Harry Belafonte calls Colin Powell a "house slave"

The1calledTKE · #1 10-09-2002, 08:36 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_belafonte_dc

#2 10-09-2002, 08:54 PM

EDIT:
While Belafonte has contributed to our country, i put more value into someone who has risked his life to defend our country's ideals.

Light em up Colin!!

Kitso
KS 361 bombs raining down on saddam hussein

Optimist Prime · #3 10-10-2002, 12:02 AM

Helly Yeah Harry

Kevin · #4 10-11-2002, 12:40 AM

I hate that people think that because someone can sing their political opinions matter more than any other ordinary person!

It would be a sad state of affairs when someone changed their political leanings because of something Harry Belafonte said...

Belafonte can sing but I don't see him running for office... and if he did I'd hope no one took him seriously.

If Colin Powell made a similar comment about Belafonte's music it would be just as weighty.

three2tango · #5 10-11-2002, 06:35 AM

I think what he said was very irresponsible and cowardly. It shows a total disregard for being respectful of a strong african american role model.

and ditto to aggiesigma

ZetaAce · #6 10-11-2002, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
I hate that people think that because someone can sing their political opinions matter more than any other ordinary person!

It would be a sad state of affairs when someone changed their political leanings because of something Harry Belafonte said...

Belafonte can sing but I don't see him running for office... and if he did I'd hope no one took him seriously.

If Colin Powell made a similar comment about Belafonte's music it would be just as weighty.

Harry Belafonte has quite a long history of activism in civil rights and human rights. His opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, being an entertainer doesn't make it more or less valid. If he did run for office, a lot of people would take him seriously.

Not to take anything away from Colin, but I don't see him running for office either. He's never held an elected office, only appointed.

I don't agree with all of Belafonte's comments, I think he stepped over the line, especially with the house slave remark, but he makes some valid points about Colin's dissapearance and change in stance regarding the Iraq situation. We're talking about an administration that said in July 2001 that Iraq was not a threat, and now a year and some change later they are the big enemy? I want to know exactly what changed between now and then, because from what I can see, not a darn thing has changed except Bush's rhetoric. (Not to mention the Cold Warrior's (Condoleeza Rice) rhetoric.

)

What I would like to see is Bush make some serious strides towards enacting some helpful domestic policies. Right now I just see him as a war monger. Note to Bush: A new war is not going to stabilize the economy, put homeless people in shelters, give this nation's children better education, OR stop snipers in the D.C. area (heck that's what I'm most worried about right now).

I could write a long list of things I'd like to see done in this country before we go to war with Iraq. I'll definitely be speaking up with my vote in 2004 (which can't get here soon enough)!

ZA

Kevin · #7 10-11-2002, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZetaAce

I don't agree with all of Belafonte's comments, I think he stepped over the line, especially with the house slave remark, but he makes some valid points about Colin's dissapearance and change in stance regarding the Iraq situation. We're talking about an administration that said in July 2001 that Iraq was not a threat, and now a year and some change later they are the big enemy? I want to know exactly what changed between now and then, because from what I can see, not a darn thing has changed except Bush's rhetoric. (Not to mention the Cold Warrior's (Condoleeza Rice) rhetoric. )

ZA

I think that leaders are allowed to change stances when new evidence is presented. For example, in Turkey they just arrested a group of men that were smuggling uranium towards Iraq... If there's anything we can do at this point to keep this technology out of the hands of terrorists we must do it now. If we do not act soon, Saddam will have nuclear weapons. And after this there is not a damned thing we can really do to prevent a nuclear attack here in the US.

In WWII when the Nazi's were ignored for so long there were people like you with the exact same argument. Then he invaded Austria and they still said since he was no threat to the US we should do nothing! What's it going to take? A nuke in NYC?

IowaHawkeye · #8 10-11-2002, 10:14 AM

Bush's war with Iraq is total Wag the Dog in my book. It's near midterm election time - there are crucial elections taking place for the control of the senate, and you KNOW Bush wants a republican controlled senate. They hope the average Joe Voter, with little political knowledge will think "wow, the president is 'fighting terrorism' and bringing that evil Saddam Hussein to justice - oh and the president is Republican. I guess I'll vote for the republican running in my district for senate because GW saves the day again

" I don't think it will fly - the american people, while still traumatized about 9/11, are getting a little fed up with the war on terrorism. It has been over a year and we have made no significant strides and have yet to capture bin laden or his top assistant - even with the best military forces on earth in the marines, navy seals, and rangers. The American people are more concerned these days with the economy and domestic policies.

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
I hate that people think that because someone can sing their political opinions matter more than any other ordinary person!

It would be a sad state of affairs when someone changed their political leanings because of something Harry Belafonte said...

Belafonte can sing but I don't see him running for office... and if he did I'd hope no one took him seriously.

If Colin Powell made a similar comment about Belafonte's music it would be just as weighty.

I agree with ZetaAce that just becuase someone is not Secretary of State or any other political office that their opinion does count. I respect Colin powell and I respect Harry Belafonte, even though i may not agree 3with either of them from time to time. Someone with a long history of political action and cvil rights activism has just as much of a valid opinion on the politics of our nation. In fact I believe everyone in this country, from the big powerful business person to the homeless guy on the street should have an equal voice in this country - and thats what the electoral system is in place for, to hold reps responsible to their constituants.

Oh, and a perfect reason why the US needs to stay out of everyone else's business unless they are asked for help and concentrate on domestic issues: Pro-Taliban party wins in Pakistan election. What's next, we attack Pakistan even though they have been our friend through this

We're a sovereign nation and we expect that just because German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder might not agree with or support what Bush is doing in terms of Iraq, he's NOT going to swoop into our country with the german military and battle until Bush is out of office. And the US should do the same for other sovereign nations - let them handle themselves.

Optimist Prime · #9 10-11-2002, 10:29 AM

Patriotism=Making your country. Loving it so much you are wiling to die for it, even if this death comes at the hands of some one whom your counrtyman have "chosen" to lead.

Nationalism=Waving a flag around like a moron, or a coward, just so you won't seem unpatriotic.

The most patriotic thing ever was the Declaration of Independence. It never mentioned God. Nor does the constitution. "So help me god" which is usually said after after the president is sworn in is not an offical part of the constitution.

If you didn't own an American flag before september 11, and/or identifyed with your state more than your country, you are not a patriot. I love Virginia and all, think it is cool, love our motto, but the USA will always be number one in my heart. Maybe I should write this in my journal not greek chat?

ZetaAce · #10 10-11-2002, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake

I think that leaders are allowed to change stances when new evidence is presented. For example, in Turkey they just arrested a group of men that were smuggling uranium towards Iraq... If there's anything we can do at this point to keep this technology out of the hands of terrorists we must do it now. If we do not act soon, Saddam will have nuclear weapons. And after this there is not a damned thing we can really do to prevent a nuclear attack here in the US.

In WWII when the Nazi's were ignored for so long there were people like you with the exact same argument. Then he invaded Austria and they still said since he was no threat to the US we should do nothing! What's it going to take? A nuke in NYC?

Comparing Iraq to Germany pre-WWII is extremely short sighted in my opinion, IMO. Two totally different countried and situations.

A group of men smuggling uranium to Iraq is not really anything to chomp at the bit about...yet. I would not be shocked to find out that Iraq already has Uranium.

While I agree we should nip the situation in the bud now, there are other options to stopping Sadaam from building Weapons of Mass Destruction besides war. How about some legit inspections for instance, instead of the half assed one they had before?

Do you honestly think another war is what our country needs? We still have one going on, and it's dragging us down economically and politically.

ZA

IowaHawkeye- RIGHT ON!

Kevin · #11 10-11-2002, 11:09 AM

Quote:

While I agree we should nip the situation in the bud now, there are other options to stopping Sadaam from building Weapons of Mass Destruction besides war. How about some legit inspections for instance, instead of the half assed one they had before?

Do you think inspections could actually accomplish anything? You have what... 20, 30 inspectors? Maybe less? They are supposed to know everything that goes on in a country? Let's be realistic.. If Saddam wanted to hide something from them it wouldn't be all that hard. And there is PROOF that he has in the past.

There are many UN resolutions that he's already broken. Why does anyone think he'd take another seriously? Usually we'd know not to trust someone after breaking their promises once or twice.. but I understand it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 times he's blatently disobeyed the UN?

It's simply unrealistic to conclude that inspections or anything short of regime change is really going to accomplish a whole hell of a lot.

IowaHawkeye · #12 10-11-2002, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake

There are many UN resolutions that he's already broken. Why does anyone think he'd take another seriously? Usually we'd know not to trust someone after breaking their promises once or twice.. but I understand it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 times he's blatently disobeyed the UN?

Ok, this doesn't have to do with iraq, but UN resolutions.

The UN has passed several resolutions in regards to Palestinians who were forced out of their homes in the West Bank/Gaza/Jerusalem demanding that they return to their homes. The UN has passed resolutions that the Israelis MUST end their occupation of Jerusalem and allow the palestinians to return to their homes. Israelis must withdrawl from territories added through armed conflict - as they have no legal validity.

the US, as a UN security council member is doing nothing to enforce these UN resolutions, instead we are producing and shipping Israel billions of dollars worth of arms and advanced military equipment. not to mention the fact that Israel is the only country in the region we allow to have nuclear weapons - b/c it is convienant and useful for us for us to have these here.

So don't use ignoring UN resolutions as a reason for invading a country - it doesn't fly in my book especially when the US has obviously done the nothing to stop the conflict in the middle east and has yet to help enforce the UN resolutions.

Kevin · #13 10-11-2002, 11:31 AM

The difference between Israel and Iraq is that one is known to have close ties with the leadership of the people that killed 3000 of our civilians on 9/11 and Israel is an ally.

The fact is that in Isreal's case they are acting in Palestine to defend their own people. They are the middle east's only true democracy. There are plenty of great reasons to support Israel.

Comparing them to Iraq isn't going to make a very good case at all.

IowaHawkeye · #14 10-11-2002, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Comparing them to Iraq isn't going to make a very good case at all.

I wasn't comparing Israel/Palestine to Iraq at all, as you can see at the beginning of my post I even said "This doesn't have to do with Iraq, but UN resolutions"

What I did say, however, is that using the fact that Saddam has ignored UN resolutions or lied about them as an excuse or a reason to invade WILL NOT FLY - basically because the US has done the exact same thing and if that is our reason to invade, we are hypocrites.

We just might have to start a new thread on reasons to support Israel - becuase the more I read about it and the more I learn about I can't imagine what I was thinking for defending israel for so long. The only reason I can come up with to defend Israel is that there are rich pro-israeli lobbiers in congress and rich pro-israeli members of congress and the Presidents don't want to lose their support.

Quote:

The fact is that in Isreal's case they are acting in Palestine to defend their own people.

The fact is that the Israeli Zionists many years ago decided they wanted their own country, where the businesses and the government and the people were all jewish so they could no longer be persecuted in Europe. And for sentimental reasons they chose the area of Palestine, as Jerusalem is a sacred city for Jews, Chirstians, and Muslims (it is said that here is where the prophet Mohammed ascended). They forced out the Muslims and Christians in the city out of their homes and took over. there is armed occupation in all israeli controlled territory, and you have to have special israeli security clearance to get in - which doesn't happen for the arabs and muslims whose homes are there. The israelis are buliding a 12ft high fence with threnches and security cameras all around to keep the palestinians out. It's more like the Palestinians are trying to defend their people - from the Israelis who keep killing them with their high tech weapons and helecopters provided by the United States and good old taxpayer money.

The1calledTKE · #15 10-11-2002, 12:22 PM

Boy did this thread ever get off topic, but since the elections are coming up politcal debate was bound to pop up.