Adventure Game Studio

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1102246.htm

Not only do they make shitty films but they block projects that look decent.

Is till haven't seen Bowling for Columbine.. Now is it really a documentary.. I could never gather if it was a mockumentary or documentary..

Is this new Farenheit one the same? Couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing, but I saw Moore refer to it as a "comedy"..

Meh.. Looks good nontheless.

It is a documentary, though with a satirical edge.

It won an Oscar two years ago for Best Doco, where Moore made his famous (or infamous, depending on your view) "fictitious president" speech.

Some also criticised Moore for manipulating statistics for the film's benefit (But then again, a lot of documentaries do anyway).

Fahrenheit 911 is as a satirical documentary (thus the "Comedy" tag that Moore places upon it).

Interestingly, I also found this on today's IMDB:

In what some TV columnists were depicting as a battle that could signal a parting of the ways between Disney and Miramax, Harvey Weinstein is butting heads with Michael Eisner over Eisner's decision not to distribute Michael Moore's controversial Fahrenheit 911. The Moore documentary links President Bush with Arab oil moguls, some of whom, Moore alleges, are supporting Osama bin Laden. The film is scheduled to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in two weeks. In a statement, Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably." However, Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, told today's (Wednesday) New York Times that Eisner asked him not to try to sell the film to Miramax because "there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation [in Florida, where the president's brother Jeb is governor] and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

I hope those tax incentives help, Eisner, cause you're going to be REALLY up shite creek once Miramax and Pixar leave.

Also in related news, Pixar's Steve Job and John Lasseter were placed at #1 of Premiere magazine's top 100 most influential people in Hollywood.

I love Disney , but they do some dumb things sometimes.

It was either very stupid of him (after being warned) or very clever (big publicity) to take Disney's money to make the film. I can't decide.

I highly doubt it, but it's potentially very clever for Disney to attempt to block it, then aquiesce. Look what happened to Stupid White Men.

Despite whether it was Disney's money or not, Miramax approved the decision.

All he needed was a distributor for a delicate project, and Miramax have been known to take such projects.

But Disney has power to overule such production decisions.

Is it all a publicity stunt? Who knows?

There's still the Jeb Bush connection.

And remember, the film had a release date of September 2004, which is a couple of months shy of the US elections.

Seeing as how half the country is either Dem or Rep, I can understand a company making that decision. It'd be shitty for Disney if all Republicans stopped using their products (however unlikely/small that may be).

Considering voter turnouts, saying half half is a tad excessive. Split it three ways by 25% of Rep. and Dem. and a staggering landslide of 50% for apathy.

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Thu 06/05/2004 10:16:24
Considering voter turnouts, saying half half is a tad excessive. Split it three ways by 25% of Rep. and Dem. and a staggering landslide of 50% for apathy.

I could be reading your post wrong, but I think is what shbaz was saying.  He said half the country is either Rep. or Dem., so if the two parties have equal representation that would mean 25% of the country is Rep. and 25% is Dem., which looks be be the same as what you're suggesting.

Yeah, on revision [remixing] I think you're correct. Sorry baz.

Yay! Liberty of speech! That's the greatest thing in the USA! I just can't help myself loving the self-cencorship of those hippocrats. Remember the tv show that was about to broadcast the names of the soldiers died in Iraq? The tv network banned it in some major cities (according to Conan O'Brien show, not a joke though).

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Thu 06/05/2004 08:38:31
Look what happened to Stupid White Men.

I've got that book and man, was I ever happy not to live in the USA after reading that..

I've also seen Bowling for Columbine, and frankly, I don't think he has made anything up for the film. I think all the sources are awailable incase you want to check it out.

I wonder if the presidential election will be as dirty as last year, as described in Stupid White Men...

Quote from: Samuli on Thu 06/05/2004 10:41:23
I've also seen Bowling for Columbine, and frankly, I don't think he has made anything up for the film. I think all the sources are awailable incase you want to check it out.

No , I don't think he makes anything up, but his sources are questionable. I don' think he spend enough time. checking his figures - or presenting them in a useful way.

He lists the number of annual gun deaths in Britain, France, Canada and a number of other countries then compares the numbers to the USA's yearly grand total. It's much higher, but the US is a much bigger country than any he compares it to, so the statistics aren't in the least bit useful.

I see the point of his arguments, but I wish he would make them better. By making the errors he seems to make, he just gives his enemies ammunition.

And Disney don't want to release his film in an election year? In the name of fairness and freedom? Can't they see the contradiction there?

shbazjinkens:
Exactly, the only way to allow the public to take part in a democracy is to give them ALL the information available. Without truth there cannot be democracy. Filtering out certain material because it's partisan is a non-partisan action because it favours the status quo, and this favours the liars that run the world.

Quote from: Ali on Thu 06/05/2004 12:29:10
And Disney don't want to release his film in an election year? In the name of fairness and freedom? Can't they see the contradiction there?

It's not about fairness and freedom, it's about being non-partisan. They aren't making any kind of statement by not releasing it, they're trying to avoid making any kind of statement.

On the whole, I like Michael Moore, and I hope this film DOES end up getting released, though I was less than overjoyed with the Columbine movie. It was good, but sections of it were (as a documentry-maker says [I forget his name]) "a showcase for Moore's ego". Parts of it were questionable.

But I appreciate that it's impossible to do an entirely objective documentary, and moore was deliberately giving his spin on it.

I hope 911 goes forward. Even if it's manipulative. I just find the whole topic really interesting, and he is fantastic at putting forward controversial slants on things.

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Thu 06/05/2004 12:32:33

Quote from: Ali on Thu 06/05/2004 12:29:10
And Disney don't want to release his film in an election year? In the name of fairness and freedom? Can't they see the contradiction there?

It's not about fairness and freedom, it's about being non-partisan. They aren't making any kind of statement by not releasing it, they're trying to avoid making any kind of statement.

It's not even about that. It's all about not losing (even more) money.

There's a little light at the end of the bumhole. Check out this from imdb:

Michael Barker, co-president of Sony Pictures Classics, which released the controversial Oscar-winning The Fog of War, told today's (Thursday) San Francisco Chronicle that he expects to see Moore's picture at Cannes and that he might be interested in distributing it "if Miramax pitches it to us and it's anything like The Fog of War." Likewise a Lions Gate spokesman told the Toronto Star that his company would also consider releasing the film, adding: "We tend not to be frightened off the controversial projects." Ironically, the title of Moore's film derives from the 1953 Ray Bradbury sci-fi novel Fahrenheit 451 about a society that burns controversial books, forcing a group of dissidents to memorize the classics in order to preserve them. The ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 bear the tagline: "The Temperature Where Freedom Burns."

I'm also very interested in seeing The Fog of War, which opens here shortly.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 07/05/2004 07:15:32
I'm also very interested in seeing The Fog of War, which opens here shortly.

I saw it last year; it was incredibly fascinating.  It actually left me more conflicted about what I think of McNamara (and people in similar situations) rather than clearing anything up, but it offered some amazing perspectives.

It makes me wonder if, in a decade or two, someone will make a film about Rumsfeld.

...or maybe a "Nixon" about Bush. *shudders*

Quote from: YOke on Fri 07/05/2004 08:22:21
...or maybe a "Nixon" about Bush. *shudders*

Wouldn't it take to long to audition the apes?

That was a cheap shot, but I'm tired.

I'm really keen to see Fog of War, does anyone know when it opens in Britain?

You know that you've been on the computer too long when your eyes start to mix up the words. As I was reading it took me 2 min to realize its the FOG of war, not the FROG of war, which makes much more sense. Obviously that points out that I havn't seen the movie, nor bowling fo columbine. My mom saw it though, said it was good. I don't really care for his work, I've heard a lot of things from people about his movies and I suppose convinced me not to waste the money to go see them. I might go to Fahrenheit 9/11 if it is released, out of pure curiosity. But in the back of my head, I can't help wondering if he is just doing this for attention. I know that he justifies his work with some sort of passionate crusade for the truth, but I think he subconciously gets some kind of sick pleasure from conjouring up so much contraversy. Anyone else get this vibe too, or is it just me? (sorry for spelling)

Rave, just becuase Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford (or whatver the real reporters were called) probably were thinking "PULLITZER!" when they stumbled across Watergate, doesn't mean that their work was any less good.

Also, how can yousay that you don't care for his work when you have never seen any of it? Next you'll be telling us that you didn't see The Passion becuase of  the Anti-Semitism in it.

QuoteRave, just becuase Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford (or whatver the real reporters were called) probably were thinking "PULLITZER!" when they stumbled across Watergate, doesn't mean that their work was any less good.

Also, how can yousay that you don't care for his work when you have never seen any of it? Next you'll be telling us that you didn't see The Passion becuase of  the Anti-Semitism in it.

What I mean is that I don't care to see his work, not that I am making a judgment on the quality without seeing it. Sorry if thats the way it came out. But I don't see a lot of movies and I have a habit of only seeing the movies I actually have an intrest in seeing. Im not going to go to a movie which someone told me wasn't that good, and I don't really care for the content which I heard about in reviews just to validate that those opinions are true.

Anyway, I hope that clears things up. And no, the reason I didn't see Passion of the Christ is because I can bearly stand to make it through 15 min of 700 Club, I don't think I could stand to sit through a whole movie in an ancient language about a faith I don't wish to be preached to about.

Ah, right, I see.

To be honest, I only saw Bowling once it came on TV.

Sorry for misunderstanding: your earlier post seemed to be in a different tone. Still, the motives, style and appearance of the messenger don't make a message any more or less true.

There is no preaching in Passion, as you put it.. There's not one word in the film that says "If you don't praise this bloody guyor worship his father for the rest of your life, you're going to hell" It just informs you of what happens.. Course, it WAS made by a Christian, so there ares slants toward it.. But never whole sermons about it.

Just thought I'd clear that up..

Oh, and I'll rent BfC once it's in the dollar section.

It seems rather odd to block his film; but then, Michael Moore's films seem rather odd anyway. I find it misleading really, that he presents his opinionated and obviously biased opinions in the form of a documentary, which encourages people to accept them as fact, rather than properly questioning what he's saying.

Bowling for Columbine did raise some important points, but it also did manipulate statistics and use clever editing of video footage to make things out as being worse than they really were.

The thing I don't get is that a lot of documentaries use manipulated statistics. I don't see why people should suddenly criticise Moore when it's been done countless times in the past.

I guess because Moore's been seen by a lot more people than your average documentary - as this thread demonstrates - and so could 'mislead' more people than your average documentarian (if that's a word).

I should add that I've not seen, and don't particularly want to see, any of his stuff, although he does seem like an alright guy in interviews.

Well, generally speaking, TV documentaries try to give a balanced viewpoint about the events that they are documenting. They are also normally not made to try and attract millions of people to see them at a cinema, and therefore there's little incentive to 'sex things up'.

Moore has his own agenda, he's making his films for as much profit as possible - and the manner in which they are presented (documentary-style format) tends to lull people into believing what they are seeing in the same way they'd believe a documentary.

I disagree, CJ. For a documentary to give a balanced viewpoint, its creator must be neutral. And a neutral perspective more often than not characterizes a person who doesn't really care. Such people don't do documentaries. Whether it is the BBC's "The Great War Spin" or Moore's "Bowling for Columbine", the creators have an opinion and it would be impossible to hide it even if so they wished. In other words, every documentary (bar, perhaps, "Le Peuple Migrateur"  ;D) is biased.
The real problem is that most people tend to accept what they see in documentaries as absolute truth. But then again, this is often true about any film which portrais a real event.

yes, totally unbiased documentaries would have to be created by robots.

Gee, I wonder what those robots would look like

(http://www.agagames.com/ghormak/robodoc.png)

QuoteWell, generally speaking, TV documentaries try to give a balanced viewpoint about the events that they are documenting.

But the TV documentaries that do have a completely different intent than Moore.Ã,  Generally, their purpose is to inform, while Moore's purpose is to persuade.Ã,  If you ever see a TV documentary with the intention to persuade (and they're not all that rare - did you ever see that Dispatches documentary which argued a causal link between video game violence and real-life violence?), you'll see just as much editorialising as in Moore's films.

Quotehe presents his opinionated and obviously biased opinions in the form of a documentary, which encourages people to accept them as fact, rather than properly questioning what he's saying.

I think this is a confusion that comes from the idea that documentaries by their nature are (or try to be) objective and balanced.Ã,  And this idea comes from the lumping in of persuasive films with documentaries, when surely they are (or were) two seperate categories?

Whatever the case, they have been lumped in together, so Moore's persuasive film wins 'Best Documentary' at the oscars, and a persuasive film is broadcast on Channel 4 as part of the "award winning documentary strand Dispatches".Ã,  Persuasive works and documentaries are now, apparently, inseperable, despite what the  dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary) might say.

But is this confusion the fault of Moore or any other persuasive film maker?Ã,  Should they be forbidden from using such an efficient format for presenting their arguments because some of their audience have no critical thinking skills?

You're spot on there. It's nobody's fault really, but I don't like the fact that a large chunk of the public will just believe what he says, because they don't spend the time to think it through.

People don't necessarily have any reason to doubt what they hear, I guess - if Moore says that Charlton Heston held a rally the day after a schoolkid was shot dead, why wouldn't you believe him?

I guess it's similar to the way in which news articles will print misleading statistics as if they are fact (eg. "CCTV has lead to a 30% reduction in crime") when in fact when you look at the information available, that's not the case at all.

At some point, people have got to believe what they hear - otherwise, how would we ever learn anything? If you doubt everything that everybody tells you, you'd become paranoid.

Anyway, perhaps the solution is to require the seperation of documentary and persuasive films. I forgot that Bowling won "Best Documentary" and it's that sort of thing that really does cause the public to be mislead.

Apart from a few things that are in question about Colombine (whether the Heston interview was shot on 1 or 2 cameras is a big one) I don't see a problem with it being classed as a documentary. I suspect there's a greater untruth in the documentary that offers a 'fair and balanced' view of the world than the film that says 'here's what I think about everything'.

What Columbine documents is Moore, and his various crusades. It might be a weakness in Moore's work that he is the subject, but I don't think it stops the film from being a documentary.

I think that Moore's perspective is one that is grounded in some reality though. Although he may bend statistics, we can agree that the film has some basis of fact in it. For example, the demonising of Marilyn Manson as myth.

And likewise, I do think Moore leaves a lot out of his film, if only to prove his point. His portrayal of Heston as a right-wing gun maniac is a little unfair, especially when you consider Heston fought for racial equality in the 60s.

However, if you call Moore's film biased, you should go back over every single doco is Oscar history, because a lot of them are biased. Take one of my favourites, The Panama Deception. It's a brilliant doco, but it's biased. Having said that, it was not very possible to present a balanced picture of the Panama conflict when the situation itself was atrocious.

Likewise with Moore. And the thing with balance is that it works on a global scale. Granted, Moore's films and books are biased. However, the Bush administration is biased too. Both views act as a balance to each other.

It's pretty much how the world works in a ying and yang like way.

"Michle Moore's statistics are manipulated"

According to whom?


Ask your self that.


C.

He does:

(http://www.agsforums.com/images/docubot.gif)

(http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/Photoshop/Moorebot.jpg)

(http://www.agagames.com/ghormak/doc2.png)

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/bill.jpg)

(http://www.esseb.com/images/dinosaurs.jpg)

(http://sylpher.com/kafka/junk/newsbot2004.gif)

(http://www.sylpher.com/novomestro/stuff/bot.jpg)

(http://www.agsforums.com/images/docubot2.gif)

(http://www.sylpher.com/froghaslipstick/art/doodles/newsbot_9003.gif)

(http://bicycle-for-slugs.org/docubot.png)

(http://www.sylpher.com/novomestro/stuff/bot2.jpg)

(http://www.agagames.com/ghormak/docbots3.png)

(http://www.sylpher.com/froghaslipstick/art/doodles/daisynewsbot.gif)

I don`t know if anyones said this....

But i thought the western way of life was about freedom of speech.......

Not censorship.

It appears that yet again the thing mr bush is fighting for "the western way of life"

Is something that is not happening on his own door step....

This sounds like a story from IRAQ .....about a film maker their....

CENSORSHIP USED IN THIS WAY IS BOLLOX....

(http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/Photoshop/newsbot2.jpg)

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/news.JPG)

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/Beating_machine.gif)

AGSers passed by the killbot!!1!!

This just came in; At least somebody is gonna take steps to prevent this media-disaster.

(http://www.esseb.com/andail/arnoldnews.JPG)

Meanwhile...

(http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/Photoshop/newsbot3.jpg)

Edit: The FBI just issued a warrant for my arrest. Sorry, Mrs Kerry. I didn't mean anything personal by it.

If anyone still cares, although this has been hilarious.... http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/12/disney.moore.reut/index.html

Wooop... Miramax and Disney have reached an agreement to publish the film.

Quote from: Farlander on Thu 13/05/2004 08:09:05
Wooop... Miramax and Disney have reached an agreement to publish the film.

Pfft, who really cares anymore?

Now a film with robots....................THAT would be something...............

Farlander, veryweirdguy, it looks like your signatures are racing each other.

And I'm glad I'll be able to see the film.

You know, a camera is quite like a ... robotic eye....

And the smurf wins!

Hmmm..............who do YOU think would win? A short WALKING blue guy or a guy running for his life?

Let's ask the robot, shall we?

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/robotthing(vwg).GIF)

/me jumps onto the bandwagon.......and falls down face first.....

Oh... I thought that the aura was because he smells...  :-X

Well, in a completely unrelated matter, he also has a body odour problem, yes.

And he hasn't showered for years.

And he's on fire because someone was offended by the smell.

BUT, apart from that, he's on fire.

Stupid.

Quote from: Scummbuddy on Thu 13/05/2004 06:01:42
If anyone still cares, although this has been hilarious.... http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/12/disney.moore.reut/index.html

Can it all be a... publicity stunt?! I am not quite familiar with the history of Moore and Disney, but it does seem that by "blocking" this movie Disney created a lot of interest in it. Now, the public knows there is something controversial in it, and we all know how the average movie goer loves a little spicy controversy.

Why would Disney create a publicity stunt where they sell the rights to a film that could make more money than the price at which they could sell it?

It's like selling the goose that lays golden eggs for $5.

And let's not forget driving away Miramax.

But let's just see what happes, cause if it's a publicity stunt it's not working well in Disney's favour.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Fri 14/05/2004 14:16:20
It's like selling the goose that lays golden eggs for $5.

It's a deal. You send it round my house and I'll ... email you the cash.

On topic, if Miramax is a division of Disney (as I believe it is) what's the real significance of this move? Surely Disney will still make money from the film's sales.

Edit: Thanks Las, that makes much more sense. I had a feeling I was missing something.

No no, it's not being distributed by Miramax.

Disney says it won't allow Miramax to, so the Weinsteins who are the chairs of Miramax have bought the rights personally. So the brothers themselves are those who will distribute and [likely] profit from the film, but they still remain the management of Miramax.

I know I am being petty, but this really annoyed me. After winning the Palm d'Or, Micheal Moore said: "There was a great Republican president who once said, if you just give the people the truth, the republicans, the Americans will be saved."

Is that what you do, Mr. Moore, with your selective choice of materials and half-truths? Give people the truth?

I wonder what he comes up with at the next Academy Awards ceremony.

Edit: Now that I kicked it up, NEW BOTS!!!

(http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/Photoshop/lincoln.jpg)

Think what you want about Michael Moore, but please, watch how much you attack him.

If you attack the man because he tells lies, wins a bunch of rewards and whatever crap reasons you have then you are missing something very important.

I was born in Flint, Michigan and lived there until I was 21. My father worked at Fisher Body, and later retired from Buick City. Michael Moore is a hero, plain and simple. He is a hero without a victory. Recently, I read an article that claimed "people" (I would love to know who) were beginning to think Moore was "UNAMERICAN".

If you fucking think my FATHER or any GM employee from Flint, MI was or is unamerican you need to pull whatever stick you have shoved up your ass out of it. Michael Moore fought a nasty fight against General Motors (and lost) and he STILL supports his home town. Although General Motors has left it abandoned and ruined. In his OSCAR AWARD WINNING film he still spends a large amount of time on Flint. Anyone that fights for American factory workers the way Moore has is NOT unamerican.

If Moore's new movie, in even the slightest way, helps in getting George Bush out of office (whatever its content, lies or otherwise) then Moore has done America the greatest service.

There is nothing more Unamerican than sending our soldiers to another country to die without a clear agenda. There is nothing more Unamerican than forcing Muslims to eat pork. There is nothing more Unamerican that forcing a Muslim to thank Jesus that he is alive. There is nothing more Unamerican than George Bush.

(sorry about the rant but this pissed me off: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3734531.stm)

EDIT: The moral of the story, if Moore wants to lie, cheat, and steal in order to save lives, then who cares.

later,
-junc

Well... I care junc...

But I just want to say, Barcik, why do you think Micheal Moore is such a liar? Have you researched his points or are you going off of a random website online that debunked his claims?

Did he edit his movie in his favour, sure. Did he out and out lie to persuade people to take up his point? I doubt it. Do other people out and out lie to persuade people to take up their point, yes. Is the best way to find out if Micheal Moore is lying doing the research yourself? Yes.

Juncmodule, let me kiss your forehead.

The problem I always have when defending people like Michael Moore, is that everybody knows I'm a leftist pascifist, who accordingly must love Michael Moore because of sheer genetics or something.

You prove what I've always thought; Michael Moore is first of all american, and he strives to save his own country before anything else. He loves it and he wishes it the best.

He has the guts to go against what the big mass considers patriotic, and runs the risk of being hated by the ones he wishes to save. He's truly a great man.

And I really wish some people could just look at the message Moore's tries to deliver, instead of clinging onto that same old dilemma of "unbiased documentary" etc.

"George Orwell once warned that the subversion of society begins with the corruption of its language. Words such as "conservative," "liberal," "patriotism," "taxation," "public," "government," and even "Christianity" have been twisted and distorted by those who stand to gain much from public perplexity."

The Last Refuge
-David W. Orr

Quote from a book I began reading today. I think people also confuse the words "American" and "Patriotism" when used together to mean anti-everyone else. I am a patriot, I love my country. But my country is currently guilty of war crimes, hate crimes, and an appalling abuse of power.

Another beautiful quote I came across today:

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the intersting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why the say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

-President George W. Bush

later,
-junc

junc ... I must say, Wow!

You almost made me like Michael Moore!

I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot about Michael Moore, so my attitude toward him comes solely from what I've seen of him.Ã,  (which isn't much)Ã,  And I'm from Michigan.

I got VERY pissed at him for what he said at the Oscars last year.Ã,  While I respect his right to speak his mind, I don't always approve of how he speaks it.Ã, 

But anyway ... as I've said before.Ã,  I tend to agree with most of his messages (that I know about).

Having said all that, I will say this:Ã,  If his stirring up the pot the way he does can actually cause some changes to be made to 'the way things are in America' then I will, while not particualarly approving of his methodology, support the message and changes.

I've met Michael Moore on two occasions.Ã,  The first time was during a book signing for Stupid White Men and I told him "Good luck with your new movie."Ã,  The second time was in an auditorium at the university and he was passing around his Oscar.Ã,  I handed him a mini-dv tape and he politely took it from me and said thank you.

I've been a stronger fan of his in the past and I agree now that he can be a bit extreme.Ã,  But from what I've seen, he is a caring human being.Ã,  Ã, At the speech at the university, a young republican stood up and asked Michael "What are you going to do with all the money you make from the movie?"

The response was as funny as hell.

"I'm going to buy a really big yacht."

He deserves it.

Quote from: MrColossal on Mon 24/05/2004 20:33:05
But I just want to say, Barcik, why do you think Micheal Moore is such a liar? Have you researched his points or are you going off of a random website online that debunked his claims?

Did he edit his movie in his favour, sure. Did he out and out lie to persuade people to take up his point? I doubt it. Do other people out and out lie to persuade people to take up their point, yes. Is the best way to find out if Micheal Moore is lying doing the research yourself? Yes.

Did he lie? I believe not. Did he show people only what he wanted them to see? Yes. Did he manipulate stastics? Possibly. Did he, as he said, "give people the truth"? I doubt it. The truth is the whole picture, with all the minuses and pluses, pros and cons, good things and bad things, left-wing and right-wing. Both sides of the coin.

An Israeli leftist journalist, Ofer Shelah, wrote the following in an article where he described the American war in Iraq as Jihad:
"According to the details and explanations, I warn you that the things which will be brought up here describe, deliberately, only one side, maybe a few sides of America - which is a complicated thing, with plenty of sides and contradictions. But we are not here to understand the proceedings in Iraq through objective eyes, but to observe the historical and cultural aspects which had lead to the war. The other sides of the story, and they do exist, we shall put aside at the moment."
Shelah, a basketball analyst at his free time, is one of the few left-wing journalists I can read and respect. He does not consider himself to be better than the other side, and does not neglect its existence. Moore is so convinced that he and his views are better that he allows himself to criticize his 'enemy' for what he himself does. Disagreeing with the war? Fine. Creating art with an anti-war message? Fine. Patronize the other side and act like a hypocrite? Not fine.

QuoteThe truth is the whole picture

If you're looking for the whole picture in life, you'll be searching for an eternity.

"Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual." - J. Krishnamurti

In other words, Barcik, F911 is Michael Moore's truth, based upon his observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

Your truth is based upon your observations, etc, and I'm sure F911 will contribute to that in some way.

Truth isn't something absolute and universal, so you can't treat it like it is. Having said that, truth is also something that's inter-connected between people, like a chain. When you see F911, your truth will be linked to Moore's truth.

Besides, I don't think any of us can say Moore's film is untruthful when none of us have seen it yet.

Also...

QuotePatronize the other side and act like a hypocrite? Not fine.

But the Bush administration does it more than Moore and you seem to accept that very easily.

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of what Michael Moore says, but it has been proven that he flat out lies. In his book, Stupid White Men, he mentioned an interview he had with Fred Barnes. Before this "interview," Barnes had apparently spoken about the sorry state of public education in America.  Barnes said, "These kids don't even know what the Iliad and the Odyssey are!" Well, apparently, Mr. Moore called up Barnes and asked Barnes if he knew what these books were, and Moore said that Barnes whined for a bit then said, "fine, you got me. I don't know what they are."

Fred Barnes said this interview never happened. He did not even know he was mentioned in the book till a friend of his, who was reviewing the book for the New Republic, asked him if it was true. Barnes told him that not a word of it was.

So we know that Moore does indeed lie, and at times he does not fact check so his information is faulty, but what about his new movie?

I do not claim to be an expert on the film, but from what I know about it, it is the same old same old Anti-Bush conspiracy theory. Moore said that the movie broke new ground and showed off amazing new facts and evidence, but from what I've heard from critics (almost all of which liked Bowling for Columbine) is that the movie is nothing new.

In reference to Disney "blocking" Moore's film, Moore also alters this. The tax breaks rumor was actually started by Moore's agent, who was quoted in the New York Times saying that. Eisner told ABC news at the beginning of the year that they did not want to be involved in a political film during an election year.

As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders? I mean, say someone made a really offensive game on AGS, would we all blame Chris?

QuoteAs for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders?

Yeah, you're right. Hitler was innocent.

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 25/05/2004 05:58:27
As for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders? I mean, say someone made a really offensive game on AGS, would we all blame Chris?

...um... wanna try that again?

prisoners of war were KILLED, the ones who weren't were treated terribly and are supposed to be protected under the Geneva Convention

if the soldiers say they were being ordered to do it then it's their fault as much as it is the commander's.

To repeat my quote from a few posts earlier:

Quote
"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the intersting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why the say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

-President George W. Bush

My point is leaders are supposed to take responsibility. Our government, no...Americans, do not take responsibility for the actions of it's army, it's represenatives to the world.

I feel guilty about what happened to those people. I am an American, and Americans did horrible things, I should share the guilt, as should ALL Americans. Especially our number one citizen.

later,
-junc

Sutebi:

A few points to make (and apologies to Evenwolf for my "nitpicking").

QuoteFred Barnes said this interview never happened. He did not even know he was mentioned in the book till a friend of his, who was reviewing the book for the New Republic, asked him if it was true. Barnes told him that not a word of it was.

So, Michael Moore lies, but Republican politicians don't?

Moore quoted one famous Republican president, so I'll quote another.

"I AM NOT A CROOK!"

But while we're talking about politicians, let's throw in a Democrat too:

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONTIONS WITH THAT WOMAN!"

I like the way you automatically assume Moore is a liar, when for all you know Barnes could be a liar.

I mean, as I've shown, politicians from both sides don't have a good track record at telling the truth.

QuoteI do not claim to be an expert on the film, but from what I know about it, it is the same old same old Anti-Bush conspiracy theory. Moore said that the movie broke new ground and showed off amazing new facts and evidence, but from what I've heard from critics (almost all of which liked Bowling for Columbine) is that the movie is nothing new.

The same critics still say it's an important film to see, though. A majority on Rotten Tomatoes give it positive reviews. And let's not forget that Palme D'or he won recently, awarded to him by a jury lead by one of America's top filmmakers.

QuoteIn reference to Disney "blocking" Moore's film, Moore also alters this. The tax breaks rumor was actually started by Moore's agent, who was quoted in the New York Times saying that. Eisner told ABC news at the beginning of the year that they did not want to be involved in a political film during an election year.

You're probably the last person on Earth to trust Eisner's opinion over any one else's.

Seriously, it may have started as a rumour, but it's a rumour grounded in fact. Disney does get tax breaks in Florida for their Disney World park. It seems a little suspicious to me. And I once heard a critic say in relation to Moore's style of filmmaking (and I'm adlibing) "If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then why beat around the bush -- it's duck!"

QuoteAs for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders? I mean, say someone made a really offensive game on AGS, would we all blame Chris?

In addition to Eric and junc's comments, the was a news story about a report from the pentagon about training methods for soldiers, including training them in the art of torture.

If not Bush, then at least Rumsfeld should be accountable.

Quote from: DG from Uni on Tue 25/05/2004 02:44:22
In other words, Barcik, F911 is Michael Moore's truth, based upon his observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

And Bush's words are his truth, based upon his own observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

QuoteAs for getting mad at President Bush and his administration for prisoner abuse in Iraq, yeah I admit there are some sick people in this world, but how can you blame the actions of soldiers on the leaders?

Even though he probably never knew about this (ignore all the stupid tabloid scoops), even if the soldiers did this without any orders from above, any commander is directly responsible for the actions of his soldiers. He should have known and prevented it.

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 25/05/2004 11:52:34
And Bush's words are his truth, based upon his own observations, relationship's with the world, and the content of his consciousness.

No, his words are the truth of elite corperations and politcal puppet masters (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) that got him there in the first place, based on their observations, relationships with the world, and the content of their consciousnesses.

And their truth is that average American should remain apathetic, docile, not think for themselves and do what they tell them to do.

Now, if you were American, Barcik, is that the truth you would want?

If I were an American, I wouldn't want Bush's truth, or Moore's truth. I would want my own.



This is getting too philosophical. MORE BOTS!!!!  ;D

It is a subject that requires a lot of thought, but it shows that no one can provide a "whole picture", as I said.

How can you say that the Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for the abuse? He wasn't there, nor did he see it happen. And there was no cover-up. There will be no cover-up. What these sick soldiers did is what they decided to do. And why should the president have known about it. Their direct superiors are to blame, not the president, so far up the line of command. And of course he wouldn't be told, those superiors were hoping that no one would know, and they probably got a kick out of it too.

The Red Cross did warn about these tortures, and need I remind you, that its not only the US soldiers that are guilty of these crimes. When I first heard of these crimes, I felt so sick. I was so mad at us. Here we are trying to do great things, and this really seems like they are trying to make things worse for our side. It's almost as bad as some of our troops throwing gernades into our officer tents, like that one psycho did. I'm sure when the cameras were off him being detained, his 'fellow' soldiers beat the crap out of him. Yes, it is a time of war, and things are different. But we are trying to set a standard for how people are treated, and they went and made us look terrible.

What the hell were they thinking? "Hey, I have a fun idea for 'torture'! Let's have group sex in front of them!" What the hell?!?


Okay, I will admit that I have some problems with what they feed them. But at least we are feeding them well.

and to the hitler comment, its completly different. Hitler commanded that the other groups be destroyed, and the germans below his command didn't really go with it, but feared for thier lives, but here, bush didnt command that our POWs of Iraq be mistreated, it was the lower soldiers.

QuoteHow can you say that the Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible for the abuse?

Something called "accountability".

Quoteand to the hitler comment...

No. No it's not. Bush is the Commander in Chief, he IS the superior officer.

QuoteOkay, I will admit that I have some problems with what they feed them. But at least we are feeding them well.

What the F**K is wrong with you!? That's not funny. It is a violation of their religion. Those men, if they are truly faithful to Allah, are not going to paradise(in least in their minds, which is all that matters).

I think today's key word is indeed: "accountability" as DG points out.

Quote from: Scummbuddy on Tue 25/05/2004 17:19:07
What the hell were they thinking? "Hey, I have a fun idea for 'torture'! Let's have group sex in front of them!" What the hell?!?

Okay, I will admit that I have some problems with what they feed them. But at least we are feeding them well.

If you had watched any kind of non-censored news coverage, you'd seen far worse forms of torture than american soldiers "having group sex in front of them".

Also, it's interesting that the only aspect of the humiliation/abuse affair that seems to upset you is that it gives a bad image of the americans. Have you ever considered how the iraqis suffered from that abuse? Or are they not included in your sphere of sympathy?

Who is Michael Moore?

Junc, I understand the violation of thier religon.Ã,  I really do, and thats something I pride the U.S. with, is that we have the freedom of our religon. I wish we could care for them, and feed them what they want. Most of all, I wish people would stop being so fucking stupid and stop fighting over the dumbest things in the world.
But then I could go on to say that, "well they are prisoners, and this is WAR, not prissy-day-camp-for-people-we-picked-up on the side of the road." They were ordered to fire upon us, or they wanted to. I am so not in favor of the methods of torture, but its not like we've had it easy when we've been POW's in other countries. We're not out to rule the world.

I'm not looking to not be friends with anyone on the board, nor am i implying that this is were this is heading, i just am trying to get a couple points of view out for discussion.


about your response to the hitler thing, i said thier direct superior officer. So, you want Bush to be looking over every single officer in the whole US military to make sure they are doing what they are. No, he didn't hire those officers, they came to us, and we threw a gun in their hand. Im mad that the marines took my 2 pot head friends. I didnt' want them out there screwing things up, which they ended up doing, but thank god, in our own country. But thats an unrelated different story. but the fact that they were taken, just because they were willing. I had hoped that it would make them clean, but no, they didnt stop their drugs.

Hell, I just came back to this thread to see more funny robot drawings, and i happened to post.

Quote
What the F**K is wrong with you!? That's not funny. It is a violation of their religion. Those men, if they are truly faithful to Allah, are not going to paradise(in least in their minds, which is all that matters).

So, in the minds of this guys, they may have problems for being forced to eat something, but not to blast 20 or 30 people in a Bus? Curious...

Junc, this is not a thought directed to you, or the the muslims beliefs... It is just another show of how much I hate some of the "rules of three" of the zealots believers...Ã,  :P

QuoteI'm not looking to not be friends with anyone on the board

Silly monkey, I may disagree with you, but I still LOVE you :-*

You did piss me off though... ;D

Regarding "this is WAR", we are supposed to be a world power. This is supposed to be a "third world country" or at least it was considered one ten years ago. We should be setting the example, regardless of how we are treated. It isn't elementary school. No eye for an eye. That's childish crap. I don't know if the Geneva convention covers feeding pork specifically to Muslims. I do think it covers "FORCE FEEDING" which is what happened here. That's the problem. I wouldn't doubt that some Muslims would starve to death before eating pork. It's not that pork was the only thing to feed them, I'm sure the bastards went out of their way to find pork.

QuoteWe're not out to rule the world.

I am truly and honestly beginning to wonder if everyone in the government is with you on that one.

I don't know anything about the situation with your friends, but if they were in the US Military and something happened to them, or they were doing drugs or whatever, then George W Bush failed your friends and you. He is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, he ACCEPTED the responsibilty, he is reponsible by his own choice. I'm not just pulling that out of my ass. He just IS responsible for America and it's Military. From the highest ranking general to the greenest private.

Did you read my quote a few posts back? Doesn't it frighten you that the leader of our country doesn't think he "needs to explain" things to people!? It just scream Dictator to me. I am seriously concerned about the future of this country. This statement went by and nothing happened. It's just absurd.

Quote
Back in 1958, Sherman Adams, a former governor of New Hampshire serving as President Dwight Eisenhower's chief of staff, was forced to resign after it was reported that he received a gift from business interests. The "smoking gun" was a pricey vicuña overcoat.

Forced to resign over a coat? Yet our president talks like a mad man and we just say..."so."

eh.

(http://www.juncmodule.com/AGSfolder/untitled.gif)

Sorry, I'm not good at funny robots... :'(

later,
-junc

EDIT:

QuoteSo, in the minds of this guys, they may have problems for being forced to eat something, but not to blast 20 or 30 people in a Bus? Curious...

Yes. Not just in my mind. By blowing up 20 or 30 people in a bus some militant Muslims believe that they in fact secure their place in paradise by dying to protect Allah. I don't agree with it or think it's sane, but that's the belief as I understand it.

Keep in mind though, this is SOME militant muslims. ALL Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

See, I agree with you on that one about accountability. The whole 9/11 hearings have always annoyed me, because it's all about "It's not my fault, it's his! No, maybe hers! Yeah, hers! But, uh, his too! BUT NOT MINE!" It's a waste of time, and I agree that not enough people take responsibilities for their actions, but saying that Bush and his administration are culpable for the actions of a sick group of soldiers and perhaps their immediate leaders is just silly.

Now, you guys are saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib was horrible and entering this war was also horrible. But what happened at Abu Ghraib is NOTHING compared to what Saddam Hussein and his men did to Arab Sunnis among others. The Arab Shiites and Sunni Kurds, who make up 80% of Iraq's population, were not appalled by this behavior in the prison because Hussein had done far worse before. Plus, they actually have met other U.S. soldiers and they know that the soldiers are not sexual deviants, or rapists like most of Saddam's soldiers.

I'm sure you're thinking now, "But how can you say Saddam is to blame for what his troops did and not blame Bush for what his did?" Well, Bush (nor any in his administration) did not order these individuals to do those things in Abu Ghraib. Saddam ordered his troops to use rape in order to destroy males and tribal pride. Saddam did order his troops to do wicked things. So really, by entering this war and taking Saddam out of power, the U.S. did a very good thing.

On another note, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who pretty much controls the religious mind of the population, has yet to say that America ha made Iraq less moral or ruined their faith.

Junc, these men obviously do not care to stay "true" to their faith, because they kill others. Their idea of "jihad" is to offensively spread the power of the Muslim nation. The true meaning of "jihad" is not a holy war, but rather a struggle. This struggle is not physical, but mental. It is an internal struggle of faith, and an external struggle to help other beings understand the teachings of Islam. So these men in the prison are not "true" believers of the faith, no matter how much they claim to be. They are extremists.

You assume to know a lot, but have you ever considered that maybe you don't know the whole story?

QuoteSo these men in the prison are not "true" believers of the faith

So you personally know these men? How can you assume to know what a human's faith is!?

Quotethese men obviously do not care to stay "true" to their faith, because they kill others

By dying for their faith they secure a place in paradise. It's just a simple fact of their faith, not my opinion. Perhaps you are talking about what you believe Islam is. That's nice, but if these men believe that they earn their way into paradise by killing Americans, then they are staying true to the faith that "they" believe in, not "you".

QuoteWell, Bush (nor any in his administration) did not order these individuals to do those things in Abu Ghraib

While I agree, that this is probably the case, how do you KNOW that!?

Comparing what Saddam did to what we did just doesn't make any sense. We violated the world laws. We must be held accountable. You can't justify what we did with what Saddam did. That's just sick.

Also, I DO think Saddam is accountable. I don't know what or if he ordered anything to happen and I don't care. What I do care about is that it happened under his power, therefore he is responsible. The result of that is that we removed him from power, I agree that this is a good thing.

The highest ranking officer is accountable for the actions of his troops. That would be George Bush. People have been brainwashed into thinking that this is not his role. Also, keep in mind, I DO believe that the soldiers are responsible and should go to prison, I just think Bush should accept responsibility as well. It's just the right thing to do.

later,
-junc

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 25/05/2004 18:26:19
Well, Bush (nor any in his administration) did not order these individuals to do those things in Abu Ghraib.

How are you so sure that no one ordered them to do it? Because they say they were ordered to do it is it obviously them lying? Which one of the soldiers gave over her underwear to humiliate the prisoners? which one brought the leashes? how come there are reports of the same exact method of torture that came from Afghanistan a year ago? Is it in a rule book somewhere that leashes and women's underwear and forced sex are ways of getting information?

Quote
Junc, these men obviously do not care to stay "true" to their faith, because they kill others.

and what about the 70 year old woman who was made to act like a donkey? And what about all the people detained who turns out weren't terrorists? "Whoops! Sorry, our mistake!" no wait, this administration doesn't say sorry "Serves you right for looking all alike!" So if you arrest some terrorists and some normal people, torture them both, find out who's the real terrorist and who's just some dude then it's all ok? The torture was worth it? "This is war, such is life!" I bet the prisoners who were beaten to death are sure glad it wasn't Saddam who arrested him, otherwise he would have had them killed!

And can you prove that the Shiites and the Sunni Kurds shrugged their shoulders and said "Hey, better than what Saddam would have done, so we're ok!"

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 25/05/2004 18:26:19
...but saying that Bush and his administration are culpable for the actions of a sick group of soldiers and perhaps their immediate leaders is just silly.

No, it isn't. Let's assume for a moment that some low-end meatheads having fun is really all there is to this. Question: how come these people were running a prison? They were completely unprepared for this kind of task. There's more to prison guarding than shooting people if they try to get out. So why the hell were they there?
They were there because further up the line nobody was paying attention to who was doing what. That's a very, very grave failure. Note that hardly anything happened until the pictures reached the public. And it's not as though nobody knew about it.

And what do you make of the evidence that there's rather more to it? It isn't just aforesaid meatheads trying to save themselves by pushing some of the blame further up the chain of command. Heard the phrase "special access program" recently? The idea that this is one of these gone out of control is plausible enough even for those few of us who don't wear tinfoil hats.

Quote
The Arab Shiites and Sunni Kurds, who make up 80% of Iraq's population, were not appalled by this behavior in the prison because Hussein had done far worse before.

Yes. Everybody in Iraq is saying "Hey, these people are torturers too, but they're not quite as bad as the ones before them. GO USA!!"

Quote
Plus, they actually have met other U.S. soldiers and they know that the soldiers are not sexual deviants, or rapists like most of Saddam's soldiers.

The ones being taken into the new army the US are setting up, you mean?

Quote
[Saddam was bad! It's good that he's gone!]

If you honestly believe any of us think Saddam wasn't a Very Bad Person(tm), you might want to just stop talking.

Quote
So these men in the prison are not "true" believers of the faith, no matter how much they claim to be. They are extremists.

All of them? And certainly? Are you sure? And would that excuse anything? Considering the way the US have been behaving over there, I wouldn't be so quick to accept their judgment of who is or might be a Horrible Extremist as gospel.

real quick, we do know that those attempting to, or affiliated with the bombing, while 'claiming' to be doing it for thier religion, are not. real followers know not to kill oneself, as that is an act which would be an afterlife equivalent to christianity's hell. they as well, are upset at the bombing, and also that they are trying to parade around stating they are religous when they are not.

So, I was reviewing previous posts, and I seemed to have missed this one:

Quote from: juncmodule on Tue 25/05/2004 06:31:40
Yeah, you're right. Hitler was innocent.

Someone brought up Hitler, Junc. Godwin's law in effect, so my argument prevails! Huzzah! Now this topic can smoothly melt into posts with more pictures of zany robots till it dissapears onto the pages of the past.

What, so they blow themselves up just to be jerks? Or because they think it's fun?

You're not getting the point. It's not that we think some obscure sura tells them "oh by the way, start suicide bombing in 1300 years or so" and that every true Muslim should commend them for doing it, it's that they believe it is right. They think it's their duty, they think they're doing God's work. What you (or anybody else) think their ideals should be according to the Qur'an etc. doesn't matter at all to them.

It's a bit more tricky with the people further behind, but I think that they too are mostly in it because of their insane beliefs.

Quotewhile 'claiming' to be doing it for thier religion, are not

I'm sorry but you can not assume that you know someone's religious beliefs. I'm sure that a majority of Muslims do NOT think that these people are going to paradise and agree with you. This doesn't change the fact that the few Muslim wackos that there are, are doing it because they believe they get something out of it. I'm not saying that it's the Muslim way, I'm saying that it's the "extremist muslim" way. While a lot of people seem to fail to see the difference, I feel that I do see it.

QuoteSomeone brought up Hitler, Junc. Godwin's law in effect, so my argument prevails! Huzzah! Now this topic can smoothly melt into posts with more pictures of zany robots till it dissapears onto the pages of the past.

What!?

You are right because I brought up Hitler!?

Look, this isn't about who is right and who is wrong. If that is why you are posting, to prove that you are right, just stop.

I don't believe that everyone should believe what I believe. These are my opinions.

later,
junc

I really dont understand why people say, "yeah, what we did was wrong, but saddam was worse" DUH! We KNOW that saddam was a tyanical dictator...and that he murdered people...that's why we're there. the fact that my country has to rationalize its behavior by maintaining its "not as bad as the last dictator" disgusts me.

We are supposed to have the high ground. America doesnt torture people, or at least the arent supposed to. You cant write it off as war, or heat of the moment. it a disgrace, and somebody needs to take the hit. the first guy gets a dishonerible discharge and a year in the pen. if a prison guard did that in the states, he'd get at least 5 years. why should this be any different?

also, giving these prisoners pork is such is pretty terrible. its like rounding up a bunch of Mormons and giving them all bud lights. you cant do that. Yeah, these guys are evi.. we're not asking for hot tubs and hot babes. Treat 'em like any other prisoner back home...give them food to eat, and clothes on their back. You'll save american lives that way.

Junc, what you say about muslim extremists is not much different than the American soldiers who were involved in the prison scandal. I know there is a difference between these extremists and normal Muslims. I have tons of Muslim friends, and I understand Islam very well so I know that these guys are just dangerous extremists. This is just like how the American soldiers are not like the other American soldiers.

So just like I would not ask that any religious leader take responsibility for these extremists unless he himself told them to do the dangerous things they do, why should Bush or his administration take responsibility for actions that are not their fault at all. If any member of the Bush administration were to take responsibility for this, I would consider them an even better person considering it is in no way their fault.

But, once again, you cannot hold all Americans and their leaders accountable. I mean, say a couple of frat boys do some bad things at a party.  You can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the bahavior of a few, sick and twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Junc - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to me, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

*Gets up and leaves the table*

*The whole fraternity walks out single-file behind Sutebi humming ala Animal House.

We are all found in double-secret probabtion. One more outburst from our Fraternity House will have us all out.

In the army, as in any business, accountability goes all the way to the top. Sure, Bush probably didn't know what was going on. But as the head of the army he is responsible for setting up the correct management structure so that any infringements at lower levels are flowed up the chain of command. The fact that this didn't happen shows that he has failed in his role.

Of course, everyone else in the chain between him and the soldiers on the ground is also responsible, but as the man at the top he had the power to sack them all and replace them if they were incompetant, so the final responsibility rests with him.

Your comparison with frat boys is flawed - peers are not in general responsible for each others actions. Soldier A is not to blame if Soldier B abused prisoners, because Soldier A had no power to order them to stop.

But then its just sad that we can't just assume people will just behave,

breaking news, we just found sarin gas, a WMD in baghdad

Quote from: Scummbuddy on Tue 25/05/2004 22:01:54
breaking news, we just found sarin gas, a WMD in baghdad

What? Are you expecting coverage of this silly little bomb in the media? Naive! ;D Al-Quaeda attempted to kill 80,000 people in Jordania last month and nobody really cared... That cool guys really don't want to hurt anybody![/sarcasm]

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 25/05/2004 16:53:17
It is a subject that requires a lot of thought, but it shows that no one can provide a "whole picture", as I said.

That is not quite what I meant by my piece of criticism. I know Bush isn't giving the whole picture, and I know Moore isn't doing so. That's why I think it was wrong by Moore to say what he did.

Quote from: Pumaman on Tue 25/05/2004 21:58:30
Bush probably didn't know what was going on.

And that sums up the last 4 years...

Hopefully there won't be another 4.


On accountability:
I hear a lot of people saying that Bush and Co shouldn't be responsible for what a group of sick soldiers do. Okay, let's just say they didn't know what was going on and didn't give any orders (which is contrary to reports I've read).

However, as the guys at the top, they should know exactly what is going on in their department. For Rumsfeld to not know anything about the torture demonstrates a lack of scrutiny in the department of defense. Stuff like this shouldn't happen, and Rumsfeld is responsible for overseeing that.

As another example, let's just say the manager of a retail store hires a fresh-faced salesperson who demonstrates a great ability at doing his job. The salesperson does his job for two years and is promoted to assistant manager. Everything goes well for another two years. Then one day the assistant manager doesn't show up for work. It turns out he was laundering money from the company for the last four years. Not only that, he's had a history at this kind of thing. Now, granted, the manager wasn't responsible for the money actually disappearing. However, he was responsible for hiring the guy without doing a detailed background check. And the manager is responsible for keeping tabs on the store's finances. Thus, he's accountable.

Rumsfeld is accountable for overseeing the military. If something goes wrong, it shows incompetence on his behalf, just like my example of the store manager.

If you want a better example (and an Australian example), look up the name "Peter Hollingworth" on google. That's a prime example of being accountable for others' actions.

Well DG, you say hopefully there won't be another 4. Who else should be president? Do you think Kerry should be voted in? Truthfully, I do not like everything that Bush has done, and I do not agree with him on everything (like his actions towards illegal immigrants), but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. Kerry also changes his stance on the issues at the drop of a hat. I don't think he would be a good president at all, and most people (democrats included) agree.

Also, rumor has it that if Kerry doesn't accept the nomination (which he might not) then Hillary Clinton might. And frankly, that would be a pretty bad four years.

And as for voting for Nader, I refer you to the Simpsons:
"We could all vote for a third party candidate!"
"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"

The Simpsons MAY have intended that ironically, as a condemnation of the two party system.

But who can say?

EDIT: Good point Sutebi. Irony in the Simpsons!? I'd like to see that!

I can, they didn't.

There is something I agree with you on Sutebi.

For the most part.

I really don't think Bush or Kerry should be president. I also wouldn't mind giving Hillary a chance. Honestly though, I think she would get assassinated before she got there. Americans are not quite "evolved" enough for a female president yet. It think it's a shame.

I don't like Kerry either. However, for me my dislike of Bush outways that. If Kerry gets my vote, it will be a anti-Bush vote, and a pro-Kerry one. Once again the American government fails us. Two candidates, neither of which anyone likes.

I think most Americans agree with you and that Bush will get re-elected.

People just close their minds to things like the patriot act and the ignoring of evironmental issues with Bush. I just don't get it. Handing away your freedoms is VERY unamerican. Yet under this administration we have done just that, in the name of "fighting terrorism" and "patriotism". It's sad that this new version of "the war of communism" has been given the power it has. That power does nothing but give more terrorists support. They didn't have any allies before, now it's a "war". In war there are two sides. Good job world! (I say world because to be sure Bush isn't the only one responsible, Blair doesn't have to hold his hand, and neither does the rest of the world).

I think the Simpsons thing may have been intended to be ironic. However I must say that given the way our voting system is set up, it is a wasted vote. Which imagine that, in the "land of democracy", by voting, you can "throw your vote away!".

You mentioned before that we were badmouthing america Sutebi. You are wrong (and that is insulting). I am badmouthing people and situations that are ruining America. There is a HUGE difference.

later,
-junc

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 26/05/2004 16:16:42
I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

Nasty cold you've got there. I think it's catching.

*cough* Genuinely won the election, didn't just have my Dad buy it for me *cough*

Quote from: SSH on Wed 26/05/2004 17:27:20

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 26/05/2004 16:16:42
I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

Quote from: Barcik on Wed 26/05/2004 18:02:28

Quote from: SSH on Wed 26/05/2004 17:27:20

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 26/05/2004 16:16:42
I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

I'm not sure how to reply to this, so:

*cough* in Syria *cough*

Quote from: Esseb on Wed 26/05/2004 19:26:34

Quote from: Barcik on Wed 26/05/2004 18:02:28

Quote from: SSH on Wed 26/05/2004 17:27:20

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 26/05/2004 16:16:42
I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 26/05/2004 16:16:42
Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false.

I get the whole coughing is trying to say that Bush lies also/more but I think it has to be said

Bush lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false... Also his lies destroyed relations with foriegn countries, destroyed lives, destroyed our national surplus, destroyed more lives, just generally destroyed...

And Bush really stuck to the issue of terrorism right? Remember Osama? Remeber Afghanistan at all? Remeber anything?! Remember how we were going into Iraq to destroy terrorism and then it turns out when there were no terrorists there related to September 11th we were there to over throw Saddam? Remember how Bush said Clinton's military isn't ready and he gutted it? Oh wait that's another lie and not flopping on the issues because someone else had to correct the President on that. If he stuck to the issue so much then why are we apparently no safer now than we were before September 11?

and again i ask: Can you prove that the Shiites and the Sunni Kurds shrugged their shoulders and said "Hey, better than what Saddam would have done, so we're ok!" I would like to see your source on this, please.

Also I'd like to see where in this thread someone said "America sucks and it deserves what it gets." or something to that effect. Badmouthing the president is not bad mouthin the US.

:)

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 26/05/2004 19:40:37
And again i ask: Can you prove that the Shiites and the Sunni Kurds shrugged their shoulders and said "Hey, better than what Saddam would have done, so we're ok!" I would like to see your source on this, please.

I've read dozens of interviews of Shiites and Kurds saying preciselly that...

Does it work for you? Maybe all that interviews I've read are propaganda... But then the rule of three can work in both directions, maybe the tortureas are just photoshopped images, good lord, maybe even Iraq does not exist! (Who knows, I've never been there to see it with my own eyes).

I've herd myself the Iraqi militar that has been working with the spanish troops to trainee the new police "Please Mr. Minister, do not abandon us" (Our Minister was in a visit there in Irak to annouce we're leaving Iraq...) I think that implies "we're better now than with Saddam...)

A recent poll said that 70% of the iraqi population thinks that they're better now than before...

Want sources? Federal agency USAID of the notional ministery of the US government (Translated from Spanish, may incurr in slight mistakes)

183 million $ spended in water and health facilities, which will benefit aprox. 14 million people.

Bridges re-bulided: Khazir, Tikrit y Al Mat.

Umm Qasr harbour: 40 carrier ships per month. 5.000 flights from July in the International Baghdad airport, 20 flights per day (non military).

140,000 new telephone lines, just in Baghdad...

Health and Education:

2.356 new schools. Distibuted 1,5 million secondary school packs, 808.000 of primary and 81.375 for primary teachers. 9 million new and revisited schoolbooks.

860 new teachers training 31.772 secondary teachers.

20 millions $ in studying aids and agreements of collaboration between US and Iraqi's unis.Ã, 

600 health centres. 750 people trained, helping some other 2.000 assistants of health and maternity.

3 M iraqi kids vacuned.

77,000 new government employments. 80 new banks.

516.800 tons in food (valued in 400 M $)



Maybe the Iraqis were happier when that money was spent in new palaces for Uday, Qsay and Saddam... *Cough*

Quote from: SSH on Wed 26/05/2004 19:39:33

Quote from: Esseb on Wed 26/05/2004 19:26:34

Quote from: Barcik on Wed 26/05/2004 18:02:28

Quote from: SSH on Wed 26/05/2004 17:27:20

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 26/05/2004 16:16:42
I do not like everything that Bush has done,.... but I will still vote for him over Kerry. Kerry lies a lot, and they are stupid lies that are easily found out to be false. ...

*cough* Weapons of Mass Destruction *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough*

*cough* in Syria *cough

Oh right, I hadn't paid too much attention to it but read up on it now.

It's becoming too tense here.

(http://www.2dadventure.com/ags/truthbot.JPG)

Do you want real, serious sources?

Quote
Want a Different
Abu Ghraib Story?
Try This One
Saddam had their hands cut off. America gave them new ones.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, May 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

By now, some Americans may feel the need for respite from the images of Abu Ghraib and the five hooded barbarians standing behind Nick Berg. This week's column will try to provide some measure of respite.

It is the story of Americans, in and out of the U.S. government, who moved mountains to help seven horribly maimed Iraqi men. It is not always pleasant reading, but there are rewards to staying with it, especially now.

Quite obviously it has been decided, as the handling of the Abu Ghraib story makes plain, that when America stumbles, we are going to have our faces rubbed in it. And rubbed in it and rubbed in it. As far as I can make out, the purpose of this two weeks of media humiliation is that we--the president, all of us--are being asked to morally prostrate ourselves before the rest of the world. Some may choose to do so, but this story should make a few Americans want to simply stand up straight again.

As perfect justice, the story in fact begins in Abu Ghraib prison, in 1995. With Iraq's economy in a tailspin, Saddam arrested nine Iraqi businessmen to scapegoat them as dollar traders. They got a 30-minute "trial," and were sentenced, after a year's imprisonment, to have their right hands surgically cut off at Abu Ghraib prison.

The amputations were performed, over two days, by a Baghdad anesthesiologist, a surgeon and medical staff. We know this because Saddam had a videotape made of each procedure. He had the hands brought to him in formalin and then returned to Abu Ghraib. Oh, one more thing: The surgeon carved an X of shame into the forehead of each man. And the authorities charged the men $50.





Last year, after we liberated Iraq, a veteran TV news producer named Don North--who has worked for major U.S. broadcasters--was in Baghdad with the U.S. to restore TV service. Iraqi contacts there brought him a tape of the men's amputations. Mr. North says dismemberment was common in Saddam's Iraq and that if one walks down a crowded Baghdad street one may see a half-dozen people missing an ear, eye, limb or tongue. He decided to seek out the men whose stubbed arms represented the civilized world's lowest act--the perversion of medicine.
He found seven. Mr. North determined to make a documentary of their story and get medical help for them. How he found that help, if one may still use this phrase, is an all-American story.

An oil engineer from Houston, named Roger Brown, overheard Mr. North's tale in a Baghdad café. He suggested Don North get in touch with a famed Houston TV newsman named Marvin Zindler. Mr. Zindler put him in touch with Dr. Joe Agris, a Houston reconstructive surgeon, who has worked in postwar Vietnam and Nicaragua repairing children.

Mr. North sent Dr. Agris a copy of the videotape of the surgical atrocities, and Dr. Agris said: Send me the men; I will fix them.

But flying seven Iraqi men out of Baghdad is easier said than done. In this case, prodded by Don North and government friends, the famous U.S. bureaucracy gave itself a day off. Paul Bremer wrote a memo authorizing their departure. Paul Wolfowitz told the Air Force it could fly them to Frankfurt. Homeland Security waived visa requirements.

Continental Airlines donated passage to Houston. There, Dr. Agris enlisted a fellow surgeon, Fred Kestler, to assist. The Methodist Hospital donated facilities, and the men arrived in Houston in early April.

Dr. Agris saw that the Abu Ghraib "surgeries" were a botch. They'd cut through the joining of the wrist's carpal bones, "like carving a Turkey leg." Saddam's doctors did nothing to repair the nerve endings, which left the men with constant real and "phantom" pain. Drs. Agris and Kestler had two preliminary tasks: Repair the nerves, and, alas, take another inch off the men's lower arms, to leave a smooth surface for attaching their new prosthetic "hands." They worked for two days operating on the seven men, who then took a week to recover before receiving their new hands.

Those devices were donated by the German-American prosthetic company Otto Bock, at a cost of $50,000 each. They are state-of-the-art electronic hands, with fingers, which respond to trained muscular movements. The rehabilitation and training is being donated by two other Houston companies, TIRR and Dynamic Orthotics. The Iraqi men are in Houston now, spending five hours a day learning to use their new right hands. And oh yes, the brands on their heads were removed.

Don North completed his documentary on what happened to these men in Iraq. I watched "Remembering Saddam" this week. Several of the men insisted on seeing Saddam's home video of the atrocity, and so it's in the film--a bizarre, almost dainty image of forceps, scalpel, surgical gloves and green operating-room garments. Nothing like it since Dr. Mengele. Watching his hand come off, Baasim Al Fadhly says: "Look at this doctor, who considers his career noble and swears to God to be a noble person. Let everyone see this film."





This crime deserves condemnation from international medical societies, such as the U.N.'s World Health Organization, or the Red Cross. And Don North's film indeed should be seen--but may not be. After two months of trying, no U.S. broadcast or cable network will take it. This is incredible. TV can run Abu Ghraib photos 24/7 but can't find 55 minutes for Saddam's crimes against humanity?
On May 23, the American Foreign Policy Council will bring the restored men to Washington. They will visit maimed GIs at Walter Reed Army Hospital. It wouldn't be surprising if they said something positive about the U.S. soldiers who have not been on television the past two weeks.

Then Don North and Joe Agris will fly with the men back to Iraq, to survey the rest of Saddam's dismembered population. "The practice of prosthetics is very archaic," Mr. North says,"for a country where this is such an affliction." Dr. Agris hopes to survey the hospitals and bring in some modern equipment and supplies. "If they let me, I'll do some of the kids," he says. "Let's show the good side of what we can do."

Sure. Why not?

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

Right-o.

(http://www.agagames.com/ghormak/coughx.png)

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 26/05/2004 16:16:42
and most people (democrats included) agree.

Wow! And I thought the democrat slogan this year was "Anyone but Bush!" but I guess you've just proven me wrong with that small bit of text inside those brackets. You've convinced me! Kerry is a loser! He hates children and puppies! We must protect our children and puppies!

And like everyone else: I mean, honestly, how can you accuse Kerry of lying and not Bush? I mean, you went very easily on Bush in your post. And all this coughing doesn't help.

But let me summerise in an imaginary conversation:

Pro-Bush Guy: "Don't vote for Kerry! He's a lying scumbag!"
Me: "What about Bush?"
PBG: "Well, Bush's lies were justified!"
Me: "Like the weapons of mass destruction?"
PBG: "Yeah, we used that lie so we could invade Iraq and liberate the people!"
Me: "Why didn't you do the same with other dictatorships that harm more people than Iraq?"
PBG: "Cause Iraq was harbouring terrorists! They're the ones who want the US out of Iraq!"
Me: "Don't the people of Iraq want the US military out?"
PBG: "Yes, those are just the evil Iraqis! They're terrorists!"
Me: "Doesn't that mean the majority of the population is evil?"
PBG: "Yes! The majority are deadly terrorists!"
Me: "..."
PBG: "..."
Me: "You're an idiot."

DGMacphee: You are wonderful. :D

Farlander: That is why I love America Farlander. When the citizens of this country do something good, they really do something good. America is full of a lot of good people that truly care about world. The approval rating of our current occupation in Iraq has only recently reached a low level. I think a majority of Americans agree that removing Saddam from power is a good thing. A majority of American soldiers in Iraq are over there doing as much good as they can.

There are bad eggs though. We cannot turn our backs on that and say that it is okay, it is NOT. It is not acceptable, regardless as to how much good we do (I know, that's not your point). We have done our good in Iraq and it is now time to wrap things up and leave, in fact, it has been time for several months. Our occupation of Iraq is causing problems and deaths. It is time for the UN to step in. Our job is finished.

However, the few, the rich and corrupt, have more "business" to tend to over there. American soldiers know that it is time to come home. When you develop a situation where soldiers do not FULLY support what they are doing you develop very dangerous men(and women). These are the circumstances that bring about the My Lai's and Abu Ghraib's in war. The fact that the US Goverment is aware of this situation and is not immediately pulling out its troops is appalling.

The first gulf war ended very quickly after Iraqi media released images of a bombed Iraqi convoy. The US government has admitted that this dramatically sped up withdrawal from Iraq. Now we have another atroicity and this time our reaction is very different. Our government is quick to shift blame to individual soldiers. Why?

Oh, and for those of you that keep on saying "this is war" REREAD this until you get it:

"The first gulf war ended very quickly after Iraqi media released images of a bombed Iraqi convoy. The US government has admitted that this dramatically sped up withdrawal from Iraq."

later,
-junc

Thanks for putting things in context Junc. Since you did it, it seemed the US went there just to settle in Abu Ghraib and torture people.

Quote from: juncmodule on Thu 27/05/2004 02:47:23
Oh, and for those of you that keep on saying "this is war" REREAD this until you get it:

"The first gulf war ended very quickly after Iraqi media released images of a bombed Iraqi convoy. The US government has admitted that this dramatically sped up withdrawal from Iraq."

Is this perhaps the reason that nothing changed after the first Gulf War?

About the media, and the use that the military intelligence does of it, I want to quote something I've seen somewhere in the internet, a report by GEES (Group of strategic studies). THIS IS A QUOTE, and I DO NOT SHARE ALL/SOME of the statements expressed:

Quote"The revelation of the photos of abusses is not casual (Let's remember it's been a stuff revealed by the army itself, not the press) It's a show orchested by some people in the pentagon, the "hard wing".

You'll see that nobody judged by this stuff will suffer serious punishements... they may loss their career, they may go to a military reclusion for some time... but they will receive a silent and gentle economic compensation in the future.

The aim of showing the pics is launching a message...

"Look what can we do!" "Did you thing that we were going to be embarrased to punish you hardly by our occidental rules?" "Do you think you can burn the corpses of our collaborators, cut their arms, their legs and behead them, and we're not going to do something simillar just by that Geneva stuff?" "Look what an american, weak, 1,55 cms tall woman can do to you, a big, strong, muslim person..." "Do you realise now that our patience has a limit, and in some point we won't care of the "left", the "media" or the "peacifists"?

"Do you realise now that our patience has a limit and we're going to start randomly launch missiles to weddings, mosques and civilians bulidings?"

"DO you see now how strong is our determination?"

As said, I don't share the methods... But look the recent situation having this document in perspective, and you'll understand some of the stuff that is going on (Like the missile in a wedding).

Also, it's disgusting, but seems that this new "awe" tactic is reaching some goals... after the disgusting "on the air" beheading of an american person, not major more brutal acts have happened... the activities of the terrorists is going down, and Muqtada al Sadr's militias are abandoning the fight (Curiously, after that US bombed for first time, a holy mosque, an event that should have lighted on the fire of the Shiites, has calmed them down  :o)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040527/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

So... what do you think? The feeling I had after reading that there is a wing in the Pentagon who was more power than the president (Let's remember that the tortures do not benefit him) is... disturbing.

Specially because that "wing" is supposed to be the most right-placed of the republicans (Extreme right, even), but they don't care to put a democrat person in the White House, that must significate that they have their seats well secured.

What do you think? Does that "black hand" exist? How big is their power?

QuoteIs this perhaps the reason that nothing changed after the first Gulf War?

It isn't the only reason, but yes. Our mission wasn't finished when we pulled out of the first gulf war. If we hadn't gone back it would have been a second Vietnam. People like to say that we completed our "objective" and protected Kuwait. That's just not true. Bush Sr. painted Saddam as a villian and went after him with full force, and failed. Kuwait was an excuse, an invitation.

Farlander: That is a frightening theory. Perhaps not too far off. I think the "right" and "left" gets a little blurry when you start talking about the military. Perhaps the military sees that it can get more out of Kerry than Bush. Kerry's Vietnam record is a little questionable, by his own admission. The military could have something to manipulate him with. A more likely theory is that Bush is an idiot. Sure he's probably easy to push around but he lacks respect for the military (only the military actually knows the truth about him going AWOL, and even Bush's version of the story is pretty much a "pussy's story" from the military point of view). Bush also has proven to be abrasive toward other countries, I sure that is just a small reflection of how he is in person. If he pisses off rulers of countries you can just imagine how many five star generals he's pissed off. Maybe he pissed off the wrong one.

All in all I think the theory is probably too far fetched. Then again, maybe not... ;D

later,
-junc

EDIT: Another Military/Media story of interest: Did you know in the first gulf war, at the start of the war, what was being watched on TV was a staged operation? The US Military admitted that it mounted an attack (which it knew it could win) as a diversion for the media. While at the same time they launched another attack which was their real objective.

Junc, thanks for trying to explain me how the Pentagon goes, and a little bit about the past of the future presidents... it's been interesting to read what you americans really think, because here, sometimes it's difficult to realise which is the real situation because the Atlantic filters information, you know?  ;D

About the media and wars... this has been the most covered war by media in history, talking about "first line" coverage.

I remember ot the third day of "awe and fear" operation, I was at Lorena's home, watching CCN Spain live. The reporter was saying something (I was in the middle of a semi-nap) like: "Yesterday our cameras were there, at the top of that buildings, but we've been advised not to be there today because... BOOM BOOM BOOM [...] BOOM"

I counted 14 bombs/missiles in less than a minute. The pentagon told the reporters where to be, which take should they record,  and when to start recording (19:00) and they did, taking "nice" shoots of the building (fortunately, in that very case the building was empty)

Also, when the land operations began and the Coalition forces were advancing to the north (It was Nasiriya or Nayaf), I saw in live how a platoon of marines stop their advance because there was a group of covered iraquis in a house. They took coverage, and being recorded by the CNN cameras, the sargeant decided not to demmand support of the armour of planes, using a "javalin" instead (Some kind of rocket lauched from a bazooka). Minutes later the house was down and the advance went on. It was very "Band of Brothers..."

I also remember a night at Saddam's international airport with the 101st airborne waiting for the counter attack (We will slaughter them!!!!111one!!!, remember?), but it never happened.

The next morning two armoured columns of handies and tanks went to take a walk in the middle of Baghdad... It was quite funny, nobody shoot a bullet, but the Americans showed their determination, how weak the iraqis were and, best of all, the iraqi minister of Information had to interrupt an interview he was giving because the amercians were coming (In that very moment he was saying: Americans? Where? Here there are no americans...)

I am almost sure that this was quite "directed" for not to show americans ambrushed or in real problems, yes, the militars use the media as a diversion (they love diversion, remember mounting a parallel "Overlord" with Patton?).

But sometimes they haven't been so luck with the media. I remember that the disembark of marines in Somalia was broadcasted live by CNN. It was Comical/Tragical to see that young Ranger lietunant saying "Sir, this is a secret mission... Are you telling me this is being broadcasted via satellite to mr. Aidid???"

Some war histories brought to you by a person interested in military histories...

A new editorial by the Wall Street Journal... If you don't want to read it, I'll make a synopsis: Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, Saddam's right hand, joined with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Kuala Lumpur (Even with one of the pilots who crashed a plane against the Pentagon) to preppair the 11-S attacks.

Quote
Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.

We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.




It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.




One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.

That's curious, because I allways wondered why of 1,000 people involved there was not even an Iraqi arrested... Now it's clear, the iraqis were intellectually involved, but they did not provide "soldiers" for not being aimed.

You people watch way to much X files.

http://www.theyrule.net/
this is a site that lets you make connection between board members of different (US) companies. Now this is scary...Find out how Microsoft is connected to McDonalds.

And you watch too much Sesame Street.

This might be confusing to members outside the United States, but the their are strict laws in place about exterior sources influencing an election during the election year.  The candidates themselves are allowed to say whatever they like, but beyond that, the idea is that citizens determine the who they want based on known works before they made a bid for the presidency.  Organizations like the press are, sadly still influenced, but they aren't supposed to be.  Disney plans to release the movie following the election.  Disney isn't an ethical company by any means, but there were actuall legal concerns about the release dates.

The fact that Mr. Moore was SOOOOOO violently angered by a fall release, as opposed to a spring release, makes me wonder if his "Documentary" is a little more biased then he would like people to believe.  If he made an "unbiased" film, why would he care about a 6 month posponement?

Moore's already stated that his film will bring down the Bush administration.

I don't think that at any time anyone ever thought that it's an unbiased film.

But it's a bias that is evident, since it's purpose is stated, and it's clear to the audience that the film maker has an goal, and is striving towards an objective, rather than objectivity.

As opposed to say, Fox News, which is equally biased, but claims the mantle of Fair and Balanced.

Have a read of some of the Q&As of Ebert's Movie Answer Man this week:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert30.html

And the plot thickens:

Moore Filmed Interview with Berg


Michael Moore filmed an interview with slain American businessman Nicholas Berg in Arlington, VA last December in which Berg discussed his concern for his safety before going to Iraq, Berg's family said Saturday. Moore confirmed that he had shot the interview for his award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 but said he would not make it public. He did send a copy of the interview to the family. Berg's brother David complimented Moore for handling the situation with "dignity, respect and discipline." He told the Associated Press: "Michael Moore has really been a total class act with this whole thing. ... He could have sold this to the media or stuck it in his movie."

From IMDB.

Quote from: Farlander on Fri 28/05/2004 20:06:45
And you watch too much Sesame Street.

I wished you watched some sesame street. You could learn something about morals and values of life. And some people skills as well. :P

Hilarious! The man who faced the community for two boobs talks of people skills!  ;D

Hilarious! Your rotten attitude says it all

Rotten attitude? Come on! You can be more harsh, try it again!  :D

But please, do it in PM, this guys don't deserve to see their Forums infected with flame wars.

Quote from: DCillusion on Sat 29/05/2004 19:40:43
If he made an "unbiased" film, why would he care about a 6 month posponement?

This has been rebutted quite effectively by Las Naranjas, but I still want to make the following statement:

Having a point to make is not bias, stopping a recount because you're not happy who might actually have won the election is. I'm tired of closed-mindedness and bias becoming synonimous with acting upon well-founded beliefs.

Agree with those who say that the more appropritae title for Moore's movies would be "mockumentaries" or even "propaganda" movies. Not that this is a bad thing... they make people think (in similar way as political caricatures does) and their impact is much stronger.

Micheal Moore found a distibutor for his movie!
http://www.michaelmoore.com/index_real.php

Ali, well said.

The movie will be released in June. I wonder how many times certain people will include the word "biased" in their posts after having watched it.

"He's saying bad things about George W Bush! That's so biased!1!!1"

I'm going to say it before someone else does: "That movie sucked."

Now that it is coming out I'm sure people will go see it expecting it to be some kind of life altering, anger inducing, great epiphany. It will just be a movie with a guy bitching. Intertwined with the bitching he will present some facts about Bush that some people won't like and some will like.

Basically my point is, first person that says "I don't see what the big deal was" or something to that affect is an idiot. Although, even before seeing it, I don't see what the big deal is.

Oh, a just a note, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet. I found some interviews from Michael Moore that are about two years old. He mentions the Bin Laden/Bush connection in the interview and cites his source, an author from the "New Yorker". I just thought it was interesting that this is actually old news that he has covered before (Some of The New Yorker articles were published in September of 2001.) Only with the release of his movie does it get international attention. A lot of which is mockery of Michael Moore rather than paying attention to the actual subject matter.

June 22nd...I'm pretty excited about this...

later,
-junc

You are all gimboids, but yeah, I'm awaiting the release of the movie as well. Even though it might not get into cinemas here in the Neths, it's probably 'available through other means' swiftly enough.

I think it's been said, I don't know a lot of people are speaking rather muddled (that or I'm just tired from a lot of work this morning), but yes,  Moore's film is biased, but there is no problem with that.

I believe it was Teddy Roosevelt who first used the phrase, but I guess Moore could kind of be seen as a Muckraker, except he is doing a very poor job of that. Moore is saying that he hopes his film will stimulate the "Anti-Bush" vote. So, he doesn't want people to vote for the best candidate, no, he wants them to just not vote for Bush. Frankly, I will vote for Bush because he is the best candidate. I mean, he may not be perfect and I do not agree with everything that he does and says, but he is the best candidate and he is a strong leader who stands by his words and is not afraid to take action.

And, I actually think this movie will be bad because it'll basically be nothing we haven't heard before from Moore and his like (the broadcasters on the quickly dieing Air America, et. al.). I think the movie will just be the same old tired connections. You may aruge, "Oh, but Steve! He won an award in France for the film!" The only thing that brings the French together is Anti-American sentiments, so of course they would give Moore an award that bashes America.

As a side note, Moore no longer has the Palme D'Or because after recieving it, he promptly ate it.

Did you rant and rave over the French not helping us in the "war"? I just want to know because I like how you completely generalize every French person.

Also, are you serious that Bush stands by his words?

And what's with this idea of "tired old connections"? So if someone brings up the truth a lot it just gets tiring after a while? Damn that truth... Lies are much more interesting.

And again, do you think Micheal Moore is bashing The United States or the Bush administration?

How were going to French going to help the US in the war, or the Germans? 90% of the petrol refineries in Iraq belong them, take a look to the petrol companies located in Iraq before the war.

Now that this possibility has gone, they're helping again... That shows that French and Germans go to war or not deppending on their interests (like the U.S. of course...)

Fortunately, the U.S. hadn't that attitude in 1944, if so, the French would greet us saying "Hallo, mein Name is Remy, wie heiBen Sie? Ich bin gut, Danke!"  :P

this is all done guys.


C.


PS: look at my sig

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 19/06/2004 22:52:59
Fortunately, the U.S. hadn't that attitude in 1944, if so, the French would greet us saying "Hallo, mein Name is Remy, wie heiBen Sie? Ich bin gut, Danke!"Ã,  :P

I'm getting sick of people going "If America hadn't stepped in everybody would've spoken German".

The Americans were happily providing weapons to both causes, and it took them 4 damn years to finally step in. WW2 wasn't won by America. It was won by America, Canada, Britain, and on the other side the Russians, who were the ones who actually invaded Germany and hit the Germans at their own game - in their own country.

Bah.

Quoteexcept he is doing a very poor job of that

If he's doing a poor job, then why are most Republican groups shitting their pants?

Quotebut he is the best candidate and he is a strong leader who stands by his words and is not afraid to take action.

but only if Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz say so.

QuoteYou may aruge, "Oh, but Steve! He won an award in France for the film!" The only thing that brings the French together is Anti-American sentiments, so of course they would give Moore an award that bashes America

My Bullshit Detector is going through the roof now. Roger Ebert said this in one of his Move Answer Man articles:

"Don't make the mistake of thinking the "French" honored "Fahrenheit 9/11." The jury did, and only one of its nine members was French. There were four American members, and the others were from Finland, Hong Kong, Belgium and the United Kingdom."

See the article here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert13.html

Ebert also said this: "I attended the jury's press conference, heard all nine jurors praise the award, and got the unmistakable impression that Tarantino personally would have been equally content if the Korean revenge epic "Old Boy" had won."

See here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert30.html

In conclusion, your research sucks balls.

Quote from: voh on Sun 20/06/2004 04:18:52

Quote from: Farlander on Sat 19/06/2004 22:52:59
Fortunately, the U.S. hadn't that attitude in 1944, if so, the French would greet us saying "Hallo, mein Name is Remy, wie heiBen Sie? Ich bin gut, Danke!"Ã,  :P

I'm getting sick of people going "If America hadn't stepped in everybody would've spoken German".

The Americans were happily providing weapons to both causes, and it took them 4 damn years to finally step in. WW2 wasn't won by America. It was won by America, Canada, Britain, and on the other side the Russians, who were the ones who actually invaded Germany and hit the Germans at their own game - in their own country.

Bah.

a) Can you quote the source which says that the US provided weapons o the Axis, please?
b) I thought that the US step into the war in 1941, 2 years after the start... maybe you're talking to stepping into the continental Europe. A possible explanation can be that the Yankies didn't want to piss it of there, like Monty did with "Market Garden".
d) I don't think that things were going very well for the brits in 1941 before the Yankies entered in the War.
Canada??? Canada???
c) Let me express my prefferences to a American invassion than a Russian one, please...  :P

Farlander, yes, Canada. The Canadians were a major component of the D-day invasion and many lost their lives with the rest. Give credit where credit is due..

While you may disagree with Stalin's ethics (and I don't dispute that) the Russians lost more lives than any other country in the war, and civilians were fighting and dying in the streets.

Interesting fact:
After the Pearl Harbor bombing Canada officially declared war (on the same day). America followed up the day after.

If you're objective, it was clear to everyone except Hitler that the war was lost by 1943 and the war on the Eastern front is what did it.

D-Day, Dresden (and Nuclear Weapons in the other war) were more about the Soviets than they were about their targets.

Still, D Day facilitated the race to Berlin, and you can easily point out that it prevented all of Germany [and much of West Europe] becoming what East Germany and the Soviet Bloc became, so I'm not botherisng to argue on the justification.

I'm not volunteering any opinion on the US' involvement

But overwhelmingly, the victory against Nazi Germany was the Soviets', and it's only the legacy of Cold War Historiography that prevents that being seen.

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Sun 20/06/2004 07:21:13I'm not volunteering any opinion on the US' involvement

But overwhelmingly, the victory against Nazi Germany was the Soviets', and it's only the legacy of Cold War Historiography that prevents that being seen.

Why not?

I was actually taught a lot about the Soviet involvement, despite many other faults I can find in my education.

Because war and the causes of war are far too complex for me to gather any genuine conviction as to moral validities in war, except where you can find those in the wrong.

The nature of war has always been, to the vastly greater extent been about power and economics, and moral considerations are usually just icing.

Which isn't to say that the moral case against Nazi Germany wasn't overwhelming, the record speaks to itself.

But I struggle to find a country that goes to war on moral considerations rather than power and economical ones, so discussing moral cases for war is often fruitless, and often retrospective.

Were I to discuss the power/economical ones, people may misinterpret me as claiming that a state that goes to war for those reasons is in the wrong, or immoral. You can get away with explaining in frank terms the motivations of 19th century powers, and their predecessors, but 20th century history is far more muddied by emotion, and I don't want to stir passions unnecessarily, it's not worth it since it results in sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Point being states fight. Big states are arseholes. There has never been a state that has become a power that has not acted like an arsehole, and any country that could become one would be one too. It's the natural state of states. Which shouldn't imply that it's right. It would be natural to allow cripples and other invalids to die off, but we've developed a system where we can prevent an amoral competition that leads to that. The hope being we could do the same for states.

If you're familiar with his work [and if you study the 2nd world war] you'd probably not be surprised that I respect AJP Taylor, despite all the flaws of his work, for what he attempted to do.

D-Day was a great failure, is spite of all the propaganda... The goal (putting the foot in Europe) was archieved, but, at which cost? Omaha beach was a total disaster, I mean... I could be also a good general, sending men and men till the enemy ran out of bullets (A german soldier told he shoot like 10,000 bullets in that day). Canada was involved? Ok, it was in one of the bloody battles in the war, how many canadian lifes were lost that day? 800, 1,000? A terrible waste of lives, but you can't seriously say their participation "decided" the war, wheres the American did, or at least, it worked for keeping UK alive, having a second front opened, involving from 40 to 60 % of the resources of the Nazi army.

So, could have Russia defeated the Germans alone? With just one front opened, it could, maybe in 1957 or 48, and I wouldn't like the result by any mean. A soviet european continent? wow! Please, allow me to keep my grateful to the Yankies for coming to our aid.

My guess is, if Germany had won WW2, more people would have died than the numbers of the d day landings

The fact that the d-day was NECESSARY does not imply that it was made CORRECTLY.

Quote from: Farlander on Sun 20/06/2004 13:08:44
The fact that the d-day was NECESSARY does not imply that it was made CORRECTLY.

Farl, they lost fewer lives than they projected, despite the failures in the paratrooping equipment and landings and other things that went wrong at the beaches. D-day was not a failure by any means, it was a calculated move and there were expected losses. There was no other way at the time besides a massive move like that, and the circumstances worked for them in other ways. The Germans really did not expect an attack in the middle of a storm that they projected would last an additional day. Their leader was away to see his wife for her birthday, because he thought there was no chance the Allies would invade that day.

The Canadians alone liberated dozens of towns, and there are statues of Canadian soldiers in some of those.. from a quick google, here is a caption, "... In total, the Allies lost 2,500 troops on D-Day, but the mission was a ... was to last
almost three months, a campaign that left 20,000 Canadians dead or wounded. ..."

Quote from: Farlander on Sun 20/06/2004 12:49:50
So, could have Russia defeated the Germans alone? With just one front opened, it could, maybe in 1957 or 48, and I wouldn't like the result by any mean. A soviet european continent? wow! Please, allow me to keep my grateful to the Yankies for coming to our aid.

I believe that to be incorrect. As somebody already said, the war was basically downhill for the Germans from 1943 and onwards. The economy was breaking apart and they were running out of resources. They didn't have enough factories, not enough food. Without any non-forced importing, it's only logical that you're going to run out of that stuff at some point. Germany would have fallen anyway. Of course, the D-day invasion took back the countries on the west of Germany, but even if Hitler had wanted it, he couldn't have gotten all those soldiers back in Germany From France in time to stop the Russians. And the amount of soldiers in Belgium and the Netherlands was laughable compared to the Russian Force.

To be exact, if the USA hadn't stepped in in the second world war, we'd all be speaking Russian, not German.

Err... mate, that's exactly what he said.


I also almost fully agree with what Las Naranjas said. Wars aren't made because of ethics but because of political or economical reasons. However, I do think there are such political and economical reasons which can justify a war.

Well, yeah, which means that I agree with his soviet-european thing. I just don't agree on that it would've taken until the late fifties :)

We can't tell anything of how europe would have looked with another outcome of ww2.

Before d-day, USA had plans to claim France and submit it to a military council after the war. This didn't happen, since the partisan movement was too strong, and much of the old government was intact.

To believe that all of europe would have spoken russian-or german- now if it weren't for the americans, is just another attempt to magnify the american importance.

And what you are doing Petter is exactly the same, just the other way. The Americans didn't submit France to a military council, just like Europe doesn't speak Russian. This is a speculation just as well. If you ask me, they had plenty of plans, and this was just one of them.

First, the US did not give materials to the Germans and the "bad guys" of the war. This was FDR's way of getting involved in the war while still pretending to be neutral. It was also the method the US used to get their factories working on military materials so that when they did enter the war (most people knew that America would have to enter the war, because Europe was doing a very poor job of it) they would be ready.

I'll admit that there were some good Ally fighters in the war, but I think that you can make a VERY good argument that the war might have been lost without the American troops.

For a nice little story to backup my point, let's look at the Battle of the Bulge. This battle was the last German advance into the Western front, and the Germans were winning it for a while. They actually sent a note demanding that the Americans surrender. General MaAuliffe read the note, and sent his own back that simple said, "Nuts!" From what I've heard, the Germans and the Allies both had to have what that note meant explained to them. So the Americans kept fighting, and because of all the loss the Germans suffered in this battle, the war was shortened a great deal.

But what does this have to do with Michael Moore?

Oh, and DG, I didn't research for that post at all. My points in it were based on generalizations, and because I am such a genius, they were correct. Smile.

I don't think it was the 'Great Yanks' that came to the rescue ... I think it was more the addition of 1 million bodies to the greater cause.Ã,  I mean, if ANY country had supplied the ammount of soldiers and supplies that the USA did it would have tipped the scales.

Now I'm not taking anything from our 'Greatest Generation' ... the sacrifices they made and the bravery they displayed is nothing but heroic.Ã,  I'm just saying that I believe it was more a matter of numbers rather than having better soldiers.

The USA was producing inferrior battle tanks (Shermans) than the Germans superrior tanks (Panzer and Tiger).Ã,  But we were producing so many so quickly that the Germans couldn't destroy them fast enough.Ã,  Again, to me this is NOT a matter of being better soldiers with better weapons, it's a matter of greater numbers.

So yes, I think it was the USA that caused the victory of WWII, but not because we're better.Ã,  We just gave the cause the numbers/resources it needed for victory.

Just my thoughts ...

Which, Darth, is the entire idea of modern warfare. It was stared by U.S. Grant (my personal hero) during the Civil War. Stronger number are always an advantage, and the fact that America had these stronger numbers and were much better prepared to fight in a war is why they helped win the war.

Plus, we had Captain America, and frankly no other country in the world could compete with that.

QuoteOh, and DG, I didn't research for that post at all. My points in it were based on generalizations, and because I am such a genius, they were correct. Smile.

Basing a point on broad, sweeping generalisations and calling it correct! Well, holy crap! I think I just heard the entire universe bending due to the sheer implausibility of what you just said! I'm fact, I fed your post into the Batcomputer and the damn thingÃ,  started shooting sparks before it exploded! You owe Batman a new Athlon!

I guess what I'm trying to say is no matter how many generalisations you make, nor how much of a genius you think you are, no one here is going to take even the slightest thing you say seriously if you keep it up. I mean, you condemn Moore for using biased statistics, but you're just making shit up now without any basis.

Hugs and kisses,
DG

P.S. PWND, sucker!

Thanks! Recognising that without the Americans we would be talking Russian is enough for me!  ;)

But... Has anyone tought that without the americans Japan could have attacked the URSS?

Or even... Should had Hitler the need to attack Russia without America? The "Western" thread should have just been the brits, and without Hitler turning aside armies to the East, he could have defeated the brits in a final struggle, or, at least, reaching to the Petrol in Saudi Arabia, Iraq...

Oh shit! Iraq again!  ;D

Another recent article from Ebert:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

He is absolutely right.

I don't know what americans learn in school, but I can very well imagine how the outcome of ww2 is presented.

Here are some random quotes you probably won't find in your textbooks.

On the European Front the most important development of the past year has
been the crushing offensive of the Great Armies of Russia...
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt

History knows no greater display of courage than that shown
by the people of the Soviet Union. - Henry Stimson.

The gallantry and aggressive fighting spirit of the Russian
soldiers command the American army's admiration. - George C. Marshall,
Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

The scale and grandeur of the Russian effort mark it as the
greatest military achievement in all history. - General Douglas Macarthur,
Supreme Allied Commander of South-West Pacific


We and our allies owe and acknowledge an ever-lasting debt of gratitude
to the armies and people of the Soviet Union. - Frank Knox, secretary of the Navy

Not to split hairs or anything, but those weren't really "random."

Quote from: Andail on Mon 21/06/2004 22:57:20
I don't know what americans learn in school, but I can very well imagine how the outcome of ww2 is presented.

You can imagine, but in my case, you're wrong. No, I don't remember those quotes in my textbooks (I hardly remember any quotes, actually), but I certainly knew their importance and suffering. I had great history teachers, if the major events had American involvement we learned about them. There's a lot I don't know because of the lack of broader world history, but your insinuations that our textbooks are tainted with propaganda are frankly rude. Our mistakes are more well-known to us than you realize. I think you selectively pick the fools to base your generalizations on.

If Americans are somehow trying to magnify their importance, what are you doing that's more noble?

The Swedes could diminish their profiteering.

QuoteYou can imagine, but in my case, you're wrong.

You are one of the very few.

Quotebut your insinuations that our textbooks are tainted with propaganda are frankly rude

NO! Wrong. It's not rude, it is true. As you said, in your case he is wrong. American textbooks are filled with propaganda. Take a look at other text books, not just the ones you were privilaged enough to read. My text books in High School were filled with American Propaganda, and even more in college are filled with it. I think you are being a little harsh and close minded there Shbaz :). Perhaps I've missed some other part of the conversation, and if so, just ignore me. The topic has strayed a bit from Michael Moore.

Speaking of which, didn't c.leks lock this!?

Thanks for that article DG, it was pretty cool to read that. Good stuff.

later,
-junc

Anytime.

And Junc is right. Rude as it may seem to shbaz, it's true that American textbooks contain propaganda. In fact, most countries have high school textbooks that contain propaganda.

I know Australia definately does.

I think that the people in Warsaw wouldn't agree with the words "Gallant", "courage", "grandeur", "admiration" refered to the Soviet Army.

I know the importance of their performance during the world, but that feeling of "How good the Russians are, how evil the Americans!" that I am seeing in the latest posts is totally out of context.

You only must take a look to the reaction of the people of Eindhoven (liberated by the Americans) or Warsaw ("liberated"? by the russians. Whereas in Holland they salluted the troops with orange flags, in Poland they started a suicide rebellion against the germans to call the international attention about the incoming red army. That polish guys prefered to be killed by the germans than "liberated" by the Russians. That's a show of bravery.

I know that being antiamerican is cool, Ok? But  before freely posting againt it, think in the alternatives we have or you'll fall into ridiculuosly, no offense... I still prefer the inmoral yankies before the brave, gallant, great russian army.

Maybe I am the only crazy guy on the forum who prefers to FREELY pay a commercial toll for being liberated (Drinking Coke, eating McDonald's) than seeing how my mother or my sister is violated by some guy of the armenian forestal troops.

Excuse me guys for having such low moral concept for prefering ,if asked, to be in the depravated un inmoral west part of the steel wall than in the social and free west side. I am weak... My idealism is not enough strong to sacrifice my freedom for it.

On the other hand... How can be Europe so dare to judge the United States? The supposed to be moraly superior Europe has been close to destroy itself twice, with no external help, as far as I know. Maybe we can blame the first world war to some obscure american affaire to rule the world? Maybe Hitler really wasn't from Lindz, maybe he was from Alabama? My text books may be wrong...

The longest great conflict in the world was created by the Brits and the French. They agreed to divide Arabia for them both, whereas they were promising the Jewish in Europe to create an Jewish state there after the War, and a united Muslim state for the Arabians... How brave and moral!

Some other conflicts I can think in which the Europeans are seriously involved? India and Bangladesh, Pakistan, Rwanda, Côte D'àvory, Argelia... All of them examples of how well we the Europeans manage with our former colonies, another show of our bravery and galantry.

Excuse me for not having such moral concepts as you, Antiamericans people, but if I'd have to choose to be under the wing of an Empire, something tells me I'd rather preffer to be from Puerto Rico (Under the U.S. protection) than in Somalia (Formerly under British protection).

I think you severely misinterpreted the posts Farlander.

Read again and try to show where people have "how good the Russians are". The express point of bringing up the Soviets was because of the wide recognitions of the problems with the Soviet State and it's actions, despite the fact that it was the greatest military factor against the Nazis.


And the people who have pointed out the role of the Soviets, namely myself and Baz, couldn't be said to have been anti american in this context. Baz is refuting somewhat unfounded perceptions of American ignorance, and I'm made a long post in which I was saying that teh American state is only doing what big states do.

I appreciate you have language problems, but I dislike sanctimony when you haven't chosen to absorb what has been said, instead accepting a face value interpretation. You seem to be responding to arguments you expect, rather than what anyone has actually said.

Between the same deathly illnesses, it's a hard choice..., as the policies of those countries was (and is): if you're not for us, you're definitely against us. And that's all. I preferred the US didn't try so hard being the police of the world (besides, no one has asked them to become that), based on oil interests. Personally, I prefer when the US are under a democrat president, as their foreign policy has never been so deathly idiot and stupid. All foreign US "disasters" have been done during Republican governments. Check any history chronology to confirm that.

Anyway, Disney is now a too "big" company (replace big by microsoft). It has even beenÃ,  accused of introducing subliminal messages into their movies: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdisneyperv.html
Well, I really preferred Disney was still under the managing of its creator.

I haven't misinterpreted. the "spirit" of the post was totally that one, specially one of them, and it hasn't been yours or Baz's... It's been the post including the words "Gallantry, courage and grandeur" which IMO can't be applyied to the red army.

But I don't want this to go "in crescendo", I'll make a resumed version.

I have passed with A+ my tests of "History of the XXth century" subject. I am not a person with lack of culture who wants to deffense the americans at any cost, but IMO the performance of the americans was very important.

We spent several weeks at uni with a great historician who liked "history-fiction". He showed us how close was the Nazi army to archieve a major victory in the URSS, and the cause of failing were having troops deffending the west of Europe, the Ameican supply aid and the change of direction of Hitler's main offensive (First to Moscow, then the Caucassus, Moscow, and the Caucassus again) As you can see, in tow of the facts, the americans are involved (Assuming that the UK wouldn't have been able to resist without the supplies coming from the US).

So, you say the Russians won in 1944 and 1945? I say the russians wouldn't have resisted without the americans in 1941-42.

And  they avoided the whole continent to be conquered by the Russians, which could have been a hell. I think that makes them deserve a little of praise.

So, I keep my post.

I'm afraid you may have taken up fencing with phantoms. I don't question your thought or knowledge, but you seem to be engaged against some party in the thread that I can't see, and may only truly exist in your expectations of rebuttal. It felt like you were trying to put me on the otherside of an ideological divide, when all I was trying to do was clear away wooly thinking [wooly thinking that is on both sides and, indeed, is the cause of there being "sides"]

But to look at it to get things slightly more one track. You are right, European states have no moral basis for criticising the actions of the US state. But this is not because of any debt that should be owed because of the events of the second world war. It's simply because states are bastards, always will be, and are amoral, and moral standards can't be applied, at least not by one to another.

The notion that any state could owe a debt to another because of a war is absurd. Any state only goes to war in it's own interests. No matter how you consider the relative importances of the war efforts, you would still accept that the USSR played a major role. Would this then make any criticism of the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan unfair?


--edit--
On another note, my old history teacher's parents met in a Labour camp in Poland in the war. 'tis interesting, that's all.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 22/06/2004 07:13:26
Anytime.

And Junc is right. Rude as it may seem to shbaz, it's true that American textbooks contain propaganda. In fact, most countries have high school textbooks that contain propaganda.

I know Australia definately does.

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

I agree largely with Farlander. Just want to remind you that gruesome acts are always preformed in war by all parties involved. If the nukes had been dropped before WWII the people of Warsaw might have thought twice about who they wanted in their country. Or maybe not. Who knows...
The way I understand the "facts" I have been presented with, the war had been evened out a bit already before the US came in. This largely due to supreme efforts (if this is a term that can actually be used about warfare :-\) by the Soviets and the Brits. Without the help of the US the war could have become a siege-war much like the previous World War, with each side digging in. That way the war could have lasted for several years more and with much greater losses. With the help of US forces a massive push was set in on the west front, forcing the Germans to move troops there, leaving them much more vulnerable of the east front, in turn allowing the Soviet to fight them back. In my country, Norway, the Soviet came in through the north and the allied forces through the south-west. They met in the middle, shook hands and left. Well... The Soviets did anyway. The US helped us getting back on our feet with humanitarian aid, in exchange for building surveilance stations here to keep an eye on the Soviets. Don't know if the help the US gave really justified making us a prime target for nuclear strikes in the event of a conflict.   :-\
I might not be making any point here at all.

On a sidenote: I've heard that up until the Germans invaded Poland, Hitler was praised in US media for what he did. Does anyone know more about this?

And just to keep it on track: We all love Michael Moore as much as we will love the guy who tears Michael Moore down. As we all have shown before, we like to build 'em up and tear 'em down!

Thanks for your reply Las... the historycal part of the thrad has been a relief for me.

About the part concerning thr forums... Don't you really have the feeling that 3 or 4 guys who love to show antiamericanism being totally wooly? I think there are. Whereas I can accept many of the bad thing the americans did, I have the feeling they won't never accept they've done something right.

And again... I accept the major USSR role, it is just that I don't think that their role was so overwhelming to put the American effort down.

and Yoke... yeah, Hitler was quite praised in many parts of the world before invading Poland, not just in the US, let's remember that the levels of acceptation of the british campaing in Europe were below 20% before the German bombing on civilians during BoB, with many of that of that percentage having hidden simpathies for the Germans. Actually, the great amount of hate the Germans received was gained while discovering extermination and concentration camps.

--edit--
On another note, the husband of my the sister of my granny died in the Adriathic flying in an American plane... maybe that's why I'd like their role not to be put in a secondary term.Ã,  ;)

It's interesting what you can learn by talking to old people, people who were actually around then. For example, the house in Lübeck where my grandmother lived was destroyed in a bombing raid. When it was over, the family grand piano was somewhere on the pile of rubble, miraculously non-smashed. She went up to it and tried to play the freaking national anthem, the silly girl. It didn't work because the piano was full of dust. The more she learned in the war and subsequently about what can happen to people (and what exactly happened with that war), the more that kind of absurdity was driven out of her, she says.

But this can work (sort of) the other way around as well. The mother-in-law of the owner of this house (I've rented a small room in somebody's basement, it's nice and cheap) comes from an area that is now part of Poland, and I'm sure there are plenty of people with similar histories. As far as I can understand: after the war, she and many other women in the area worked on a farm under various Polish people, who were very angry with Germans in general. This led to mistreatment of the workers, many of whom, like this woman, didn't (and don't) really understand what was going on. Ordinary people who didn't pay enough attention to politics, who'd seen their sons and so on forced to march off to war and whatnot, and who, now that the war was over, were spat on as well. They thought they'd never done anything wrong, it's always just them people up there in the guvmint keeping the little man down, oh, what a world, what a world, oh my. (This view was then amplified by living in the GDR through all its life.) And on the other side you had people who'd been on the receiving end of the Nazis' offensive war. I don't think there's any need to clarify why they'd be resentful - but some of them bore uniform hatred towards the Germans, that swarm of locusts that had brought so much ruin, and the ones who had to bear that had, again, mostly no idea they'd done anything wrong at all by not voting for parties and politicians that weren't insane, or not speaking out when things were done that were clearly not right, or by profiting from the initial successes of the war.
But what I was going to say is: I was talking to her this winter (or rather, she was talking at me, as some elderly people tend to do - I'm not heartless enough to just walk away), before the EU expansion, and she was afraid of it because of a prejudice about Poles which developed later, and which was exceptionally easily accepted and furthered by people like her because of the unpleasant experiences of her youth. She basically thought that now the borders would be opened, the Poles would come streaming through and steal, steal, steal.

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 22/06/2004 11:43:58
It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

Going even further off-topic, I'm not sure if you're not just trolling here, but I very strongly disagree that this is a good cause. These are "values" that IMO should much rather be eliminated than elevated to the ultimate virtue (though I'm not saying you're advocating this extreme either).

This is strongly linked to what I said above, of course. National pride leads to national resentment when that pride is harmed, and national resentment tends to lead to actions (of any kind) harming the national pride of the group responsible for the previous instance of pride-harming, and it can go on like this for a long time if people don't get over their patriotism.

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 22/06/2004 11:43:58

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 22/06/2004 07:13:26
Anytime.

And Junc is right. Rude as it may seem to shbaz, it's true that American textbooks contain propaganda. In fact, most countries have high school textbooks that contain propaganda.

I know Australia definately does.

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

Funny Barcik, how you can sum up exactly what I think is wrong with that one sentence.
Raising and educating children on values of patriotism and national pride is anti-intellectual, it destroys children's capability of forming their own opinions, and of relying on common sense.

Please, say what you will, but as a teacher-to-be, I'm frankly quite shocked to read things like that.

Farlander

Quote
Don't you really have the feeling that 3 or 4 guys who love to show antiamericanism being totally wooly? I think there are

It's absurd that we should have to add some praise to america after every political statement we make, just to balance it up.

I can appreciate a million things america has done, but that's not the idea here.  This isn't a game where we list insults and see who can come up with the worst.

I have taken up things I find relevant; I truly believe that young americans are exposed to more patriotic propaganda than other western countries. Schbazjinkens might find that offensive, but he should share my concerns instead. 

A common belief is that America "saved" Europe, in an act of goodwill, heroism. LasNaranjas has eagerly tried to point out how no big state would act like that without believing they could earn something in the end. There are no heroes in this world. Captain America doesn't exist.

Additionally, everybody who has studied history or social science just briefly will realise that Soviet had a bigger importance than USA in ww2.
And with this, I mean university studies by serious teachers and professors; not the internet, not your local newspaper's history column, not your buddy in school.

America played a great role as well, but as in many other cases, they happened to be on the right place in the right time, they were the straw that broke the nazi-camel's back. Without them, Europe wouldn't speak neither Russian or German by now, but the war would have lasted a bit longer, and the iron curtain would probably have been situated further west.

Like any other element of the human nature, national pride has its cons and pros. We are social beings who are united in one social frame. Without national pride, there is nothing to unite, nothing between two persons. There is no glue in the complex and shaky social structure.

So, I'll rephrase.
I don't think writing propaganda in a text book is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride. But, it also might be misused and lead to rivalaries. So, like any other thing, it has two sides.

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 22/06/2004 11:43:58
It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

Wasn't this also one of the aims of the Deutsches Jungvolk?

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 22/06/2004 11:43:58
It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride. But, it also might be misused and lead to rivalaries. So, like any other thing, it has two sides.

Barcik, earlier you criticised Moore for "giving half-truths" and "manipulating stastics". Yet, propaganda does the same thing. How can you accept one and not the other?

I follow Andail's line of thinking here. You also said earlier that you'd seek your own truth. But accepting propaganda on national pride without any criticial judgement limits one's truth (no offense intended). You can criticise Moore, fine. But you doesn't seem at all critical of textbook propaganda.

But people can feel national pride without having artifical sentiments and phrases hammered in their heads.

A natural sense of pride will take place if people can unite under things and ideas they have found to be good by themselves, that they can appreciate while still being neutral and unbiased.

In Swedish schools we are tought how cowardly Sweden acted when we let Germans soldiers transport through our borders, since we were neutral during the world wars.

We have learnt how the vikings pillaged the english countryside and raped their women and girls.

I'm not particularly proud of Sweden; except for a few things that have to do with social wellfare and living conditions, I don't find many things to be proud over.

Would things be better if my teachers had painted up wonderful images of the swedish heroism, of the importance we've had throughout history?
Would I have been better off with a false sense of pride in my mind?

Can you even imagine how ridiculous a swede would find the idea of "Captain Sweden"?

It looks like an irregular verb: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-nireland/A744257)

I encourage national pride and patriotism
You distribute propoganda
He has made a viciously anti-american pack of lies into a movie...

Gotta love a triple-standard!  ;D

I truly believe that young americans are exposed to more patriotic propaganda than other western countries, and I don't want this to this new Europe we're creating...

I feel in many people the firm believe that we as an europeans have the moral basis to criticise America. Don't you realise that you're becoming that what you hate?

Maybe captain Sweden is far, but Captain Europe is very very close. Whereas we as a members of individuals countries have been educated into a non-patriotic terms (We spent more time studying the 6 years of the Spanish civil war and their consequences than any of the previous centuries) the new generation of Europeans will grow up with a feeling of a moral and intelectual superiority against the Americans.

For me,it's a funny paradox fighting against the american patrotics values enhacing the European ones. Please, allow me to be humble and get closer to Las Narangas sentence ("We're all abunch of bastards"  ;D) than to any other.

That goes very into the line of what Ross is also saying (Ross is Shbazjenkins).

The new post about my beloved friend Petter gets closer to this, IMO, recognising that his country is not perfect and that he won't feel more pride about it than the necessary.

Please allow me to make clear that I COULD share all that critics, but I won't focus them JUST to the US.

Farlander, sorry if you misunderstood myself. I wrote my post based on almost posts, not on yours in particular. Congratulations on your marks. About History, I have never got less than 14-15 marks or more than 18 (from 0 to 20) , even in superior courses (BTW, I have two licenciate degrees - Arts and Business Administration -, however none of them is a History degree).
But my point is that History is thaught very subjectively, by each country itself, and by the teachers, too: a Japanese universal or local history book always differs a lot (eg about II World War) from a Chinese one, from an Iraqi one, from a US one, from a UK one, from an Afghani one, from a French one, from a Spanish one, from a Russian one, from a Portuguese one, and so on, and so on, and so on: I am sure you got my point of view. So what's good for the US, may not be so good for eg an European country: look at Spain, where the Prime Minister lost his elections, and the British one is probably going to lose them too...

As a Portuguese, I just can't forget or forgive the role of the US supporting Indonesia, and their hypocritical "closed eyes", both in Timor Lorosae case. So what Portugal should have done was the same the US did, about Afghani, Iraqi, etc., cases.

Now a hypothesis... (almost a philosophy one): would the "twin towers" be now on its place yet, if the actual US President hadn't rob...Ã,  er... won the elections? My own opinion: maybe yes...

Just a few oil topics:
Prescott Bush: Dresser Industries; Pennsylvania Water and Power Co.;
George H. W. Bush: Ideco (Dresser subsidiary International Derrick and Equipment Co.); Bush-Overbey Oil Development Corp.; Zapata Petroleum Corp; Zapata Offshore Co; friend... er... business parter of Muhammad Bin Laden; Director of the CIA (Nov. 1975-77);
G. W. Bush: Arbusto Energy - Bush Exploration; Spectrum 7 Energy Corp.; friend ...er... business partner of Salem Bin Laden; Richard B. Cheney; etc.

Of course almost criticism must be focused in the US, as they're also the focus of the most important evenments and acts in the last years: Indonesian support, Gulf War, Iraqi war, and so on, and so on, and so on. The first cold war, now real war, still goes, only it has a new "partner"... Of course it is also because the US have always supported the Israeli (what I personally congratulate. I even read a David Ben-Gurion's book a few years ago), but is not just that... and not so simple...

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 22/06/2004 13:54:09

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 22/06/2004 11:43:58
It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride. But, it also might be misused and lead to rivalaries. So, like any other thing, it has two sides.

Barcik, earlier you criticised Moore for "giving half-truths" and "manipulating stastics". Yet, propaganda does the same thing. How can you accept one and not the other?

I follow Andail's line of thinking here. You also said earlier that you'd seek your own truth. But accepting propaganda on national pride without any criticial judgement limits one's truth (no offense intended). You can criticise Moore, fine. But you doesn't seem at all critical of textbook propaganda.

I didn't criticize Moore for creating a biased documentary, but for this statement: "if you just give the people the truth ... the Americans will be saved", when it is clearly not what he did. I don't have any problems at all with propaganda, half-truths and manipulation. Maybe I am not ethical, maybe I'm just realistic. I accept all of those as absolutely natural. I believe a person should be smart enough to know what is propaganda and what is not.

No Primus, no need to apology, I just mentioned my marks in history because sometimes a radical (located in any of the "sides") starts to write crap, gets flamed and the conversation gets stupid. I have seen no radicals of that mentioned in this latest posts, though. :) By posting my marks I just wanted to put distance between that radicals and me.

And, hey! I have one degree too, and not related to history neither! But one of the subjects was history (I also had economical history of the World of the XXth century, and the same focused in Spain).

(Allow me to say that from that subjects I dared to ask for the sources of the member who said that the US were providing supplies to the Axis before the war. I studied pages and pages full of figures and no substantial supply for the war was traded by the Americans)

And about the hypothesis... You just gotta know that the terrorists were in US floor before G.W. Bush entered in the White house. Now, my hypothesis... Should the WTC be in its place yet, if Clinton hadn't bombed that plant in Sudan?

My own reply... no, because the terrorists are mad, and they need no excuses to hurt. Trying to understand their causes it the first step to show "sympathies" for them.

Would you ask if it's been fair if a hornet bites you? No... it's nature is to bite.

About the Spanish elections... I think that the 11-m had something to see, because the conservative won elections after the war (The local ones). Also, look at France and Germany, who didn't supported the war, a big fall for the government in the elections.

People see the war as something distant, they don't change their vote if it affects them directly ( Like it happened with the 11-M). The majority of the people is pragmatic, they punish bad management (france and Germany), no matter whether their goverment is aggressive or not if that does report a great change into their lives. That's why Bush Sr. lost, and why Bush Jr. is going to, IMO. Imagine a great management by G.W. Bush in this termin, and include to that management the black spot of the war... Do you really think that a guy who voted republicans should change their vote for their concept of idealism or peacifism? I think not.

QuoteI don't have any problems at all with propaganda, half-truths and manipulation.

In that case, I must have misread what you wrote in the past.

QuoteMy own reply... no, because the terrorists are mad, and they need no excuses to hurt. Trying to understand their causes it the first step to show "sympathies" for them.

Would you ask if it's been fair if a hornet bites you? No... it's nature is to bite.

Comparing hornets to humans is a little silly. But I'm not going to debate it further because that'd be taking this argument into the realms of animal sciene instead of politics. And I think this discussion is intense enough.

However, I don't think terrorists are killing without reason. Trying to understand their causes isn't "showing sympathy". It's being logical instead of jumping to wild theories that have no basis in fact.

Quote
I believe a person should be smart enough to know what is propaganda and what is not.

And if they don't, for example because they're schoolchildren, screw them! Let them eat lies! Maybe they'll find out when they're older, and either go into denial about it or end up with a hostile stance to the society they grew up in. That's their problem.

Seriously, this isn't like telling children there's an Easter Bunny or something. This is the important stuff. When you're about five years old, the Easter Bunny may be pretty important to you, but it's rare that anybody isn't able to deal with the fact that it doesn't exist when they grow up. And a person for whom this information leads to a severe crisis of faith would have to have a lot more wrong with them. This, however, is serious real-life stuff. And you should start giving children the truth as well as you know it, as early as you can - without scarring the minds of seven-year-olds by telling them in graphic detail about the horrors of war or NS concentration camps, of course, but don't, e.g., turn $historical_figure into another Santa Claus-like creature of pure good or tell them that $country has only ever done (good|bad). Or if you do something of the sort, stop doing it as soon as possible. People can look back at when they believed in the Tooth Fairy and smile. Disillusionment with reality is much harsher, especially if it's something part of your Pride in the Glorious Fatherland is built on.

An addition:

Quote
I didn't criticize Moore for creating a biased documentary, but for this statement: "if you just give the people the truth ... the Americans will be saved", when it is clearly not what he did.

How many textbooks have you read that contained a statement to the effect of "Oh yeah, and a lot of this isn't really true, or not completely. We made some stuff up and left some more out to make you feel good about your homeland's history. Sorry."? I don't think I've ever seen anything of the sort, and I doubt you have. And don't ask back whether textbooks generally include the phrase "this is all 100% TRUE!!" - the authors know their work is mostly going to be presented as fact, or at any rate it's their intention.

I tend to prefer any kind of animal form than a human being whose hate against a country is so intense for hijacking a plane and direct it to a building.

When I told that there is no way to understand the real causes of their hate is because no one we know could be able to do something remetely similar in cruelty and madness.

Actually, the real causes can be found in the foundational clauses of Al-Quaeda.  More or less: "We will fight till the last rest of Occidental culture will be out of our holy places" Do you see how vague it is? That works for anything... What does "the last rest of Occidental Culture"? Whereas some people thinks it means that the american military bases must go our of Arabia, they can have the excuse to fight till the last can of Coca-Cola will be out of Arabia.
Which are their holy lands? Does that include Al-Andalus (Spain)? Their hate and their determination to fight is so big that the intelectual effort I should do to understand it is overwhelming than I preffer not to attempt it.

You can't really undestand it because you haven't suffered a terrorist threat as we as Spanish did. The original foundation clauses of ETA demanded something like "the finish of the dictadure and a sufficient level of autonomy for the Basque Country". Now, Franco is dead and the basques have the highest autonomy level of a region in Europe, but they go on killing... That's why I say "Don't try to undestand them, because all their "reasons" are a bunch of excuses. Terrorism is their job...

Quote from: Farlander on Tue 22/06/2004 16:17:06
I tend to prefer any kind of animal form than a human being whose hate against a country is so intense for hijacking a plane and direct it to a building.

But you just made a comparison between hornets and terrorists. Now you prefer them to terrorists?

QuoteWhen I told that there is no way to understand the real causes of their hate is because no one we know could be able to do something remetely similar in cruelty and madness.

I could name a few examples of other groups. E.g. the KKK.

QuoteYou can't really undestand it because you haven't suffered a terrorist threat as we as Spanish did. The original foundation clauses of ETA demanded something like "the finish of the dictadure and a sufficient level of autonomy for the Basque Country". Now, Franco is dead and the basques have the highest autonomy level of a region in Europe, but they go on killing... That's why I say "Don't try to undestand them, because all their "reasons" are a bunch of excuses. Terrorism is their job...

While I understand and sympathise with your pain, I don't think it's fair to say I don't understand terrorism because our country hasn't suffered a internal terrorist attack. Nevertheless, many Australians died in the Bali bombing, so we have felt the effect of terrorism. However, I can still view terrorism with some rationalism, despite how wrong I think it is. And to say I don't understand seems a little unfair in this instance. That's why I feel some disappointment with your presumption.

As for your opinion on discarding reason, I feel that if you don't try to understand something it leads to ignorance and irrational behaviour. That is why I try to view terrorism with a rational outlook.

Also, if terrorism is their job, does that mean there are classified ads for terrorist employment in Middle Eastern newspapers? Do they have their own union? What kind of rates do they pay? Do they get paternity leave? ;D

a) I prefer hornets to terrorists, whereas a hornet can cause me a harmful bite, terrorists can put a bomb in a train where my girlfriend is going, in the plane I am flying...

b) I completely agree. I can't understand the hate of that stupids against some other human beings. I am attacking one side of the extremism, the ultra anti-occidental one, but that does not mean that I support the other side.

c) No, it hasn't been fair saying that you can't understand because you haven't suffered. The sense was more that you can't understand that long term, internal way of terrorism that we suffered. In that case, people in Ireland, Spain or Palestine could better know what I am talking about.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 22/06/2004 16:26:53
Also, if terrorism is their job, does that mean there are classified ads for terrorist employment in Middle Eastern newspapers? Do they have their own union? What kind of rates do they pay? Do they get paternity leave? ;D

Cut government subsidies to the terrorism industry! Maybe they'll go on strike.

Just if they don't do a Japanese strike!  ;D

Even with the joke, that has a lot of sense... most of the money the terrorist earn comes form the Wahabi mosques in Arabia. The Islam itself is not more hard as a religion than cristianism can be, whereas the Wahabi wing is more radical and aggressive, and it's the one in Arabia. To put an example, it is the same like in Texas the religion should be the "KKKlanish", and all of the great petro-richs of there were sponsoring "KKKlanish" churchs around the world... Not a very optimistic horizon, is it?

Quotec) No, it hasn't been fair saying that you can't understand because you haven't suffered. The sense was more that you can't understand that long term, internal way of terrorism that we suffered. In that case, people in Ireland, Spain or Palestine could better know what I am talking about.

Though my country hasn't suffered internal terrorism, that still doesn't mean I don't understand. My country has suffered from a great many other internal struggles. But I don't assume you don't understand things that my country has faced.

Fuzz: Hehehe. Perhaps Moore could do "Osama and Me" as his next film. (EDIT: What am I saying? That's what F911 is!)

  ;D

Excuses DG, no... I'm not very into Australian history.

I'd be pleased to read a quick resume of the Australian history, I just know it was a continent prison for Brits, that the original people there were the aborigens.

I also know that Aussies' mothers like to mix milk with Foster's, while daddy is hunting crocs, or killing a Koala or a Kangaroo.  :)

Just want to insert a couple of words about the "9/11"-attacks. When Farlander, as many others, make this out to be worse than other acts of war, they are really just stating their own "preferences".
IMO an act of war is an act of war. The life of a soldier is not more or less worth than the life of a civilian. To attack civilians or military is really just a question of personal ethics. Theese are not the same all over the world.

Quote from: Farlander on Tue 22/06/2004 16:57:38
I'd be pleased to read a quick resume of the Australian history, I just know it was a continent prison for Brits, that the original people there were the aborigens.

And that's just the beginning... However, my point is this: I'm sure if you look further into Australian history, you'll understand the inner struggles we've had to face.

QuoteI also know that Aussies' mothers like to mix milk with Foster's, while daddy is hunting crocs, or killing a Koala or a Kangaroo.Ã,  :)

Plus, we're all insane and play the piano really well. Most of us are also drag queens who ride around the desert in buses. That's how we get to our cricket and rugby games.

I am amazed by the different histories of the countries... It is just that I don't have time for all!  :D BTW, I don't undesrtand the piano stuff... who's the guy who plays such well that you're all considered good piano players? This is going out of topic... I think I am going to make a new thread.

Off-topic, yes. But here are a few hints: Oscar... 1996... Best Actor...

I think you can connect the dots from that.

Meanwhile, back at the Moore ranch...

Phew, this thread is growing faster than a croud for an icecream in the hottest day of a year!Ã,  ;D

Farlander, sorry if I mentioned my qualifications, it was not to impress - or diminish - anyone. I don't even wear any "course ring", and that is very usual (at least in Portugal and Spain) for licenciates, masters and doctorates. I'm not a radical either, but consider myself moderate, in the middle of a political scale political scale, oscillating ten degrees to the right and ten to the left. I am not sympathetic or affiliate in any political party: just affiliate to a syndicate, and that just to defend my labour rights.

Yes, terrorism is a cancer in any society. But now the new ones have taken it to a scale never seen before, without precedents... For me, any kind of fundamentalism / radicalism is the worst that can happen to someone. Unfortunately, no one is safe: even Portugal (being a little physical country only helps, besides we've not "natural" or "anti-natural" enemies) had to prepare itself, and is now one of the most secure countries all over Europe, mainly due to the international evenments here: Rock in Rio first, now the Euro 2004.

About that hypothesis, I still think if Al Gore had won the elections it could have been different, as the Democrat Party has been moderated and not interfering (so much as the Republican ones) on the worldwide politics and policies. And the US system is a Presidencialist system, so the President is the boss: virtual or real, that's another philosophy question.
Please don't forget that Bush won the elections by a very, very narrow difference, ca. 500 votes.
So he can lose them by a large difference: I hope so, I always prefer a Democratic President in the US, as it's (independently of we wanted it or not) the police of our world. I don't want to watch it phucked by bushes in fire.

It's natural the US have done that: due to economic reasons, they've also helped eg Hussein -Ã,  Reagan and Irangate, remember?). What's the popular symbol of the US? A capitalist - so a "$" too.
Portugal was also accused for having helped the Nazis during the II WW:Ã,  There's even a tale (call it a legend) about Salazar: it has been told when he sold food (eg canned tuna and sardines) to the allies, he warned the Axe of that shipment, and so the Axe came and destroyed the shipment; and the same would happen when he sold (if he did) to the axe. That joke ended by explaning his behaviour: he demanded those cans were filled with cabbage "trunks" or "stumps"...Ã,  The true is that, as a neutral country, of course Lisbon was one of the cities where there were most (axe and ally) spies and secret agents, so was terribly easy for a part knowing the movements of the other one, and so on. Also many foreign people forget we had legionaries (and even complete military companies, but not officially) fighting against the Axe, and not the opposite, although Salazar was very authoritary, a dictator, and with a very close systemÃ,  to Franco's one (or Mussolini's one, or even - what a shame, but I must admit it - Hitler's one): that is true, too. But Salazar was an Economist - a bloody good one, by the way -, before and after all, so he didn't let Portugal entering in the II WW mostly due to economic reasons - so it was a natural going he tried to get - economically - what he could from the war, too: he entered in politics as Ministry of the Economy, too.
There were also many anonymous Portuguese people who fought the Axe his own way. Eg a Portuguese Ambassator that saved thousands of jews during the II WW, and was dismissed and died in misery due to that (or Salazar was affraid our economy was going down due to many foreigners into our little country - he had an Economy degree and was also Professor at a Portuguese University, or he was against the jews - as Portuguse History showed how it has always been against Jews, mainly due to religious reasons; or then both): Aristides de Sousa Mendes do Amaral e Abranches.Ã,  In a few days in 1940, Aristides wrote and signed more than 30.000 provisional documents to Jews and other minorities proving they were Portuguese citizens. When the official papers ran out, they used all kind of papers - stamped with the official Portuguese one - on them, and a few words written by themselves. Salazar dismisses Aristides immediately, without any sallary (or chances to get a new job) and, in 1954, Aristides dies in the misery, in Lisbon. I have done - now once more - a minute of silence in honour of one of my idols. And I condemn Salazar once more for this phucking gesture, another black page in the Portuguese History of the 20th century till 1974: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/A/Aristides-Sousa-Mendes.htm

Phew, i'm SO glad France is going far away from "Le Pen" specimens and so... You know, most European countries are going now to social democratic and socialist politics: not much to the left, not much to the right, just the right (read correct) dosis. A few years ago, I read in "The Reader's Digest" a hard criticism against the Swedish government: a what-the-hell-was guy
criticized Sweeden, as the author didn't like the way Sweden was leading its politics. So, here's another try of "washing" minds - or at least try to introduce a reasonable dosis of doubtness on reader's minds: that magazine is read by alotta people all around the world.

You are right: a calamity like that one of the Twin Towers couldn't be performed without many months - even years - of preparation. But I also know -a and agree too - the position of John le Carré (sorry, David Cornwell) in eg "Absolute Friends" and in recent interviews about the new terrorism era and the way secret services lay nowadays in technology, instead of "in the terrain". So a big part of the guilty from the new terrorism era is due to the US and his allies, and their ways of "acquiring" and "treating" those threats. I suppose they could have learnt with Israeli Secret Services, instead of just believing in the untrustful technology "god".

Sorry, but I can't agree with your example: a hornet depends from his sting to survive, to avoid die from starvation. If you want to compare our irracional way of living with the rational beings, a bee
has his sting just for defensive purposes, and I consider ourselves as bees, not hornets: Thy shall defend thyself (but never attack without any reason). If you want to compare us with ants, there are some ants surviving just as warriors, by destroying other ones and getting their labour: so there are the same ones in the human race. But in human race destroying eg for pleasure, or for no reasons, is UNIQUE in any living form. So we souldn't ever compare us with any other living form.

Are you talking of Goeffrey Rush? I was amazed when I saw that their fingers were actually the ones who performanced in "Shrine"... I had to look at the credits because I thought it was some kind of hint, but no... "Song performanced by Geoffrey Rush"... My lack of culture was because I thought Geoffrey was Yankee... sorry!  :)

interesting reading Primus.. just a note: The dolphins also kill porpoises for fun (If my Online trnaslator goes ok, a porpoise is a little specie of sea mammal, correct?)

Hi again, and sorry to everyone for my too big and tedious writing...

Now you got me "holding my pants" :-[ (don't really know... Eng-PT Dictionary: porpoise: porco.do-mar; golfinho... even worse...)

American boycott to Hitler:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/Black.html
(lead by American Jewish Congress president)

But it seems the US could have had business with Hitler (yeah, it seems the US god is really $):
http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/bush_nazi.html
http://www.rense.com/general43/byrd.htm
http://www.geocities.com/bushfamilynazis/
http://www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html
http://universitypress.info/AmericaBetrayed1.html
Prescott Bush?!... didn't really know... damn, now I must add a third pricky bush to my hate list...
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2001-04-04.htm
IBM
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/northamerican.php
IBM again
True or not, is there to be read. If anyone want more links, pls just ask.

And I can't believe in a country where "secret affairs and documents" (who are the ones who decided that, anyway?) must be hold in secrecy for at least 40 or 50 years: eg who has really killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy?! Mafia, CIA? All? Just Oswald? I have never believed in this last hypothesis.

PS: Farlander, didn't know you were from Spain. Well, eg Galicia didn't like either the way the government lead that oil subject, nor many people - that could also be important for the losing the elections: most Galician ones hate now golf, tooÃ,  ;)... ya sdhould know what I mean...

Peter Allen did play the piano pretty well, and he was insane. Uh, that's who you're talking about, right DG? Or someone else?

EDIT: Oh, you're talking about David Hefgott. Still, I think Peter Allen adds to your cause too.

Primus: The results of the elections in Galicia have been overwhelmingly positive for the party of the government who managed the issue of the "Prestige"  :o

Actually, the great socialism fiefs in Spain are Andalucía, Catalonia and Extremadura.

Another theme... My analogy between waspees and people was just refered to the terrorists.  ;)

And... Have I read something about JFK? I can't find the sentence, sorry... But I recently said a documental which proved that:

a) An average trained sniper can target in the same objectives that "the shooter" archieved in the same time that day.

b) All the timetables can be covered by a person walking (Some people claimed that it was impossible to reach the first storey of the book storing building from the fifth in the time Oswald did, claiming that actually Oswald was allways there and the shooter in the fifth storey was another man) Also, it is possible to reach the place where a cop was killed (Supossedly by Oswald after killing JFK) and to the cinema where he was found.

c) The strange movement that JFK's head made in the Zapruder's filming (The famous seen in Oliver Stone's film, during Kevin Costner's final statement) is phisically possible. Don't ask me which was that strange phisical effect, but the experts shooted a water melon and it crawled back in the direction of the shooter, not in the opposite, as the logical seems to say... Believe me, when I saw it in a video my face remained like this---> :o

So, the history of the lonely shooter can match with what happened. Does that necessarily mean it was Oswald? No... but it seems definitely more commendable than some of the conspiration theories.

 :-[ Oops... I didn't know that... Sorry about my ignorance about Galicia's results...

Ok, Farlander, I don't want to disagree with you, but I've seen alotta old and newer documentals and read alot about that, and all were definite about it was impossible a single bullet could have wounded JFK, JK and also a JFK staff man in the same vehicle, as it was told at first. But I msut confess didn't see Stone's film yet.
Also it was proved by shooting experts (eg military ones) the rifle Oswald used could shoot all those shots and, most important, hit anyone at that distance: even with luck it was impossible.
Most people heard shots coming from other places, eg opposite the building Oswald was: and weren't any echoes.
Several witnesses saw at least a person hiding a rifle right after
the shots.
And so on.

Ok I can be completely wrong. But why every proof about JFK's death (if there's any) will be shown just in a few years? If there isn't anything wrong, they should be heve been available yet.

You know that in our countries if any government tried to create a law like that one, it (both - government and law) would last just a few days.

We're going out of topic, but, he...Ã,  :D

Actually I saw in that documental how a shooter got all that targets in 8 seconds, he did it in first term (The most important for the experiment issues, because Oswald, or the shooter, didn't had more chances) and he made it again 7 times of 10. The rest failed because a failure of the weapon (It's amazing how history can change by little facts... Do you imagine the shooter's weapon failing that day?Ã,  :D)

I think that the "It is impossible to shoot in time" it's some kind of urban legend. Now I can say that I've heard the "There is no time to shoot all that shoots" theory and I've seen that it can be done. If I have a chance I preffer to believe my eyes! :)

About the many wounds, it apparently can be done by bullets rebound. If you've seen Oliver Stone's film, the deffenders of the "third shooter" theory say that the trajectory of the bulllets expressed in the Warren's report is impossible (They make fun of it calling it calling "The theory of the magic bullet"). Apparently, and acording to the documental I am talking about, that "magic bullet" theory was a very early explanation and lately has been found a so much satisfactory explanation.

(http://www.impiousdigest.com/lbj/MBULLET.jpg) The path of the magic bullet, an early explanation that nobody accepts today. The deffensors of the conspiracy theory use this as an evidence that the Warren's report lied... But in that report this diagram does not longer exist.

About the witnesses... If you've seen CSI (22:15 CET Mondays, in T5) you'll yet know that they're the less belierable evidences in a investigationÃ,  ;).

one. Osborne, altough a soldier, was a lousy shooter. I've been in the warehouse in Dallas and the place where Kennedy was shot. It's quite a distance. He could shoot earlier.
two. If you believe the "magic bules theory" then you can just as well believe in the 2nd/3rd gunner.
tree. What are we fighting for.

a) I think you have misunderstood me. I haven't refered to the "magic bullet" theory as the real... The magic bullet theory is quite stupid, IMO. I just mentioned it because the "conspiration theory guys" like to show it as an definitive evidence that the government lies... But the "magical bullet theory" is no longer used in the Warren report.

IMO, how popular the "magic bullet" theory is, shows how the "pro-conspracy" guys like to divert the attention, because they've made popular an old silly theory in spite of the revisited and commendable one.

b) Oswald (Who is Osborne?) was in the top ten shooters of their company... I don't really know how the "rumour" that he was a crappy shooter was spreaded, but I've seen in that documentals the reports that confirm that his shooting performances were very good.

c) Is it funny how the threads change of topic, is it? He... DG is going to kill me, so... More Michael Moore please!  :D

Don't worry, I won't kill you. In fact, I'm going to use my magic powers to steer this conversation back on track.

Ahem...

Isn't it interesting how time has passed, especially from the Warren Commission's report on JFK (which answered nothing really), to the current 9/11 investigation. I remember co-chair Lee Hamilton say he didn't want the 9/11 investigation to end up like Warren Commission investigation. So, what does everyone think of the 9/11 investigation so far?

Wow! Brilliant fucking segue, even if I do say so myself!

Farlander:
Sorry again for having took too much time, attention and efforts from you.
Ok, I must believe on you and on your proofs. EG every documental I saw - and everything I read - pointed Oswald as being a lousy shooter... and so on. Maybe not convinced, but I'm "vinced". And must follow my own motto: keeping my mind open for other opinions and proofs and so. Sorry for having run away from the main question here, about Disney. I don't like Disney's censorship, but I didn't see the movie either, so I must accept the "vote" and opinions of the majority about this subject.Ã, 
I have alotta doubts yet, as eg DGMacphee, but it's ok, I don't want to increase this so controversial issue.

As a conclusion about II WW and the help America did to the Axe, don't forget America was the land of free opportunity and iniciatives, so it was natural alot of businessmen wanted to profit: it was bad, but, in many cases, $ was stronger than moral, ethic, etc., issues. Eg a few years ago, during the diplomatic "fight" of Portugal against Indonesia, I discovered a box of CD-Rs were made in Indonesia. I threw the CD-Rs away, and hated they could have been sold in a Portuguese shop - from then on, I checked "made in" in whatever before buying ...

I think it was this thread that I mentioned the 9/11 investigations, but I think they are utter crap. In my personal opinion, they are really stupid and accomplish nothing. Like I said, all it is is "It's not my fault! Look at him!" type of thing, so nothing gets accomplished. There's Clinton coming out of the woodwork as well, trying to make himself look good and raise sales of his book by saying that he knew everything about the attack but no one listened. I was tired of it from the very beginning.

I don't think we shouldn't look to blame someone for this attack, except, uh, maybe the terrorists group that performed it, but we can't because we don't "understand" them. Let's just kind of move on and accept the fact that these sick individuals did that, just like so many other sick militant idealists (from car bombers, to the Oklahoma City Bomber).

What in the world are you talking about?

I am more than interested in knowing where you get this idea that we can't blame the terrorists for september 11th.

Are you insane?

Also, the whole Clinton trying to increase book sales... Yea, he doesn't know what he's talking about... It's not like he was President or anything... Yea just some crazy guy who wrote a book is trying to get people to buy it...  What the hell? He was President of the United States of America. He was trying to get rid of Osama Bin Laden towards the end of his term but that was all just publicity and a smoke screen for Monica Lewinski, right?

Jesus christ man... Maybe if I attack you like this you'll respond to a single one of my posts that had questions directed AT YOU in it. Or you'll keep ignoring them like it seems your ignoring the rest of the world.

Was it a smoke screen, I would lean towards yes. You see, the one good thing I could say about the Clintons are that they understand the game of politics very well. He tried to move the public eye away from all his affairs (which, on a slightly unrelated note, a new survey says that about 90% of American's think are wrong to do), so he made an effort to get rid of Osama Bin Laden. Good job he did of that, no wait, he did practically nothing. It was our current president that removed him from power.

Frankly, I think Clinton's book is stupid mostly because he came out and says that his book will be the most important presidential memoir since U.S. Grant's book. Grant's memoirs were very well done, taught the reader a lot about morality, and were written so that Grant's family could be out of debt after Grant died. Clinton's book is just a political agenda driven thing that is rather silly.

Also, I never said we shouldn't blame the terrorists for 9/11, I said that they are only ones we SHOULD blame, and I think it's stupid when people say we can't blame them because we don't "understand" their beliefs.

I do not ignore the world. I appologize if I didn't answer your questions, but I probably missed them among the numerous amount of long posts.Ã,  I am not insane, and please do not use the Lord's name in vain. I hope this post helps you to calm down, my friend.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Wed 23/06/2004 12:29:30
Isn't it interesting how time has passed, especially from the Warren Commission's report on JFK (which answered nothing really), to the current 9/11 investigation. I remember co-chair Lee Hamilton say he didn't want the 9/11 investigation to end up like Warren Commission investigation. So, what does everyone think of the 9/11 investigation so far?

Wow! Brilliant fucking segue, even if I do say so myself!

Any surprises there? Commitees are useless.

lord's name in vain what now? anyway

again, please tell me where these people are saying that we can't blame the terrorists for september 11th. do you have names?

and is the 9/11 commitee trying to blame september 11th on anyone? I thought they were there to find out what happened security and intelligence wise in the United States.

So maybe you can answer my questions now:

http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?topic=13722.msg180631#msg180631

Quote from: Barcik on Wed 23/06/2004 22:17:24
Any surprises there? Commitees are useless.

Like I said, it was just a segue (and a brilliant one too)!

Quote from: Sutebi on Wed 23/06/2004 21:59:55
I am not insane, and please do not use the Lord's name in vain.

*figures that things couldn't possibly get more off-topic from the OP, so decides to voice opinion on something vaguely mentioned*
I suppose that the definition of 'using the Lord's name in vain' really depends on your interpretation of the Bible. The most common definition of using the Lord's name in vain is, of course, using it like a cuss word. That's the one I was always taught throughout Christian schooling, and the one a vast majority of Christians seem to hold.
I, on the other hand, have long interpreted that differently. IMO, using the Lord's name in vain is using it as though it doesn't matter what His will is. In other words, it would be saying that you speak for God's opinion whether you do or not. That's why "goddamn" would be considered using the Lord's name in vain. It's an abbreviation for "may God damn you", and if used in that context it would be speaking for God by saying it is His will to unleash damnation upon you.
I always have interpreted it this way because to me the commandment makes more since this way. Under the common interpretation, it's just rather disrespectful, and even then it's only disrespectful if used in the right context. But if you think about it, so many wars have been caused by people assuming that they know God's will. The whole "God wants me to kill you" belief has caused countless wars throughout the ages. I think that God would rather have all that destruction stopped than avoiding being slightly disrepected. Don't get me wrong: a devout Christian shouldn't, IMO, use God's name as a swear word. However, I don't think that's what he meant by the commandment.
Also, the whole "God wants me to kill you" belief is largely responsible for all the violence in the Middle East, and is especially respoinsible for terrorist attacks, including 9/11.
(note how I managed to swerve my post back into the current topic at the end  ;))

I'm warning you all! If this conversation turns to religion, I'm going to do another segue!

FEEL THE WRATH OF THE SEGUE!

What does segue mean? No answer in my online translators...

/me wants to understand DG's posts...

A segue is a transition from one conversation to another. It's actually more of a musical term, but it's also applied to conversation.

Remember the fourteenth commandment:
"Thou shalt not segue"

Woops! Seems like I managed to turn this into religion after all.
Darn it.

It's funny you mention religion cause George W Bush is a huge Christian. Speaking of GWB, did you know that F911 is about the man himself?

(YES! Still got the moves!)

I thought that a segue was one of those funny little scooters that keep themselves upright using gyroscopes...

Remember the fifteenth commandment:
"Thou shalt not confuse segues with gyroscope-controlled scooters."

man, I did it again.
I'm like DG with his Hitler.

Speaking of Hitler, it would be non productive to liken anything to the Nazi regime for the purpose of discussion, for example comparing Dubya to the Fuhrer.

Especially noting the difference in film careers. Triumph of the will is far more supportive than, say, Farenheight 911

Speaking of gryoscope-controlled scooters...

(http://fatali.servebeer.com/~ilkka/bush/bush_segway_idiotproof.jpg)

I DID IT AGAIN!! WOO!! IN YOUR FACE, SPACE COYOTE!!

http://universitypress.info/AmericaBetrayed1.html

Religion?!... Politics!!!... All is due to politics!!!...

I dont remember who, but someone is making a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America" and a lot of top journalists walked out of the premiere of the movie, recently.

Quote from: Scummbuddy on Fri 25/06/2004 17:16:51
I dont remember who, but someone is making a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America" and a lot of top journalists walked out of the premiere of the movie, recently.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Not sure if it's friendly satire or raving conservative bullshit. Sometimes it's hard to tell.


And sometimes it's easy  ;D
http://www.counterbias.com/059.html (completely unralated to the above link.. just thought it was a pantload of laughs)


One quick question: How many people actually think Moore's film will succeed in its goal? Seems to me it's just pissing off conservatives and dividing the nation even more. I don't want to reelect Bush either, but is this the.. er..  SAFEST way to fix things?

QuoteI don't want to reelect Bush either, but is this the.. er..Ã,  SAFEST way to fix things?

No. I don't think so.

I agree that the whole conservative vs. liberal thing is a little carried away. Attacking Michael Moore isn't going to solve anything just as much as liberals attacking Bush. I mean, I can't stand the guy and all, but investing so much money to talk trash about him is a little counter productive.

On the other hand if Moore's original point was to make the nation aware of the Bush-Bin Laden connection, then I think that's okay. Problem is he's taken it up as a crusade to "remove Bush from power". Or at least that is the spin the media is putting on it.

I think Kerry has the right idea. Stand around and don't say much of anything and let Bush get himself voted out of office. I'm not sure if it's working though. As little as I currently like Kerry I can't really say I'm 100% ready to throw my vote his way. Right now the only reason I would vote for Kerry is to vote Bush out. But, I don't need Michael Moore for that, and neither do most of the Americans that would agree with his movie. Really all Moore is doing is making those that are on the fence with Bush just go ahead and stand firm on his side(Bush's).

Once again though, I don't think this was Moore's original intention, I think the media and fame has turned his point into something else. Maybe I'm wrong.

EDIT: I just wanted to point out this article. I found it a bit shocking. (WARNING, there is a picture from the prisoner abuse at the link which is somewhat disturbing.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3834089.stm

I'm just confused as to why my country needs immunity from a war crimes court?

later,
-junc

I found this quote from another forum:

A fuckhead co-worker of mine asked me who was destroying the republican party. I answered 'themselves'.



Also, the reviews for F911 are in. 84% from Rottentomatoes.com (77% from the cream of the crop):
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Fahrenheit911-1133649/

And a 67% on metacritic:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/fahrenheit911/

Why the difference? RT gets scores from more sources, but metacritic gets scores mainly from the major publications.


Also, from what I can tell, the film is more toned-down than BFC. I like this comment from Stephen Whitty:

"When Moore is willing to forget his personal animosity for a moment, his film regains its amazing power."


And this from Ebert:

"If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush's determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites."


But Fred Topel gives a negative review, as this comment shows:

"Moore has resorted to showing us stuff that The Daily Show covers all the time. Did you really need this film to tell you that war is bad?"


And this negative comment from Glen Lovell:

"A film so sloppy, illogical and formulaic that it begs the questions: Can a hatchet job actually elicit sympathy for its sitting-duck target?"

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 24/06/2004 02:38:08
lord's name in vain what now? anyway

again, please tell me where these people are saying that we can't blame the terrorists for september 11th. do you have names?

and is the 9/11 commitee trying to blame september 11th on anyone? I thought they were there to find out what happened security and intelligence wise in the United States.

So maybe you can answer my questions now:

http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?topic=13722.msg180631#msg180631

I guess not...

While surfing the 'net I came across this little gem ...

(http://www.twin-design.com/ags/graphics/mooreisfat.jpg)

I thought, this is a good thread for this!Ã,  I don't know why calling him fat is funny ... but the picture is a pretty good likeness.

Calling Michael Moore fat is really just a cheap potshot. I mean, it's like saying Rush Limbaugh's points of view are incorrect because he's fat:

(http://www.rtis.com/nat/pol/rush/rush.gif)

That's what's great about Michael Moore! He embodies everything associated with the US.

That's what makes it hard to say he hates America - He's a chubby, baseball cap wearing, beer drinking blue collar joe.

After 9/11, a lot of people came out saying that it was our fault that it happened, I think some equated it to the tower of Babel. Then other's came out and said, "No, this just Islamic extremists." If you want specific names, that might take a while to find as this happened a long time ago, but I could try, I just have been rather busy recently.

Yes, I am sure the intent of the hearings are to find security and inteligencey agency problems in the United States, but because nowadays no one accepts culpability for their actions, it has turned more into an attempt to blame everyone but themselves. No one wants to lose their jobs so it's rather silly.

In reference to your other post, no, I did not complain when the French did not join us in the war. I have faith in the American troops, and know that they were quite capable of handling Iraq without all the white flags getting in their ways.

And yes, I believe Bush stands by his word. He said that he would help ease Iraq into a democracy, and he done so.

What I mean by "tired old connections" are these conspiracy theory things about Bush. Like www.bushbodycount.com that tells us how many people Bush has secretly killed. That's just weird. I remember when that used to happen for Clinton, which was also really stupid, but at least then the majority of the news organizations where saying how "mentally disturbed" these "Clinton-Haters" were. But, as we can see, there is nothing wrong with Bush-hating now.

By "people" do you mean just random people on the street? In reference to people saying it was the US's fault?

Or do you mean Senators?

Again, on Bush standing by his words. You mean he stood by his word. What about all those other words he said like finding Osama Bin Laden dead or alive or No Child Left Behind or that health records would remain private?

Also, I haven't heard anything silly like that website. What news networks do you watch and how the heckfire can you not remember the Clinton impeachment trials? And how people attacked and attacked and attacked him and his wife and even his daughter? Oh wait, just like people attack Bush and his wife and his daughters... Oh wait, so everything is exactly the same. Hooray!

Click on the link and you will go to it. The impeachment trials were about Clinton lying under oath, it had nothing to do with Clinton-haters being called "mentally disturbed." What I actually said in my last post is, yes, people attacked both families (although, I frankly think children should be left out of this stuff) but nobody in the mainstream media is saying, "These Bush-bashers are insane!" The did say this stuff during the Clinton times. Everything isn't the same.

By "people," I mean proffessors and scholars considered "experts" in their fields saying that we should not blame the Muslims because we do not "understand" their religion. There were a lot of people who said stuff like this on news shows, then again there were a lot of people who came out and said, "Hey, guys, these are extremists. Their views do not represent Islam."

Also, the U.S. is still searching for Bin Laden. Merely because the news chose to talk about the war in Iraq and other stories over that one, you think that the search stopped all together? As for the No Child Left Behind act, I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but it's my understanding that it is a continual proccess and it is just starting out. Should results appear before the key components (standardized testing, starting in 2005-6 school year) has not occured yet?

Quote from: George W BushQÃ,  Ã,  Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden.Ã,  Why is that?Ã,  Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?Ã,  Final partÃ,  --Ã,  deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat ofÃ,  --

THE PRESIDENT:Ã,  Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all.Ã,  Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time.Ã,  And the idea of focusing on one person is --Ã,  really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person.Ã,  And he's justÃ,  --Ã,  he's a person who's now been marginalized.Ã,  His network, his host government has been destroyed.Ã,  He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match.Ã,  He isÃ,  --Ã,  as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hideÃ,  --Ã,  if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is.Ã,  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.Ã,  I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan.Ã,  There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly.Ã,  We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy.Ã,  We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

QÃ,  Ã,  But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT:Ã,  Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him.Ã,  And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure.Ã,  And, again, I don't know where he is.Ã,  IÃ,  --Ã,  I'll repeat what I said.Ã,  I truly am not that concerned about him.Ã,  I know he is on the run.Ã,  I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.Ã,  I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he becameÃ,  --Ã,  we shoved him out more and more on the margins.Ã,  He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore.Ã,  And if weÃ,  --Ã,  excuse me for a minuteÃ,  --Ã,  and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the thingsÃ,  --Ã,  part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do.Ã,  See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle.Ã,  I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not.Ã,  But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective.Ã,  And I can assure you, I am not going to blink.Ã,  And I'm not going to get tired.Ã,  Because I know what is at stake.Ã,  And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.htmlÃ,  Ã,  let me highlight some parts...

"So I don't know where he is.Ã,  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him"

and

"See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months."

So six months into this he stopped thinking about Osama Bin Laden? Wow...

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." Also from George W. Bush's mouth.

No Child Left Behind

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/nclb/

since it's at democrats.org I don't expect you to believe it or read it.

I'm really not expecting to change your mind on anything, I'm mostly wondering what kind of awkward way you can defend these points.

and with comments like this "I have faith in the American troops, and know that they were quite capable of handling Iraq without all the white flags getting in their ways." I don't expect much...

So then why did the US ask for help in the first place? Just to be nice? "Hey other countries, we're totally in control of this but would you like a piece of this action? I mean we don't need any help but can you help?"

So, I finally saw F. 9/11 yesterday. I was very pleased. I'm really not sure how anyone is going to say much about Moore "fudging" facts. Most of it was interviews with people and stock footage prooving his points. I'm sure some things will be picked apart but, whatever. The movie, as a film, was VERY well done. At one point, using stock footage, Moore has a scene from 9/11 that is almost beautiful, it's just so well done. I honestly didn't learn much from the movie that I hadn't already learned on the web. I'm sure most of it is stuff that your typical American is unaware of. The film has my thumbs up and five stars and all that hoopla. The audience I was with applauded at the end of the film. Oh, and my favorite "quote" from the movie:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier..."
       - The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush

I dug around a bit and found it quoted on several sources, including CNN, oh, and in the movie, there is video footage. So, it's not something Moore made up or fudged. I found this on the web:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
     - George W. Bush

Oh, and Mr.C and Sutebi, by chance could you start a new topic with your discussion. I know I have contributed to this thread going off topic a lot...but, now that the movie is out (and will be out on the...9th? in the UK) it would be nice to see some proper discussion on it. Thanks. ;D

later,
-junc

Junc, wanna know how people can accuse Moore of lying? By lying!

Sean Hannity said that Michael Moore said in the movie that noone in congress has a child in the army when this is in fact a lie! 1 congressman has a son in the army.

Of course, This is a lie. The movie says that no congressman except for 1 has a child in the army.

oh lying liars...

Just saw the movie -- have to say it f**king rocks! I plan on seeing it again soon hopefully.

I could care less if it's too one-sided -- f**k that! Bush and co. are evil, and there's not much to that other side. I honestly can't understand anyone who supports or defends Bush, sorry; I can't stand the sight or sound of him at all.

ABBA - Anyone but Bush again!

Sorry for dragging up this old thread, but having just seen the film I'd like to say that this time it does meet with my approval.

In Bowling for Columbine there seemed to be far more bias and questionable facts, whereas Fahrenheit (although obviously biased) didn't tell any outright lias or try to fudge any figures ... I agree that it was very well done.

Having said that, having to watch some of Bush's speeches is cringe-making; and that bit where he sat in silence at the school for 10 minutes or so was just bizarre.

I was also somewhat disappointed that Blair wasn't singled out for criticism too, though I guess the film is directed at an American audience.

Is it out on film yet? I still haven't seen it.

you mean on dvd? that happens in a month I think.

I've also heard it's going to be replayed in theatres. Coincidentally, just before the election.

Also, Moore wants to get the film broadcast on TV before the election. His distribution company (I think it's Columbia) isn't agreeing so far, and I doubt they will either.

I also liked the film a lot.

/me is still waiting on Sutebi's answers

Oddly and unexpectedly, the most interesting film I've seen recently covering Iraq wasn't Michael Moore's, but a BBC4 documentary by Sean Langan (who made Travels of a Gringo).

He met US forces and members of the Iraqi resistance. The odd thing is, only a few people from each group were the maniacs I might have expected. The vast majority seemed like relatively reasonable people. The blame was clearly laid on those politicians responsible for the situation that these individuals were in.

I liked the film.
But I do have some critic. There was this part where he displayed the countries that were in the coalision in a very degrading way. They forgot to mention countries like england and australia, so it looks like only small countries are in it.

Also, the news made some bogus facts like aluminium plates in a train that might become used for rockets. Moore should have focused on these old news stories and proof that the news was wrong.

* Sutebi feels that MrColossal is kind of whiney, but he'll overlook it for now.

Now, I haven't been to these boards much lately, because of the whole real world thing, but I stopped by recently and I decided to pipe up again.

So, why did the US ask for other countries help in the first place? Because they were being polite. Say you're going to go play some Football with your buddies, and you've got a really good team, you don't really need to ask anyone for help, but you'll still invite anyone you happen to pass on your way to the field because, a) they'd be all heart broken if you didn't, and b) more men does add a factor of imtimidation to the game, even if half of them don't do anything. So basically, America was being polite to other militaries of the world. Making them feel good about themselves.

As towards the point of Michael Moore Hates America, if you read the site the filmmaker says that it isn't a film about Michael Moore specifically. It is about why the film maker believes America is great. And he also has some pretty interesting people as interviewees.

Oh, and just for a little fun:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Out

Yea I'm whiny thanks... I just thought we were having a discussion, you say something I say something you ask questions I ask questions... Ya know?

But again whatever... 3 years and we haven't found Osama [you think we're still looking for him, quotes from the president show that we aren't really.] the US government botched the hell out of Iraq and you think the only reason we asked for help was a show of good faith a kinda "Hey, you want in on this?"

Yea I bet all these countries are totally heartbroken that we didn't ask them to help us out in a war... Man, I feel real bad, we should send cookies or something to them.

So tell me this, if we only asked them to be polite how come when France declined to help there was this big hoopla about them being assholes and such? That makes no sense if all we were doing was asking them out of good faith, we should have just been like "Ok, you got it!"

I think it's just a general sentiment that a lot of French are asses. Hey, nothing wrong with that. I know a lot of French people. One of my good friends who lives a couple doors down is French, but he's an ass. It's funny when you get right down to it. So, yeah, it was just a general feeling about the French Snootiness.

I'm glad the American government asked our government to join the team! It was so nice of them to ask! Granted, there're fears we've become a bigger terrorsit target (ala the Jakarta bombing of our embassy), much like Spain, but hey it was sure nice of the Bush Administration to offer the invitation!

And say what you want about the French being snooty, but I think it's far more arrogant to rename your chips to "Freedom Fries" in retaliation to a country of snooty people who don't want to be a part of a stupid war led by a stupid man.

Hey guys, since someone dragged up this thread, I should tell you.

I watched this movie at a huge outdoor screening in Crawford, Texas.Ã,  Home of Bush.Ã,  A group of friends took a road trip.  The screening got a lot of press.Ã,  i suppose the paparazzi wanted a riot to break out or tear gas to be thrown or something.

How civil was it? Any major controversy or was everyone just chilling out?

Freedom Fries were more or less a joke, nobody really called them that, and it was a governmental decree like I get the impression that you're alluding to in your post. It was just some guys having fun.

I mean, they said the same thing about French Toast, also in jest, but nobody called it Freedom Toast. It was all fooling around. People knew that French Toast had nothing to do with the French, it was named after the man who invented it: Dr. Toast.

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 14/09/2004 13:50:57
Freedom Fries were more or less a joke, nobody really called them that, and it was a governmental decree like I get the impression that you're alluding to in your post. It was just some guys having fun.

I mean, they said the same thing about French Toast, also in jest, but nobody called it Freedom Toast. It was all fooling around. People knew that French Toast had nothing to do with the French, it was named after the man who invented it: Dr. Toast.

From my memory, there was a lot of animosity towards the French during the Iraq war and the whole "freedom" thing was the result of such animosity, even if it was a joke. And even if it was a joke, it was still arrogant.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 14/09/2004 04:06:50
I'm glad the American government asked our government to join the team!

Yeah, it was sweet of the US to ask Britain to join in too. We would have felt completely left out if they'd gone down to the park to play war without calling on us.

On the subject of the French, I'd like to point out that the States went to the UN for a resolution that would support their invasion of Iraq. Any attempt to block the resolution would be reffered to by the US as a 'reckless veto'. By saying, the States successfully scuppered any attempt to prevent the war and disenfranchised other members of the UN. It was a cynical and supremely arrogant move which really shows what little interest the Bush administration has in the troublesome matter of other nations.

And if freedom fries was meant as a joke, I assume the war in Iraq was the punchline.

Sutebi, that ballpark allegory was the most arrogant and ignorant thing I've heard in ages....the US completely overrides the UN (which leads to years of war and tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties) and you make it sound like some bloody picnic.

And don't try to hide the fact that the popular consensus in america was that all of France could be nuked back to stoneage for all they cared. The Freedom Fries thing was indeed a joke, but not intended as one; it was a sincere attempt to display the resentment people felt towards the french. That's how childish some americans are, sad but true.

Nosiree, we're not laughing at your jokes, Sutebi

Clue:
"Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry specializing in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur."
"Yes, but now I work for the United Nations"
"Then your work has not changed."

The reason I mention this quotation is twofold: first, Clue was a pretty funny movie, and second, it's completely true. The UN is filled with, frankly, a bunch of bureaucratic fools who have their heads so far up their asses, and up Kofi's ass at times that they don't know what they are doing. The UN is nice in theory, but in practice is a joke. Like Communism, and look how that always ends up.

Also, come on guys, it's the French.

Yeah, I base all my political assumptions on movies based on board games too.

Wait until you hear what I think of the Sudan civil war based upon my knowledge of Jumanji!

What I'm saying Sutebi is you have no idea how politics work, having based everything you know on a mythical land of magic and fairies. Go back to playing Snake'n'Ladders, cause I really think you're out of your depth here!

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 14/09/2004 17:35:18Also, come on guys, it's the French.

I hope you're kidding ... the French have given us some great things!

Julie Delpy for one ...

Edith Piaf ...

And French Kissing is tops!!

I think the whole 'freedom' fries things was stupid.Ã,  So many people immediately hated the French ... and for what?Ã,  I've often said that I can't stand how a lot of the world hates me because I'm an American, when in fact, what they really hate is the American government.Ã,  It's ignorant to judge/hate me because you hate GeeDubya just as it was ignorant for Americans to hate the French because their government wouldn't back a U.S. war.

I admit (not proudly) that I was mad and made some anti-french comments at the time.Ã,  But when my blood settled I realized it was stupid.Ã,  Just to clarify!

Ignorance all around IMO.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 14/09/2004 17:40:43Wait until you hear what I think of the Sudan civil war based upon my knowledge of Jumanji!

Children's Games are better than schooling!!Ã,  I've always known I can solve the world's hunger problems because of my years and years of playing 'Hungry Hungry Hippos'.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 14/09/2004 17:53:34
Children's Games are better than schooling!!  I've always known I can solve the world's hunger problems because of my years and years of playing 'Hungry Hungry Hippos'.

Together we can solve all health care policy with our knowledge of Operation!

Sutebi, your contributions to this political debate don't merit replies anymore.
I don't know if you're just trying to make us annoyed or something.
Whatever.

Even though it was based off a board game, the satire was still present in the film, and there is no way you can say it wasn't there. In fact, it is my knowledge of politics that allowed me to find the political satire thrown into Clue actually funny.

Also, yes, there are some very nice things that came from France, and as I said before, I know a lot of French whom I like very much, but there is a general atmosphere in France that I do not like.

That and the smell.

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 14/09/2004 18:26:03
Even though it was based off a board game, the satire was still present in the film, and there is no way you can say it wasn't there. In fact, it is my knowledge of politics that allowed me to find the political satire thrown into Clue actually funny.

I'm glad you found a movie funny. I really am. However, quoting lines from a movie doesn't suddenly make you Professor Genius from WhoopdieDoo University. And it sure doesn't give you the necessary background for explaining how the UN works. Granted if you posted something like your political science degree, or maybe quote a few news articles, perhaps I would have shown a slight interest in what you've got to say.

But since you quoted lines from a wacky 80s comedy movie to demonstrate your case against the UN, anything you say is now suspect and dubious.

You forget, I'm a Republican, I'm always right.

I actually have a degree in quotes from wacky 80's comedy movies.

Hahaha

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 14/09/2004 17:35:18
The UN is nice in theory, but in practice is a joke.

Your argument begs the question. The UN was proven ineffectual, or "a joke" because the US disregarded it in the run-up to war. You argue that the US disregarded it because it was "a joke".

And you might want to give up on this line of argument:

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 14/09/2004 17:35:18
Also, come on guys, it's the French.

It might work with other bigoted, always-right-republicans. But you're going to have to try harder when dealing with people who think.Ã,  ;)

Quote from: Sutebi on Tue 14/09/2004 17:35:18
Clue:
The UN is nice in theory, but in practice is a joke. Like Communism, and look how that always ends up.

I'll have a crack at this. I fully support the UN as an orginazation that is totally needed for a peaceful society. It have done great work with humanitarian projects. It could really help with world peacekeeping. I think that right now, its becoming so caught up in beucratic messes that it cant really do that job.

Example? Sudan.

Sudan is a grade A 100% human rights abuser. Textbook case for somebody the world needs to open a can of whoop-ass on. the US isnt interested, partly because there isnt much in it for them, and partly because of they stupid way we've tied up our armed forces, we wouldnt be able to help anyways. This looks like a great project for the UN to tackle, to bring some legitimacy back to its military and peacekeeping programs in the face of the world.

Its argued. They've fought amounst themselves, producing resolution after resolution. Now they threaten Sanctions. Ok, thats on the right track. Whoops! China says they will veto any sanctions! Guess a few thousands troops by Germany, France, Spain, Turkey, the US would be out of the question then huh?

Therein lies the problem. The veto power is killing the UN's chances to get anything done. The US does it. France does it. China does it. and until that veto is removed, the UN isnt going to be able to do its job, keep the peace and make sure leaders play by the rules.

It's very true about the right of veto. I remember years back leading a class debate in uni against whether the UN has done it's job or not. We won by a landslide but that doesn't mean I would ridicule or dislike the UN. They're EXTREMELY important and a lot of their problems come from people not respecting them.

I LOVE Clue, it's a freaking hilarious movie - but I think, Sutebi, that you're just trying to be funny with your opinion. Not that any major decisions are gonna be made in this thread, but it's important we all keep our braincells going about all this.

Mmmm... It's a pity, but unfortunately I must say that the UN, in spite of being a good idea, does not work. I blame those who unaccomplished a resolution of the UN in first time.

Anybody knows who they were? Mmm... I remember that there was a UN plan to create a Israelian and a Palestinian state in the place of a former british protectorate, but someone [Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordania and Iraq] started a war against the Jews (who, no matter what sympathies or not they make you feel nowadays, but in that time were a population crushed by the holocaust).

So, when now the poor arabs come crying to the UN, I jusn't can do more than thinking "Was the UN in your head when you had the oportunity to save the life of the semi-terminated Jew population?"

Of course, even not agreeing in many of the vengeative attitudes of the Jews against the palestinians, I can perfectly understand the feeling that they must do something for protecting their own life, because the first example of "how the UN came to deffend them" in 1948 does not give a lot of room for hope.

(http://www.libertaddigital.com/vinieta/cf/04.09.19.UNthreatening-X.gif)
A nice example of how some people sees how effective the UN is...   ;D

Err… I just sat down and decided to read this thread from start to finish and to say the least; I don't want to see another political statement for reasons regarding my sanity. Because… c'mon on people! Trying to sort out everything that's wrong in the world into one neat little folder is like trying to herd cats!

The only way a world run by intelligent beings can peacefully operate requires it to be populated by same gendered, same opinioned, same featured, same natured and overall a people with the same religion… and while there is variation, there will always be conflicts…

“A brave new world… the people in it…”
                               -A brave new world

P.S: please don't hold it against me if I just resurrected a dead thread… :-[

Farlander, those aren't just "some people", those are Cox and Forkum, and they're more patriotic than a flock of inbred rednecks.
Why don't you buy one of their t-shirts:
http://thoseshirts.com/patriotic.html

Yes, diplomacy takes time. But it's hard to carry through disarmament when another country is standing ready to invade.
In Iraq, UN sanctions had led to the destruction of several illegal missiles - this was at the time of the UN inspections. Both the disarmament and the inspections were cancelled due to you-know-what.
Oh wait, I tell you; america started a war.

The UN-inspectiors were well organised, they had established long-term relations with native informers and had a web of intelligence.
The american inspectors didn't even have interpreters at first.

Whatever you reply with, just please spare us other pro-war, pro-bush cartoonists.

They're funny :) And whereas I see some of their cartoons are so extreme-righted that they reach the state of ridiculous, I totally agree with this one.

About the t-shirts, I preffer the one in which a taliban asks giggling to an american Soldier

"Where were you the 9/11?"

And he replies

"At the Pentagon"

;D

EDIT: I don't want to offend anybody, but putting cartoons in the middle of the posts for explaining opinions, or putting a funny strokes at the end has been used many times in the past, DG's ones are really lovely examples of that. I don't want to extract the conclussion that the level of plurality of this forum has decreased to the point that only left-oriented cartoons are accepted, because that would make me feel vey sad.Ã,  :-\

C'mon guys, let's take all this more easy...

That is fair Farl, and these Cox & Forkum fellows do at least make Michael Moore look sophisticated, but some of their work is appauling.

For instance this 'Bring it on Allah' tee-shirt. http://thoseshirts.com/sam.html

The intention was to induce 'spluttering impotent outrage' among lefties.

Well, I'm not spluttering.

I suppose the difference is, an extreme left-wing cartoon would be more likely to feature bunnies getting along with one another than its right-wing counterpart.

Quote from: Ali on Tue 21/09/2004 19:45:53
I suppose the difference is, an extreme left-wing cartoon would be more likely to feature bunnies getting along with one another than its right-wing counterpart.

/me compares Zell Miller's speech with that of Barack Obama's

Look how that fits so well!

So I guess we're done then Sutebi? I just want to know, does this bore you, do you agree we aren't getting anywhere, or could you not take it seriously for too long?

edit:
"Bush beseeched U.N. members to help rebuild Iraq, saying, "The U.N. and its member nations must respond to Prime Minister Allawi's request and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free." "

HAHAH!! Oh.. That Bush! What a cut up! So what's he doing now? Just being polite again? Cause we totally don't need help rebuilding Iraq?

oh yes also this gem!:

"These people are trying to shake the will of the Iraqi citizens, and they want us to leave. That's what they want us to do. And I think the world would be better off if we did leave -- if we didn't -- if we left, the world would be worse. The world is better off with us not leaving."

I believe if he had posted that on the internet we could easily call him a "f00!!"

Wow, what a thread.Ã,  I came late to the table, but let me belatedly share some thoughts:

Sutebi, have you ever actually met someone from France?Ã,  I have.Ã,  Several times.Ã,  I can't say they were "snooty".Ã,  In fact, they were rather pleasant.Ã,  Perhaps you're just watching too much Sean Hannity.Ã,  Or is it Bill O'Reilly?Ã, 

And so what if they disagreed with our unilateral decision to launch a war in a sovereign country.Ã,  Good for them!Ã,  But what really pisses me off is all that wine dumped into the streets as a protest against france.Ã,  What a waste of good wine!

Regarding other topics discussed in this thread:

America is certainly host to a great deal of propaganda, more so than, say...Germany, which is the only other country I've lived in for any long period of time (but Germany is a special case, where patriotism/nationalism isn't exactly embraced.)Ã,  Ã,  Take a look at Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and then think back to everything you were taught in school.Ã,  Ã, It makes you feel sick to think of all those times you actually celebrated a guy like Columbus...

In terms of patriotism, there's no question that America is rife with it, but so was Europe, prior to all of it's...unpleasantness.Ã, 

As for WWII, Russia certainly took the most casualties...9 MILLION people killed!Ã,  The US lost 300,000. Canada lost 42,000.Ã,  The UK lost 400,000.Ã,  Perhaps it's a bit gauche to rank things this way.Ã,  But regardless, it's damn near impossible to determine what would have happened if certain events or historical incidents never occured.Ã,  I think it's safe to say that Britain would have eventually fallen if the US hadn't supplied them with aid, and then actual troops (that is, if Germany would have actually conducted a land invasion of Britian, which in itself is questionable). They are an island, after all.Ã,  As for the rest of the war, could the USSR have defeated the Nazi's on their own?Ã,  Who the fuck knows.Ã, 

side note: Zell Miller is insane!Ã,  He (essentially) challenged Chris Matthews to a duel!Ã,  On TV!Ã,  He wanted to shoot a gun at Chris Matthews!Ã,  That's awesome!Ã, 

-Logan

Sorry to drag out this old thread, and I don't know if this link was mentioned anywhere on this thread or on any other (I tried to read this thread thoroughly but skimmed through most of it), but after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 again today on DVD, and some of the special features, I came across this site:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

Now, I know what you're going to say. "But it's on Michael Moore's own site, how unbiased can it possibly be?" Well, he cites sources, including newspaper articles, actual interviews, and official White House and other government documents. ANd yes, I know he doesn't mention anything about Kerry, but honestly I don't think he needs to.

Moore's argument is that Bush's incompetence as a leader alone should be reason enough to not re-elect him. Even Marines in Iraq have come to disagree with Bush and not want him re-elected. And I still get arguments that one shouldn't make decisions based on "biased" evidence.

Anybody agree? Disagree? If this has been brought up before (the URL), then I apologize.

Mike is also upset that his documentary may not be aired (http://www.halifaxlive.com/michael_moore_10162004_3824.php) as promised.

I've also just heard about a counter-movie, "Fahren-Hype 9/11". Apparently, from what I've heard, Dick Morris only proves that Moore had possible ulterior motives behind making F9/11 and he claims that some of the content of F9/11 wasn't true. Funny, then did Moore also "make up" his sources and quotes from them?

terran: ya know that lady who lost her son in F911?

Muppet... Moore made it just to get the sympathy card dealt...

If you don't believe me then just shut up!

Moore is a propagandist hippy

You can't possibly believe that DG (or whoever you are)

Poop, go away. Please. We're tired of you. One-sentence threads do NOT contribute to any worthwile discussion, and so far your posts have reflected NO personal opinions, only reflections of what your education WANTS you to believe. The entire Moore phenomena is supposed to bring out the entire "open your eyes, people, and see the big picture" attitude in everyone. Also, he never says that the picture is WRONG - and I believe THAT would be "propagandist hippy" attitude, bith and moan. Moore doesn't tell us this, Moore tells us that there's simply more going on that we have to be aware of. As far as I've seen, he's a true patriot, who dares question his leaders' actions when they need being questioned. And that's what makes a true democracy. The censorship he put up with in the article QuantumRich brought up shows, to a degree, what everybody already knows - democracy, in the current government, is a myth. But it still exists within people.

That's his message, as far as I can see. Grow up or shut up, poop. You can't even be expected to see beyond the picture, because you're still discovering what the bloody picture is.

EDIT - Ok, so I was needlessly offensive. I apologize for being offensive, but not for the main point - poop, you can't make such statements, because you don't really know what you're saying. And you're not expected to know what you're saying. Hell, even last year I was convinced I'd finally learned how the world works, and now I'm at a loss again.

Hm, I thought we agreed on not restarting every debate just because Poop decides to leave one of his infamous one-liners.

I also thought we agreed on flushing down Poop one time for all.

Damn, I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself. Golden rule "THINK BEFORE YOU POST", why have you deserted me...

MrColossal: That's an interesting claim, and I'm wiling to listen. How do you know this? Was it in Fahren-Hype 9/11? Did that Dick guy give any proof?

Because, I have NEVER seen any person act that well. I mean, even at the premiere, she was choked up. If that was acting, then she deserves an Oscar and a leading role in a top Hollywood film, and NOW.

If you look at the movie frame by frame when they're showing her you can see the wire leading from her hand to the puppeteer's. It moves very quick so you'll have to look closely. It also explains why her mouth was a complete straight line that looked cut into her head and opened on a 90 degree hinge.

They also got Frank Oz to do her voice and Jim Henson's son to be the puppeteer... That liberal jew hippy terrorist Michael Moore spared no expense to make us believe that a mother of a military man would be upset at the administration for letting her kid get killed...

But more seriously... I'm really worried about this election and I'm worried about this Sinclair broadcasting shite with the Stolen Honour shite, shite... shite

Damn! Those liberal hippies and their puppeteering! I was duped!

And yes, I too am worried about the "regular folk"'s reaction to the crap that Sinclaire feels they have to air. "Duh...wow, general who don't even know Kerry are bashing him! He's evil! Bush all the way!"

Quote from: poop743 on Sun 17/10/2004 21:04:41
Moore is a propagandist hippy

Quote from: Mr Flibble on Sun 17/10/2004 21:07:47
You can't possibly believe that DG (or whoever you are)

but Moore is a propagandist hippy, he just happens to be a correct propagandist hippy

Was Gunning for Columbine propaganda then?
Propagandists tend to be associated with the negative, and (in this day and age) hippies doubly so.

Isn't a correct propagandist hippie a contradiction in terms? I always thought propaganda was things that tried to alter people's perception of things. If the person is actually right, doesn't that make them a visionary or something? (Cue some guy posting a link to dictionary.com's meaning of "propaganda", thinking that they are all clever by doing so).

Whoever said he was a patriot is right. He has the balls to look at things objectively. He doesn't hate america.

(In a related matter, isn't it funny how future shares in America's plane travel companies hit rock bottom one day before 9/11.
Almost as if someone knew...)