yea- bush is fearing for his job - 911 movie earnings for the weekend... [Archive]

csubear

Jun 27, 2004, 11:39 PM

bush may have reason to fear for his job- but that movie will have nothing to do with it. it was a lame excuse for propoganda. i went in to the movie extremely excited to see it, and left completely discouraged.

you can think what you want, but everything presented in the movie was fact. and if you ask me at the end when Mr. Moore is parralling 1984, it truely got to me. having bush say "We will prevail" , was very frighting. there are just to many things that 1984 and our current international and homeland situations have in common, like AirStrip One. :)
next thing you know FOX will start using New Speak. :)

gallagb

Jun 27, 2004, 11:44 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3844573.stm

and the brits agree
the movie made $

i should back up my previous statement-
true- this movie might not mean the downfall

however- this movie does mean that documentary films have the potential of making $ in the theaters

although there is a healthy debate of if this was a 'true' documentary or, as you said it, propaganda

my opinion: is yet to be determined- i need to see the movie.

musicpyrite

Jun 28, 2004, 12:21 AM

Even though I'm (mostly) Republican, I'm dying to see the movie. :confused:

I wanna see Michael More ride around in an ice cream truck reading the US Patriot Act. :D

And when he also did the movie about gun control, Bowling for Columbine, he should have robbed the bank when they gave him the gun. :cool:

applebum

Jun 28, 2004, 12:29 AM

you can think what you want, but everything presented in the movie was fact.

Yes, and nothing was left on the cutting room floor, nothing was edited, this is exactly the way everything happened and there is absolutely no insertion of personal opinion, and no attempt whatsoever to paint things with the filmakers paintbrush. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

Actually I don't enjoy movies like this, because they are presented as absolute fact, and yet I find myself wondering if there isn't more to the story than just what is shown onscreen. It seems I am immediately skeptical of what is presented by someone with extreme right or left beliefs/propaganda. I feel this way whenever I read something written by Ann Coulter as well.

I just wonder if the majority of everyday Americans are just fairly central in their beliefs with left and right leanings - depending on the issue.

KingSleaze

Jun 28, 2004, 12:40 AM

you can think what you want, but everything presented in the movie was fact.

Statistics are like facts, you can prove anything you want with the proper set of statistics.

I don't care to see this movie. For the copyright infringements on 'Fahrenheit 451', which Moore acknowledged that he didn't respond to the call from Ray Bradbury until the movie was too well known. And because Moore himself acknowledges that he chose his facts to make the movie present his views.

Soc7777777

Jun 28, 2004, 12:44 AM

Yes, and nothing was left on the cutting room floor, nothing was edited, this is exactly the way everything happened and there is absolutely no insertion of personal opinion, and no attempt whatsoever to paint things with the filmakers paintbrush. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

Actually I don't enjoy movies like this, because they are presented as absolute fact, and yet I find myself wondering if there isn't more to the story than just what is shown onscreen. It seems I am immediately skeptical of what is presented by someone with extreme right or left beliefs/propaganda. I feel this way whenever I read something written by Ann Coulter as well.

I just wonder if the majority of everyday Americans are just fairly central in their beliefs with left and right leanings - depending on the issue.
This movie was very well done by mike moore, but it only presents one side of the story...

actually i enjoyed the film... i dont really agree with the conclusions moore draws from the facts... but that makes the movie all the more interesting...

Example... Mr. Moore completely and totally showed, and proved the relationship the bush family has with saudi arabia, BUT, moore draws the conclusion that bush treats them better than he does the american people (actually he directly said that)... Is the bush family connected to the saudis in many different ways... YES... does that mean that that is affecting the way bush runs the country... NO...

Another Example... Moore showed, and proved that the administration gave the bin ladin family a free pass out of the country on sept 12-13, then says taht bush did nothing with the family to try and see where osama was... the first part is true... but, the FBI is very secretive on issues of national security, and they very well could have interviewed the bin ladin family... heck they might not have wanted the family to have a lawyer so they could have shipped them out of the country THEN asked them the tough questions... who knows.. (only the FBI and CIA)...

Moore brings up VERY interesting points, but he tends to take facts and DRAW conlcusions...

I think if we made a movie out of all the presidents and focused on the negetive aspects.. we coudl make alot of them look bad... clinton had alot of chances to get bin laden... just like bush and the CIA had info that said bin laden wanted to hijack planes...

overall i think this is a film that people should see... but in no means is it objective... its basicly like seeing facts, but though the glasses of michael moore (which may or may not be distorted, depending on your opinion)...

one last note.. mr. moore found the part of the military and interviewed the anti bush part, but the military has ALWAYS in the last 15 years voted for the REP. party, esp in 2000... but yet all i saw was images of soldiers who disliked bush...

jamdr

Jun 28, 2004, 01:05 AM

Hey GWUMacAddict--I used to go to GW. Is SJT still the highest paid idiot in the country?

logicat2001

Jun 28, 2004, 01:35 AM

:confused:

Come on people, please wake up and smell the coffee: ALL media is slanted. All media is propaganda. ALL media is skewed.

That is one of the central tenets of producing a work of media: you take something that is too huge (human experience) and constrain it to the boundaries of a media format (spoken word, text, photography, moving picture, etc.) In the process of doing so, you are simultaneously imprinting your own personal views, grievances, prejudices and promotions upon it.

But that's the way it should be. We are human. Media is not.

ALL truth that comes from without is mediated. The important connection is how you discern your own Truths from within, once you've shared a taste from that collective media pool.

jywv8

Jun 28, 2004, 02:57 AM

:confused:

Come on people, please wake up and smell the coffee: ALL media is slanted. All media is propaganda. ALL media is skewed.

That is one of the central tenets of producing a work of media: you take something that is too huge (human experience) and constrain it to the boundaries of a media format (spoken word, text, photography, moving picture, etc.) In the process of doing so, you are simultaneously imprinting your own personal views, grievances, prejudices and promotions upon it.

Exactly. We all know where Moore's political affections lie. The movie presents his view of the 9/11 and the Bush administration, because, well, it's his movie. All these so-called 'grass roots' organizations trying to get it taken out of the theaters need to shut their collective pie holes. If you want to see the movie, go see it and enjoy it. If not, then stay home.

I saw the movie last night. I thought it was excellent.

Amani

Jun 28, 2004, 03:16 AM

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14397,00.html?tnews

"earning a searing $21.8 million at only 868 sites, for a blockbuster $25,115 per screen average"

go go go!

Gallagb, thanks for getting this thread started. I was blown away by the movie and I plan to go see it again--and that, as a married man and father is something I never get around to, but I can't wait for the DVD to come out.

The movie is difinitely propaganda, like most of the media and Bush regime reports. So there's nothing new abuot that. And yes, like all film makers, Moore exploits many of the subjects in the film in order to get his points across. Nothing new there either.

But I ask--seriously asks--who else in film media is working that hard to bring another perpective about the Bush regime specifically, and geopolitics, race, and class in general?

I don't need a balanced view! I need a perspective that I can't get from ABC, CBS, CNN, or Fox News. I don't need to hear more retired generals, conservative or liberal think tank analysts, Firing Line talking heads, or pretty face Diane Sawyers's. Hell, even NPR (Nationialist Public Radio) is tired and outdated. I need to hear from someone who has done the work of investigation and is not afraid to put his critical opinion and analysis out there. From there I can do more research and draw my own conclusions.

This movies raises critically important questions that need to be examined. I imagine the information he provides--in what, a 90 minute movie?--is only the icing on the cake.

And if anyone can leave from seeing that movie and not feel the utter horror of the bombing attack that the Bush regime carried out on innocent Iraqi people, then something is seriously wrong. I don't give a damn what Saddahm did, the bombings of that defenseless nation can never compare to what has happened to Americans. I don't like to make those kinds of comparisons when it comes to violence and I never have done so, but I no longer have patience for listening or responding to anybody who tries to defend the U.S. terrorist attack on Iraq. After seeing the movie, I just don't have the patience. The **** was wrong no matter how you slice it up. I knew that before going to see the movie, but seeing those images of the bombing and the attack on the people just did it for me. (Sadly, out of the hand full of reviews that I've read so far, none of them talked about impact of the bombing. Man, are we in denail or what?)

Anyway, it's gonna be hard for me to respond to the right wing folks on this thread, for like I said I just don't have the patience. I'm just too saddened and hurt by what this country has done.

But for those who haven't seen the movie, please do. You owe it to your children, grandchildren, or unborn children. Moore and his team bear witness and the least we can do is hear him out.

Amani

Jun 28, 2004, 03:20 AM

Statistics are like facts, you can prove anything you want with the proper set of statistics.

FACT: the U.S. bombed, terrorized, and killed lots and lots of people in Iraq, and is continuing to do so. The **** is wrong. Plain and simple.

I'm going to bed before I explode....

LeeTom

Jun 28, 2004, 03:48 AM

I just finished seeing this movie, and I think it was excellently done. Perhaps more than any contemporary documentary filmmaker, Moore provokes emotion.

His use of 9/11 footage was a nice touch. (Anyone that has seen it will know what I am talking about, i.e. the Kill Bill 2 coffin scene)

For anyone that argues otherwise, Moore does not present this as an unbiased piece. I agree with other postings, that it is nice to see well-researched and documented work infused with critical thought and opinion, without "unbiased" pretentions.

Also, to anyone that feels compelled to comment on this movie one way or another, without actually having seen it: I urge you to watch it first, then give your comments.

Lee Tom

believo

Jun 28, 2004, 04:28 AM

bush may have reason to fear for his job- but that movie will have nothing to do with it. it was a lame excuse for propoganda. i went in to the movie extremely excited to see it, and left completely discouraged.

Yes, the movie does reflect Moore's fact-based opinions, if that's what you mean by propaganda (not propoganda, by the way.) He did write and direct the movie, that's not the point. Let's move beyond that and explain why you disagree or "left completely discouraged."

Metatron

Jun 28, 2004, 04:53 AM

mouchoir

Jun 28, 2004, 05:33 AM

And don't you DARE try to reply with the whole he lied about WMD's. Even if (because I believe they are still yet to be found) he did lie, any American who says fighting for the freedom/lives of there fellow man from scum like Saddam was not worth the loss of Americans, which i must add is the lowest death toll of any war by FAR!!!, or going to war, than not only are you not American, you are just as guilty of Crimes Against Humanity as Saddam is. :mad: :mad:

Dude. He lied about the WMD.

And you're right – i'm not an american.

Are you typing from the gulf? Because if you're not, who are you to say what death toll is acceptable?

Savage Henry

Jun 28, 2004, 06:21 AM

I would still vote Bush if he was the bloody anti-christ. A socialist Kerry administration isn't just scary, its down right insane.
As opposed to the perfectly sane alternative of voting the Anti-Christ in power :rolleyes:

I don't know about you, but I could care less about the rest of the world liking America from the lies Kerry would give them at the cost of my security.
Why do you think he's lying but at the same time refuse to consider that Bush is lying, desite Powell admitting that the many sources of 'intelligence' on WMD proved wrong?! :rolleyes:

Kerry is a Hitler clone. If he had his way, we would not even have the right to vote.
I'm puzzled where to begin with that one. So I'm going to assume you must be bored. :rolleyes:

Folks, the President won't be voted out by citizens merely watching a film. Arguably it could actually lead to strengthen his vote with Republican supporters who haven't voted for years coming out and supporting their man. As long as the film has led to intelligent debate in the democracy then it has been a good thing ... just so long as the debate is intelligent! :rolleyes:

Man, my eyes are hurting from rolling them so much!

CmdrLaForge

Jun 28, 2004, 07:01 AM

An interesting aspect on this movie is that it was not planned to show it in the US before it won at the Cannes film festival. After that they decided to show the movie in the USA. Interesting.

mouchoir

Jun 28, 2004, 07:28 AM

An interesting aspect on this movie is that it was not planned to show it in the US before it won at the Cannes film festival. After that they decided to show the movie in the USA. Interesting.

It was always planned to be shown in the US. Moore just decided to premiere it at Cannes.

'...going to Cannes in the first place let him assume the mantle of an exile, as though the film could not be shown in his native land. In France he could be received as an alternative diplomat... ...Meanwhile, acres of press coverage later, the film's lack of US distribution is presumably a matter of fine-tuning a contract geared to ever-increasing profitability, a matter that will be presumably sorted out in time for Moore's cheerfully announced dream-date opening on 4 July.' B. Ruby Rich, Sight & Sound July 2004

frankzeg

Jun 28, 2004, 07:44 AM

After having seen the movie last night, some of the most telling aspects were the expressions on the W's face. This guy smirks like a guilty schoolboy as he prepares to make propaganda-infused statements that you can clearly see he has no actual belief in himself. I wish there was a scientific method of accurately interpreting body language and facial expression. Based on my own limited abilities the W consistently telegraphs "LIAR" like no one I've ever met.

This movie is criticized as propaganda- I would argue that the BS that has been handed out by this administration ranks as some of the most bald faced propaganda EVER. The most intelligent & thoughtful folks in the admin- Rice and Powell- are shown to be accessories to this campaign of deceit. That is perhaps one of the most important lessons- that even smart people can be twisted by the big LIE once it is set in motion. After having read Woodward's latest book I can't see how Powell lives with himself after kowtowing. But then again it is DUTY before HONOR in that code....we civilians should always remember that- and what the consequences of setting HONOR second implies to our society.

The people interviewed by Moore come across as REAL people who have heart-felt beliefs founded often in personal tragedy. They didn't telegraph BS. You can see the fear in the young soldiers- it is palpable. You can understand them having to get amped up to go into combat- and the toll that what they have to do and witness takes on their souls. And when you hear the wailing of the Iraqi woman who has lost five relations & friends in the past day- when she exhorts God to stop us- I think that a lot of people in the audience came to HER side- even though she was asking God to destroy OUR houses. THEN you realize what an abomination this administration has foisted on US- it is nauseating.

I challenge every Bush-hugger to attend this movie and come out unchanged. Ignore the inuendo of why the W did this and that and the overtones of elitism and oil-induced greed. Forget ALL that. Just remember what the father of the dead soldier said. He died....and for what....? FOR WHAT? I think that any rational person will come to the same realization that the mother from Flint did- despite the best intentions and a heartfelt patriotism this war NEVER made sense and the dire consequences of this incredibly bad decision are huge. If you are religious- and so many of Bush's supporters say they are- I want you to think about the W's supposed faith-infused decision making during this movie and how the consequences of HIS decisions add up on God's tally sheet.

The little old ladies quip- it summarized the whole thing: "We were duped". I don't think she intended to be duped again. And as Bush pathetically tries to say himself in the end....fooled twice.....

I left with the thought that the damage that this administration has done both to the US and to the world is hard to really gage and may take another generation of fence mending to reconcile. I hope we are up to the task.

musicpyrite

Jun 28, 2004, 08:16 AM

Are you typing from the gulf? Because if you're not, who are you to say what death toll is acceptable?

Even though I'm pretty sure you don't think death is acceptable (I don't) this has been one of the best wars. Far less people are dying/dead. (I mean US personel only)

And if you think death is unaccptable in war, you have a serous problem.

If you wanna see what war is like go watch Black Hawk Down, that will give you a pretty good idea what war is like.

sheesh, some people won't be happy until we fight a war that has no deaths. And guess what? A war without deaths, isn't a war.

(basically that means we fight our wars with politicians :eek: )

musicpyrite

Jun 28, 2004, 08:30 AM

And when you hear the wailing of the Iraqi woman who has lost five relations & friends in the past day- when she exhorts God to stop us- I think that a lot of people in the audience came to HER side- even though she was asking God to destroy OUR houses. THEN you realize what an abomination this administration has foisted on US- it is nauseating.

So all Americans (and the world) should side with this woman who's 5 friends/relatives are part of the problem?

What if those friends/relatives were terrorists?
What if those friends/relatives were not complying with the soldiers?
What if the soldiers had reason to suspect that the friends/relativies were going to attempt to harm them?

You know, men can kill? So can women. So can children.

From the post avove, I brought up the subject of Black Hawk Down. (if you happened to watch it) do you remember the scene when one of the soldiers got separated from the others? The soldier was about to exit a building when he slipped and fell. On the soldiers left was a father, on the right was the kid of the father.

The kid saw the soldier and started to fire his AK-47 at him, but like I said, the soldier slipped and fell. Of course the bullets when over the soldiers head and right into his father, killing him.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the boy was about 10 or 11 years old.

So the point of that small story is that everybody could be the enemy. Not just men.

Savage Henry

Jun 28, 2004, 08:45 AM

...everybody could be the enemy...

And everybody could be our friend. It's just the difference of beliefs and cultures seems to be enough for some people to vindicate those unkown to them.

An Eye for and Eye doesn't work, because you soon run out of eyes.

Sayhey

Jun 28, 2004, 09:00 AM

I would still vote Bush if he was the bloody anti-christ. A socialist Kerry administration isn't just scary, its down right insane. It puts all of you, even the Moore's of this country, in harms way.

I don't know about you, but I could care less about the rest of the world liking America from the lies Kerry would give them at the cost of my security. Kerry is a Hitler clone. If he had his way, we would not even have the right to vote.

Know, this is not a I hate Democate rant. I think Edwards would have made a great President even though I would have still voted Bush. And don't you DARE try to reply with the whole he lied about WMD's. Even if (because I believe they are still yet to be found) he did lie, any American who says fighting for the freedom/lives of there fellow man from scum like Saddam was not worth the loss of Americans, which i must add is the lowest death toll of any war by FAR!!!, or going to war, than not only are you not American, you are just as guilty of Crimes Against Humanity as Saddam is. :mad: :mad:

You should try to take long, slow, deep breaths. Maybe sit down and and close your eyes and try to think about something comforting before you blow a blood vessel.

Now, are you ready to have a discussion or do you just want to go off on some more nonsense?

I must ask if you are calling Kerry a socialist because the word "liberal" isn't getting the reaction you want? Socialists want to nationalize what are now private industry. Kerry has never advocated such things, but does that fact matter or do you just need a convenient "hot button" word to call him? I see you must think it is not working because not only is he a socialist, he is also a Nazi? Which is it? They are not the same (ask Tony Blair who does belong to a socialist party and supports your man's war.) Oh yes, kindly show me were Kerry advocates taking away the right to vote. Interesting charge. Totally devoid of any truth, but an interesting charge.

I'm curious where you learned that disputing the validity of a war policy takes away ones US citizenship (or should accomplish this objective - I'm not sure if you are stating it as a fact or a wish?) In any case, if we follow such standards, not only will we be rewriting the Constitution, but we must dig up some old americans like Abe Lincoln and throw them out of the country.

Perhaps before you go on again, you should not only calm down, but you should check a few facts.

edit: oh, yes, I need to know are people who did not object to and supported Saddam's crimes while the worst of them were happening subject to your war crimes tribunal? If so, let me know when you indict Bush's father along with Rumsfeld, Cheney and quite a few others. Reagan is dead so a charge does make much sense.

blackfox

Jun 28, 2004, 09:04 AM

musicpyrite, I would be careful baseing too much of ones' argument on a movie...even if it is a pretty good one. As far as your comment of "anyone could be the enemy", this is, in a way, obviously true, as statistics can prove...but not necessarily true in Iraq, or in all of Iraq...even it it proved supremely relevant to the current situation, I personally am somewhat wary of a policy that sanctions pre-emption and the assumption of guilt, as there is a lot of room in there for abuse and manipulation, as well as for any pragmatism...

...I think people need to realize the confusion and fear over there on both sides...you have young Kids serving the US, in a uncomfortably hot country, speaking a foreign tongue, with it's inhabitants either (a) Liking you (b) Tolerating you (c) Frustrated w/you (d) Angry with you (e) afraid of you(f) shooting at you (g) shooting at each other (h) maybe liking "you" as a fairly localized, empirically-based term, but a-f, substituting perceived US policy (i) all of the above, shifting over time...so these kids are (a) young (b) inexperienced (c) immature (d) miserable (e) afraid (f) vengeful (g) confused, or any combination...mistakes are made, misunderstandings are created and exacerbated...

Some of this is always the nature of an Occupation...but as a Citizen of the Occupying Country, I would ask that my leaders recognize this complexity beforehand, and design policy to deal with it realistically and effectively, minimizing such problems...or, upon analysis, realize that our reasons for invasion were not worth the risks and repurcussions...but that is just me...

blackpeter

Jun 28, 2004, 09:35 AM

I don't care to see this movie. For the copyright infringements on 'Fahrenheit 451', which Moore acknowledged that he didn't respond to the call from Ray Bradbury until the movie was too well known.

That is just absurd. Intellectual property is really getting out of hand when a claim like Ray Bradbury's is taken seriously.

sambo.

Jun 28, 2004, 09:39 AM

i have yet to see this film, and living in a tiny town in the boondocks of australia i probably won't for a while yet..... ;)

there is very little dissent in the mainstream press. large media corporations (yes, i mean uncle rupert et al.) can wield incredible amounts of power. the heads of these companies even more so. case in point - when the news on abu ghraib broke, the Sunday Telegraph in Sydney ran the pictures and story, on page 50 something. buried. if i was the editor (and i do edit a newspaper, i'm supposed to be doing that now, instead i'm writing this post.... :p ) that would have run front page. no doubt. editors know what the boss does and doesn't want to see on the front page. if they want to keep their jobs, they take note.

moore at least gives voice to what a lot of people think. especially non-Americans. as an outsider, i can see quite easily what he talks about. even today, any criticism of America, the good 'ol USofA by a non-American is howled down with derision in the US. criticisms by nations who stand next to the US (such as my own) is greeted with "well, if you really want a free trade agreement.......". so for the rest of us (ie: anyone outside the US who is directly affected by the decisions of it's president. ergo - everyone), to see an American standing up and pointing out why the US has become the target of so much hate is really refreshing. finally the charges are being laid by one of your own. it certainly gives me more faith in the American public when i hear that such a film is having such an impact and being such a success. yes, it's propaganda in many ways, but then, so is an entire mainstream press that will put stories about questionable detention practices by a self-styled "Army of Liberation" on page 50. so it's good to finally have a different perspective that can reach so many people inside the US. outside the US, moore is already preaching to the converted.

the shift to the right brought by Bush and his "your with us or against us" talk has scared the sheisse out of anyone who rekons building schools and hospitals is a better bet than 1000kg bombs for building a peaceful world.

please America, VOTE in November. get your friends together and go and cast your ballot. one of the most shameful stains the US people could inflict on their own countries may happen in November. If Bush is to be returned then so be it, but at least let it be with a huge voter-turnout and an absence of "hanging Chads". whoever heads for the Oval Office after the count please let it be after 99.99% of eligable voters have spoken and been heard. your nation, whether you agreed or not, has invaded another, proclaiming a mission of democracy. Show the world that America does indeed believe in the process it seems intent to force upon others at any cost. please go and VOTE!, your sons and daughters have died to give Iraqis that option (supposedly, but thats propaganda for you isn't it?).

end of rant...... :D

gallagb

Jun 28, 2004, 09:52 AM

Thomas Veil

Jun 28, 2004, 10:03 AM

I was gonna comment on Metatron's over-the-top rant, but Sayhey did a better job refuting it than I probably could. So I'll just add a "Hear, hear!"

Voltron

Jun 28, 2004, 05:12 PM

Dude. He lied about the WMD.

And you're right – i'm not an american.

Are you typing from the gulf? Because if you're not, who are you to say what death toll is acceptable?
Dude he stated the facts at the time as he knew it, as did the CIA, the PM in England, Kerry himself, the UN, France etc thus it was not lieing about WMD's.
We have found enough Sarin gas there in the past month to kill over 100,000 people and that is only a small fraction of what we knew or thought we knew about before the war. Bush never lied, he reported the facts as they were reported to him.

csubear

Jun 28, 2004, 05:28 PM

zimv20

Jun 28, 2004, 05:40 PM

Have you seen the movie? I think you might change you mind.
i suspect that if bush went on TV and said he sold the war on a pack of lies, sly (aka voltron) wouldn't change his mind. but he _would_ make another post in the "liberal media bias" thread.

IJ Reilly

Jun 28, 2004, 05:40 PM

That is just absurd. Intellectual property is really getting out of hand when a claim like Ray Bradbury's is taken seriously.

We've been through all of this before. Ray Bradbury has not made a copyright infringement claim against Michael Moore.

Voltron

Jun 28, 2004, 06:24 PM

We've been through all of this before. Ray Bradbury has not made a copyright infringement claim against Michael Moore.
But he should.

wwworry

Jun 28, 2004, 06:55 PM

Dude he stated the facts at the time as he knew it, as did the CIA, the PM in England, Kerry himself, the UN, France etc thus it was not lieing about WMD's.
We have found enough Sarin gas there in the past month to kill over 100,000 people and that is only a small fraction of what we knew or thought we knew about before the war. Bush never lied, he reported the facts as they were reported to him.

He claimed Al Qeada was an ally of Iraq - not true.
Cheney claimed it was "pretty well confirmed" that Iraqi Intelligence met with Ata in Praque - not true
Bush claimed Iraq was buying uranium from Niger - not true.
Cheney claimed we would be greeted with "flowers", well???

So all of this stuff was dubious. The mobile weapons labs were for weather balloons. The missile silos were chicken coups.

Why is he starting a war based on half-assed intelligence? Maybe he thought the he could not convince the US using real facts so he pumped up this flimsey stuff. Do you want a president who starts wars using spin? Doesn't it just show his that the president thinks we are idiots?

Then he throws out a year of post war state department planning. Looting, killing, American soldiers dead, and billions of tax payer dollars are wasted because he was counting on us being greeted with flowers and the Iraqis welcoming an invading army. Forgeting the reasons FOR the war we can easily fault him for what happened after the war. Mismanaged. Corrupt contractors. Torture. More terrorism.

Thanks Georgie.

Voltron

Jun 28, 2004, 07:08 PM

He claimed Al Qeada was an ally of Iraq - not true.
Cheney claimed it was "pretty well confirmed" that Iraqi Intelligence met with Ata in Praque - not true
Bush claimed Iraq was buying uranium from Niger - not true.

I believe bush claimed that Al Qeada was working out of Iraq and some members were in Iraq with Saddam. Also he stated Saddam helped terrorists but I don't believe he named Al Qeada that time. And well Saddam pays off relatives of suicide bombers that right there is helping terrorist.

Cheney claimed we had an informant that claimes Iraqi Intelligence met with Ata in Praque. Guess what, its true we did have an informant that said that.

Bush claimed that I believe it was Britain Intelligence had evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger.
Guess what, the PM of Britain verified that it is true their intelligence stated that. Thus not a lie.

Cheney claimed we would be greeted with "flowers", well???

He was wrong, not lieing. there is a difference.

So all of this stuff was dubious. The mobile weapons labs were for weather balloons. The missile silos were chicken coups.

We all saw the mobile weapons labs, at least that is what they looked like by satellite imagery. The way they drove away from facilities as UN drove towards them was highly suspicious. Saddam was purposely trying to convince us he was hidding WMD's. Or he was trying to convince others in the Middle East that he was hidding WMD's. Now maybe he was and he got rid of the stuff prior to the invasion or maybe he was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of other countries in the MIddle East making them think he was getting away with something when he wasn't. Either way he needed to be removed.

Why is he starting a war based on half-assed intelligence? Maybe he thought the he could not convince the US using real facts so he pumped up this flimsey stuff. Do you want a president who starts wars using spin? Doesn't it just show his that the president thinks we are idiots?

No it shows you are biased and refuse to see things the way they were. That no matter how much Sarin Gas we turn up over there you'll still claim it is not WMD's. If we found a nuke buried under one of his castles you would claim it was planted. Fact is nothing will satisfy you except beating the republicans.

Then he throws out a year of post war state department planning. Looting, killing, American soldiers dead, and billions of tax payer dollars are wasted because he was counting on us being greeted with flowers and the Iraqis welcoming an invading army. Forgeting the reasons FOR the war we can easily fault him for what happened after the war. Mismanaged. Corrupt contractors. Torture. More terrorism.

Thanks Georgie.
He told everyone before hand it was going to be a long battle. Do you think Bush is God? No president can micro manage everything, he can not be held responsible for every single individual that is a part of the war against Iraq or the rebuilding of which. He is not omnipotent and he can't read all their minds. But apparently he has to be that good or he aint good enough in your eyes. Or he has to be a democrat who is willing to turn our country over to the Socialist UN party.

mactastic

Jun 28, 2004, 07:17 PM

This is the lowest death toll of any war? I guess Gulf War I doesn't count? Nor Panama? Both of which we 'won'.

wwworry

Jun 28, 2004, 07:27 PM

No it shows you are biased and refuse to see things the way they were. That no matter how much Sarin Gas we turn up over there you'll still claim it is not WMD's. If we found a nuke buried under one of his castles you would claim it was planted. Fact is nothing will satisfy you except beating the republicans.

He told everyone before hand it was going to be a long battle. Do you think Bush is God? No president can micro manage everything, he can not be held responsible for every single individual that is a part of the war against Iraq or the rebuilding of which. He is not omnipotent and he can't read all their minds. But apparently he has to be that good or he aint good enough in your eyes. Or he has to be a democrat who is willing to turn our country over to the Socialist UN party.

Yes I refuse to see the things the way they were when people believed all the crap Bush posited ALL THE CRAP THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TRUE. Does that make me biased. Yes, if being biased is being correctly informed.

Please do not make claims about what I would say.

It is well documented that the pentagon took over post-war planning and refused to look at any of the work done by the state department. Look, if he throws out post-war planning and then it turns out that our post-war planning was totally inept you have to connect the dots. Are you blind? And there is no "socialist UN party" in the USA. In other threads people have pointed out to you that Kerry does not fit the definition of a socialist and still you throw out this trash talk. It's a lie. Don't lie.

What's wrong with you anyway? What is the problem with looking at the facts? Bush clearly stated on numerous occasions things that turned out to be completely wrong. Why make excuses? I have seen plenty of valid pro-republican arguments that do not rely on being blind to the facts or spouting trash about the opponent.

Voltron

Jun 28, 2004, 07:50 PM

It is well documented that the pentagon took over post-war planning and refused to look at any of the work done by the state department. Look, if he throws out post-war planning and then it turns out that our post-war planning was totally inept you have to connect the dots. Are you blind?

I've never seen the documented proof. Also a leader is free to choose amoung a variety of plans and to pick one. I don't see how it is inept compared to the end of WWII and what we had to deal with in Europe it is tame. Maybe your the blind one here?

And there is no "socialist UN party" in the USA. In other threads people have pointed out to you that Kerry does not fit the definition of a socialist and still you throw out this trash talk. It's a lie. Don't lie.

Kerry fits the deffinition of whatever the polls tell him he has to fit in order to get elected.
Socialized medicine, education, etc is socializm. The UN mandate that everyone has a right to a house is socialist or perhaps communist I do get those two confused from time to time.
I didn't and I don't lie.

LethalWolfe

Jun 28, 2004, 10:32 PM

ok- so i had NO intentions of this turning into a political debate- but i guess that was inevitable-

i did have, however, intentions of this turning into a debate over if this film was a documentary or not-

also- i was just trying to be encouraging to those film makers out there who are not main stream to say that it is quite possible to not have a 'canned' hollywood film and make a butt load of cash

hense i'm a lil frustrated that arn felt it nessesary to move this to the 'politics/war' debate area of the site- but- that's his call- not mine
i'm cool w/ that.

anyhow- no prbm for bringing the topic up
i do recall somewhere in the last few threads about this film some people were courious to see how much $ it would raise...etc- so i figured i'd answer that quesiton by posting those 2 news articles-

$8mil the first day
$26 for the weekend

not bad @ all
wish i could get my hands on some of that pot-
then the 30" wouldn't look so stinkin expensive...

The film is not a doc. Moore doens't even call it a doc. "It's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration," Moore said Sunday. "I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism." (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040621_449.html)

No offense gallagb but you expect too much of some members of this board if you thought that this wasn't going to go politcial in 2 seconds flat. ;)

Lethal

katchow

Jun 29, 2004, 11:22 AM

Yes, Ray Bradbury has ownership of all conceivable degrees of fahrenheit (though he let his celsius copyrights expire)...why do you think science books are so expensive? Think of the royalties :)

and imagine all the confused people who believed this was ray bradbury's work? who is michael moore anyway?

blackpeter

Jun 29, 2004, 11:35 AM

But he should.

So are The Beatles are owed money for use of the word "Apple?" Give me a break...

mactastic

Jun 29, 2004, 11:47 AM

So are The Beatles are owed money for use of the word "Apple?" Give me a break...

I'm not sure Sly will understand the relevancy of that comparison. He's not a mac guy. You may need to provide more detail.

LeeTom

Jun 29, 2004, 11:56 AM

But he should.

You are wrong, Voltron.

Bradbury, while a great author, is being hypocritical.
The titles of several of Mr. Bradbury's greatest books are "stolen" from works by other authors, in a manner far more direct than Mr. Moore's allusion-to-but-not-complete-appropriation-of the Bradbury title.

Cases in point: "Something Wicked This Way Comes" (William Shakespeare); "I Sing the Body Electric!" (Walt Whitman) and "Golden Apples of the Sun" (William Butler Yeats).

Lee Tom

Voltron

Jun 29, 2004, 12:17 PM

You are wrong, Voltron.

Bradbury, while a great author, is being hypocritical.
The titles of several of Mr. Bradbury's greatest books are "stolen" from works by other authors, in a manner far more direct than Mr. Moore's allusion-to-but-not-complete-appropriation-of the Bradbury title.

Cases in point: "Something Wicked This Way Comes" (William Shakespeare); "I Sing the Body Electric!" (Walt Whitman) and "Golden Apples of the Sun" (William Butler Yeats).

Lee Tom
Since Bradbury isn't sueing Moore or even making a big issue out of it I wouldn't agree with saying he is being hypocritical. The above that you stated would not surprise me to be the reason why he didn't make a big deal out of it.

On a side not I believe Shakespeare is of the public domain now. I'm not sure about the other two I've never read their stuff but they may be public domain too.

LeeTom

Jun 29, 2004, 12:23 PM

Since Bradbury isn't sueing Moore or even making a big issue out of it I wouldn't agree with saying he is being hypocritical. The above that you stated would not surprise me to be the reason why he didn't make a big deal out of it.

On a side not I believe Shakespeare is of the public domain now. I'm not sure about the other two I've never read their stuff but they may be public domain too.

Well, would you detract your statement that he should sue then?
By the way, you would get a lot out of Whitman.

Lee Tom

Voltron

Jun 29, 2004, 12:28 PM

Well, would you detract your statement that he should sue then?
By the way, you would get a lot out of Whitman.

Lee Tom
My statement wasn't based on the merits of the case but on my politics.

katchow

Jun 29, 2004, 12:31 PM

wow, an admission...i'm impressed

LeeTom

Jun 29, 2004, 12:43 PM

My statement wasn't based on the merits of the case but on my politics.

I knew I could count on you for a straight answer to a straight question.

Let's see if I remember my logic...

"If Voltron's statement is false, then we can follow that Voltron's politics produce false statements."

Voltron's statement is not based on the merits of the case.
Voltron's statement is based on his politics.
The merits of the case show that Bradbury should not sue.
Voltron's statement ("...he should [sue]") is false.
Voltron's politics produce false statements.

Yes! I love logic.
Lee Tom

mactastic

Jun 29, 2004, 01:17 PM

My statement wasn't based on the merits of the case but on my politics.

How much of what you say is dictated by your politics rather than a sound argument?

Sheesh, you're admitting you put politics above truth, then you turn around and accuse Democrats of 'doing anything to win'. Don't you see the inherent problem with that?

skunk

Jun 29, 2004, 02:41 PM

My statement wasn't based on the merits of the case but on my politics.
How illuminating!

Stelliform

Jun 29, 2004, 07:27 PM

.....

Frohickey

Jun 29, 2004, 08:46 PM

bush may have reason to fear for his job- but that movie will have nothing to do with it. it was a lame excuse for propoganda. i went in to the movie extremely excited to see it, and left completely discouraged.

Michael Moore was excited that you saw it. Every single F911 moviegoer is money in his pocket. He dresses as if he's an ordinary person, but he is not. Sorry, but I hate posers.

mactastic

Jun 29, 2004, 08:55 PM

Guess who said this? Bill Clinton Feb, 1998 (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/) Based off this speech I would believe that Iraq has WMD's. It is my opinion that the people who most vehemently assert that President Bush is a liar are ignoring the facts or skewing them to assert their extreme dislike of President Bush.

You have to admit, wwworry, that President Bush believed that they would find WMD's in Iraq. Also you have to admit that he wasn't alone in this belief.

The big difference is the level of certainty each had. For something of a comparison, consider this. On a preponderance of the evidence (legalese for 50/50 chance) sure most people were sure that Saddam was up to no good and probably had WMD. It would be stupid and naive to assume Saddam had no ill intentions. But Bush asserted that Saddam possesed WMD beyond a reasonable doubt (legalese for as certain as you can get). In the legal world that is a huge difference, and it makes as much of a difference here.

No one else besides Bush was as certain that Saddam had WMD. Do you think even Tony Blair would have done what Bush did and actually invaded Iraq?

You have to admit, the invasion of Iraq fits quite nicely into the PNAC crowd's view of the projection of American power in the 21st century. Whether or not the war was necessary I'm sure we disagree on.

LeeTom

Jun 29, 2004, 08:59 PM

I can think of at least one big difference between Bush and Clinton on this matter... with Bush we have thousands of dead and wounded Americans... let alone the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis.

Inconscionable.

Stelliform

Jun 29, 2004, 09:05 PM

.....

jsw

Jun 29, 2004, 09:17 PM

Michael Moore was excited that you saw it. Every single F911 moviegoer is money in his pocket. He dresses as if he's an ordinary person, but he is not. Sorry, but I hate posers.

FWIW: My ex-sister-in-law's "new" (as of 8 years ago) husband is worth north of US$250M. He could buy and sell any one of us (presumably). He's a diehard Mac fan (not that it matters....).

Anyway, the man dresses worse than Michael Moore. Shaves less, too. So, I'd say Mr. Moore is just a slob, not a poser. Rich people don't dress down to look middle class. They dress down because that's how they dress.

mactastic

Jun 29, 2004, 09:25 PM

I am not certain that the war was necessary either. However, I am reserving judgment until the Iraqi's have had a go with self government, and how well they govern themselves. If the Iraqi's protect human rights and free speech, then I think that they were successful.

Are you saying Allawi is going to be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East? I say he's going to be our puppet, nothing resembling the will of the Iraqi people will happen for quite some time, if ever. He'll be a dictator in all but name, with American firepower backing him. And this will make more people over there like us, right?

However I disagree with you on President Bush's motive. In light of Putin (http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=1952035) coming out and revealing that they gave us intelligence on Iraq, I am certain that there is much more that we don't know.

Well I keep hearing that, and every time the secret information becomes public, it's been discredited. First it was the 'mobile WMD labs'. Then it was 'aluminum tubes for nuclear enrichment', then it was 'death drones to strike US soil'. Or 'yellowcake from Niger'.

I'm sure there is much more we don't know too. But if what we do know is any indication, I'm pretty skeptical of anything they can pull out now.

mactastic

Jun 29, 2004, 09:27 PM

Speaking of posers, don't you hate it when a rich northern elitist goes around in cowboy boots claiming he's a 'regular guy', not to mention a Texan? Yeah, posers are the worst, aren't they? :D

Voltron

Jun 29, 2004, 10:14 PM

Speaking of posers, don't you hate it when a rich northern elitist goes around in cowboy boots claiming he's a 'regular guy', not to mention a Texan? Yeah, posers are the worst, aren't they? :D
Isn't that kind of what Kerry is doing?

mactastic

Jun 29, 2004, 10:26 PM

Isn't that kind of what Kerry is doing?

Shhhhh.... it's what they all do Sly. Or hadn't you noticed?

BTW, are you claiming Kerry is saying he's a Texan now? :p

LeeTom

Jun 29, 2004, 10:33 PM

Isn't that kind of what Kerry is doing?

One could say that, but then one could make false statements based on false politics!

Lee Tom

sambo.

Jun 30, 2004, 12:34 AM

.... making four cents for this thread......

i dunno about Bush, but my dear own little Jackboot Johnney Howard has been doing a sequence of buck-passes that wouldn't look out of place on a footy pitch.

his old Children Overboard mantra is being repeated "I never received any advice to contradict the original advice or advising that the advice i had received was inadvisable". incredible how unaccountable Howard govt ministers have become.

it now seems fairly clear that when Bush's brother gave him the job, he already wanted to go and finish daddies work, whatever the cost. i seem to remember a Defence Dept (US) report saying that the US would need to go to war to secure oil reserves within X years (well, go to war or drive cars with smaller engines, but some things are just to abhorrant to even contemplate).

if eveidence comes out in a few years (like 30 or so) that dubya ordered the 11/9/01 (i'm Australian and refuse to use the US date convention) attacks or the old man Osama is a member of "skull and bones" (whatever that is anyway), or that the whole thing was a sham, i would not be surprised. even less surprising would be a terrorist attack in Australia, however if that happens before the election later this year, then i will always suspect that Jackboot had a hand in planning it, i wouldn't trust either of the miserable gits to have any morals or scruples at all in the face of election defeat. :mad:

gallagb

Jun 30, 2004, 01:02 AM

The film is not a doc. Moore doens't even call it a doc. "It's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration," Moore said Sunday. "I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism." (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040621_449.html)

No offense gallagb but you expect too much of some members of this board if you thought that this wasn't going to go politcial in 2 seconds flat. ;)

Lethal

no offense taken- my bad acctually
i should have figured that from the start- but my shortsightedness...

on the other note- i hadn't heard that
my friends have just been reffering to it as a doc
i'm not surprised that he would admit to that- in fact- i'm glad he's been honest...etc

i still am looking forward to seeing the film

mouchoir

Jun 30, 2004, 06:46 AM

Even though I'm pretty sure you don't think death is acceptable (I don't) this has been one of the best wars. Far less people are dying/dead. (I mean US personel only)

And if you think death is unaccptable in war, you have a serous problem.

If you wanna see what war is like go watch Black Hawk Down, that will give you a pretty good idea what war is like.

sheesh, some people won't be happy until we fight a war that has no deaths. And guess what? A war without deaths, isn't a war.

(basically that means we fight our wars with politicians :eek: )

I don't think death is unacceptable in war and I never said that – it is part of war.

What is unacceptable is going to war based upon utter ********* reasons (well, the reasons given to the public – Bush had his own agenda), and even (in the case of Blair) changing those reasons twice in one week!

'This has been one of the best wars'. I think you might have the serious problem.

I'll be interested to know what fabulous oil deals have been made over the past few weeks in Iraq.

mactastic

Jun 30, 2004, 09:07 AM

mouchoir

Jun 30, 2004, 12:28 PM

LethalWolfe

Jun 30, 2004, 02:32 PM

It wouldn't be a conspiracy 'theory' with evidence – it would be a conspiracy.

It is still a theory if it lacks conclusive proof/evidence. If the conspiracy theory was proven true then it would no longer be a theory.

Lethal

Frohickey

Jun 30, 2004, 02:46 PM

What is unacceptable is going to war based upon utter ********* reasons (well, the reasons given to the public – Bush had his own agenda), and even (in the case of Blair) changing those reasons twice in one week!

I'll be interested to know what fabulous oil deals have been made over the past few weeks in Iraq.

I guess the Falklands war wasn't a war based upon utter ********* reasons either.

I think you have to float a nasty rumor that the Mars Spirit rover found oil on Mars. That ought to change the whole focus of the subject. ;)

skunk

Jun 30, 2004, 04:06 PM

I guess the Falklands war wasn't a war based upon utter ********* reasons either.
Having your sovereign territory invaded by a foreign army is BS? Raising the bar somewhat, aren't we?

Voltron

Jun 30, 2004, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by mouchoir

I'll be interested to know what fabulous oil deals have been made over the past few weeks in Iraq.

I'm still waiting to hear all the details about the fabulous oil deals that were made in violation of UN Sanctions. You know the ones France is demanding payment for.

musicpyrite

Jun 30, 2004, 09:50 PM

musicpyrite, I would be careful baseing too much of ones' argument on a movie...even if it is a pretty good one.

Yea, I was thinking about that, but IMHO, that movie did a very good job of telling how and what the soldiers go through.

Thats about as close as you can get without actually going to Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, North Korea, ect.

I was simply trying to make a connection that the average Joe Shmo could understand.

musicpyrite

Jun 30, 2004, 10:07 PM

This is the lowest death toll of any war? I guess Gulf War I doesn't count? Nor Panama? Both of which we 'won'.

Technically, this isn't even a war. (even though everyone calls it one, including myself)

The fact is, that in war, the will always be deaths. Always.
But now-a-days, we have all this technology to help reduce deaths.
Anybody who thinks that a lot of soldiers have died in this war is a little weird. This is one of the most sucessful wars (in terms of lives lost) that I can think of.

Comparing the number of dead in this war to the number of dead in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam is like comparing the explosion of a firecraker to a nuclear bomb.

blackfox

Jun 30, 2004, 10:14 PM

Musicpyrite, although what you say is somewhat true, you are addressing US casualties, not those of innocent Iraqi civilians...and this is where modern warfare (guerilla-based) becomes more difficult, as sides no longer dress up in pretty, easily identifiable uniforms and line up in a field somewhere...they duke it out in urban environments, where the technological superiority of the US is mitigated the most...unfortunately, this entails many innocents being caught in the crossfire...to me war is always bad, although sometimes inevitable and sometimes necessary...imo, this war does not follow the latter two distinctions, which regardless of body-count, make it particularily the former...

CramSoup

Jun 30, 2004, 11:40 PM

you can think what you want, but everything presented in the movie was fact. and if you ask me at the end when Mr. Moore is parralling 1984, it truely got to me. having bush say "We will prevail" , was very frighting. there are just to many things that 1984 and our current international and homeland situations have in common, like AirStrip One. :)
next thing you know FOX will start using New Speak. :)

From what I've seen, Everything in the movie is fact...But I see it like reality TV, EDIT only what will sell, and NEVER, NEVER EVER, TELL THE WHOLE STORY. Let them speak but never let them finish!!!!

sambo.

Jul 1, 2004, 12:07 AM

Do you actually have any evidence for the claims of Bush's prior knowledge of a pending 9/11 attack, or are you just basing that on blind hatred of Bush, Howard, and Blair for this war?

'Cause spinning conspiracy theories without evidence only helps those on the right discredit those of us who have rational arguments against the war.

Hell I was just looking at another thread where the poster was implying that liberals in general felt this way. It's easier to discredit your opponents argument if you can lump them in with the 'looney' crowd so to speak.

no, i don't, nor am i stateing catagorically that the 11/09/01 attacks were orchestrated by the White House. I am merely expressing my own opinion that IF evidence comes out that this was the case, then I for one would not be in the least bit surprised.

in fact, my reading of much of the evidence is that the White House got caught with its pants down that day, hell, Cheney (yes, the Dick himself with little or no discussion with George (the Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 26th June, 2004)) gave the shoot down order to the military AFTER United 93 (the last flight still in the air) crashed in a field. the sequence of bumbling by the administration in and of itself is frightening.

what i suppose my point is, is that there is nothing too immoral/ cowardly or outright abhorrent that a right-wing politician (and a big swathe of the lefties too, i can't stand any of them) won't do to try to keep himself in power. ;)

mouchoir

Jul 1, 2004, 06:30 AM

It is still a theory if it lacks conclusive proof/evidence. If the conspiracy theory was proven true then it would no longer be a theory.

Lethal

That is pretty much what I just stated?!

mouchoir

Jul 1, 2004, 06:39 AM

I guess the Falklands war wasn't a war based upon utter ********* reasons either.

I think you have to float a nasty rumor that the Mars Spirit rover found oil on Mars. That ought to change the whole focus of the subject. ;)

I think you're changing the subject somewhat here. Bush jnr completely invented a link between Saddam and Osama. Apparantly they did have talks once, but utterly despised each other.

They have completely opposing views of Islam and Osama sees Saddam as an infidel.

The weapons of mass destruction are still yet to be found... we know what they did have, because we sold them chemical weapons and reagan and bush snr. even new about the use of them in the iraq-iran war. A war in which the US gave tactical advice to saddam.

And as for the way Saddam treated his people. Sure that's terrible but why choose Iraq over all the other despotic dictatorships with appalling human rights records?

mactastic

Jul 1, 2004, 10:43 AM

Technically, this isn't even a war. (even though everyone calls it one, including myself)

Agreed.

The fact is, that in war, the will always be deaths. Always.
But now-a-days, we have all this technology to help reduce deaths.
Anybody who thinks that a lot of soldiers have died in this war is a little weird. This is one of the most sucessful wars (in terms of lives lost) that I can think of.

Again, I agree with you.

Comparing the number of dead in this war to the number of dead in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam is like comparing the explosion of a firecraker to a nuclear bomb.

Now I don't know if you meant this part in response to my post or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't compare WWI, WWII, or Vietnam to this war in any way just now. Yet you have gone and responded to my post as if I had. That is a disingenuous debating method.

LethalWolfe

Jul 1, 2004, 12:52 PM

That is pretty much what I just stated?!

Pretty much? Yes. But "pretty much" is only good for horseshoes and handgrenades. ;)

Having evidence that supports a theory is very different than having evidence that proves a theory. And until it is proven true it is still a theory. That was the distinction I was making in my last post.

Lethal

zimv20

Jul 1, 2004, 01:00 PM

Having evidence that supports a theory is very different than having evidence that proves a theory.
nice theory

;-)

mouchoir

Jul 2, 2004, 04:35 AM

Having evidence that supports a theory is very different than having evidence that proves a theory. And until it is proven true it is still a theory. That was the distinction I was making in my last post.

Lethal

Do you have any evidence to prove this? ;)

musicpyrite

Jul 2, 2004, 10:48 AM

Now I don't know if you meant this part in response to my post or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I didn't compare WWI, WWII, or Vietnam to this war in any way just now. Yet you have gone and responded to my post as if I had. That is a disingenuous debating method.

No, I wansn't relating it to your post, I should have made that more clear. And I had to go look up what disingenuous mean. :o

mactastic

Jul 2, 2004, 06:43 PM

And I had to go look up what disingenuous mean. :o

Hehe.. wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of using words that are too big in this forum. :p

solvs

Jul 4, 2004, 04:22 AM

Michael Moore was excited that you saw it. Every single F911 moviegoer is money in his pocket. He dresses as if he's an ordinary person, but he is not. Sorry, but I hate posers.

I’m reminded of an old adage about Richard Pryor.

He once pulled up to a show in a limo, went up on stage, made some jokes about being poor growing up. When asked how he could be so rich, and yet talk about being poor, he simply pointed to his temple and said “memory”. Do you really think Moore has always been rich? Watch some of his earlier work, learn more about him, then you wouldn’t be calling him a poser. I’m assuming you haven’t seen the movie, otherwise you probably wouldn’t have made that statement. He seems to thoroughly believe in what he’s saying (even if his opinion is occasionally skewed).

Even if he has to “pretend” to be an “normal person”.

And for those defending Bush by downing Kerry (some with incorrect information), that’s the difference between us I guess – if Kerry were doing this, I’d be criticizing him too.

I criticize Bush. I criticized Clinton and Gore. I was under the impression that it was patriotic to criticize your political leaders when you think they’re wrong. Apparently if you attack Bush's mistakes (like going into an illegal war with no real proof of provaction while the real threat still looms, etc) you are personally attacking the republicans, and therefore America, and are therefore a traitor. :rolleyes:

Voltron

Jul 4, 2004, 06:55 AM

Apparently if you attack Bush's mistakes (like going into an illegal war with no real proof of provaction while the real threat still looms, etc) you are personally attacking the republicans, and therefore America, and are therefore a traitor. :rolleyes:
I know I sound like a broken record but so does the statement above. The provacation was Saddam's refusal to honor the surrender agreements that he himself agreed to. Without the threat of war as a means of enforcing such agreements there would be no point in having the agreements in the first place. And without being willing to go to war to enforce such agreements the threat is nothing but a bunch of hot air.

jywv8

Jul 4, 2004, 12:51 PM

I’m reminded of an old adage about Richard Pryor.

He once pulled up to a show in a limo, went up on stage, made some jokes about being poor growing up. When asked how he could be so rich, and yet talk about being poor, he simply pointed to his temple and said “memory”. Do you really think Moore has always been rich? Watch some of his earlier work, learn more about him, then you wouldn’t be calling him a poser. I’m assuming you haven’t seen the movie, otherwise you probably wouldn’t have made that statement. He seems to thoroughly believe in what he’s saying (even if his opinion is occasionally skewed).

Even if he has to “pretend” to be an “normal person”.

Hear, hear.

I make three times as much as I did six years ago, and I still dress the same as I did then. Am I a "poser", because I don't blow my money on expensive clothes?

IJ Reilly

Jul 4, 2004, 12:55 PM

I’m reminded of an old adage about Richard Pryor.

He once pulled up to a show in a limo, went up on stage, made some jokes about being poor growing up. When asked how he could be so rich, and yet talk about being poor, he simply pointed to his temple and said “memory”. Do you really think Moore has always been rich? Watch some of his earlier work, learn more about him, then you wouldn’t be calling him a poser. I’m assuming you haven’t seen the movie, otherwise you probably wouldn’t have made that statement. He seems to thoroughly believe in what he’s saying (even if his opinion is occasionally skewed).

Even if he has to “pretend” to be an “normal person”.

Like it or not, Moore's public persona hasn't changed one iota since "Roger and Me." I suppose some people feel that now that he's become a successful filmmaker, he should ditch the baseball caps, shave more often and wear silk Armani suits. Altering who is because he's got more dough now would make him less of a "poser." Interesting logic, that...

solvs

Jul 5, 2004, 01:42 AM

Hear, hear.

I make three times as much as I did six years ago, and I still dress the same as I did then. Am I a "poser", because I don't blow my money on expensive clothes?
I'm the same way. I make more now, but I dress and act the same. Some differences mind you, but mostly the same. That's just the way I am.

Like it or not, Moore's public persona hasn't changed one iota since "Roger and Me." I suppose some people feel that now that he's become a successful filmmaker, he should ditch the baseball caps, shave more often and wear silk Armani suits. Altering who is because he's got more dough now would make him less of a "poser." Interesting logic, that...
Interesting point. If he changed who he was to suit who he has become, he wouldn't be who he is. :confused: I know if I were famous and had time in front of the camera to express my views on something I thought was wrong, I'd be out there doing the same type of thing.

Maybe not the same thing, but that type of thing. Hey if Britney can do it...

solvs

Jul 5, 2004, 02:06 AM

I know I sound like a broken record but so does the statement above. The provacation was Saddam's refusal to honor the surrender agreements that he himself agreed to. Without the threat of war as a means of enforcing such agreements there would be no point in having the agreements in the first place. And without being willing to go to war to enforce such agreements the threat is nothing but a bunch of hot air.
Surrender of what? He made no direct threats toward the US, he had no ties to Al Quieda, or the Taliban, or Bin Laden, and has no WMDs. What happened to just cause, due process? It all goes out the window cuz he's a bad guy? How about all the other bad guys out there? Like the nutcase in Korea who does have WMDs, and makes real threats all the time? Why did they keep changing the reason for going? Don't you have to have proof to start a war? Aren't we supposed to only go to war to protect our (non-financial) interests?

I'm not saying I'm not glad he's gone. Good for us. But have you seen what we did to get him out? How much worse we may have made it for ourselves? How much goodwill we p*$$ed away, and distracted ourselves from the real immediate threats? Why is my best friend over there missing his son's birth? I want answers, and I'm not getting them. All I get are people calling me un-American.

And that bugs me. I don't feel any safer. Actually, I feel less safe.

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 07:52 AM

Surrender of what? He made no direct threats toward the US, he had no ties to Al Quieda, or the Taliban, or Bin Laden, and has no WMDs. What happened to just cause, due process? It all goes out the window cuz he's a bad guy? How about all the other bad guys out there? Like the nutcase in Korea who does have WMDs, and makes real threats all the time? Why did they keep changing the reason for going? Don't you have to have proof to start a war? Aren't we supposed to only go to war to protect our (non-financial) interests?

I'm not saying I'm not glad he's gone. Good for us. But have you seen what we did to get him out? How much worse we may have made it for ourselves? How much goodwill we p*$$ed away, and distracted ourselves from the real immediate threats? Why is my best friend over there missing his son's birth? I want answers, and I'm not getting them. All I get are people calling me un-American.

And that bugs me. I don't feel any safer. Actually, I feel less safe.
The surrender agreement that he signed after being kicked out of Kuwait by UN forces.

If we wait till a direct threat is made against us then in todays day and age we waited too late. You cannot and shouldnot allow your opponent to pick and choose where he will attack you because you cannot guard everything equally to insure to hold off an enemy. You cannot put 100% defense on everything. It is simply not possible. Thus the best way to defend yourself is to take away an opponents offensive capability before he has a chance to use it.

We are temporarily less safe because there is an active war by terrorists against us. If we continue this war if nothing else we can price them out of existence if we don't kill them off or destroy their dedication to a useless cause. In the long run things would be much worse if we allowed them to pick and choose when they will hit us. The way we are doing it we are forcing them out in the open now, instead of when they chose to do so. Thus it is more dangerous in the short run but we are knocking them out of the ballpark because they are coming out of the woodwork while we are ready for them instead of when we are not.

skunk

Jul 5, 2004, 08:52 AM

The surrender agreement that he signed after being kicked out of Kuwait by UN forces.
Actually, it was not a surrender. It was a cease-fire.

mouchoir

Jul 5, 2004, 09:12 AM

We are temporarily less safe because there is an active war by terrorists against us. If we continue this war if nothing else we can price them out of existence if we don't kill them off or destroy their dedication to a useless cause. In the long run things would be much worse if we allowed them to pick and choose when they will hit us. The way we are doing it we are forcing them out in the open now, instead of when they chose to do so. Thus it is more dangerous in the short run but we are knocking them out of the ballpark because they are coming out of the woodwork while we are ready for them instead of when we are not.

Maybe if we looked into the reasons that there are terroists out there willing to terrorise 'us', and do something about that, rather than taking our current course and creating more, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Like stop *****ting on other countries.

And where is this active war of terrorists, other than the one we started in iraq? You seem to have bought the FEAR that Bush is trying (and succeeding) to put into the american hearts. I see that as a form of terrorism.

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 09:21 AM

Maybe if we looked into the reasons that there are terroists out there willing to terrorise 'us', and do something about that, rather than taking our current course and creating more, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Like stop *****ting on other countries.

And where is this active war of terrorists, other than the one we started in iraq? You seem to have bought the FEAR that Bush is trying (and succeeding) to put into the american hearts. I see that as a form of terrorism.
maybe if we looked into the reasons there are child molestors, the reasons for bank robbers, the reasons for murderers, the reasons for fraud etc. You can say that about anything. You don't ignore the crime. It is time we give them a reason to not become a terrorist, and that is once they become a terrorist they then have no chance of winning any argument, battle or what not because we will stop listening once they do until they are dead. Not just the losers who have no problem committing suicide but the ones who created them as well.

We should ignore the reasons that made them terrorism because we should not modify our behavior for fear of a terrorist attack if we did then they would be winning and it would be proof that terrorism works.

skunk

Jul 5, 2004, 09:29 AM

We should ignore the reasons that made them terrorists because we should not modify our behavior for fear of a terrorist attack if we did then they would be winning and it would be proof that terrorism works.
Perhaps not for fear of a terrorist attack, but, while we stand firm against terrorism, we could also look at the causes of such great desperation in the hope of reducing the numbers of terrorist recruits.

mouchoir

Jul 5, 2004, 09:41 AM

maybe if we looked into the reasons there are child molestors, the reasons for bank robbers, the reasons for murderers, the reasons for fraud etc. You can say that about anything. You don't ignore the crime. It is time we give them a reason to not become a terrorist, and that is once they become a terrorist they then have no chance of winning any argument, battle or what not because we will stop listening once they do until they are dead. Not just the losers who have no problem committing suicide but the ones who created them as well.

We should ignore the reasons that made them terrorism because we should not modify our behavior for fear of a terrorist attack if we did then they would be winning and it would be proof that terrorism works.

It is precisely this attitude that is the most dangerous thing of all.

'We' have already modified our behaviour. See 'The Patriot Act'.

This is a war that no-one will win. When I say look into the reason people are angry with us i'm talking about instances when we have committed outrageous acts on them in the first place. For instance – backing up saddam in his war against iran. What business was that of ours? Vietnam and the backing up of the khmer rouge in cambodia. Oops, likes like we helped out genocide in that case. Setting up 'favourable regimes in chile and indonesia.

Would you not be a little upset if say, Japan for instance, toppled Bush (doesn't sound so bad but he's the current president) and put in a leader that you didn't elect (bush again, turning out to be a bad example) in order to let massive japanese corporations come in and exploit your people and make a killing, while your new leader lets you starve and takes away your rights.

Can you honestly say you wouldn't consider taking some sort of action?

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 09:44 AM

Perhaps not for fear of a terrorist attack, but, while we stand firm against terrorism, we could also look at the causes of such great desperation in the hope of reducing the numbers of terrorist recruits.
Maybe in our own country but it is not our job to give everyone throughout the world a better life.

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 09:46 AM

Would you not be a little upset if say, Japan for instance, toppled Bush (doesn't sound so bad but he's the current president) and put in a leader that you didn't elect (bush again, turning out to be a bad example) in order to let massive japanese corporations come in and exploit your people and make a killing, while your new leader lets you starve and takes away your rights.

Can you honestly say you wouldn't consider taking some sort of action?
Ok I get tired of people throwing out statements as if they were fact when if I was to do it folks would be calling me troll or liar.
Bush won the election fair and square.
There is no proof that he didn't.

mouchoir

Jul 5, 2004, 09:49 AM

Ok I get tired of people throwing out statements as if they were fact when if I was to do it folks would be calling me troll or liar.
Bush won the election fair and square.
There is no proof that he didn't.

ok, ignore the election bit – it was the rest that was important. :(

skunk

Jul 5, 2004, 09:52 AM

Ok I get tired of people throwing out statements as if they were fact when if I was to do it folks would be calling me troll or liar.
Bush won the election fair and square.
There is no proof that he didn't.
You are completely missing the point: the question was whether you would resist if an outside power took over your country and forced a regime change against your will?

mouchoir

Jul 5, 2004, 09:52 AM

Maybe in our own country but it is not our job to give everyone throughout the world a better life.

I thought that was one of the reasons for going into iraq? To topple the evil ruler and liberate the oppressed?

It is not the job of the US to give everyone a better life, just as it shouldn't be the right of the US to interfere in others lives for commercial gains at the expense of others way of life.

IJ Reilly

Jul 5, 2004, 10:48 AM

Interesting point. If he changed who he was to suit who he has become, he wouldn't be who he is. :confused: I know if I were famous and had time in front of the camera to express my views on something I thought was wrong, I'd be out there doing the same type of thing.

I doubt very much that Frohickey will attempt to defend his accusation that Moore is "poser" for not allowing his success to change who he is, but I did think it was a telling remark. I take from this that some people truly believe that money makes the person -- some who's got it is one kind of person, and somebody lacking it is another.

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 12:09 PM

You are completely missing the point: the question was whether you would resist if an outside power took over your country and forced a regime change against your will?
I didn't miss that point. I was talking about one sentence in his argument he threw out there as if it was a fact and that by ignoring it and staying on topic the populace here would be unofficially implying that they agreed with that sentence.

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 12:11 PM

I thought that was one of the reasons for going into iraq? To topple the evil ruler and liberate the oppressed?

It is not the job of the US to give everyone a better life, just as it shouldn't be the right of the US to interfere in others lives for commercial gains at the expense of others way of life.
A reason to want to go in, not a reason to go in slight difference in how it is expressed.
No we went in because he violated the surrender agreement that he signed as well as the fact that the sanctions weren't working because too many countries were not allowing them to work by going around them for their own profit and gain.

It is the job of the US to go in and fight when it is in our or our allies best interest that we do so. That includes protecting the flow of oil without which our country would cease to exist as we know it. But don't bother stating that I tried to say that was our reason for going to war, even though it was a reason for me wanting to go to war with Iraq. There were several reasons I wanted to go to war with Iraq.

mouchoir

Jul 5, 2004, 12:21 PM

I didn't miss that point. I was talking about one sentence in his argument he threw out there as if it was a fact and that by ignoring it and staying on topic the populace here would be unofficially implying that they agreed with that sentence.

No, that was just my opinion. And not one I am forcing on anyone.

You are still ignoring the question (which is your right after all) which is a response to one of your posts.

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 12:34 PM

'We' have already modified our behaviour. See 'The Patriot Act'.

This is a war that no-one will win. When I say look into the reason people are angry with us i'm talking about instances when we have committed outrageous acts on them in the first place. For instance – backing up saddam in his war against iran. What business was that of ours?
Can you honestly say you wouldn't consider taking some sort of action?
I don't argue pro or against the patriot act. I can see both the necessity and the dangers of the thing. So I never comment on this topic at all.

I don't know enough about us backing Saddam against Iran. I believe it was probably we using a third party to fight Russia's third party which wasn't a really bright idea. I guess they figure we were too powerful to fight each other so instead we'd let our pawns do it. We can't correct wrongs in the past we can only work on the present and the future. Give it 6 or so months and they will be free to vote on their own leaders. I'm hoping they won't elect a theocracy.

themadchemist

Jul 5, 2004, 12:42 PM

A reason to want to go in, not a reason to go in slight difference in how it is expressed.
No we went in because he violated the surrender agreement that he signed as well as the fact that the sanctions weren't working because too many countries were not allowing them to work by going around them for their own profit and gain.

sanctions against weapons factories we couldn't find didn't work? hmm...yeah...

And if we went after all of the countries who violated this or that stipulation of this agreement or that, we would have quite a few wars to fight.

It is the job of the US to go in and fight when it is in our or our allies best interest that we do so. That includes protecting the flow of oil without which our country would cease to exist as we know it. But don't bother stating that I tried to say that was our reason for going to war, even though it was a reason for me wanting to go to war with Iraq. There were several reasons I wanted to go to war with Iraq.

Cost-benefit analysis...The US has expended considerable resources on this war: Money, lives, political capital, and moral capital. By further enraging many parts of the Muslim world, we have set ourselves up for further costs in the future. By destroying a country, we will contribute to ongoing nation-building efforts for years to come. By squandering our political and moral capital with our fellow nations, we have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to successfuly negotiate for any number of ends. We have killed thousands of civilians, violating any basic sense of decency. No, unlike these other compounding costs of the war, I can't put a price tag on this degradation of our ethics. Similarly, I can't put a price tag on the lives of those civilians or of the nearly one thousand Americans killed in combat.

No amount of oil will recover costs on this excrutiatingly expensive affair.

Voltron

Jul 5, 2004, 12:53 PM

And if we went after all of the countries who violated this or that stipulation of this agreement or that, we would have quite a few wars to fight.

However you pick one hit them hard and the rest will say oops maybe we better abide to our agreements or we are next. Thus, you don't have to hit all of them.

Neserk

Jul 5, 2004, 01:05 PM

However you pick one hit them hard and the rest will say oops maybe we better abide to our agreements or we are next. Thus, you don't have to hit all of them.

wishful thinking...

IJ Reilly

Jul 5, 2004, 01:09 PM

wishful thinking...

What have you got against wishful thinking? The entire Bush foreign policy and the war on terror are based upon it.

Neserk

Jul 5, 2004, 01:09 PM

What have you got against wishful thinking? The entire Bush foreign policy and the war on terror are based upon it.

LOL.

solvs

Jul 5, 2004, 08:39 PM

What have you got against wishful thinking? The entire Bush foreign policy and the war on terror are based upon it.
I think that about sums it up.

groovebuster

Jul 6, 2004, 02:09 PM

What have you got against wishful thinking? The entire Bush foreign policy and the war on terror are based upon it.

*LOL* Good one!!! :D

groovebuster

Chip NoVaMac

Jul 6, 2004, 03:55 PM

What have you got against wishful thinking? The entire Bush foreign policy and the war on terror are based upon it.

Actually it may have worked with Kadafi, though since it seems that this administration seemed more interested in settling old scores rather than taking care of real issues - Kadafi may have decided it was best to come to teh table.

mactastic

Jul 6, 2004, 08:11 PM

Actually it may have worked with Kadafi, though since it seems that this administration seemed more interested in settling old scores rather than taking care of real issues - Kadafi may have decided it was best to come to teh table.

I'd be more than a little wary of taking anything Kadaffi says at face value. At the very least he's protecting his own interests by joining 'our side' here. He's surely not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. There's at least an allegation floating around with some concern in the intel community that Kadaffi was trying to have the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabi assainated since the time he declared the intention to disarm.