow jobs." And considering that when he left office, his approval rating was at 65% (The highest approval rating for a President leaving office since the end of WW2)I think you might be in the minority with that thought. I could knock George Sr, I could knock Reagan, I could mention the Iran-Contra scandal (which in my opinion was a little worse than Clintons moral issues), I could mention George W's controversy with the Texas Air National Guard....but why? It's still not going to change anything, and then you are just going to find something else to mention. So, lets just agree to disagree. You have your opinions, I have mine.
SAMANTHA AND ANON 11:17 - Yes! America has made mistakes! Yes we have completely underestimated and disregarded RADICAL ISLAM in the past...and most perturbingly, the recent past since the 90's on! This makes it ALL THE MORE CRUCIAL that we take this threat seriously and deal with it now before it's radicalism becomes even more widespread.
To ANON 11:17 PM - Before you lambaste me for being a biased conservative who has "never been outside of American boarders," I just want you to know that I am very well traveled, been to several countries in Africa, throughout Central America, Mexico (not resorts), and many other places. I am also working on my Masters and PhD in global health and will likely be in Afghanistan next summer helping rebuiled the country's medical infrastructure as part of my program. I'm not saying this to impress, I am saying this proactively so you don't harp on my being a biggoted, uneducated American who has not stepped beyond our country's borders.
So for your "war," "terrorist," aggressor," definitions, here you go....
WAR - The war on terrorism - This is a war on countryies whose GOVERNMENTS are harboring terrorists and providing safe haven...eg. AFGAHNISTAN and the TALIBAN and IRAQ and SADAAM. This could soon encompass IRAN and MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD and Syria and BASHAR AL-ASSAD (who Nancy Pelosi sooooooooo loves!).
TERRORISM - "term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals" - wikipedia (a source I hate to use, but is fine for this purpose) This "Anonymous" would included RADICAL ISLAMOFASCISTS.
AGRESSOR - "attacker: someone who attacks" PLEASE provide the circumstances in which we have attacked and been the aggressors. Remember! "start 500-700 year ago."
SAMANTHA - I am sure you are a very nice person. And I get that you grasp that this is a widespread, IDEALISTIC problem...but that idealism is limited to the RADICAL JIHADISTS, not the normal middle eastern citizen. And yes, you DID say that there have been LITTLE to NO gains made with the US military and Iraqi police when you said, and I quote "they are talking like it was yesterday," in reference to the U.S. troops and the Iraqi police. THAT means, by most who are able to interpret the English language, that you think that we and the Iraqis have not made gains. By the way...you NEVER answered my question about reports surfacing that low-level Al Qaeda operatives are starting to turn on the radical, higher level Al-Qaeda terrorists.
To answer your question of how long we are going to be in Iraq: YEARS. I have friends who are in Iraq as we speak who email home to me 1-2X a month and they GET the fact that this is going to be a LONG TERM fight. Regardless if we pull troops out next spring or in 10 years, this is a MASSIVE problem. We HAVE to be on the offensive against this.
A major problem with the U.S. is that we have DOWNPLAYED the threat of radical Islam. Since the 70's especially, and probably before, there have been "pockets" of resistance against us by radical Islamic groups throughout the middle east (e.g Tehran embasssy crisis, Pakistan embassy crisis - which was totally glossed over by Carter," and several other uprisings "against the west," the overtaking of the grand mosque in Saudi Arabia a few decades ago by extremists) and this has allowed radicalism to build. Regan was focused on fighting communism. Bush no. 1 was focused on fighting communism. Clinton was focused on cheating on his wife and getting blow jobs. No one took seriously the threat of radical Islam and the second Bush finally is. THAT'S why things are such a big mess now and THAT'S why we have to take care of the problem NOW. We can't wait for it to get bigger!
okay so...yeah, we can't change the views of certain nazis, but you don't see them still killing jews, do you? on the other hand, if we leave now and give the terrorists free reign....they WILL come back for us, whether in 1, 5, or 10 years....that's something that the nazis would never do...they may hate jewish people, but they are nowhere near killing off thousands of them at a time....
I have read enough and must agree with Samantha. She has some very valid points. We cannot change what has been instilled in a society from generation to generation. Look at the history of that region and make sure you start 500-700 year ago. Let me know what you find. I also believe that we need to define ‘war’, ‘terrorist’, and ‘aggressor’ before this conversation can really go somewhere.
I do not believe that someone who has never been outside of American boarders and spend some time in countries like Iraq could ever understand a foreign culture as they are blinded by their personal biases and beliefs.
Pt. 3
So, we are going to have to stay there, and try to get these two groups, who truly believes the other is absolutely wrong, to find a middle ground. Except no matter what we propose (as we have seen when we tried to get the government to agree to a constitution a few years ago) there is no middle ground. One is always going to assume the other has more, has better, and that they are being left with less. So when we ever be able to actually withdrawl? Now, I understand we will never FULLY withdrawl. Every place we have been to has military troops still there. Just a handful, but still. However, I mean, when are we ever going to be able to actually PULL out occupationally? If we leave after the insurgents are gone, there is still going to be genocide. So when is going to be a "right" time to withdrawl? In your opinion?
(the end...sorry, lol)
pt 2:
This is what is going through my mind, so please, just try and look at it from this perspective for just a moment. We are in Iraq to stabilize the economy. Yes? We are training troops to fight Insurgents, yes? Who are these troops we are training? Sunnis and Shiites, who already believe that the other group is evil. Truly truly believe the other is completely wrong, and completely evil. So, lets say, 25 years from now, we clear out all insurgents. We now have two groups of people who have been trained by "the best military force in the world". Now that we no longer have to worry about the insurgents, these two factions can now completely return to their own civil war. Except now they are much better in combat. They go back and train their own groups the things they learned from us. Now, we have these two groups fighting again, making the economy yet again, unstable. We still can't leave, because they are both wanting control of the "assets", oil (and lets not kid ourselves here, we want oil. And I am not saying that is wrong. We are still not ready to change and have everyone drive hybrids and using ethonol, and get rid of our humvees, etc. So we are going to need a stable source in order to stabilize our OWN economy)(cont)
(this is probably going to turn into an essay, sorry)
This is what is frustrating: You keep saying that I am saying things that I actually did not say. I say one thing, and you take it upon yourself to continue my thought, when you have no idea what I am thinking. For example, read back on what I have typed thus far. I not once said that "U.S. troops and the Iraqi police have made no gains". I never said "we no longer had troops in Germany these days". Now, this is partly my fault, because I keep assuming that you will understand what I mean when I say something, instead of adding a "P.S. - blah blah blah" at the end of every post. When I made the reference, "So to say, 'we need to stay until all jihadists are eradicated', is just like saying, 'we need to stay in Germany until NO ONE thinks like a Nazi.' If that were the case, we would still be there." I was assuming you would understand that what I am saying is, We would still be Occupying Germany in the same fashion that we are Occupying Iraq. Which is not the case. We are not in Germany at this moment to help stabilize the country, like we are in Iraq. (cont)
7:04 Samantha, just so you know, FDR was DYING to get us involved in WWll before the attack on Pearl Harbor, but he couldn't muster up public support for it. You should read some of the letters and correspondence between he and Churchill. Its really surprising.
5:43 Samantha, you shouldn't sign up for the military if you don't plan on, or want to go to war.
Anon 5:23 AS I SAID BEFORE, do you agree with murders? Do you think its okay to molest children? How about rape? NO? Then I guess you have plans to join the police academy! You're a moron!
Samantha - I apologize. Here's the thing, it's really frustrating to discuss with someone spurts out "facts" like the U.S. troops and the Iraqi police have made no gains. And when you said we no longer had troops in Germany these days, I had to laugh at that. We were in GERMANY FOR YEARS after the official end of WWII both for strategic location AND to help stabilize post-WWII Germany. It takes a long, long time to stabilize a country who has been through a massive upheaval. The same is going to be for Iraq. Even the democrats who are calling for immediate troop withdrawal are not going to remove 100% of our troops who are there. We are going to be there for years to come.
Have you read the new reports from Iraq that low-level Sunni Al-Qaeda operatives are now turning on their "higher-ups" and becoming informants to the US military and Iraqi police? It's an extremely slow process and it's going to take a lot of time to get Iraqis to trust us and know that we aren't going to abandon them like we did in the first Gulf War and like what the democrats are trying so hard to do now. Even Obama, the least nausea-inducing democratic candidate, said that the threat of genocide if we pull out of Iraq is not an excuse enough for us to stay there. Do you not find that even the least bit disturbing?
Why do you have a constant need to belittle the people who are trying to have an intelligent conversation with you?
First of all, we do NOT have troops in Germany for the same reason we do IRAQ. Germany is a STRATEGIC LOCATION IN EUROPE. THOSE TROOPS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT. So this statement here: "how about a timeline of more than 60 years? Is that too much for you? Just so you know, I haven't come up with this number arbitrarily. It's more of a WWII type of timeline...since it's been more than 60 years since the end of WWII and we STILL HAVE THOUSANDS OF TROOPS IN GERMANY!!!" makes absolutely NO SENSE, and has NOTHING TO DO with what I said. We have troops stationed ALL OVER THE WORLD, and we are not in any way INTERFERRING WITH THE SOCIETY. So please, please, for heavens sake...try and talk to me without an attitude, and also, find out where we have military bases, and why they are actually there. :)
Its funny how an painter can paint an anti-war painting and people will respect his view even if they don't agree... but a dancer does a dance about anti-war and it gets blown way out of proportion. Art is a way to express ourselves, and not everyone will agree but how can we express ourselves positively the way we want when we have the risk of getting criticized. It is much more meaningful to dance for something and to dance with a message than just for entertainment. If we can't express ourselves through art... how can we?
Katie - I didn't see that but am not even remotely shocked. I am however amazed at such a statement!
Have a good weekend everyone.
I'm at a loss for words here...
I mean, you really cannot combat this type of naive thinking with wit, sarcasm, or evidently...FACT. As for a timeline for how long we are supposed to be in Iraq, ok, I'll play along: how about a timeline of more than 60 years? Is that too much for you? Just so you know, I haven't come up with this number arbitrarily. It's more of a WWII type of timeline...since it's been more than 60 years since the end of WWII and we STILL HAVE THOUSANDS OF TROOPS IN GERMANY!!! Good grief, where the HELL do you get your "facts" from!?!?
But seriously, I need to get going. I will definitely check back on this page tomorrow. Debate has been fun, maybe next time we can throw in abortion AND gay marriage! Just kidding, the discussion is heated enough. :) Take care everyone, nighty night.
(cont) They have been fighting for MANY, MANY years. How would Americans act if suddenly, a Catholic President took over and decided we had to follow Catholic rules? That is what they are dealing with. And they do not want to have a government that seperates religion, because religion is their life. I never said "I don't think that going after "radical islamic jihadists" is a good idea". What I said is, that this is a culture we are dealing with. This is what they truly believe, and they teach this to their children. I didnt say all Iraqis are Jihadists. I understand that most are normal democracy-wanting individuals. However, it isn't going to take all Iraqis to make an impact (with jihadist ideas) it will only take a few. And you cant look at one person and say, "Yup, you are going to be a radical, I can tell." It is too hard to figure out who is truly for Democracy, and who is against it until it is actually too late. So to say, "we need to stay until all jihadists are eradicated", is just like saying, "we need to stay in Germany until NO ONE thinks like a Nazi." If that were the case, we would still be there.
Okay. I never claimed that training them was a fast and easy process. I understand that this takes time. 2005 is when they passed the bill giving them the funding to "accelerate" the training of Iraqi troops. It's been two years - A little longer than it takes to heat a hot pocket. Did I say pull out tomorrow? No. I said, get them adequately trained. But how long is this going to take? Two years, and they are still talking like it was just yesterday we decided to start training. My idea was get them trained enough to hold down Baghdad. Our military is doing a lot more than training Iraqis over there. If you believe that the ONLY thing we are doing over there is training troops, you are being naive. Insurgents are not the only problem over there. It's the sectarian differences as well. So not only are we trying to secure Baghdad against insugents long enough to get these troops trained, we are also having to play mediator between the Shiites and Sunnis, who get long about as well as water and oil mix. This is not what we are over there for! It is not our job to try and get these two factions to hold hands and agree to disagree. (cont)
MARY - Did you hear John Kerry on one of the news shows this weekend say that there was "NO BLOODBATH after we pulled out of Vietnam"????!?!?!?!
MARY - I definitely agree with you that it's going to be decades before history looks back on this and recognizes the Bush's wisdom of being on the offensive against terrorism.
Our situation today is reminescent of the days in the lead up to WWII where Winston Churchill wanted to take out Hitler before he became a huge problem. Yet people wanted peace and wanted to "talk" to Hitler and "work things out" (much like the liberals want to do with terrorists and the evil leaders of Iran and Syria). Chamberlain got Hilter to sign a little peace accord and people were proclaiming Chamberlain the friggin' god of peace and essentially told Churchill to shove it. And look what happened, because there was no pressure on him from the countries who could have taken him out, Hitler had time to build up and organize his military and marched on the Rhineland...and the rest is history. To not learn from history's mistakes and be on the offensive against evil, especially evil that can threaten our way of life, is very dangerous.
*Standing ovation for Katie E.*
Well said!!
Katie - I have to give you props. I don't think I've ever heard someone make the point about the slaughter that took place after we left Vietnam besides myself. It was basically what I call the other holocaust. If I'm not mistaken there were about 6 million people killed hence "The Killing Fields". I have talked to a Cambodian family that survived that horror (although her grandfather did not) and when the UN came to their refugge camp (okay I guess there are times they get it right) they were given the choice to come to the US or go to Europe and they came here. They were a wonderful family who has no problem with the role we played there. I know a girl from South Vietnam whose family lived in S. Vietnam before she was born. Her family barely got out alive (not because of us but because of the Communists). In fact her father was held hostage for 4 years. In her words she and her family still appreciate what our country tried to do for them and every single one of them lives here in the same neighborhood very happily.
SAMANTHA - (cont.) If we pulled out now, we'd be making the same mistake we did during Vietnam.
I find it very disheartening that our commanders on the ground, such as the person in charge of Iraq, General Patreaus, say that we CAN win this war, we just need to be patient...yet there are so many American people who are so impatient they want this war done and overwith by the time the microwave finishes heating up their Hot Pocket!
As for your "no one 'supports' war" response, you took that comment completely out of context. What was meant was that no decent human being WANTS war, but when we see evil and injustice, and especially when it threatens OUR freedoms and OUR way of life, you better believe we are going to go on the offensive against the perpetrators and
squash the small fires out in different countries before terrorists organize themselves enough to obtain nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, then it becomes a HUGE fire.
SAMANTHA -
In response to your 6:52 PM post...Ok, from now on I'll call it a war on radical islam. Also, we have been training Iraqi troops, but this is NOT a fast, easy process. Iraq has been under dictatorial control for years and years and it is extremely difficult to immediately reverse all that and install a democracy in a country who's been under oppression for decades. So, your first ideas the U.S. is already doing: training the Iraqi soldiers and securing Bahgdad. I mean, do you SERIOUSLY NOT THINK that's what are military commanders are working on at this very moment?
As for Iraqi mindset, most of these people are very good people who want to live free from oppression and want to live in a free democracy. They are like you and I in that respect. It is the aforementioned radical islamic jihadists who hate us, not the normal, everyday Iraqi civilian.
So pretty much, we are already doing what you've outlined. Here's where yoy kinda go off the deep end. You don't think that going after "radical islamic jihadists" is a good idea...so that begs the question, what DO you want to do? Do you want to bring everyone back home and sit on our a$$es and wait for the terrorists to come to our home and fight here? Do you realize the ramifications of pulling out of Iraq right now??? Are you familiar with history and Vietnam? After we pulled out of Vietanem MILLIONS of people in Cambodia and S. Vietnam were slaughtered. Do you really think that Iran, Syria, and Al-Qaeda aren't waiting in eager anticipation for us to pull out so they can swoop in and take over the place???
(cont.)
Anonymous - I'm an adult too and I would gladly shake your hand if this were in person.
Gruver - I can't imagine what it must feel like to have a child (not that he is a child, he's a man but he's your child) in Iraq in the line of fire. My father has been to Afghanistan several times since 9/11 and he's in Kuwait right now. (He's no spring chicken he's 61). I appreciate very much what your son is doing for this country. Unfotunately this will probably be one of those things where 30 to 40 years later people realize that we are on the right side of history. I hate that our soldiers are talked about as if they are helpless little babies that got tricked into joining the military.
Before anyone gets on my case yes of course there are a great deal of young people who felt like that was a good option for them considering their back grounds but let's not forget our military are the best trained soldiers in the world. They are the reason we get to sit here on our ample ass's typing our thoughts and opinions as we drink our cappuchino's or cold beers and decide what we want to do this weekend. We have the luxury of having opinions because we live in a country where the majority of us don't have to think about how we are going to eat today. And we aren't held hostage by our own government or brainwashed.
