The Stars Speak

Alex Baldwin shares his thoughts with the common folk.

"I listen to the Congressman from Georgia talk of the virtue of staying in Iraq. The commitment to freedom, blah-blah-blah".

The commitment to freedom is a "blah-blah-blah"? Has it really come to that? Has tyranny now become an accepted form of government no matter how much the people living under these dictatorships might suffer, or how they might effect our own futures? Apparently much of Hollywood thinks so.

Mr. Baldwin asks rhetorically....

"Is there a war on terrorism worth fighting? Perhaps".

Or perhaps not.

"Then let's call this the battle of Iraq, one of many battles to be fought".

We could also call it The Battle In The Middle East, The Battle Against Dictatorships, The Battle For Anglosphere Ideals, or a War On Terror. Everyone might come up with their own favourite, but we all know what we're talking about.


"Not a war in Iraq. One battle, which we may be losing, but one we will learn from in order to better our efforts".

"Better our efforts"? Where?

If the Coalition troops cannot defeat a leaderless Iraq, how can they possibly be effective anywhere? They find the need to regroup while fighting a rag tag group of nobodies? A few terrorists have apparently managed to overwhelm the United States and Britain, with an acceptable loss of life (to them), and many in the West are now prepared to turn tail.

We have the situation now where terrorists are effectively controlling the foreign policy of the western nations and many, because of local politics, appear to be OK with that.

"The war on terrorism is not lost, but may be if we stay the Cheney course. I said it here quite a while ago, and that is that it would be the ultimate tragedy if we got rope-a-doped in Iraq, only to be all punched out by the time Iran steps into the ring. If they ever do".

Does Mr. Baldwin honestly believe that the US can defeat Iran if they cannot defeat Iraq? Bowling over both these countries would be a cakewalk if the determination was there, but with everyone believing themselves an expert and wanting to run the show, we now have a war run by public opinion polls.

People living in the western democracies tend not to want war in any form. That's the strength, but also often the weakness, of every democracy. Sometimes wars are justified and necessary but without a clear purpose, repeated frequently, the public will turn against it, despite it being in their best long-term interests to see it through.


"Bush's sycophants say pulling out will send the wrong signal. Every day Bush is president and his policies go unchecked, we send the wrong signal. We tell the world we would rather make our point, a meaningless and destructive point, than be true world leaders".

Who knows what this means? Who is the intended recipient of US signals? The terrorists? Those who sympathize or support them? Allies or potential allies?Mr. Baldwin seems to believe that the US can be a world leader through the use of some clever conversation, but unless they have the will to back up their words the US will have all the clout of Lichtenstein.

Mr. Baldwin's post can be read here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/sending-the-wrong-signal_b_41392.html