During interviews, George Michael mentionned that John Pilger had inspired him to speak up on the "war" on terror.

Well, here's an example of what this Pilger fella has to say. You are warned that it is not my opinion nor is it what you are likely to hear in a mainstream newscast.

___
http://www.mirror.co.uk/n...teid=50143


THE ROGUE STATE


Legendary foreign correspondent JOHN PILGER on America's bid to control the world


FOR 101 days, Royal Marines have been engaged in a farcical operation as mercenaries of the United States whose lawlessness now qualifies it as the world's leading rogue state.

Shooting at shadows, and the occasional tribesman, blowing up mounds of dirt and displaying "captured" arms for the media, all have been part of the Marines' humiliating role in Afghanistan - a role foisted upon them by the Blair government, whose deference to and collusion with the Bush gang has become a parody of the imperial courtier.

Gang is not an exaggeration. The word, in my dictionary, means "a group of people working together for criminal, disreputable ends". That describes accurately George W Bush and those who write his speeches and make his decisions and who, since their rise to power, have undermined the very basis of international law.


In Afghanistan, their record is beyond question. The killing on Monday of some 40 guests at a wedding was not a "blunder" but the direct result of a policy of shoot and bomb first and find out later, as announced by George W Bush in the weeks following September 11.

The capacity of the American military machine to smash impoverished countries was never in dispute - conditional, that is, on the absence of American ground troops and their substitution by "allied" forces, like the Royal Marines. (During the heyday of the British Empire, Indian and other colonial troops were used in a similar role, although the British, unlike the Americans, were also prepared to sacrifice their own soldiers).

Since last October, Afghan leaders have reported American aircraft destroying villages "too small to be marked on any map" with "more than 300 people killed" in one night. In a family of 40, only a small boy and his grandmother survived, reported Richard Lloyd Parry of the Independent.

Out of sight of the television cameras "at least 3,767 civilians were killed by US bombs between October 7 and December 10...an average of 62 innocent deaths a day", according to a study carried out at the University of New Hampshire in the US. This is now estimated to have passed 5,000 civilian deaths: almost double the number killed on September 11.

There is no evidence that a single leader of al-Qaeda has been captured or, to anyone's knowledge, killed. Neither has the leader of the Taliban. The change in Afghanistan is minimal compared with the murderous feudalism that ruled during the 1990s, and before the Taliban came to power.

FOR all the cosmetic changes in Kabul, the capital, women still dare not go unveiled. "The Taliban used to hang the victim's body in public for four days," quipped the new American-installed regime's Minister of Justice. "We will only hang the body for a short time, say fifteen minutes, after a public execution."

Describing this as a "triumph of good over evil", as Bush has said, with an echo from Blair, is like lauding the superiority of the German war machine in 1940 as a vindication of Nazism.

Not only the Marines but the British public ought to feel duped. Both Washington and Whitehall knew long ago al-Qaeda was finished in Afghanistan. Apart from the element of revenge, for home gratification, the Americans have set out to reassert the control of their favourite warlords: people responsible for thousands of deaths in their stricken country.


In October, the US planned to install a regime dominated by members of the Pashtun tribe, who, they predicted, would desert the Taliban. But the split in the Taliban never happened and the Americans have since changed tack and tried to put together a "coalition" of Tajik and Uzbek warlords. The current "interim president", Hamid Karzai, although a Pashtun, has neither a tribal nor military powerbase. He is simply America's man.

The presence of the Royal Marines, leading the so-called "International Security Assistance Force", is for reasons straight out of the nineteenth century. At the Americans' bidding, the Marines were meant to keep the favoured warlords from each other's throats until the region could be "stabilised" for American oil and other strategic interests.

Potential vast energy sources in Central Asia have become critical for the deeply troubled US economy, and for the Bush administration, which is dominated by oil industry interests, notably the Bush family itself. An investigation by the Hong Kong-based Asia Times in January found that the US was frantically developing "a network of multiple Caspian pipelines".

THE disgraced Enron Corporation, one of Bush's biggest campaign backers, conducted a feasibility study for a $2.5billion oil pipeline being built across the Caspian Sea. Top current and former American officials, including Vice President Cheney, "have all closed major deals directly and indirectly on behalf of the oil companies", says the Asia Times.

If there was a map of American military bases established in the region to fight "the war on terrorism" what would be immediately striking is that it would follow almost exactly the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.

Blair and the voluble Geoffrey Hoon have, of course, offered none of this vital information to the British people, let alone to the British soldiers sent to play America's imperial game. Fortunately, the troops suffered only gastric flu. The Afghan people have not been as lucky.

Any doubt about the systematic murderous way the US military has operated in Afghanistan is dispelled by a report in the American press in May of children gunned down in wheat fields and as they slept. For four hours, American helicopter gunships saturated the fields and a village with bullets and rockets before landing to disgorge US troops who shot survivors and detained other "suspects".

In fact, the area was renowned for its opposition to the Taliban and the governor of Oruzgan province confirmed that those murdered "were ordinary people. There were no al-Qaeda or Taliban here."


In recent months, the American rogue state has torn up the Kyoto treaty, which would decrease global warming and the probability of environmental disaster. It has threatened to use nuclear weapons in "pre-emptive strikes" (a threat echoed by Hoon). It has tried to sabotage the setting up of an international criminal court, understandably, because its generals and leading politicians might be summoned as defendants.

It has further undermined the authority of the United Nations by allowing Israel to block a UN committee's investigation of the Israeli assault on the Palestinian refugee camp at Jenin; and it has ordered the Palestinians to get rid of their elected leader in favour of an American stooge.

It ignored the World Food Summit in Italy; and at summit conferences in Canada and Indonesia it has blocked genuine aid, such as clean water and electricity, to the most deprived people on earth. Proposals to increase American food subsidies by 80 per cent are designed to secure American domination of the world foodgrains market.

("When we get up from the breakfast table every morning," said the chief executive of the Cargill corporation, the world's biggest food company, "much of what we have eaten - cereals, bread, coffee, sugar and so on - has passed through the lands of my company." Cargill's goal is to double in size every five to seven years).

There is a desperate edge to most of America's rogue actions. The Christian "free market" fundamentalists running Washington are worried. The US current account deficit is running at a record $34billion. Foreign purchases of the huge US debt are falling rapidly. The US stockmarket is heavily over-valued, and the dollar is uncertain.

As one commentator has put it, the "Bush doctrine" looks like "one last attempt to order the world entirely around the requirements of US monopoly capital, before it can long hope to do so".

IN other words this may well be the last throw of the dice before the US economy goes into serious decline - as yesterday's dramatic fall in the stock markets indicated.

This means controlling the oil and fossil fuel riches in Central Asia. It means attacking Iraq, installing a replacement Saddam Hussein and taking over the world's second-largest source of oil. It means surrounding a new economic challenger, China, with bases, and intimidating the leaders of its principal economic rival, Europe, by undermining NATO, and setting off a trade war.

I have just visited the United States, and it is clear many people there are worried. And many dare not say so. Their views are seldom reported in the American mainstream media, which is self-censored and controlled, perhaps as never before.

Instead, the air is thick with the views of the likes of Charles Krauthammer, of the Washington Post. "Unilateralism is the key to our success," he wrote, in describing the world of the next fifty years: a world without protection from nuclear attack or environmental damage for the citizens of any country except the United States; a world where "democracy" means nothing if its benefits are at odds with American "interests"; a world in which to express dissent against these "interests" brands one a terrorist and justifies surveillance and repression.

There is only one way such rogue power can be resisted. It is by speaking out and urgently. If our government won't, we must.

I love George's new song (Michael that is).

It's damn political but as he says...what's better to start people talking and stir the pot a little than a controversial pop song...

And after listening 2 the words and realising they make a hell of a lotta sense...that's the fun part...

derek said:

I don't know how it's doing chartwise, but it is a good thing that music can still be a vehicle for dissent or a political comment. The fact it's a dance tune is cool too...

You can view the hilarious video for the new song here ;

http://www.mtv.co.uk/mtv....d=30015730

CHECK IT OUT!!!

Pop psychologists are already saying that GM did it to get back at America for his woes there a few years back.

Who cares? The song is a pile of crap.

randomduck said:

Ouch!

randomduck said:

It's not that bad. What it lacks in musical originality, it makes up with its politically charged message. You gotta admit that this particular message gets very little exposure in the press, let alone in pop music.

Aerogram said:

BTW: George was giving an interview to a journalist from 'The Mirror' when he mentioned the song was partly inspired one one of their own columists. Coincidence?

randomduck said:

Must be a conspiracy. "I'll write you a mediocre song, we crosspolinate and copromote. Deal?"

Some more 'Shoot the Dog' news:
Webchat with George on July 7:
http://music.tiscali.co.u...ge_michael

Article from CNN:
(Wuss! Says he is not releasing the song in America)
http://www.cnn.com/2002/S...index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Pop singer George Michael said Wednesday that his newest song, a political satire skewering the British and U.S. leaders for their decisions regarding Iraq, was intended purely to spur public debate.

The song and video for "Shoot the Dog," released Monday, have drawn outrage from listeners in the United States who see it as an insult to President George Bush. But Michael, 39, told CNN's "TalkBack Live" he would never knowingly disrespect Americans' feelings following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"There was no plan to release [the song] in your country and I think it would have been disrespectful to make this an issue in a country which obviously has suffered much loss and very recently," Michael said. "This was absolutely an attack on [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair, principally, and the perspective which is really predominant in Europe right now that he's not questioning enough of Mr. Bush's policies."

He said the song was intended for release in Europe.

Michael said he began writing the song last September as a way to criticize Blair for not involving the British public in decisions regarding Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein.

More widely, he said, the song describes the dangers he saw developing between the Western world and fundamentalist factions in the Middle East. He sings, "People did you see that fire in the city/It's like we're fresh out of democratic/Gotta get yourself a little something semi-automatic."

Michael said those lines refer to al Qaeda members, who "took the law into their own hands" by carrying out the terrorist attacks last fall. "I don't think that should be misconstrued as some kind of criticism," Michael told CNN. "It's a reference to what happened, and basically saying things are going crazy."

The sometimes-graphic video is a cartoon depicting the singer at the palace with Queen Elizabeth, in Blair's bedroom with his wife, Cherie, and at the White House with Bush and Blair. He said he "wouldn't even have wanted the video shown" until it began making headlines in recent days.

"It's anti-Mr. Blair and anti-Mr. Blair's reluctance to challenge Mr. Bush. It's not anti-American in any sense," Michael told CNN.

"Satire is used for political purposes all the time, but obviously there's a time and a place," he said. "I think in the current climate, it can be very difficult to speak your mind, but sometimes, I believe, we're all in danger and I think this discussion needs to be widened."

randomduck said:

:foot: Like he didn't know the song and video would be available to a lot of Americans through the internet. Oh anyway...

WHO IS RANDOMDUCK???

Whoever u r...u r beginning 2 annoy me!

Well, the song sucks, and it's a shame that a guy who I used to admire for his musical ability is now going out of his way to capitalize so grotesquely on the 9/11 tragedy.

What a wanker! er wait...it's kinda of legal fact that he's a bit of a wanker. hrmm... gotta find some good queen's slang put downs for him

Dauphin said:

I don't think he's capitalizing on 9/11. It's about the post-9/11 situation in Britain. Besides, we all know who is the best at capitalizing on that event.

Im worried he might get 'disposed' of. We all know that people who say the truth go this way, more often than not.

I read the article and felt helpless. What is it that can exactly be done?

derek said:

I annoy myself as well. :p


I have come to the conclusion that George is in fact having a midlife crisis.


-
[This message was edited Sat Jul 6 15:37:58 PDT 2002 by randomduck]

More reports...

http://www.sky.com/skynew...20,00.html
US Calls For Michael To Quit

Americans have rallied to call on George Michael to be kicked out of the country over his controversial new anti-US single.

The British multimillionaire, who has homes in the US, has been slated coast to coast for Shoot the Dog in which he ridicles President George W Bush.



The star criticises America and close ally Britain for their war against terrorism and portrays Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair as gay lovers in the accompanying video.

The video jokes about the fight for freedom in the wake of the World Trade Center atrocity. Neither the song nor video has been released in the US over fears that George's career would be ruined.

'What a coward'

American radio stations have been bombarded with complaints from listeners who have managed to hear the song.

Popular American DJ Lisa Stanley summed up the feelings. "If he released that song here, he would be torn apart. What a coward," she said.

"He owes it to his fans here to show what he is really like, and with the current patriotic feeling here, I doubt his fans would be impressed."

'Safer toilets'

She added: "Do we really need to let him back in? Our toilets would be safer without him," referring to the singer being caught performing a sex act in a public loo in Los Angeles.

In Britain, radio bosses have refused to play the single on their airwaves but a defiant George hit back saying he was only expressing his concerns about the terror campaign.

"I would never knowingly disrespect the feelings of a nation which has suffered so much loss, so recently," he said in The Sun. "I am definitely not anti-American. How could I be? I have been in love with a Texan for six years."

And some more...
http://www.mtv.com/news/a...lines=true

Could George Michael's latest single and video, "Shoot the Dog," actually be a shot in the foot?

Never one to shy away from controversy, Michael has outdone himself with the animated clip, his first foray into the world of political satire, in which he takes on President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Queen Mum.

In the song, Michael criticizes British foreign policy — at least when it comes to dealings with the Middle East — as being too closely aligned with that of the U.S. The video depicts Bush as an idiot and Blair as his lapdog, literally (see the video). Critics are already predicting that the song and video — which shows Michael astride a nuclear missile — could end the pop star's career.

In an exclusive interview with MTV News' Kurt Loder on Wednesday (July 3), however, Michael defended "Shoot the Dog" and said that his lyrics and imagery are being misinterpreted.

"People are looking at the song in context of an attack on America, as opposed to an attack on Tony Blair," Michael said from his vacation home in France. "And really, my attack is that Tony Blair is not involving the British in this issue. He's perfectly happy staying up to watch the World Cup and enjoying the Jubilee, all things I'm perfectly guilty of, but there's a serious discussion about Iraq which hasn't taken place. We don't know what Saddam Hussein is capable of, the British public has no idea."

Though the song is about some very serious topics, Michael addresses them in such a tongue-in-cheek and (in some cases) sexual way, that the overall mission of the song — a call for discussion and debate — has been missed. Critics are focusing on the depiction of Blair and his wife Cherie in bed with Bush (in a visual homage to Genesis' video for "Land of Confusion," which featured then-President Ronald Reagan in satire), as if Blair and Bush were gay lovers. And though Michael is the one who's openly gay, he comes on to Blair's wife in the video, telling her he's available, while the prime minister is busy with global politics ("Cherie, baby ... stay with me tonight/ Let's have some fun while Tony's stateside").

The message, Michael says, is that Blair has been remiss in some of his homeland duties, and that the British are feeling just as threatened by the situation in the Middle East as Americans are.

"We're all still obviously very much vulnerable right now, both countries, with their relationship with the Middle East and Al Qaeda," Michael said. "Britain is now a target, we're effectively a possible target, as a warning to America."

Despite lyrics that seem to refer to September 11th, Michael said that he wrote the song beforehand, and out of respect to those who suffered any loss in those attacks, he never intended the single or video to be released in the U.S., to avoid any misunderstandings.

"The incident was so appalling, and the shock was so fresh," he said, "that I think it would have been totally disrespectful, because the song was really about the West and the fundamentalist world. It wasn't about any one event."

—Jennifer Vineyard, with additional reporting by Kurt Loder

Duckie, stop being so competitive.

Aerogram said:

I'm just getting these links straight from the forums at www.aegean.net

Aero:

- George shows Bush and Blair having homosexual activities. As George is into MM relations, why would he use this as slam? Why take something like MM sex and use it as a weapon?

- George IS capitalizing on 9/11. Without 9/11 there would be no post-9/11.

- I hate the fact that the article posted says "American's are calling for his head." COnsidering we have millions of people in our country and we are all different and have different views, it's hard to say that "Americans" (which infers all americans or a large majority of americans) all want George to never come to the states again.

- George is trying to generate interest in his music. There is an anti-american wave that runs around this stadium that we call the planet Earth and he's trying to capitalize on it.

Do I have to be a moron to be counted as a patriot?
http://www.dangerous.com/10-01-01.htm

I think this rant applies here. Everything mildly critical of the gov is gonna get shot down, and basic rights traded for the empty promises of security & the good of the nation & American people. And they'll get away with it as long as the blind masses are controlled by the mass media. Alternative points of view will be silenced. The people will be screwed over by their own gov again and again...

Dauphin said:

I read that he was doing the song before Sept. 11 hit. That rules out capitalizing on it, I think.

Every pop artist tries to generate interest in his music. Riding the anti-american feeling is something I disagree with you on. He is simply stating what's on his mind and the things he always discusses "at dinner parties". That's him. I doubt it's a caclulated stab at attention/press. With all the pro-American blind patriotic feeling right now, I think it's a bigger risk than he imagines, in fact.

My thoughts on the song? It SUCKS. My thoughts on the message? GREAT. You can't seem to love America or the American people/ideals and challenge the gov in the same breath, it seems. The black/white right/wrong mass media headline-thinking mentality will rip him to shreds for this, though. It's a far bigger risk for him, and I applaud him for taking it.

What is happening to me? I have a strange sensation I've never experienced before... I feel something like respect for George Michael... it scares me! lol

Dauphin said:[

"- George shows Bush and Blair having homosexual activities. As George is into MM relations, why would he use this as slam? Why take something like MM sex and use it as a weapon?"

Only if you assume that gay men don't use homosexuality as a metaphor for being "real" close, if ya know what I mean. I shows Blair to be Bush's "bitch", which is satirically acceptable as far as I'm concerned.



"- George IS capitalizing on 9/11. Without 9/11 there would be no post-9/11."

That's like saying that someone is capitalizing on the holocaust if they are pro-Isreal, because without the holocaust there would no post-holocaust. The song was written before 9/11, and even if it would not be the case, it would still be perfectly alright to at least comment on the place of the UK in international politics (which is the real subject, like it or not).


"- I hate the fact that the article posted says "American's are calling for his head." COnsidering we have millions of people in our country and we are all different and have different views, it's hard to say that "Americans" (which infers all americans or a large majority of americans) all want George to never come to the states again."

That's just an exageration from the media's part. One thing is for sure : if America needs the whole world and especially the West to cooperate with their anti-terror efforts, it better stop hyperventilating every time someone is critical. This "anti-american" label is no more fair the old "commie" label generously stamped on so many foreheads during the Red Scare. I'm not an American, but the US asks my country to pitch in in the War on Terror and if I don,t like the direction it's taking, I have a right to say so without being labelled anti-american. That goes for GM too I think.


"- George is trying to generate interest in his music. There is an anti-american wave that runs around this stadium that we call the planet Earth and he's trying to capitalize on it."


Look, if there really is such a wave, then America should try to find out why. After all, Americans like to describe themselves as good samaritans who go to places like Kuwait and Somalia in the name of freedom. Why is the rest of the world not seeing it quite that way?

It's a dance track with a cartoon for a video. Lighten up anal retentives. You don't take Road Runner cartoons seriously...do you?

(post dleted to save energy)
[This message was edited Mon Jul 8 13:14:43 PDT 2002 by Dauphin]

Actually scratch everything I've said. Forget it. The last thing I need is to get riled up over some guy who could go out and get as much dick as he wants but chooses to do it in a public bathroom.

I actually find the British culture amazingly fickle. One moment they will rail somebody, the next they'll embrace them as thier darling, meanwhile, they are just dying to have this person fuck up again.

Of course, I use "Brits" in the same context that the tabloids use "Americans"

Dauphin said: