I feel somewhat compelled to respond to the points made in this article, but since that would involve demonstrating the fallacies, mischaracterisations and generally stupid remarks I would be required to write a paragraph for almost every sentence. There is no sense in wasting half a weeks worth of posts refuting an article that is more likely to be mistaken as satire, than be considered a serious work. However, some of the underlying issues are worth looking at.

We don't know how informed particular artists are, and it is not necessarily true that their opinions are invalid simply because they are informed; much of politics relies on gut feelings. Different people are aware of different things, and we aren't always able to present the basis of their opinions in a complete and succinct manner, so sound bites and the article's pejorative slices don't tell us much. It is an elitist view that only those who devote their time to politics, journalism, etc. or are personally affected can speak out against perceived injustice. There is an argument that celebrities exploit their position to promote their views, but we (broad sense) are the ones who give them that position and are willing to listen. And while they use that position, they do not do it maliciously and so only those that are willfully ignorant about the topic deserve to be criticised.

Because of the no-fly zones the Kurds became semi-independent and Saddam couldn't do much; the War in Iraq was certainly not done to protect the Kurds.

‘They’re only as open-minded as the newspapers and books they read.’
Uh huh, as opposed to the well-informed, well-read American public who support Bush, right? Polar opposites, aren’t they.

‘Meanwhile, discerning fans are wondering what the material girl thinks of America’s annihilation of Hitler’s Third Reich.’
Maybe Vietnam is more fresh on their mind, as it is a much more sensible comparison.

‘In Iraq, for example, the Kurds are experiencing a revival of their music traditions. To be sure, that’s good news!’
Yep, just not quite as important a report as the civilian death toll which now stands over 200,000. Unfortunately, people tend to not care whether they’re liberated or not when they’re dead. But yay, music!

‘Not all celebrities, of course, spit on soldiers.’
True, in fact I can’t even think of one. Well spotted!

‘A foreign policy based upon Madonna’s feelings? Now, that’s scary.’
But a foreign policy based on George’s brain, yeah, much better.

Phew. Deuc was right, I question every single sentence. What I would like to ask the author is why do you think celebrities aren’t allowed an opinion? I know if I had the opportunity to say something to that many people, I would take it, no matter what my occupation.

Is it perhaps you simply disagree with what they say? Would you still criticise if they said things that were just as dumb but on your side? I can’t work out whether you’re criticising their opinion, or simply the fact that they express it. Or maybe it’s just a vague rant about things you don’t like?

Ok, so maybe not all celebrities the brightest bulb in the…light bulb shop. But they aren’t exactly alone when they speak out against Bush’s disastrous foreign policy. On their side, for example, is…the vast majority of the western world! Fancy that.

This article barely contains a coherent argument, it is mostly personal attacks and mockery. The only point I'm going to bother taking issue with is this:

"Thousands of Kurds are not alive because destructive weapons killed their pregnant mothers. And for some unfathomable reason, Hollywood was silent. The lesson of Iraq?"

Not only was Hollywood silent, all nations were silent. Great Britain, the United States, France, Germany, etc, continued to sell weapons to Iraq for years after the 1998 gas attack on Halabja, at least until the end of the Iran-Iraq war, and even in some cases right up to the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. The US even tried to shift the blame onto Iran the aftermath of the attack. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/11/29/edjoost_ed3_.php)

Dan,

We might not like Michael More pushy documentaries but here are the war facts as presented to us:

1. Iraq possess WMD
Oops!
2. Harbours terrorism
Only now we are find out that most terrorism organisations started operating in Iraq after Saddams fall partially under insurgency / resistance cover.
3. Protect Iraqi civilians
100,000 deads (add 600,000 babies since the sanctions) in the last 2 years. Larger unemployment and less basic services: food, water, electricity. Daily bombings in streets, schools and even mosques.
4. Protect Iraq from Civil war
I let you comment on this one.
5. Stop Iran from control the GCC region
Iraq was handed over on a golden plate to Iran.
6. A quick shock and awe and exit
Yeah right!
7. Foundation to democracy:
Became a foundation for government ethnicity, division and call for separatism which will take you back to point 4.

Who supported all military coup that brought dictators in the Middle East? Who actually wiped out some democracies in the Middle East since the 1950s “favouring stability over democracy”

Nice article. Very entertaining.

I dont care if 'celebrities' have an opinion and even if they voice it. I do however object to politicians that take the grievances of entertainers seriously. Nobs like Bob Geldof and Bono telling us all about the wonders of debt relief and sending millions to Africa to relieve their collective suffering. Lets not worry about all the other endemic problems they face, just have a sing along, send some money, prop up some dictators, and feel good about yourself.

People spend their entire lives analysisng the complexities of world politics and frankly i'll take their advice and opinion anyday over the ill thought out rantings and ravings of rock stars, actors and over weight "documentary" makers with a bloated sense of self worth who pipe up every few years because they dont like the current state of affairs.

"Ok, so maybe not all celebrities the brightest bulb in the…light bulb shop. But they aren’t exactly alone when they speak out against Bush’s disastrous foreign policy. On their side, for example, is…the vast majority of the western world! Fancy that."

Would that be the vast majority including the US, Australia, Britain and Japan. All countries that voted to keep the governments that had previously sent soldiers to fight in Iraq?

Sorry everybody. I spent an hour putting together a post, but it contained some exclamation marks, hence.

Edit Comment was.

"Repeated use of "-" characters is unnecessary. Please remove them to continue."

After I removed all the exclamation marks it still wasn't permitted.

Funny I can put this through.