DVD Talk
Spielberg boycotts 2008 Olympic role as advisor [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Spielberg boycotts 2008 Olympic role as advisor


Cardiac161
02-12-08, 04:39 PM
If I remember correctly, Mia Farrow publicly chastised Spielberg a couple of weeks ago for taking on the role and being indifferent towards China's participation of the continued massacre.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7242016.stm

US film director Steven Spielberg has withdrawn as an artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.
In a statement, he accused China of not doing enough to pressure its ally Sudan to end the "continuing human suffering" in the troubled western Darfur region.

"I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue business as usual," said Mr Spielberg.

At least 200,000 people have been killed and two million forced from their homes in the five-year conflict.

In a statement, Mr Spielberg said: "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."

bhk
02-12-08, 04:46 PM
Empty gesture by someone who makes millions of $ playing make-believe.

MartinBlank
02-12-08, 06:28 PM
Empty gesture by someone who makes millions of $ playing make-believe.

So long as it makes him feeeeel good, that's what counts!!

kvrdave
02-12-08, 07:11 PM
Good for him. It may be an empty gesture, but it is an issue that needs enough of those to at least get some attention.

cdollaz
02-12-08, 07:20 PM
Mia Farrow is still alive?

Numanoid
02-12-08, 07:38 PM
Empty gesture by someone who makes millions of $ playing make-believe.I thought you were pro-Capitalism.

Tuan Jim
02-12-08, 08:28 PM
If I remember correctly, Mia Farrow publicly chastised Spielberg a couple of weeks ago for taking on the role and being indifferent towards China's participation of the continued massacre.

At least 200,000 people have been killed and two million forced from their homes in the five-year conflict.

In a statement, Mr Spielberg said: "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."


[non-]Participation in Darfur is probably at the bottom of the list of things that I would criticize China for - in all seriousness. No need to bring up any of their domestic massacres or instability issues I suppose.

bhk
02-13-08, 02:18 PM
I thought you were pro-Capitalism.

I'm not saying it's wrong to make money from playing make-believe. Just saying that Spielberg makes money because he's good at it and is overestimating his importance.

MartinBlank
02-13-08, 02:48 PM
Empty gesture by someone who makes millions of $ playing make-believe.

I thought you were pro-Capitalism.

It's akin to Julia Roberts going before Congress and pleading for tax money for medical research, rather than ponying-up a small percentage of her own millions to help solve the problem. That's what the gummy-mint does best, they solve problems, right?

Venusian
02-13-08, 02:54 PM
How is that related at all? Spielberg isn't asking the govt to give money.

bhk
02-13-08, 03:03 PM
How is that related at all? Spielberg isn't asking the govt to give money.

Yes. I don't see it similar at all. It is comical to see people like Sally Field and Jessica Lange give testimony on farm issues in front of Congress because they pretended they were part of a farm family for a movie but it has nothing to do with this.

MartinBlank
02-13-08, 03:08 PM
In a statement, Mr Spielberg said: "At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur."

How is that related at all? Spielberg isn't asking the govt to give money.

Clooney has. It's the next big struggle for them to tackle.

JasonF
02-13-08, 03:52 PM
It's akin to Julia Roberts going before Congress and pleading for tax money for medical research, rather than ponying-up a small percentage of her own millions to help solve the problem. That's what the gummy-mint does best, they solve problems, right?

I'm curious about how you know what Julia Roberts has ponied up to help solve problems? From all reports I've been able to find, she has been very active in philanthropic activities.

MartinBlank
02-13-08, 04:02 PM
I'm curious about how you know what Julia Roberts has ponied up to help solve problems? From all reports I've been able to find, she has been very active in philanthropic activities.

Good for her. Then why does she need to go before Congress and ask for money? Why not work on solving the problem yourself instead of expecting the government to "fix" everything?

If I believe in a cause, I donate...I won't start a non-profit and expect the gov't to remedy said cause.

Chrisedge
02-15-08, 01:07 PM
So I take it all of you are against our government spending money anywhere? Like Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, etc...Or is it just wrong when it's for Humanitarian reasons?

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 01:17 PM
So I take it all of you are against our government spending money anywhere? Like Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, etc...Or is it just wrong when it's for Humanitarian reasons?

Our Constitution allows for a military, seeing as it's, ya know, necessary to maintain our freedom/independence and all that pesky crap. Nowhere does is mention humanitarianism.

Chrisedge
02-15-08, 01:28 PM
Our Constitution allows for a military, seeing as it's, ya know, necessary to maintain our freedom/independence and all that pesky crap. Nowhere does is mention humanitarianism.


I'm all in favor of DEFENSE...To protect OUR country against REAL threats. Not allowing the complete destruction of a country (Iraq) for no reason other than removing a "bad guy" that GWB didn't like.

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 01:39 PM
I'm all in favor of DEFENSE...To protect OUR country against REAL threats. Not allowing the complete destruction of a country (Iraq) for no reason other than removing a "bad guy" that GWB didn't like.

You: Fighting and unjust war under false pretense

Me: Take the fight to the terrorists who flew planes into buildings killing my fellow Americans.

I guess we have different definitions of DEFENSE :shrug: We'll just have to agree to disagree.

/Debate

Jason
02-15-08, 01:51 PM
You: Fighting and unjust war under false pretense

Me: Take the fight to the terrorists who flew planes into buildings killing my fellow Americans.

I guess we have different definitions of DEFENSE :shrug: We'll just have to agree to disagree.

/Debate

So Saddam and Iraq were responsible for 9/11?

Do you have any idea how discredited that idea is?

Chrisedge
02-15-08, 01:51 PM
You: Fighting and unjust war under false pretense

Me: Take the fight to the terrorists who flew planes into buildings killing my fellow Americans.

I guess we have different definitions of DEFENSE :shrug: We'll just have to agree to disagree.

/Debate

I would have no problem going after the folks responsible for 9/11. You're telling me, we did that in Iraq?

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 01:54 PM
So Saddam and Iraq were responsible for 9/11?


When did I mention Saddam or Iraq being responsible for 9/11/01?

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 01:55 PM
I would have no problem going after the folks responsible for 9/11. You're telling me, we did that in Iraq?

Yap. Or would you rather have to deal with more of their bullshit on our shores?

Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.
02-15-08, 01:56 PM
Me: Take the fight to the terrorists who flew planes into buildings killing my fellow Americans.



I'm pretty sure those terrorists died on 9/11.

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 02:12 PM
I'm pretty sure those terrorists died on 9/11.

Ah...so the threat's been neutralized, right? :rolleyes:

So...the ones that died on 9/11, these are the same guys responsible for the USS Cole and the WTC back in the early 90s, right? Same 19 guys fuckin' with our shit for decades. But now they're ash. *phew* Glad to see that's over and done with.

Groucho
02-15-08, 02:20 PM
Why are we discussing Iraq/9-11 in a China/Darfur/Spielberg thread?

Chrisedge
02-15-08, 02:23 PM
Yap. Or would you rather have to deal with more of their bullshit on our shores?

So the only way to get those responsible for 9/11 (Osama bin Laden) was to destroy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

The National Museum of Iraq (7000 years of history) allowed to be looted and destroyed, when THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. 170,000 artifacts carried away, while we stood by and watched. Where were we? Protecting the fucking Oil Ministry.

Please. If it REALLY had to do with defending ourselves, I'm all in favor of it. Our involvement with spending money overseas has very little with defense and much more to do with oil, military overspending and justification.

Tighten up our boarders and really defend the U.S. and I'd be ok with it. Wasting BILLIONS on countries that don't give a shit about the population of the U.S.? I'd rather see us spend it on Human Rights Issues.

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 02:29 PM
Why are we discussing Iraq/9-11 in a China/Darfur/Spielberg thread?

Because the Bush Administration is super-evil, DUH!

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 02:31 PM
So the only way to get those responsible for 9/11 (Osama bin Laden) was to destroy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?


So, you believe that we're not dealing with AlQuada in Iraq?

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 02:35 PM
Why are we discussing Iraq/9-11 in a China/Darfur/Spielberg thread?

The honest answer....

I am amazed that almost every single solitary thread having to do with a political figure in any manner ends up having Bush-bashing peppered throughout.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8504706&postcount=24

Chrisedge
02-15-08, 02:41 PM
So, you believe that we're not dealing with AlQuada in Iraq?

We are now!

We turned it into a clusterfuck by not policing it in the first place. We fucked up, when we allowed all the looting to go unchecked and that we didn't police the country, and disbanded their army. THEN Al Qaeda came to town.

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 03:44 PM
Al Qaeda was gonna come to town anyway. What part of "taking the fight TO THEM" don't you understand?

Like I've stated many times before, if the American people really want us out of the Middle East in the huge numbers that are purported, then do something about it. Melt the phone-lines and fax-machines of DC. Do what the populous did when they were pissed off over immigration, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Make your voice heard. Come on, 70% of the populous is a lot, that's more than disagreed with the amnesty legislation, I don't see what the big deal it. And if for not pulling out of Iraq, call for impeachment. Do SOMETHING instead of only BITCHING!

Chrisedge
02-15-08, 05:33 PM
...Like I've stated many times before, if the American people really want us out of the Middle East in the huge numbers that are purported, then do something about it. Melt the phone-lines and fax-machines of DC. Do what the populous did when they were pissed off over immigration, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Make your voice heard. Come on, 70% of the populous is a lot, that's more than disagreed with the amnesty legislation, I don't see what the big deal it. And if for not pulling out of Iraq, call for impeachment. Do SOMETHING instead of only BITCHING!

Unfortunately, this is the same public that re-elected the idiot in the white house. I have just as much faith in the average American as I do in GWB. Most are fooled and distracted easily. The WAR was an important topic just a few months back, now? Nothing. I agree though with Do Something...I am...voting for someone with a clear anti-war stance.

Chrisedge
02-15-08, 05:35 PM
Al Qaeda was gonna come to town anyway. What part of "taking the fight TO THEM" don't you understand?

And not that it really matters, but we didn't really take the fight to Bin Laden as much as we should, and you can't state Al Qaeda was coming to town anyways in Iraq. We fostered a area of "growth" in terrorism in the Middle East by causing the chaos in Iraq.

MartinBlank
02-15-08, 06:10 PM
Unfortunately, this is the same public that re-elected the idiot in the white house. I have just as much faith in the average American as I do in GWB. Most are fooled and distracted easily. The WAR was an important topic just a few months back, now? Nothing. I agree though with Do Something...I am...voting for someone with a clear anti-war stance.

Blah, blah, blah. Let me get this straight...a bunch of "idiots" (people who elect and idiot must be an idiot themselves, right?) were able to stop Congress in their tracks regarding amnesty...seeing as you're so much smarter than the 51% who put W in office, why can't YOU rally YOUR troops, 70%+ is the number I'm always hearing, and get the same thing done about the war? I've asked the question many times, and I've yet to receive an answer.

Who exactly is the "most" you reference when speaking of being "fooled and distracted easily"? ;)

bhk
02-17-08, 12:02 PM
Blah, blah, blah. Let me get this straight...a bunch of "idiots" (people who elect and idiot must be an idiot themselves, right?) were able to stop Congress in their tracks regarding amnesty...seeing as you're so much smarter than the 51% who put W in office, why can't YOU rally YOUR troops, 70%+ is the number I'm always hearing, and get the same thing done about the war? I've asked the question many times, and I've yet to receive an answer.

Who exactly is the "most" you reference when speaking of being "fooled and distracted easily"? ;)

You're trying to talk some sense into those people. It doesn't work. They're the same people who whine about civil rights being violated when the govt. intercepts foreign phone calls from terrorists. However, they are also the ones quickest to blame the president(as long as he has a "R" after his name) for not doing anything to protect the country if anything happens while at the same time giving excuse after excuse for inaction after multiple attacks by another president. Because of Iraq, Al Quida is demoralized. Not only that, it has lost its prestige in the Moslem world because of the horrors it perpetrates on its fellow Muslims.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503098.html

Iraq's Jihad Myths

By Reuel Marc Gerecht
Sunday, February 17, 2008; B07


Among Democrats and even many Republicans, it is by now accepted wisdom that the war in Iraq brought huge numbers of holy warriors to the anti-American cause. But is it true? I don't think so.

Muslim holy warriors are a diverse lot, reacting with differing intensity to the hot-button issues that define contemporary Islamic militancy. For many fundamentalists, what is seen as an unrelenting Western assault on Muslim male honor and female virtue is the core infuriating offense. For others it may be the alienation that second-generation young Muslim men encounter in an immigrant-unfriendly Europe. And for still others, Iraq, Afghanistan, the tyranny of U.S.-backed Muslim rulers and the Palestinian resistance can all come together to convert individual indignities into a holy-warrior faith.

These complexities may help explain, at least in part, why so many secular Westerners seek relief in more easily understood explanations for jihadism (the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the usual favorites) -- explanations that don't probe too deeply into Islamic history and the militant Muslim imagination.

Regarding the Iraq war and jihadism, two facts stand out. First, if we make a comparison with the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-89, which was the baptismal font for al-Qaeda, what's most striking is how few foreign holy warriors have gone to Mesopotamia since the U.S. invasion in 2003.

Admittedly, we don't have a perfect grasp of the numbers involved in either conflict. But the figure of 25,000 Arab mujaheddin is probably a decent figure for those who went to Pakistan to fight the Red Army. Most probably did so in the last four years of the war, when the recruitment organizations and logistics became well developed. In Iraq, we see nothing of this magnitude, even though Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is in the Arab heartland and at the center of Islamic history. Moreover, for Arabs, getting to Iraq isn't difficult, and once there they speak the language and know the culture. And of course the United States, the bete noire of Islamists, is the enemy in Iraq.

But according to the CIA and the U.S. military, we are now seeing at most only dozens of Arab Sunni holy warriors entering the country each month. Even at the height of the insurgency in 2006-07, the figure might have been just a few hundred (and may have been much smaller).

In the 1980s the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and most well-organized Islamist movement, was at the center of the anti-Soviet jihadist recruitment effort. But in the case of Iraq, the Brotherhood has largely sat out the war. Even in Saudi Arabia, the mother ship of virulently anti-American, anti-Shiite, anti-moderate Muslim Wahhabism, the lack of commitment has been striking. We should have seen thousands, not hundreds, of Saudi true believers descending on Iraq.

Throughout the Arab world, fundamentalism today is much stronger on the ground than it was in the 1980s. Yet the fundamentalist commitment to the Iraqi Sunni Arab insurgency pales in comparison with that made to Sunni Afghans.

A second striking fact about Islamism and the Iraq war is that the arrival of foreign holy warriors is deradicalizing the local population -- the exact opposite of what happened in Afghanistan. In the Soviet war, the "Arab Afghans" arrived white-hot -- their radicalization had occurred at home in the 1960s and 1970s, when Islamic fundamentalism replaced secular Arab nationalism as the driving intellectual force. On the subcontinent, Arab holy warriors accelerated extreme Islamism among both Afghans and Pakistanis. We are still living with the results.

In Iraq, as we have seen with the anti-al-Qaeda, Sunni Arab "Awakenings," Sunni extremism is now in retreat. More important, the gruesome anti-Shiite tactics of extremist groups, combined with the much-quoted statements made by former Sunni insurgents about the positive actions of the United States in Iraq, have caused a great deal of intellectual turbulence in the Arab world.

It's way too soon to call Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda spiritual outcasts among Arab Muslims, but they have in fact sustained enormous damage throughout the region because of Iraq. The lack of holy-warrior manpower coming from the Muslim Brotherhood is surely, in part, a reflection of this discomfort with al-Qaeda's violence, the complexity of Iraqi politics and America's not entirely negative role inside the country. If bin Ladenism is now on the decline -- and it may well be among Arabs -- then Iraq has played an essential part in battering the movement's spiritual appeal.

Iraq could still fall apart (and if an American president starts withdrawing troops haphazardly, it probably will). The country's descent into chaos and renewed sectarian strife would likely reenergize Islamic extremism. But it is certainly not too soon to suggest that Iraq could well become America's decisive victory over Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and all those Muslims who believe that God has sanctified violence against the United States.

Reuel Marc Gerecht is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former case officer for the CIA.

NORML54601
02-17-08, 04:05 PM
Good for him. It may be an empty gesture, but it is an issue that needs enough of those to at least get some attention.
:thumbsup:


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0