Illegally? Since when has war been illegal?

Since October 24, 1945.

That's when war crimes became illegal.

You have proved yourself to be a worthy opponent. Good for you!

No seriously, thanks for backing up your opinions and not just saying "BuSh SuCkS cUz HeS sToOpId!!!1"

I like the video; it's pretty cool. If you haven't seen it, it's like a prequel to Boulevard Of Broken Dreams.

Yeah the vid is awesome!!!

Thanks for the compliments, Scattered. As to the your response, you're not quite there yet. Excerpted from a report I wrote late last year:

On June 26, 1945 the United States signed the Charter of the United Nations, which became effective and binding on October 24 of that year.  Among its first provisions is Article 2(4), which reads:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”

     This article is partially modified by Article 51, but not in a way that benefits war proponents.  That article reads:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Despite a crippling twelve-year regime of economic sanctions and frequent provocations by the United States, the state of Iraq did not wage or suborn an "armed attack on a Member",  the United States or any of the nations supporting the United States' position.  Nor was any such claim advanced.  The specific rationalizations for invading Iraq will be discussed later, but for now we can simply note that they did not involve any claim, however weak, that an armed attack had been undertaken by Iraq.  The reservation of rights in Article 51 is therefore meaningless except for the glaring contrast it provides with what actually occurred.

for all the slooow people out there rep. of california = ahhhnold lol

GlitterGlue is wrong. Arnold is the governor.

There are 53 Representatives from California, some Democrats, some Republicans, but Arnold is not one of them.

Also, the plastic bag on the monument refers to John Ashcroft covering up a monument with bare breasts.

the flag wrapped around the score of men is talking about the caskets coming home with the dead soldiers with american flags on top, they are refering to arnold even if he is not a rep, he is the govenor and it doesn't have to be perfect, and on holiday is the soldiers in iraq

sprinkles is a total fucking idiot.

I don't see Mr Bush slaughtering innocents, just because of their religion or homosexuality (even though he seems homophobic), and I don't see Bush trying to conquer every fucking country he knows about.

Being against George is fine, as long as you know just why you hate his guts. If you hate him just because you're following a crowd, then fucking burn in hell.

This is a song about Bush and his idiotism. (Yes, I'm not overly fond of Dubya myself, but my opinion is somewhat educated).

Green Day kicks ass.

See you at the show.

[Interpretation continued from Jesus of Suburbia]

I’ve seen some people claiming that “Holiday” is highly irrelevant and out of place in the plot. I beg to differ greatly. It’s a pretty simple explanation; however, I’m still contemplating over the “Representative” bit.

Jesus of Suburbia is out on his own for the first time in his life; he’s escaped the “trap” of the “town that don’t exist.” The first time he feels this freedom, it feels, to him, like a “holiday.” This difference, he claims, will be the beginning of a new life for him (and boy, is he in for a surprise.) Frankly, I don’t understand many of the metaphors used in the song, in relation to the plot. I [think] that the bit with the Representative has to do with how Jesus and his disciplines view the government. I don’t know exactly how that plays into the song, but I’m pretty sure what that’s all about.

At the end of the song, Jesus repeats the chorus. Even though it’s the same lines, I’m going to infer a personality change in Jesus. He’s begun to see that everything is not what he thought it was, and now he’s trying in desperation to see it as he thought it really was… but to his dismay, his freedom is not what he thought of it.

Okay... so this is kinda off topic or delayed or whatever, but I wanted to thank Scattered for recognizing me as not being one of the like... 'regular' kind of punks that we see everywhere now.
And also, I agree with Scattered on the fact that if there was a facist government in America, there would be no American Idiot album. Absolutely not. I mean, if you go and look at what Hitler (facist!) did -- then you'll see that America isn't -all- like that. Hitler went and burned 'anti-German' books (like All Quiet on the Western Front... which in my opinion actually made me sympathise a bit with the Germans -- or well... just for Paul and Kat and the gang.) So, let's just be glad that you know, our country doesn't do that sort of thing. Or not really....
But I also have to say that there really ARE similarities between the Bush administration and Hitler. Feb. 28, 1933: German government takes away freedom of speech, assembly, press, and freedom from invasion of privacy (ie: mail, telphone, telegraph), and from house search w/o warrant. Okay. So doesn't this ring a bell with the whole... Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act? I'm not totally educated in this matter, but I do know that the government apparently has the right to go and hack into your computer if they have "reasonable" knowledge that you're doing something to hurt the country or whatever. Or they can check your mail or call you into custody. I'm not taking that to the extreme (ie: the feds can just ransack your house at any time) -so don't twist my words. I just wanted to point that little fact out.
I also think that Ccomics88's idea was kinda cool... it makes the whole "Holiday" thing seem much more sensible... since I wasn't really sure how to take it before.
And is this really their new single? Like, will they be making a music video for it? Sorry if they already have... I don't have cable and my computer doesn't play vids, so I wouldn't know... I wouldn't want this song to become like BOBD where a lot of people are sick of it and don't really care about it anymore, 'cuz they're both really great songs... American Idiot too... I love that song... in fact, the entire album just rocks....

JUST APPRECIATE THE FREAKIN' SONG!!!

GREEN DAY IS THE BEST GROUP EVER...and I agree that the whole album just rocks...JUST LIKE ANYTHING COMING FROM GREEN DAY!!

Yes, it is their new single. They filmed the video at the same time they filmed BoBD, and they said it would come out after the holidays, dammit...

Thanks Scattered for the info...
Hmm... I've got mixed reactions about this... Well, I guess it's fine if other people don't see the beauty of the song, at least we'll all know, right? :) And plus, I'm pretty stoked about seeing the vid. Hope it's a good one... and a little more creative than BOBD and AI.... Although, I loved those too. :)

Political Scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt studied a multitude of fascist regimes and found this:

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Now does current day America fit into this.
1. Yes
2. Yes (Abu-Grahib anyone? Or Guantanamo?)
3. Yes (Terrorists/Muslims)
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Not really a current issue
11. No
12. Yes (Patriot Act)
13. Debatable
14. Debatable (but use of judiciary to control elections: can you say FL 2000?)

In response to everyone else:

I am a Bush supporter. I will totally respect anyone who is anti-Bush, as long as they can back it up, because there are lots of issues where either side is reasonable. But if you're just one of the guys who is like, BuSh sUx!!! for no reason or one issue, I have no respect.

Yeah, I agree with Thunderbolt on that.

#12 on the list of fascist characteristics doesn't need to be qualified with (Patriot act). Our criminal justice system is already incredibly draconian compared to other Western nations. The U.S. ranks second in the world in incarcerating its own citizens, right behind Russia and with a rate 5-6 times higher than Western Europe.

I would also change #11 to from "no" to "sometimes." There is a lot of informal pressure placed on certain intellectual viewpoints; both the right and the left have their own version of political correctness and woe to those who cross a certain line.

This song is one of my favorites of theirs. I really like the lines:

Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government

I went to Francea few months ago and the people were nice to us even though we were all obviously American. I hate it when peopel try to find enemies which is what I think a lot of Americans did with the whole French issue. The best was this kid in my class who pointed out that "More people voted for Bush in the election than the entire population of France" and I just was shocked (But then started laughing because my teachers respeonse was hilarious). People feel like they have to justify things and feel like they've won in some way.

But geeze... what is our country coming to?

I like this song and I can't wait to see the music video they make from this song. and I agree with everyone who said that this song and American Idiot don't fit into the story that the cd tells, but i still like them both. They should have put them at the end after the whole story was over or at the beggining before it started.
BTW- it says
"Hear the dogs howl'n out of key
To a hymn called Faith and Misery
And Bleed, the company lost the war today"
not
"And Plead, the company........."

i love this song so much. im still kind of confused about parts of it. but thats ok. i still like listening to it.

This is a great song and at the moment very relevant. To me this is about getting rid of the dictatorship that has been pulled over your eyes! and No comparing bush to hitler is NOT dumb and the connection is not seen by enough people 911 was bushes reichstag but he didn't blame it on the jews he blamed it on the so called terrorist muslim extremists but with the same effect to remove your rights and progress there police state in exactly the same way hitler did. Have fun Yuppy.

acqu, I have no love for Bush or the hyper-patriotic interpretations of 9/11, to put it mildly, but you went a little off the deep end there. Bin Laden has already admitted responsibility for 9/11. He said it was in retaliation for the U.S. helping Israel when they invaded Lebanon in 1982, killing 5 or 10 times as many Lebanese civilians as died in the towers. It makes you wonder, if the memory of that injustice festered for 19 years before they were able to actually act on it, just imagine what will be happening 19 years from now...

To everyone else, I just realized there are several possible interpretations for the line "Zeig Heil [sic] to the president gasman." Until today I thought the line, which does pretty clearly indentify the president with the Fuehrer, was alluding to the use of lethal gas, the most notorious method of killing used in the Holocaust. But it could also be that in this line gas=gasoline=oil product--Bush was an oilman; or it could be that "gasman" means that Bush is, colloquially speaking, "full of hot air"; a "windbag." I still lean toward the first explanation, but since Bush prefers killing people by methods other than gas, I wouldn't rule the others out. Or perhaps the line is even a conscious double- or triple- entendre.