The dirty little secret Neil Young, Roger Waters and Mick Jagger don't want you to know is that after the USA left Vietnam Pol Pot took over in Cambodia and killed tens of millions of people in Cambodia and Vietnam. They know the same thing will happen again should we run from Iraq. Iran will fund a civil war that will kill millions of people. Neil and his ilk want to ignore their role in this holocaust. Don't let them. Hold them accountable for what they did and don't let them get rich off of "protest songs" ever again and NEVER again leave millions to die!
2006-10-08 13:06:59 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Exactly right. I well remember these peace songs and war protests. I remember Jane Fonda mounting a North Vietnam anti-aircraft gun. Then after the fall of South Vietnam and the killing that followed, not to mention the savagery in Cambodia, loudmouth Hanoi Jane never uttered a peep. And all the creeps like Neil Young went on to make millions with an apparently clear conscience. As far as I'm concerned, the blood of millions of innocent people are on their hands.
2006-10-08 13:16:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do not see the connection between Neil Young, Roger Waters, Mick Jagger and the war in Vietnam...I do see a connection with the army and the American government...even tho these three people may have had some sway over people they did not stop the war nor have anything to do with the Peace Accord that was eventually signed...just because someone protests against a war does not make them responsible for others actions which would have taken place anyway...humm that is a very strange way to look at things in my opinion!
2006-10-08 13:11:04 · answer #2 · answered by tigerlily_catmom 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Apparently, most people were not paying as much attention as you during the aftermath of the Viet Nam war.
Either that, or they preferred to ignore the inevitable slaughter that took place.
Today we are in a different kind of war - and the consequences of losing this war will go far beyond the slaughter of people in the countries directly affected. The Islamic radicals have made their demands very clear: Convert to Islam or die. Their tactics of murder and maiming thousands of innocent men, women and children should clearly unite this country in a war to rid the world of these psychos - but, unfortunately, the mentality of pacifists and "peace at any cost" groups and individuals hasn't changed much since Viet Nam. They still have their rose colored glasses on and reality isn't an easy concept for them - their little, perfect love and peace agenda makes it impossible for them to recognize that people who pack their vests with explosives and lethal shrapnel before heading out to a crowded mall or religious ceremony do not respond well to negotiation and reason.
It's a sad commentary.
2006-10-08 13:38:48 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
SIR? what in the world are you talking about? you are mind controlled?.the feds should NOT have sacrificed over 50.000 young men. YOU wont to die for nothing ?go throw your self under a truck.that would be as fruit full as dieing to control the middle east. thats all the feds wont to do.you seem to me to be a sheeple. the feds should not have gone in and killed a hundred thousand innocents.to take out one man. in Irag. I could go on and on but i wont. my blood pressure is getting to high.ow you are the freak I was one of those opposed to that war. and this one, also... who ever you are..you are weird.
2006-10-08 13:23:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I thought it was the US attack on Southeast Asia that destabilized the region and led to the subsequent bloodbath. It had nothing to do with the people who tried to talk sense into the American people, who were being deceived and sent to their deaths by their own government.
I assume from you convoluted question that you think peace is wrong.
2006-10-08 13:18:10 · answer #5 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Having gone through the Nam stuff and seeing the lies that were told then I see the same thing being done now.
2006-10-08 19:05:53 · answer #6 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its too late after the fact ... the answer is to expose and stop the policies that are leading us to go to war with iran and syria for bs reasons also... you are right in a sense though ... we need to quit poosy footing around in iraq with a puppet govt and get in there and clean house and disarm the whole goddam population and put and end to it ...its obvious that that wouldnt serve the goals of the administration though, which is to have an excuse to stay in the middle east indefinitely until the whole thing is militarized and we control 70+% of the worlds oil.
2006-10-08 13:15:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Are you suggesting Bush is taking illegal military action near Iraq as Nixon did in Cambodia?
Liberals in America are responsible for Pol Pot's actions?
Send your kids to Iraq. Hell no! We wont go!
2006-10-08 13:11:35 · answer #8 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I don't understand the conection between Vietnam and Iraq other then our solders should be no where near either of them. Why should we have army in those places in the first place they should be here protectiing us.
2006-10-08 13:15:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Sounds like a personal problem to me. You can't force a democracy on a country when the majority is against it. You're pissing in the wind. And pissing on Americans. Bad idea.
2006-10-08 13:10:17 · answer #10 · answered by Constitution 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋