Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[trooper]

Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 is the event of the day at the Cannes Festival. This is an inquiry into the Bush government's foreign policy, especialy when dealing with the pre-2001 relations between the white house and Bin Laden Clan. No need to say that the bush administration made all they could to prevent this movie to be distributed in the States before the elections.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000510632

Another very contreversial US documentary is presented in Cannes today : "Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War"

http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle2285.html

From Cannes, for "shrapnel news international",

[dogscoff]

I read "Dude, where's my country" and the realtionship between the bush family and the Saudi Arabians (Bin Ladens in particular) certainly does throw an interesting spin on the whole 11/9 business and the US' recent activities in the middle east.

I'll be very interested to see that film.

Trooper, what is the festival like for a local like you? Do you get to see all the films and schmooze with the stars? If you see Angelina Jolie, tell her I said "hi".

[trooper]

The festival has no interest if you're not a VIP or a luxuary shop owner... All interesting places can't be accessed if you don't have a press accreditation.
The festival palace is secured by dozains of policemen when the actors get in, and you can't hardly see anything if you don't wait for hours to have a good place.

But Cannes is a realy a nice place to live... the rest of year. A bit like the californian coast, I think. It's also very hard to buy a flat (don't even think of buying a house !).

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Check the references, check the facts.

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
An anti-Bush movie at Cannes. What a risk-taker that Moore fellow is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeah, really. He should have shown it at that big conservative film festival... Uh... the ummm... Great Texan Film Festival Chili Cookoff Gun and Doll Show. But he lacks the huevos.

[dogscoff]

Yeah, really. He should have shown it at that big conservative film festival... Uh... the ummm... Great Texan Film Festival Chili Cookoff Gun and Doll Show. But he lacks the huevos.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">rotflmao

[trooper]

I don't think guys such as M. Moore fears polemic...

But there has been a real attempt of censorship from the US governement concerning this documentary. What does the gov. fear, if all this document is pure bull**** ? And does the US constitution still ensures freedom of speech for everyone ? That's questions I would ask to myself if I was an US citizen...

[ May 18, 2004, 13:12: Message edited by: trooper ]

[freduk]

That M. Moore movie is not pure bull****, just something every idiot with below average IQ could think of.
But it could have some impact on the avarage American, as retardation seems to be the standard there, believing everything GW Bush and CNN proclaim.
A LOT of people believed the story of mass destruction weapens as in nukes with uranium purchased from "Africa". What a joke.
Not that I hold anything against USA citizens, just that the mass is quite stupid.

The war in Iraq is escalating, like in Afghanistan, now it's time to focus on something totally different, withdrawing the attention from the Iraq war.
Maybe it's time to "liberate" North-Korea???

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by freduk:

Maybe it's time to "liberate" North-Korea??? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Doubtful. In fact the news today is we are pulling 3k+ troops out of S. Korea and sending them to Iraq. For what it's worth I think Iraq has/will do a lot towards showing us our limitations. At the begining of this we heard a lot of reckless talk about taking the war to Iran and Syria after Iraq. We don't hear that talk anymore much thankfully.

[tesco samoa]

i do not like Mr. Moore either.

But I do like the fact that he makes you think and ask questions.

That alone makes his stuff worth while.

[freduk]

If you need that "shame on you mister Bush, shame on you!" moron to start thinking you have a serious problem http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[dogscoff]

At the begining of this we heard a lot of reckless talk about taking the war to Iran and Syria after Iraq. We don't hear that talk anymore much thankfully.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Bery true, hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out.
Of course it might have as much to do with the fact that another Iraq (or at least, another Iraq in the next few years) would be political suicide for Bush or Blair. What with all the scandals and revelations of skullduggery and deception they are only just holding on to their jobs now. Blair certainly, Bush probably less so.

Can;t wait for the upcoming local elections over here, labour are going to get obliterated.

I used to be a real labour supporter, but Blair's support of Bush has turned me right against them. We have no viable left-wing party now on the national level, just right (tory party: corrupt, inept and inelectable.), almost-as-far-right (Blair's labour: to think labour used to be a proper socialist party http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ) and a central party (Liberals: Never been in power, so who knows?).

In local elections we will also have the usual array of independents, extremists and wierdoes, but also the "UK Independence party", which is basically a nasty, reactionary right wing little setup which cares for nothing more than flatly defying anything the other side of the channel and beating up on immigrants and refugees. They will do very well in the local elections, and in doing so split the tory vote right down the middle. Labour will probably lose most of its votes to the liberals, with a few more protest voters drifting rightwards.

I think we'll have the greatest number of liberal MPs this time around than ever in history, and with a little luck we might even end up with a liberal govmnt one of these days. Most of their policies seem ok (they have consistantly opposed the war) but then they never expected to get into power so they can say what the hell they like http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . Personally I'd vote for anyone within spitting distance of the left who wasn't just in politics for ulterior motives.

Still, the liberals deserve a chance imho. I'll vote for them and (hopefully) see what they look like in power. If they turn out to be as corrupt as the rest of them I've decided I'm going to give up on democracy altogether and become a crazy-eyed anarchist.

[Atrocities]

Simply put any one with enough money and a film camera can make any documentary about anything, even if its sole purpose is to mislead and misinform.

That fat du.. never mind, just keep in mind that this guy makes his living on manufacturing controversy and if he had his way, we would all be goose stepping to his drum beat.

Most people do not take him or his work seriously because it is so slanted and so obviously intended to cause controversy.

I guess we need people like him in our world to remind us that sometimes free speech can be a weapon of mass destruction all by its self.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by trooper:
I don't think guys such as M. Moore fears polemic...

But there has been a real attempt of censorship from the US governement concerning this documentary. What does the gov. fear, if all this document is pure bull**** ? And does the US constitution still ensures freedom of speech for everyone ? That's questions I would ask to myself if I was an US citizen... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What censorship from the US government? All that's been blathered is a claim from Moore about Disney "suddenly" deciding to not distribute the film followed by a retraction from him about a day later.

Freduk: Don't bother trying to sound friendly if all you're going to do is presume that most of the people who don't agree with you are stupid, or brainwashed, etc. Give it a rest.

[tesco samoa]

Freduk was just having some fun hence the http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I was not offened.... I may have offended person next to me when i laughed.

[Atrocities]

If Disney won't push it, then it must be full of crap. Good call for Disney.

[rextorres]

One thing the movie brings up that no one has rationailized is why did Bush allow Bin Ladin's relatives to leave the U.S. right after 9/11.

[ May 18, 2004, 17:04: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by rextorres:
One thing the movie brings up that no one has rationailized is why did Bush allow Bin Ladin's relatives to leave the U.S. right after 9/11. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is no proof of that, and even if there was, there is no PROOF that Bush himself said "Ok, they can go home."

Again this guy feeds on conspiricy by tossing gas on it. If he is such a great film maker then why in the hell doesn't he do a documentary on how Clinton signed the marshal law order two hours before the explosion in Oklahoma? How in the hell did Clinton have foreknowledge of this event? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Simple the way it played out was NOT the way it was suppose to.

But will M. Moore do a documentary on this? Oh hell no. Shame on you Mr. Moore, shame on you!

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by rextorres:
One thing the movie brings up that no one has rationailized is why did Bush allow Bin Ladin's relatives to leave the U.S. right after 9/11. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Other than the fact that said relatives have -disowned- him, and the idea was to get them away from murderous idiots? Kind of like the guy who killed a Sik here in Arizona a few days later. Because he wore a turban.

Hmm, how about the next time someone commits murder we sentance their family to death too. That'll go over well.

[rextorres]

Phoenix - you are going to have to do better than that - there were relatives of the hijackers that were being arrested simply because they were relatives. The Bin Ladins, on the other hand, who might have had knowledge of Osama's whereabouts were allowed to leave the country without even any questioning - sure sounds fishy to me.


Atrocities - It's common knowledge. Also - Clinton is no longer President don't know why you keep bringing him up. If anything I would compare Bush to Nixon but I won't go there.

[ May 18, 2004, 19:38: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Phoenix - you are going to have to do better than that - there were relatives of the hijackers that were being arrested simply because they were relatives. The Bin Ladins, on the other hand, who might have had knowledge of Osama's whereabouts were allowed to leave the country without even any questioning - sure sounds fishy to me.


Atrocities - It's common knowledge. Also - Clinton is no longer President don't know why you keep bringing him up. If anything I would compare Bush to Nixon but I won't go there. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's not common knowledge. I never heard that before.

[tesco samoa]

actually it is common knowledge. There has been news reports on this over the Last few years.

Well I thought it was common knowledge. Maybe it is not.

The family left on Sept 12th and 13th. From cities in the USA and flew to Boston. 1 week later they left the country. The Saudie Govn't asked for help on this. The FBI and the American Govn't agreed.
Just because your related does not mean your involved.

So a half truth. Used by Moore to further his train of thought in the movie.

[tesco samoa]

P.S. his family 'disowned' Bin Ladin publically many years before.

[Fyron]

freduk, I put to you that the majority of people in your nation are just as stupid as the majority of people in the US. The majority of ALL human beings are idiots. It does not matter what nation they live in. Propaganda is used effectively by leaders of all nations, not just those of the US.

Expecting truths from Micheal Moore is more insane than expecting truths from Bush...

[tesco samoa]

Fyron.... Freduk was having some fun. Leave it at that.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Freduk was just having some fun hence the http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I was not offened.... I may have offended person next to me when i laughed. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That wasn't the remark I was referring to.

It was: "But it could have some impact on the avarage American, as retardation seems to be the standard there, believing everything GW Bush and CNN proclaim." No http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif or similar.

I guess I should have also noted that freduk needs to get his agitprop correct: the people who don't believe Bush is the ultimate evil are supposed to be blind followers of FoxNews and not CNN. Or is it Drudge? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[tesco samoa]

Missed that one... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[Atrocities]

Atrocities - It's common knowledge. Also - Clinton is no longer President don't know why you keep bringing him up. If anything I would compare Bush to Nixon but I won't go there. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You might compare Bush to Nixon, but I would never do such a thing. Clinton was no JFK, and Bush is not Nixon. Besides, if Nixon had not resigned from office who knows how the pull out from Vietnam would have gone. Chance are, and this is backed up by many scollors, that the pull out would have been far better than what we ended up with.

Iraq is not Vietnam so like I said, you can compare Bush to Nixon, I won't.

And for the record, the situation we are now in is far more Clintons fault than it will ever be Bush, or Bush Sr's.

[Fyron]

Nixon had already pulled most of the US troops out of Vietnam before he resigned...

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Nixon had already pulled most of the US troops out of Vietnam before he resigned... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, but the north may not have invaded if Nixon had not resigned. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Many historical scollors have stated this repeatedly. I first heard about it when I was in HS and later in that uber borning mini-series NIXON.

We will never know what could have been, only what has been. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[geoschmo]

An anti-Bush movie at Cannes. What a risk-taker that Moore fellow is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Arkcon]

I tend to avoid these OT Posts, but I say this to anyone who will listen, and this group unfortunately counts ...

[soapbox mode]

Michael Moore is an idiot. I formulated this opinion when his first movie came out, and I stand by my conclusion. "Roger and Me" was a documentary about the closing of an automotive plant in his home town. People found it powerful and thought provoking. I found it had a stupid premise -- he couldn't reach the CEO, Rodger, no matter how hard he tried.

So what. You're a nobody. The CEO closed the plant, and that was a hardship. But what makes your need to speak with him fascinating?

[semi non sequitor]
Bono did the same thing on the Zoo Tour. Tried to call Bush senior during the middle of the set. Never got through. So what. Who are you that the Predident of the US has to stop work for a chat?
[/semi non sequitor]

People hated/loved "Bowling for Columbine". Back and forth. I just don't care.

Michael Moore is a curmodgeon.

1). Pick a topic.
2). Piss people off
3). Profit

There's no great artistry here. He feeds a hunger , and people are eating it up.

Like Jane Fonda, 20 years from now, he'll be retconning everything he stood for in these days.

[/soapbox mode]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The family left on Sept 12th and 13th. From cities in the USA and flew to Boston. 1 week later they left the country. The Saudie Govn't asked for help on this. The FBI and the American Govn't agreed.

Just because your related does not mean your involved.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We'll never know if they were involved because they've all were allowed to leave the country before being questioned. Also at a time when US air space was closed the bin ladens were allowed to fly and leave the country.

Coincidentally the Bushes have had a lot of business dealings with the bin ladin's. Osama's father, for instance, through his bank BCCI helped fund some of GW's early business ventures. Oddly it was also Osama's father's money that helped start Al Qaeda.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
[QUOTE]And for the record, the situation we are now in is far more Clintons fault than it will ever be Bush, or Bush Sr's. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't understand what situation you mean. Could you clarify.

[ May 19, 2004, 03:14: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Well, it was this I was saying I didn't know, but I didn't know the other one, either.

Let's not let this get any more convoluted, though, ok? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Originally posted by Atrocities:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by rextorres:
One thing the movie brings up that no one has rationailized is why did Bush allow Bin Ladin's relatives to leave the U.S. right after 9/11. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is no proof of that, and even if there was, there is no PROOF that Bush himself said "Ok, they can go home."

Again this guy feeds on conspiricy by tossing gas on it. If he is such a great film maker then why in the hell doesn't he do a documentary on how Clinton signed the marshal law order two hours before the explosion in Oklahoma? How in the hell did Clinton have foreknowledge of this event? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Simple the way it played out was NOT the way it was suppose to.

But will M. Moore do a documentary on this? Oh hell no. Shame on you Mr. Moore, shame on you! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[tesco samoa]

very true rex. They are a powerful business family for that country. And yes they are tied in with many corperations.

[LordOffender]

Dennis Miller summed Moore up nicely, "A three chinned toad." I laughed so hard I dropped my beer! Well said Mr. Miller. Well said. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[trooper]

M. Moore has just received the "palme d'or" for his documentary "Farenheit 9/11"

[Atrocities]

Basically any movie that attacks the culture of America with suffient enough lies and mistruths can win a palme d'or.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif This is regretable, but true.

[tesco samoa]

what is this palme d'or ?

[Alneyan]

*Disengages lurking cloak* It is the award that has been given at Cannes, and it is supposed to reward the best film (or rather, documentary here) shown at the competition. *Goes back to lurk mode*

[Slynky]

While I recognize an author can sell books on hype and mistruths, I also feel that we later come to learn not everything was a mistruth after a certain amount of time has passed and people are willing to take a fresh look. The Kennedy assassination falls into this Category.

Having worked in top-secret environments, I can also tell you that things are classified for release to the public...the number of years it is classified being determined by a calculated "estimate" of just when its release will only cause a yawn from the public. Think about it.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Basically any movie that attacks the culture of America with suffient enough lies and mistruths can win a palme d'or.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif This is regretable, but true. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not sure if you saw the movie, but, Moore attacks Bush not our culture in this movie. Implying that Moore's movie attacks our culture is a mistruth.

Also if you look at the list of palm d'or winners most of them have nothing to do with American culture.

Still - this probably was a "political" award. It says more about how strong world opinion is against the current administration than U.S. culture.

[ May 22, 2004, 21:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Moore is a jerk and only the French would give him an award for an anti-Bush movie.

If Moore was this great documentary film maker, then why doen't he do a movie on things other than what he has done them on? Simple, he is a jerk out to cause as much controversy as his warped mind can produce.

The guy is a jerk, and obviously Disney thought so to.

[freduk]

Haha your issue with Moore is that you dont believe him http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
You think he's telling lies, while my problem with him is that he just tells stuff everybody who followed the news could have concluded for himself, thus making his movie be quite redundant.

Reading your Posts, maybe this works different for Americans. You really think your government has good intentions with other, oil producing countries. Cute.

At least we both dislike Mr Moore. Did you see the ceremony where the trophee was given unto him? How the Tri-chin said "merci" to the public as if to appear humble and that he had taken time to know SOMETHING of their language? What a moron.

PS: I din't see the entire movie but only pieces of it, so maybe I am missing some parts which he obviously made up, but for what I've seen it's correct. Please make ONE example of what he obviously made up in your point of view.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Moore is a jerk and only the French would give him an award for an anti-Bush movie.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually that's another mistruth.

The jury committee (the ones who choose the winner) is made up of 3 Americans, 1 Brit, 1 Chinese, 1 Finn, 1 Haitian and only 1 French person. 1 French Jury Member does not constitute as the "French" giving Moore an award. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

I suppose it's a credit - and a lack of bigotry -on the French to choose mostly foreigners. I can't imagine an American organization allowing mostly foreigners to pick an award for anything much less the most prestigious film award.

[ May 23, 2004, 21:51: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[primitive]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
Basically any movie that attacks the culture of America with suffient enough lies and mistruths can win a palme d'or.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif This is regretable, but true. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not sure if you saw the movie, but, Moore attacks Bush not our culture in this movie. Implying that Moore's movie attacks our culture is a mistruth.
.
.
. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Huh, Rex.

Do you mean to imply that lying, stealing, corruption, torture and random killing of people with different skintone or creed is not American culture. Now I'm getting confused.

Edit: Typing

[ May 23, 2004, 21:56: Message edited by: primitive ]

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by primitive:

Do you mean to imply that lying, stealing, corruption, torture and random killing of people with different skintone or creed is not American culture. Now I'm getting confused.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">if you talking in this way, you can append norway very fast to the axis of evil. be carefully with your words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[spoon]

There was a good article on slashdot today about Moore: Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/23/1328226&mode=thread&tid=188&tid=97)

Here are three links from the slashdot discussion:

bowling for columbine criticism (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

Moore's response to criticisms (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/)

Direct response to Bowling criticism (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607)

[Gandalf Parker]

Definetly be careful with words. This thread could be in in danger. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[primitive]

Originally posted by Grauzone:

.
.
if you talking in this way, you can append norway very fast to the axis of evil. be carefully with your words http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ssssh,
Don't give Bush any fancy ideas. There are too many implications already.

We got the oil, we got a religious leader as head of goverment (a priest) and we don't show anyone any WMD's so we must be hiding them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

GP:
Don't worry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Slynky]

I think Rex makes a good point that the French didn't give the award. Of course, as I allow for American "private agendas", I will allow for the fact that foreign countries voted for this film in order to further their private agenda...make America look bad. Obviously, it's a political film and votes could surely be cast accordingly.

I'm not here to say America is perfect and other countries are full of faults. I believe all countries spin things the way they want them based (in part) on how it helps themselves.

I think, and I'm glad I'm in a country where I am allowed to, that enough of the movie is based on fact to allow the rest of the movie to draw conclusions and make "suggestions".

As to the war? The US public was "bombarded" with B&W photos of all the places where WMDs were located...yet, when we got there, nothing could be found. I wonder, being of a free mind, if I was lied to (to gain public support) or if Iraq was really great at hiding all of them.

Problem is, a lot of people in the US haven't had the opportunity to work in the classified areas I have worked in. Even working in the government is enough to give one a glimpse of how facts get distorted.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Moore is a jerk and only the French would give him an award for an anti-Bush movie.

If Moore was this great documentary film maker, then why doen't he do a movie on things other than what he has done them on? Simple, he is a jerk out to cause as much controversy as his warped mind can produce.

The guy is a jerk, and obviously Disney thought so to. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I say it again. Moore is a jerk who feeds off of causing controversy with half truths, speculation, and out right lies. He bends the truth, fact, and situations to his own twisted view. I do not believe him. Moore is leech and he always will be!

[AMF]

The eternal wonder of the closed mind: When one makes up one's mind about something beforehand, why consult data?

Here is list of all the films that have been awarded a Palme d'Or since 1946:

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Cannes_Film_Festival/

I haven't seen all of the american ones, and certainly not many of the foreign ones, but the only one I have seen that might be said to have an "anti-US" bias would be Apocalypse Now in 1979. But, really, that's a stretch - it's more of an anti-war/"how nasty is human nature" movie. The Lars von Trier one (Dancer in the Dark) might also qualify as "anti-american" but from what I know he's more of a commentator on human nature too.

Elephant (2003)
Pianist, The (2002)
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Secrets & Lies (1996)
Underground (1995)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Piano, The (1993)
Barton Fink (1991)
Wild at Heart (1990)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Mission, The (1986)
Paris, Texas (1984)
All That Jazz (1979)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Conversation, The (1974)
MASH (1970)

etc....

Now, as an admitted amateur and not running the statistics, I would hazard a guess to say that when the french pick english language movies for a golden palm they pick ones that get at human nature, the nature of violence or relationships, and...pianos. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But that's just me. Perhaps I;m wrong. But in any case, making up one's mind before looking at data is only useful if one is not willing to have one;s mind changed. In which case, conversation or debate is likewise pointless.


Originally posted by Atrocities:
Basically any movie that attacks the culture of America with suffient enough lies and mistruths can win a palme d'or.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif This is regretable, but true. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a statement that is unsupportable.

[Atrocities]

Rant to follow read at own risk. No offense intended so if you take offense, I am sorry.

Moore uses film as if it were a weapon. He yeilds it against those whom he does not like and he does this with dilibrate deception in mind.

I place no faith in any of his work as it is one sided and without counter point. So much so that even Disney decided after seening it to say enough is enough and ordered the distributer of the movie to pull it. Moore cries political involvment, but the truth is, his movie is simply not a documentary but rather a weapon designed to harm.

ONLY the French and those who love to hate America would consider this movie and the manusha that it shovels to be worthy of an award. That says a hell of a lot about them.

If Moore were a true film maker he would have made a documentary and not a one sided film designed to promote his own political agenda.

Shame on you Mr. Moore, shame on you!

I do not like the man, I do not like the mans movies, and I do not like the mans politics. He has done nothing in my opinion to redeem himself as a movie maker, and he has only promoted his movies as a tool to stir controversy and cause harm. He is a jerk, and I do sincerely hope that on the way home he decides to not come home.

EDIT:

The only reason Moore received the Palme d'Or was because his movie attacked Bush. I could give a rats arse about the other movies that have been given the Palme d'Or. Moores movie only received it because the French who chose to give the award did so as a political statement and for that they can take their award and sit on it as far as I am concerned!

They cheapend the award in my opinion, for little more than to make a political statement. Shame on the French!

[ May 23, 2004, 23:55: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[geoschmo]

The thing about Moore is he is so single-mindedly one-sided in his philosophy that it probably isn't that he is intentionally presenting only one side of the argument, he just simply can't accept any reasonable counter opinion to his own as being worthy of even consideration, much less give it time in one of hsi mockumentaries. He's the other side of the coin that is Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wing infotainment types. It's all free speech though. It doesn't have to be intelligent.

[rextorres]

What's funny is most of the people who attack Moore attack his politics but conveniently ignore the content.

From what I've read (especially in this thread) - the tone of some anti-Moore people is so strong that it suggests to me that they are more afraid that he might be telling the truth than that he might be lying.

[ May 24, 2004, 07:02: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[trooper]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
Moore is a jerk and only the French would give him an award for an anti-Bush movie.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually that's another mistruth.

The jury committee (the ones who choose the winner) is made up of 3 Americans, 1 Brit, 1 Chinese, 1 Finn, 1 Haitian and only 1 French person. 1 French Jury Member does not constitute as the "French" giving Moore an award. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

I suppose it's a credit - and a lack of bigotry -on the French to choose mostly foreigners. I can't imagine an American organization allowing mostly foreigners to pick an award for anything much less the most prestigious film award. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Moreover, the Jury president is Quentin Tarantino, a typical french film maker... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"french" have not given Moore the price. The Jury did, but most of them are not french people, and they are completly free of their choices.

Most of french people admire American way of life, wealth and Culture, and remember all European countries have a debt of gratitude to pay to the USA since WWII.

What many people in europe (and the rest of world) dislike when dealing with American politics is war operations for business, lack of interest about pollution issues, business around weapons (including personal mines) , industrial spying (Echelon and so on), and journalists forced "blindness" about all things that the US shouldn't be proud of.

[ May 24, 2004, 07:45: Message edited by: trooper ]

[Atrocities]

Thanks for the info Trooper. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by rextorres:
What's funny is most of the people who attack Moore attack his politics but conveniently ignore the content.

From what I've read (especially in this thread) - the tone of some anti-Moore people is so strong that it suggests to me that they are more afraid that he might be telling the truth than that he might be lying. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Rex you make a good point, but the truth is simply that we all know Mr. Moores tactics so well that we don't have to see his documentary to know the man. We already know the man, and there is nothing in his documentary that scares us except that people might believe his one sided - no room for counter point - political views.

Relying on his documentary and him as a source of factual evidence is like trusting Hitler when he says that the Jews are being well cared for. Now I am not comparing Mr. Moore to Hitler so please don't shoot me. I am just saying that his truth should be taken with skeptasism.

[trooper]

MICAHEL MOORE'S NEW MOVIE THAT EXPOSES BUSH FOR THE SHAM HE REALLY IS
IS ALREADY GAINING ALOT OF MOMENTUM BEFORE IT'S RELEASE.


Truth wins at Cannes, says Moore

GEOFF PEVERE

Michael Moore's feature length documentary attack on the administration of President George W. Bush, Fahrenheit 9/11, took the top prize of the 57th annual Cannes Film Festival Last night.

"What have you done?," said an overwhelmed Moore when he took the stage to accept the award that culminated a typically awkward and unpredictable, but atypically politicized, four-minute ceremony. At the announcement of the major prize, the Palme d'Or, the tuxedo and evening-gown studded crowd stood on its feet and cheered.

Looking to jury president Quentin Tarantino, Moore joked, "You did that just to mess with me," before moving on to more serious matters.

Admitting that the Last six months, during which Fahrenheit 9/11 has been at the centre of a highly publicized dispute with The Walt Disney
Company over its distribution future, Moore said, "I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done will ensure that the American people
will see this movie. I can't thank you enough for this.

"Many people want the truth put away, put in a closet," he said, "and you have taken it out of the closet."

Quoting President Abraham Lincoln, whom he described as "a different kind of Republican president," Moore said, "`Give the people the truth and the republic will be saved.'"

Alluding to the U.S. election in November, Moore concluded by saying he wanted to dedicate the next six months to "making sure that those
who have died in Iraq have not died in vain."

As predicted, the awards granted by Tarantino's jury — which also included the American actress Kathleen Turner, British actress Tilda
Swinton, Hong Kong filmmaker Tsui Hark and others — was eccentric in its choices.

After providing special Jury Prizes to Irma P. Hall's performance in Joel and Ethan Coen's The Ladykillers and the Thailand-made Tropical
Malady, Tarantino's jury awarded the best scenario prize to Agnes Jaoui and Jean-Pierre Bacri for Jaoui's Look At Me, best director to
Tony Gatlif for Exiles, best male performance to 14-year-old Yagria Yuuya for the Japanese-made Nobody Knows and best actress to Maggie
Cheung's performance in the French-Canadian-U.K. co-production Clean.

[...]

[dogscoff]

Moore uses film as if it were a weapon. He yeilds it against those whom he does not like <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Agreed. And I don't have a problem with that. I'd rather he used film and media as a weapon than, say... an actual weapon. You are using your words as a weapon against him, so you can't criticise him for doing the same against Bush.

and he does this with dilibrate deception in mind.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Disagreed. I think he presents the truth as he sees it. Whether that's the absolute truth or not I can't say, but I don't doubt for a second that he believes every word of what he says/ writes, and that makes him nothing more nor less than honest. If all he wanted was to make a quick buck out of cheap, emotional non-content, he could do it a lot quicker and with a lot less research by making "support our troops abroad" and "tribute to the fallen heroes of 9/11" films.


Moore is a jerk and only the French would give him an award for an anti-Bush movie.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ONLY the French would give an award to an anti-bush movie eh? I reckon i could probably list a few other nations that might consider it. Iraq for one.


ONLY the French and those who love to hate America would consider ...blah blah blah ... the French who chose to give the award did
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">*Yawn*
Atrocities, look again at the post on this thread which lists the nationalities of the people who gave the award. THEY WERE NOT FRENCH. OK, one of them was, but three of the eight were american for crying out loud. And if you still persist that it's all some rabid anti-american conspiracy, then I think you need to ask yourself what america is doing wrong to generate so much hatred.

I'll quote it again for your convenience:

3 Americans, 1 Brit, 1 Chinese, 1 Finn, 1 Haitian and only 1 French person.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">See... only 12.5% french. 37.5% American & 12.5% British- that puts at least half the votes in the "coalition of the willing." Stop blindly blaming everything on the French, it just makes you look ignorant.


The thing about Moore is he is so single-mindedly one-sided in his philosophy that it probably isn't that he is intentionally presenting only one side of the argument, he just simply can't accept any reasonable counter opinion to his own as being worthy of even consideration, much less give it time in one of hsi mockumentaries.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think it's more that he doesn't see that as his job. There are more than enough people out there giving the other side of the argument, so he leaves that to them. He sees his views as under-represented, and so he just presents his side of the debate, and allows ppl like you to counterpoint what he has said.

Relying on his documentary and him as a source of factual evidence is like trusting Hitler when he says that the Jews are being well cared for. Now I am not comparing Mr. Moore to Hitler <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually you are comparing him to Hitler, and I don't think it's a very fair comaprison:

Hitler: Totalitarian dictator with complete control over the press in his country.
Moore: Some guy with a film crew working within a (more or less) free-speech society.

Hitler saying Jews are well cared for: Lies to disguise Hitler's own evil behaviour.
Moore criticising Bush: Attempts to expose someone else's (alleged) evil behaviour.

Not the same thing at all.


Most of french people admire American way of life, wealth and Culture, and remember all European countries have a debt of gratitude to pay to the USA since WWII.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yet the US seems quick to forget that it owes the French a debt of gratitude for the war of independence. Who do you think gave you the statue of liberty? If not for the French you yanks would all be speaking English...

[Slynky]

"If not for the French you yanks would all be speaking English..."

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[minipol]

I also believe there is more to 9/11 that meets the eye but who doesn't. I agree with Fyron that said something along the lines (to lazy to look it up) of "It's not only the majority of the USA that's stupid also of your country" which was directed at freduk.

I can't agree more. The world is full of idiots.
And sometimes we act as idiots http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . To me, one of the things that pissed me of after the US & Britain attacked Iraq was that suddenly, a lot of Europeans (mainly) started thrashing on Bush. It became fashionable to trash "old yeller". Hey, i don't think he's smart enough either to be president, but all the "join us in protesting against bush" bandwagon stuff was over the top for me. The undertone that was spread was something like "If you are not against Bush and can't see he is evil, you're an idiot"
(a bit the same as Bush'es: "You are either with us or against us)
Well boohoo, i'll make up my own mind thank you.
A lot of people say the US sucks just to be "fashionable".

About bandwagon stuff: i'll never forget a story that my history teacher told us in class. Before WWII, a Doctor wanted to know what all the fuss was about with this ony guy, Hitler. He went over to a rally with the idea that Hitler was a complete cookoo & dangerous and that he manipulated people. At a certain time during the meeting, he caught himself clapping along with the masses. He was shocked.
A very illustrating story i think. When too many people start cheering, take a step backwards, start your brain and then decide what to do. Don't be a parrot.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
ONLY the French and those who love to hate America would consider this movie and the manusha that it shovels to be worthy of an award. That says a hell of a lot about them.

Shame on the French! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OhHum.
I rank this statement at the same level as the "US is a country made up of idiot-NRA lovers-ignorant-fat cowboys" myth. I think I prefer you as a shipset designer Atrocities.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[rextorres]

Trooper,

Well, Edwidge Danticat was born in Haiti - but if she is considered to be from the U.S. it emphasizes French open mindedness even more.

[ May 24, 2004, 16:10: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[AMF]

Forgive the rant, but I have an observation, a question, and, I guess, a plea.

There are a lot of things about America I don?t understand anymore.

We are SO polarized right now that I suspect many of us have had friendships destroyed where once they flourished. Ad Hominen attacks are commonplace. Rush Limbaugh and and Ann Coulter and Michael Moore and others of those ilk are the only voices heard because no one listens to reason or moderation anymore. One must shout radically to be heard by anyone ? how else can we explain the popularity of Coulter and Moore?

We have degenerated: I was a civilian analyst with the Marines on the ground in Iraq for the first 5 weeks of the war (nothing exciting, boring work actually, certainly not intel). About a week or two into the conflict, during that nasty week when things weren't going as expected, we heard rumors of actions by OGAs (that's "Other Governmental Agencies") engaging in non-Geneva Convention activity. I won?t go into details since I have a TS/SCI clearance and a job that I need to protect ? suffice it to say that it wasn?t torture, it was something much more benign and totally different, but still verboten under Geneva rules. At the time, I and all the Marine officers who talked about it were aghast. It was clear they felt that such activities were not permissible under the Laws of War and were appalling. The general perception at that time was something like "Man, if this ever gets out that this is true, some heads are gonna roll."

Ok, so, flash-forward to today. These events have, if you read between the
lines, become largely public. And, no, I?m not talking about the recent torture stuff. But, due to the recent revelations, the things we heard about while over there have taken a back seat. In other words, if I revealed today what we had heard about taking place over there during the war, NO ONE WOULD CARE. The telling point is this: over the space of a few short years after 9/11, we as a people seem to have become quite tolerant of what we would never have allowed before.

If someone got up nowadays and talked about the stuff we heard about over there, people would look at them funny and say "Hey, that's not so bad, nothing wrong with that." When, I can honestly tell you that, during the war itself, this action, even the rumor of it, caused us great consternation.

I found working with the Marines highly commendable and rewarding. Although I worked mainly with Majors and above, all officer and enlisted ranks were very diligent about obeying the laws of war and tried their damndest to avoid civilian casualties. I had friends there who came back after convoy ops where they were very upset because when they returned fire to protect their convoy they were afraid they shot a little girl, or an innocent bystander, or the like.

I guess my question then, in light of my above observations, is this: have we changed so much over the Last few years that what would seem unthinkable to us then is now acceptable? Sure, we're aghast, disgusted at the torture and abuse of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but then, we also have Rush calling it "some kids just letting off steam." I don?t even want to know what Coulter says.

I don?t understand how we came to a point this low. It disgusts me. If this is what it means to be an American, I am no longer proud to be one.

Did 9/11 affect us that much? Have we come so low, changed so much, in such a short time? If so...what hope is there for humanity and the "great experiment" that is America? Have we lost all hope of being forever a "City on a Hill" and holding forth the promise of a new world that is better and more ethical than the Old? (Heh, now I?m just waxing on, dramatically.)

I have been affected over the past three years as many of us no doubt have - I lost friends in the Navy Command Center at the Pentagon, and I saw it on the day it happened since we drove by it everyday. My wife worked the 'crime scene' at the World Trade Center and saw things that would make the most battle hardened vet queasy. I was abroad as a civilian analyst for Operation Enduring Freedom and in Iraq for the first five weeks of OIF. At the time I thought both wars were well justified. (It?s clear now only the first one was.)

After the Election of 2000 I kept hoping that Bush would be a ?uniter? not a divider and that we would come back from the brink of a permanently polarized America. Bush turned out to be the exact opposite. And the war was a great joke played upon the American people, who went along with it willingly, like lemmings. Sure, Saddam was Evil as heck, and it?s good he?s gone. But to take a nation to WAR and destroy treaties and alliances along with it all based on being MISLED is so atrocious a crime I can?t begin to describe it.

Am I the only one who thinks that, as far as I can tell, it looks like America has gone nearly mad? I almost don't recognize it anymore.

I have always been a moderate to conservative democrat. I almost voted for Reagan II, and probably would have voted for McCain in 2000 had he won the nomination (just don?t tell my wife).

But those were political decisions based, I would like to think, on the DATA available at the time.

To wit, I come to my plea: one should look at the facts when making one?s decisions.

We appear to not do that anymore in this country. There was a time when we based on decisions on rational, informed, polite debate. The Senate was a place for gentlemanly disagreements and consensus building. Now, it seems it is easier to believe what one wants than look at the facts to make an informed decision. We have not only lost the ability to be disgusted or to be honest when we screw up, but we seem to have lost the ability to even make informed decisions when they contradict our ideologies. The President, when asked what mistakes he feels he has made during his administration could not think of any! Such hubris is unthinkable, and it speaks volumes about how blind our leaders our.

So here is a FACT that a person can choose to ignore at their peril: There was NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The country was misled about the war. I believed what the administration said about WMDs, connection to Al Qaeda, etc? a lot of us believed it, but it was NOT true. That has been revealed repeatedly by multiple sources, and by the administration ITSELF which admits there was no connection to 9/11 and Saddam Hussein and that there were no WMDs. People can choose to ignore this fact to avoid cognitive dissonance and preserve your beliefs, or they can open their minds a bit and make decisions like humans, not animals. God gave us minds, use them to think critically.

And, here are some OPINIONS that are, to me at least, pretty well borne out by the evidence (these are NOT facts, so they can be ignored without risk of cognitive dissonance): The world is a LOT more dangerous now than before the war. We have invigorated an entire generation of the Arab world to become terrorists. We are in a LOT of trouble. We will be VERY hard pressed to prevail in Iraq in any meaningful way that makes the world safer. We have, in the process of screwing that all up, DESTROYED the entire postwar system of trust and multilateral alliances that kept the world prosperous and secure for the past five decades. No one loves America anymore, not really. We are no longer a leader of the free world, but a renegade giant. A resounding accomplishment, a terrible shame, and one that will come back to haunt our children and our children?s children.

My apologies for running off at the mouth, and so dramatically...sometimes I look around and get amazed at how barbaric and simpleminded we?ve become in a few short years?all I?m asking is that everyone out there should THINK -- not simply parrot the party line. These times demand that, else we are truly in a lot of trouble. ?Permanent, big-time, world changing for the worse? trouble. You want the end-times? Well, all they require is mindless obedience without any critical thinking. All Evil requires is for men to do nothing ? and that includes not thinking critically.

That is why I am proud to now call myself a Liberal. One of the hallmarks of liberalism is the inclination to arrive at truth and decisions after informed debate that brings one to an understanding of multiple sides of an issue. There are plenty of knee-jerk liberals out there, but the real hallmark of conservatism and reactionaries is that they know the truth without having to bother with discourse, debate, or any sort of understanding of the issues in play. They even trumpet that as if it were a good thing. That?s just plain stupid.

All I?m saying is that if we, as Americans, don?t start acting rational, the entire world is in a lot of trouble. Everything America does affects the entire world ? for better or worse. So it?s time we started once acting like we at least try to make the right decisions with informed and honest and fact-based non-partisan debate.

I?m done. Forgive me for ranting, but someone had to say the Emperor has no clothes. I?m sure I?ll get a lot of hateful replies, but to hell with it. I?m done being quiet and hoping that sanity will prevail.

Thanks,

Alarik

EDIT: I just deleted my "final PS" since I had been feeling it came across (and probably was, to be honest) as a personal attack since it came right on the heels of another comment. I regret making a comment that could be interpreted as a personal attack...hence, deleted! hoo rah!

[ May 25, 2004, 20:21: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
ONLY the French and those who love to hate America would consider this movie and the manusha that it shovels to be worthy of an award. That says a hell of a lot about them.

Shame on the French! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OhHum.
I rank this statement at the same level as the "US is a country made up of idiot-NRA lovers-ignorant-fat cowboys" myth. I think I prefer you as a shipset designer Atrocities.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am sorry Unknown, you are NOT included in my redneck gun toating, ford pickup driving philosphie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Seriously, that comment was directed at ONLY the people who awarded Moore that award based on political views rather than merit. I am whole heartedly sorry if I offended you or any person in France. (Except those who like Jerry Lewis and Micheal Moore. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

[Atrocities]

Trooper, I laughed at the Little Boy comment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Can we all agree to dissagree over this? I say Moore is a FB out to pollute the gene pool and currupt the people of other countries with his warped missleading films.

You say he is great and is the next best thing to Jesus the world has ever seen.

On this we should agree to disagree.

Peace is good. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 24, 2004, 17:03: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by alarikf:
Forgive the rant, but ... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">apart from that there are long term economicaly harms coused by the actual goverment of the USA to your country: in Last years the number of scientific publications, awards and patent registration falls back (there are many reasons for this fact founded on failures in politics). if this trend won't broken in next few years USA are not longer the technological precursor as in Last decades. this fact combined with a HUGE military budget that grows in same time ...

think on Soviet Union collapse. i see parallels in long term.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Alarikf, today you've earned my respect. It is not worth much, but it is the most important thing I can give you via internet.

Atrocities, I agree to disagree ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
But well, surprisingly few people try to understand another country by reading their press or just looking at their side of the hill. I constantly fend off affirmations of the like "all americans are bush lovers who hate france", so when I find a generalisation such as "French and those who love to hate America" I find it a bit depressing.

[trooper]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

3 Americans, 1 Brit, 1 Chinese, 1 Finn, 1 Haitian and only 1 French person.

See... only 12.5% french. 37.5% American & 12.5% British-

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To be more precise (no haitian in my list):

Quentin Tarantino (USA, film director),
Emmanuelle Beart (France, actress,
Jerry Schatzberg, USA, film director),
Tilda Swinton (UK, actress),
Tsui Hark (Honk-Kong, Film maker),
Edwidge Danticat ( USA, writer) ,
Benoit Poelvoorde (Belgium, actor & film writer ),
Kathleen Turner (USA, actress),
Peter Von Bagh ( Finland, film critic).

[trooper]

Originally posted by Atrocities:

ONLY the French and those who love to hate America would consider this movie and the manusha that it shovels to be worthy of an award. That says a hell of a lot about them.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Come on little boy, stop crying, all those people don't really hate you.

What makes people upset in France (and in many other countries) is Bush's foreign politic. But they don't hate the whole America.

Clinton, by example, has always been very popular in France, because he was open minded (or at least gave the impression he was) when dealing with middle east or environmental issues.

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by trooper:
Come on little boy, stop crying, all those people don't really hate you.

What makes people upset in France (and in many other countries) is Bush's foreign politic. But they don't hate the whole America.

Clinton, by example, has always been very popular in France, because he was open minded (or at least gave the impression he was) when dealing with middle east or environmental issues. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">full agreement to this statement.

[Master Belisarius]

Alarikf: hey, I can remember your first Posts, when you still was in Iraq!

Your post was the first one after many weeks reading here OT Posts about politics, that I felt moved to write something.

Although you lose friends during the terrorist attacks to the Pentagon, and you was in Iraq during the first weeks of the operation to remove Saddam, still you're cold enough to think using your mind and not your heart.
You're a good example to show that the cliches are just cliches (I'm so tired to hear here in Uruguay, the people saying that the Americans doesn't think and believe every lie the govern say).

Time in time (not very often, must say), I have the absurd feeling that the mankind has some hope. You offered to me one of these rare moments, then, just want to finish saying THANK YOU!

[trooper]

Originally posted by Atrocities:

You say he is great and is the next best thing to Jesus the world has ever seen.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Never told that, I've only repeated what I've read about those movies in the news, and thought it was a good opportunity to argue -hummm... discuss.

I still have to see "bowling for columbine" and of course "Farenheit 9/11" to have a personnal opinion about all that. Needless to say that I'll keep a critical eye on those documentaries, as many people say Moore's arguments are often weak.


Alarikf : Nothing more to add to your opinion, brilliant post...
PS : Have any news of Ragnarok ? We're waiting for his turns in SE 101 for quite a long time now...

[ May 25, 2004, 07:51: Message edited by: trooper ]

[Atrocities]

I was figuratively speaking when I said "You say."

Moores documentaries are not weak, they just lack honesty and leave no room for counter point or clarification of the actual facts he presents. He does this on purpose to cause controversay.

You can either buy into his propaganda or understand it for what it is, one mans attempt at making money off the backs of people who enjoy being fed a diet of BS.

There are two camps on this topic and frankly I will not budge on my opinion of the man or his work. I respect everyones opinion on the topic, and I know that I often make rash statements about topics that get under my skin such as this one has.

I don't hate the French, in fact I envy them. I hate the fact that Moore has fooled so many people, including here in the US, into believing that his Documentary is fair and unbyassed when it is not. I cannot help but feel helpless at the fact that so many people have bought into his propaganda and have even felt it warrented a distinguished award.

Politics should never play into the giving of an award and that too really angers me. If Moore had done a movie on Clinton I still would say what I am saying now, its all one sided and full of BS.

So if I have offended any french person, I am deeply sorry. I know now that many French folks think the same of Mr. Moore as many Americans do. He is just a film maker out to make a buck. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As much as I dislike the man, he is at least doing what he likes to do. How many of us can say that?

[ May 25, 2004, 19:23: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Atrocities]

Well said alarikf. Well said.

[Will]

Hear, hear. Well said, alarikf, it would be hard to write it any better. *raises glass*

[TerranC]

Perhaps you should think about sending that little rant to your local newspaper's editorial section, Alarikf, eh?

Well said, well said indeed.

[Simeron]

M. Moore showed exactly what kind of person he is when everyone, and I mean everyone, had the brains or at least respect to NOT politicalize the Acadamy Awards...oh, except Mich who simply couldn't be bothered to be respectful.

Mich simply don't think his poop stinks.

Unfortunately, it do Micky..it do, almost as bad as these 'docudramas' he makes.

The biggest fear muttonchops has is that people will learn to snort at him and walk away. If you take a look at the history of his films they simply get more and more disrespectful, distasteful and over the top then the Last one. If it ain't "shock jock" approved and tested, it won't sell.

Sorry, but I got better things to do with my time then subsidize someone with a need for attention that puts a uber bratty 3 year old to shame.

Oh, can you tell I don't particularly care for muttonchops? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Simeron]

Maybe I am out dated and out of touch. Maybe I am just too old now to fit in with the more "enlightened" views of today but, I certainly don't see the war in Iraq as a BAD thing.

Maybe the reasons we went in were not the ones that we should have been using but, there were more then enough reasons to go in there and do what we did. We know that Saddam had WMD and used them in the past on the Kurds and the Sheites within his own country when the US lacked the guts to stand up and make the monster pay back in 1991 for his crimes due to "world opinion".

We know that the Al Q terrorists planned and executed the 9/11/01 attack on this country and we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq so that this group could continue to attack innocents across the world like the bombing in Bali after 9/11.

Yes, if the American people were knowingly lied to there should be an accounting. Yes, the mistreatment of captives needs to be dealt with openingly and fairly. Yes as American we should be a shining beacon to the world that there is a better way to live. We should lead by example.

But the eagle carries spears and arrows as well as the olive branch for a reason. Its time that the rest of the world understands that if you want that American military might to protect you and your interests..there is a price you have to pay. If you want American blood to be shed, America expects a HIGH return on that precious payment.

And if you make the mistake of thinking America is a paper tiger who is all growl and no fangs, you better understand that there is not a place on the face of the earth that we won't come and find you no matter the cost.

There are "rules of warfare" but, there are also times when those rules go out the window. War is war. It's not civilized. Its not supposed to be. I can't understand when the idea got started that war could ever be "clean". Even in the heyday of "civilized" warfare it was not clean. Sure, limit the death of innocents as much as possible but, take out your targets.

I am not saying anything goes here but, this watered down wring your hands and worry stuff gets to me. War is not something to be entered into lightly but once you enter into it, do what you have to do to win. Try to make it as civil as possible yeah but, don't worry so much about keeping it clean that you end up losing MORE of that precious American blood then you have to.

As a people, we should have killed or ended Saddam's rule in 1991-1992. Simply put, he should not have been in power today. If we had, more then likely the Towers would still be standing and the world would be a far better place. But for a FACT, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, men, women, children and babies would be alive today. Possible MILLIONS would be.

I don't understand why people seem to think the President has the political power in this country either. The President has very LITTLE political power. The true political power resides in 476 representatives and 100 senators that form the US Congress. Congress writes the checks. Congress makes the laws. Congress declares war. The President has one major power other then CinC and that is Persuasion. He can try to get Congress to do what he wants. So if you want to start pointing fingers, make sure you point them to the Hill as well as the White House. There is enough blame to go around to all those people up there Republican and Democrat.

But never say that what we did in Iraq was wrong or bad. Millions of people live better today then they have in 30+ years in Iraq. Some live better now then they ever have and many more will have a far better life now. The vast majority of the children will now be able to learn freely many things, not just what their "masters" want them to know. Women will be able to be all they desire and finally have a say in the lives of thier children and men.

The biggest shame I see of America is that we didn't do this sooner and that we have so very many more countries where we should do it.

As for reasons, how can we say we are a beacon to the world when we know of horrors like toture camps in Syria for children as young as 5 years old?

We know that people are resorting to cannabalism in North Korea just to try to survive?

We know that women are killed for simply showing thier face or speaking thier mind in Iran?

There are hundreds...thousands of reasons to do what we did in Iraq elsewhere. The question is why should we do it.

And the answer is that we are looked upon as the world's police force, its time the cops started busting the criminals.

Not long after 9/11 an article was written in the Daily Mirror, an English newspaper that is normally rather left wing. I think it sums things up rather nicely.

**********************************************

A thoughtfully written piece in one of the most left wing newspapers in the UK. Just a word of background for those of you who aren't familiar with the UK's Daily Mirror. This is one of the most notorious Left wing, anti-American dailies in the UK. Hard to believe that the Daily Mirror actually published it, but it did.

Begin article:

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - the mass murder of thousands, live on television.

As a lesson in the pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps.

An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate.
Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil.But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance.
Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the Last year.

There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country- too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than Europeans - but it has become an epidemic.

And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.

America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to the US by culture, language and blood.

A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon?

And exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the planes was that we recognised them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives. And children.

Some unborn.

And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan.
The anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since September 11.

Remember, remember. Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say, "I love you," before they were burned alive. Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning skyscrapers.
Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive. Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realise that America has never retaliated for 9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray?

Pass the Kleenex.

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.

That it didn't is a sign of strength.

American voices are already being raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered innocents of 9/11?

How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that -
and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that
9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell", if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell like you wouldn't believe.

The US is the most militarily powerful nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.

But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand -assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic.

Not ground down by the past, or religion, or some caste system. America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start remembering that.

Or do you really think the USA is the root of all evil? Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death from the burning towers.

Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing skyscraper.

And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands worked for the New York Fire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets a worse press than Saddam Hussein.

Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save me the orange centre, oh mighty one!

Remember, remember, September 11. One of the greatest atrocities in human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember. Never forget.

***********************************************

Sadly, from this old, out-dated, war mongering American's viewpoint, far to many are doing exactly that...forgeting.

Maybe Iraq didn't have direct ties to 9/11 and maybe they did. The FACT is, they had Al Q training camps in Northern Iraq. For all we know, some of the very people that crashed those plane into our cities were trained there before coming here. But the fact is, there were more of the same kind of people in those camps.

And the fact is it is high time the world's only remaining superpower let the rest of the world know that if you pull the tiger's tail you best hold on REAL tight because the other end with the fangs is going to be coming to get you.

Adm. Yamamoto said to an aide that told him of the great victory at Peral Harbor this...

"The attack may appear to have been a great victory. But the declaration of war was not yet given at the time of our attack. The American people are a proud people and will feel great insult at this feeling it was a sneak attack. I fear all that we have accomplished by this great victory is we have awoken a sleeping giant that will come to consume us all."

Sadly, it seems Bin Laden and the rest of the world forgot THAT lesson too.

So yes, we should be restrained in our response and as far as I can tell, from the fact there are still no mushroom clouds across the entire middle east nor large areas of wasteland from our wrath, we have been fairly true to that.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The level of restraint not to kill innocents might, in that situation, be large, but it is no more than I beleive God expects of us.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
The level of restraint not to kill innocents might, in that situation, be large, but it is no more than I beleive God expects of us. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I fully agree but remember, we as a people are taking God out of the government too.

Seperation of Church and State after all.

Which I find ever so amusing. We have prayer on the steps of the Capitol. Each and every offical in Washington is sworn in on a Bible or takes an oath "under God" yet the common person can't have a "moment of silence" at a football game. (rolls eyes)

Last time I checked God was not a conveinience. You either are on His side or not. But that is a "discussion" for another thread (the Passion one I think..hehe)

But you are correct, we should be restrained and have been, which is my point. THAT is why I think the current "problems" that people have alluded to are not looked upon as problems...much like putting the Japanese Americans in interment camps but not German or Italian Americans during WWII was more due to the Japanese attack on Peral Harbor then any danger of spies.

[dogscoff]

Seperation of Church and State after all.

Which I find ever so amusing. We have prayer on the steps of the Capitol. Each and every offical in Washington is sworn in on a Bible or takes an oath "under God"
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not to mention that GwB manages to mention God in just about every other speech he makes. He seems to think he's on some kind of crusade to the holy land- if it wasn't so scary it would remind me of the Blues Brothers ("we're on a mission from God, Ma'am") and be funny.


Maybe I am out dated and out of touch
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You said it, not me.

I certainly don't see the war in Iraq as a BAD thing.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How is it a GOOD thing? It has acheived nothing positive.

Sure, Saddam is out of the picture but as soon as the US hands over power to the locals they will elect some religious zealout who will turn Iraq into another Iran and the whole bloody thing will kick off once again.
You're looking at a brutal, vicious civil war between a half-dozen factions in that country within the decade and the west has made such a hash of it this time that they will be reluctant to get involved again, leaving them to their own devices... even though it's our fault.

On the other hand, the war killed tens of thousands, obliterated a country's infrastructure, tore up international law and co-operation and has generated huge amounts of anti-western sentiment in the middle east that will fuel international terrorism for decades to come. Is that not a BAD thing?

And the answer is that we are looked upon as the world's police force,<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh are you? And who told you that? You really *are* out of touch aren't you. I for one don't look upon the US as the world's police force, I see it more as some kind of rogue cowboy who, after running the sherrif out of town and stealing his badge, is now riding around, shooting his mouth off and firing his guns at random. And I think you'll find I'm not alone in this view.


the Daily Mirror, an English newspaper that is normally rather left wing
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Back in the seventies maybe. NOw it's just another reactionary right-wing, bandwagon-jumping media-conglomerate-owned rag that will print any old ****e that will sell. Your average leftie wouldn't wipe his arse on the mirror. There are no left wing tabloids in this country, and the closest we have to a left wing broadsheet is the independent or guardian.


Maybe Iraq didn't have direct ties to 9/11 and maybe they did.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really? What about what you said earlier in your post? I quote:
"we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq " and "If we had {got rid of Saddam 15 years ago} more then likely the Towers would still be standing"
Did they or didn't they? Are you sure or aren't you?

Please also read alarikf's post further down, and bear in mind his credentials. here's the relevent quote from his post: "here is a FACT that a person can choose to ignore at their peril: There was NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. "


The FACT is, they had Al Q training camps in Northern Iraq.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The FACT is, IIRC, those al-qaeda training camps were in Kurd-controlled territory, and had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Yes, he was a bastard, but he didn't bring down the twin towers. Saudi Arabians did.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Simeron:

We know that Saddam had WMD and used them in the past on the Kurds and the Sheites within his own country
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">True
Originally posted by Simeron:

when the US lacked the guts to stand up and make the monster pay back in 1991 for his crimes due to "world opinion".
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
US feared to create a new bigger Liban. So the choice have been : better a powerless Saddam than a complete mess in the Gulf.
Nothing to do with balls.

Originally posted by Simeron:

we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq so that this group could continue to attack innocents across the world like the bombing in Bali after 9/11.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
Saddam give money to family of Palestinian kamikaze. Which have nothing to do with Al Quada. Not a single link, even if it could now change due to actual political developpments between US/Israel/Palestinians.

Originally posted by Simeron:

providing training bases within Iraq
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Lie.
Saddam never trusted Al Quada and Bin Laden hated Saddam. Only one group had some camps in northern Iraq, in the part on which Saddam had no control.


Please read the following Stratfor analysis. And keep in mind that so far, they went on target for the whole Iraq story. So far, I'll stay with my opinion : Bush is a failure and a clear danger to US security.


Please feel free to send the Stratfor Weekly to a friend or colleague.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
11 May 2004

The Edge of the Razor

Summary
The strategy of the United States in its war with radical Islam is in a state of crisis. The global strategic framework is in much better shape than the tactical situation in the Iraq theater of operations -- but this is of only limited comfort to Washington because massive tactical failure in Iraq could lead to strategic collapse. The situation is balanced on the razor's edge. The United States could recover from its tactical failures, or suffer a massive defeat if it fails to do so. One thing is certain: The United States cannot remain balanced on the razor's edge indefinitely.

Analysis

Most wars reach a moment of crisis, when the outcome hangs in the balance and in which weakness and errors, military or political, can shape victory or put it permanently out of reach. Sometimes these moments of crisis come suddenly and are purely military, such as the Battle of Midway. Sometimes they are a long time brewing and are primarily political in nature, like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. These are moments when planning, judgment and luck can decide victors -- and when bad planning, lack of judgment and bad luck can undermine the best and brightest. It is the moment when history balances on the razor's edge. The U.S.-Islamist war is now, it seems to us, balanced on that edge.

There are some who argue that it is not reasonable to speak of the confrontation between the United States and al Qaeda as a war. It certainly does not, in any way, resemble World War II. It is nevertheless very much a war. It consists of two sides that are each making plans, using violence and attempting to shape the political future of a major region of the globe -- the Muslim world. One side masses large forces, the other side disperses much smaller forces throughout the globe. But the goals are the goals of any war: to shape the political future. And the means are the same as in any war: to kill sufficient numbers of the enemy in order to break his will to fight and resist. It might not look like wars the United States has fought in the past, but it is most certainly a war -- and it is a war whose outcome is in doubt.

On a strategic level, the United States has been the victor since the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet strategic victories can be undermined by massive tactical failures, and this is what the United States is facing now. Iraq is a single campaign in a much broader war. However, as frequently occurs in wars, unintended consequences dominate the battlefield. The United States intended to occupy Iraq and move on to other campaigns -- but failures in planning, underestimation of the enemy and command failures have turned strategic victory into a tactical nightmare. That tactical nightmare is now threatening to undermine not only the Iraqi theater of operations, but also the entire American war effort. It is threatening to reverse a series of al Qaeda defeats. If the current trend continues, the tactical situation will undermine U.S. strategy in Iraq, and the collapse of U.S. strategy in Iraq could unravel the entire U.S. strategy against al Qaeda and the Islamists. The question is whether the United States has the honesty to face the fact that it is a crisis, the imagination to craft a solution to the problems in Iraq and the luck that the enemy will give it the time it needs to regroup.

That is what war looks like on the razor's edge.

The Strategic Situation

In the midst of the noise over Iraq, it is essential to grasp the strategic balance and to understand that on that level, the United States has done relatively well. To be more precise, al Qaeda has done quite poorly. It is one of the paradoxes of American war-fighting that, having failed to articulate coherent goals, the Bush administration is incapable of pointing to its real successes. But this is an excruciatingly great failure on the part of the administration. It was Napoleon who said, "The moral is to the physical as 3-1," by which he meant that how a nation or army views its successes is more important than what its capabilities are. The failure to tend to the morale of the nation, to articulate a strategy and demonstrate progress, is not a marginal failure. It is the greatest possible failure of political leadership in wartime.

Nevertheless al Qaeda has failed in its most fundamental goal. There has been no mass rising in the Islamic world, nor has a single Muslim government fallen. Nor, for that matter, has a single Islamic government shifted its position in support of al Qaeda. To the contrary, a series of Muslim governments -- the most important of which is Saudi Arabia -- have shifted their positions toward active and effective opposition to al Qaeda. The current attacks by al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia are a reflection of the shift in Saudi policy that has occurred since just before the invasion of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is far from the only country to have shifted its strategy. Iran -- for all of its bombast -- has, through complex back-channel negotiations with the United States as well as a complex re-evaluation of its strategic position, changed its behavior since January 2002. Syria, while still not fully in control, has certainly become more circumspect in its behavior. Prior to the Iraq war, these governments ranged from hostile to uncooperative; they since have shifted to a spectrum ranging from minimally cooperative to fully cooperative.

Since the United States could not hunt down al Qaeda, cell by cell and individual by individual, it devised an alternative strategy that is less effective in the short run but more effective in the long run -- and the only strategy available. Washington sought to change the behavior of enabling countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, by making the potential threat from the United States greater than the potential threat from al Qaeda. By occupying Iraq and surrounding Saudi Arabia with military forces, the United States compelled a reluctant and truculent Riyadh to comply with American wishes.

In the long run, changes in the behavior of these governments -- and of other Muslim governments, from Islamabad to Tripoli -- represent the only way to defeat al Qaeda. To the simplistic American question of, "Are we safer today than we were a year ago?" the answer is, "Probably not." To the question of whether the United States is on a path that might make it safer in five years, the answer is "Probably yes," assuming the U.S. effort doesn't collapse under the weight of its pyramiding mistakes in Iraq.

We would argue that the political shifts in the Muslim world that have helped the United States were aided significantly by the invasion of Iraq. We would certainly agree that Islamic opposition to the United States solidified -- we doubt that there was much room for intensification -- but we would also argue that opinion is significant to the extent to which it turns into war-fighting capability. The Poles despised the Germans and the Japanese were not fond of the Americans, but neither could expel the occupier simply on the strength of public opinion. It is the shifts in government policy that contained radical Islamist tendencies that should be the focal point, and the invasion of Iraq served that purpose.

Tactical Failures?

It is at that point that things started to go wrong -- not with the grand strategy of the United States, but with the Iraq strategy itself. A string of intelligence failures, errors in judgment and command failures have conspired to undermine the U.S. position in Iraq and reverse the strategic benefits. These failures included:

* A failure to detect that preparations were under way for a guerrilla war in the event that Baghdad fell.

* A failure to quickly recognize that a guerrilla war was under way in Iraq, and a delay of months before the reality was recognized and a strategy
developed for dealing with it.

* A failure to understand that the United States did not have the resources to govern Iraq if all Baathist personnel were excluded.

* A failure to understand the nature of the people the United States was installing in the Iraqi Governing Council -- and in particular, the complex loyalties of Ahmed Chalabi and his relationship to Iraq's Shia and the Iranian government. The United States became highly dependent on individuals about whom it lacked sufficient intelligence.

* A failure to recognize that the Sunni guerrillas were regrouping in February and March 2004, after their defeat in the Ramadan offensive.

* Completely underestimating the number of forces needed for the occupation of Iraq, and cavalierly dismissing accurate Army estimates in favor of lower estimates that rapidly became unsupportable.

* Failing to step up military recruiting in order to increase the total number of U.S. ground forces available on a worldwide basis. Failing to understand that the difference between defeating an army and occupying a country had to be made up with ground forces.

These are the particular failures. The general failures are a compendium of every imaginable military failing:

* Failing to focus on the objective. Rather than remembering why U.S. forces were in Iraq and focusing on that, the Bush administration wandered off into irrelevancies and impossibilities, such as building democracy and eliminating Baath party members. The administration forgot its mission.

* Underestimating the enemy and overestimating U.S. power. The enemy was intelligent, dedicated and brave. He was defending his country and his home. The United States was enormously powerful but not omnipotent. The casual dismissal of the Iraqi guerrillas led directly to the failure to anticipate and counter enemy action.

* Failure to rapidly identify errors and rectify them through changes of plans, strategies and personnel. Error is common in war. The measure of a military force is how honestly errors are addressed and rectified. When a command structure begins denying that self- evident problems are facing them, all is lost. The administration's insistence over the past year that no fundamental errors were committed in Iraq has been a cancer eating through all layers of the command structure -- from the squad to the office of the president.

* Failing to understand the political dimension of the war and permitting political support for the war in the United States to erode by failing to
express a clear, coherent war plan on the broadest level. Because of this failure, other major failures -- ranging from the failure to find weapons of mass destruction to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners -- have filled the space that strategy should have occupied. The persistent failure of the president to explain the linkage between Iraq and the broader war has been symptomatic of this systemic failure.

Remember the objective; respect the enemy; be your own worst critic; exercise leadership at all levels -- these are fundamental principles of warfare. They have all been violated during the Iraq campaign.

The strategic situation, as of March 2004, was rapidly improving for the United States. There was serious, reasonable discussion of a final push into Pakistan to liquidate al Qaeda's leadership. Al Qaeda began a global counterattack -- as in Spain -- that was neither unexpected nor as effective as it might have been. However, the counterattack in Iraq was both unexpected and destabilizing -- causing military and political processes in Iraq to separate out, and forcing the United States into negotiations with the Sunni guerrillas while simultaneously trying to manage a crisis in the Shiite areas. At the same time that the United States was struggling to stabilize its position in Iraq, the prison abuse issue emerged. It was devastating not only in its own right, but also because of the timing. It generated a sense
that U.S. operations in Iraq were out of control. From Al Fallujah to An Najaf to Abu Ghraib, the question was whether anyone had the slightest idea
what they were trying to achieve in Iraq.

Which brings us back to the razor's edge. If the United States rapidly adjusts its Iraq operations to take realities in that country into account, rather than engaging on ongoing wishful thinking, the situation in Iraq can be saved and with it the gains made in the war on al Qaeda. On the other hand, if the United States continues its unbalanced and ineffective prosecution of the war against the guerrillas and continues to allow its relations with the Shia to deteriorate, the United States will find itself in an untenable position. If it is forced to withdraw from Iraq, or to so limit its operations there as to be effectively withdrawn, the entire dynamic that the United States has worked to create since the Sept. 11 attacks will reverse itself, and the U.S. position in the Muslim world -- which was fairly strong in January 2004 -- will deteriorate, and al Qaeda's influence will increase dramatically.

The Political Crisis

It is not clear that the Bush administration understands the crisis it is facing. The prison abuse pictures are symptomatic -- not only of persistent command failure, but also of the administration's loss of credibility with the public. Since no one really knows what the administration is doing, it is not unreasonable to fill in the blanks with the least generous assumptions. The issue is this: Iraq has not gone as planned by any stretch of the imagination. If the failures of Iraq are not rectified quickly, the entire U.S. strategic position could unravel. Speed is of the essence. There is no longer time left.

The issue is one of responsibility. Who is responsible for the failures in Iraq? The president appears to have assumed that if anyone were fired, it would be admitting that something went wrong. At this point, there is no one who doesn't know that many things have gone wrong. If the president insists on retaining all of his senior staff, Cabinet members and field commanders, no one is going to draw the conclusion that everything is under control; rather they will conclude that it is the president himself who is responsible for the failures, and they will act accordingly.

The issue facing Bush is not merely the prison pictures. It is the series of failures in the Iraq campaign that have revealed serious errors of judgment and temperament among senior cabinet-level officials. We suspect that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is finished, and with him Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Vice President Dick Cheney said over the weekend that everyone should get off of Rumsfeld's case. What Cheney doesn't seem to grasp is that there is a war on and that at this moment, it isn't going very well. If the secretary of defense doesn't bear the burden of failures and misjudgments, who does? Or does the vice president suggest a no-fault policy when it comes to war? Or does he think that things are going well?

This is not asked polemically. It is our job to identify emerging trends, and we have, frequently, been accused of everything from being owned by the Republicans to being Iraq campaign apologists. In fact, we are making a non-partisan point: The administration is painting itself into a corner that will cost Bush the presidency if it does not deal with the fact that there is no one who doesn't know that Iraq has been mismanaged. The administration's only option for survival is to start managing it effectively, if that can be done at this point.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Simeron:
Maybe Iraq didn't have direct ties to 9/11 and maybe they did. The FACT is, they had Al Q training camps in Northern Iraq. For all we know, some of the very people that crashed those plane into our cities were trained there before coming here. But the fact is, there were more of the same kind of people in those camps.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a huge mistruth that you hear from conservative pundits and believed by the people who listen to them but abandoned by everyone else. Even GW has backed of the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection.

The Northern "training bases" everyone refers to were in the Kurd no fly zone and run by a group called Ansar Al-Islam - they were not in a Saddam controlled area - and this group was commited to the overthrow of Saddam and were dedicated to bringing an Islamist state to Iraq: Fanatics yes Al Qaeda no.

The ones that FoxNews et. al. reported west of Baghdad were simply Iraqi military bases (you don't hear about these much anymore) not terrorist training camps.

Anyway the more likely culprits would be the Saudis but nothing will ever happen to them because we know the connection that GW has with those people.

[ May 26, 2004, 09:42: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[dogscoff]

I merely stated those things about myself because in today's political environment, everyone is all about ad hominen attacks and I wanted to avoid the inevitable "we'll you're just a liberal so of course you'd say that" phenomenon.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's kind of what I was aiming at, that and the fact that you said your opinions about being misled into war have changed. I wasn't trying to make you out to be James Bond, leaking secret information to the shrapnel forum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Sorry if that;s how it came across.

[AMF]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB] That's kind of what I was aiming at, that and the fact that you said your opinions about being misled into war have changed. I wasn't trying to make you out to be James Bond, leaking secret information to the shrapnel forum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Sorry if that;s how it came across. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Heh. James Bond indeed. Trust me, my work right now is capital-B Boring.

But, really, people with clearances just need to be *absolutely* careful with talking about their work, what they say, etc...and for good reason. Secrets exist for a reason, even if they are seemingly unimportant to those involved. True, we sometimes classify things for no discernible reason, and sometimes its even done for the wrong reasons (cover ups, etc...) but, in general, secrets are there for a reason.

But the lack of a link between Saddam and AQ is no secret, that's for sure!

EDIT: spelling, word changes.

[ May 26, 2004, 13:26: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[tesco samoa]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html

You knew it was coming... Almost summer...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[AMF]

Making predictions is almost always gaurenteed to make the predictor look like a fool. Nonetheless, I can't resist making one today.

Here is a quote regarding the pledge to transfer Sovt'y to Iraq on June 30th (from Online Time magazine at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642021,00.html?cnn=yes)

"Bush vowed both to transfer "full sovereignty" to an Iraqi provisional government on June 30, and to maintain 138,000 U.S. troops (or, possibly, more) in Iraq "under American command." U.S. officials have also insisted, up to now, that American officers will have command responsibility for the Iraqi security forces. But sovereignty is like pregnancy ? you either are or you aren't, because sovereignty means nothing less than final decision-making authority over all matters of state and the maintenance of security within the borders of a given nation state. If sovereignty is indeed to be transferred on June 30, then any U.S. or other foreign military formations in the country will have to submit to the political will of the sovereign Iraqi government."

My prediction is this: at some point, there will be a crisis wherein an Iraqi politician who is part of the governing body of Iraq will call for all US forces to leave Iraq. He will do this irregardless of prior stances becuase it will gaurentee him prestige and popularity in Iraq, and it will set up a clear crisis between the US and the Iraq "government." How this might turn out, I don't know.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">
Seperation of Church and State after all.

Which I find ever so amusing. We have prayer on the steps of the Capitol. Each and every offical in Washington is sworn in on a Bible or takes an oath "under God"
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not to mention that GwB manages to mention God in just about every other speech he makes. He seems to think he's on some kind of crusade to the holy land- if it wasn't so scary it would remind me of the Blues Brothers ("we're on a mission from God, Ma'am") and be funny.


Maybe I am out dated and out of touch
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You said it, not me.

I certainly don't see the war in Iraq as a BAD thing.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How is it a GOOD thing? It has acheived nothing positive.

Sure, Saddam is out of the picture but as soon as the US hands over power to the locals they will elect some religious zealout who will turn Iraq into another Iran and the whole bloody thing will kick off once again.
You're looking at a brutal, vicious civil war between a half-dozen factions in that country within the decade and the west has made such a hash of it this time that they will be reluctant to get involved again, leaving them to their own devices... even though it's our fault.

On the other hand, the war killed tens of thousands, obliterated a country's infrastructure, tore up international law and co-operation and has generated huge amounts of anti-western sentiment in the middle east that will fuel international terrorism for decades to come. Is that not a BAD thing?

And the answer is that we are looked upon as the world's police force,<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh are you? And who told you that? You really *are* out of touch aren't you. I for one don't look upon the US as the world's police force, I see it more as some kind of rogue cowboy who, after running the sherrif out of town and stealing his badge, is now riding around, shooting his mouth off and firing his guns at random. And I think you'll find I'm not alone in this view.


the Daily Mirror, an English newspaper that is normally rather left wing
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Back in the seventies maybe. NOw it's just another reactionary right-wing, bandwagon-jumping media-conglomerate-owned rag that will print any old ****e that will sell. Your average leftie wouldn't wipe his arse on the mirror. There are no left wing tabloids in this country, and the closest we have to a left wing broadsheet is the independent or guardian.


Maybe Iraq didn't have direct ties to 9/11 and maybe they did.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Really? What about what you said earlier in your post? I quote:
"we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq " and "If we had {got rid of Saddam 15 years ago} more then likely the Towers would still be standing"
Did they or didn't they? Are you sure or aren't you?

Please also read alarikf's post further down, and bear in mind his credentials. here's the relevent quote from his post: "here is a FACT that a person can choose to ignore at their peril: There was NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. "


The FACT is, they had Al Q training camps in Northern Iraq.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The FACT is, IIRC, those al-qaeda training camps were in Kurd-controlled territory, and had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

Yes, he was a bastard, but he didn't bring down the twin towers. Saudi Arabians did. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, first of all the contention that nothing positive has come from the war in Iraq is just plain wrong. Frankly, I can't believe you said that.

Saddam gone, millions free of a brutal dictator that had 5 year olds imprisoned, and you can't see anything positive that has come from the war?

As far as "anti western" sentiment in the middle east..geez, take your head out. Since WHEN did the middle east ever NOT have that? The "anti west" sentiment has been there since the CRUSADES, hell, even BEFORE as they came into Europe and sacked ROME.

Fuel terrorism? Poverty is a far better fuel then political retoric my friend. Its hard as hell to get someone to blow themselves up when they got a nice family, home and life to live for. But make it where they see nothing to live for and they will strap that bomb on thier back and nuke themselves.

Give the people a good education, a good shot at living rather then existing and you will do more to stop terrorism then a billion zealots can start.

As far as infrastructure...

Before the war 30% of the Iraqi people had running water in thier homes, now some 70% have it.

64% had electricity that was on MOST of the time, now 94% have it.

The roads were unsafe in the majority of the country, they are no longer save in "Hot Spots" that are cleared as quickly as possible.

Men, women and children were taken from their homes in the dead of night to be tortured, raped and killed in prisons by thugs on a routine basis, this is now the exception and there are forces that seek out these thugs and try to stop them by arrest or death.

HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS were being killed by the government of Saddam EACH YEAR. In the ENTIRE WAR EFFORT TO DATE we have not come CLOSE to that number if you add up ALL CASUALTIES on ALL SIDES.

And as for the government, I am so glad you are able to see the future. I seem to remember the same cow dung being flung when we took out the Taliban in Afganistan. I don't see this happening there so somehow, I don't see it happening in Iraq. Well, not unless the American forces are pulled out too soon due to "world opinion".

No..nothing good has come of it as you see.

Course, guess you're blind.../shrug.

As far as America being the world's policeman...

Who does everyone come to for money, military help, humanitarian aid? What country is the first to offer such things? The old USA. And when has the world ever come to help US?

WHO came to help us when we have natural disasters? Who sent help when we had the California earthquakes? The Mid West Floods? The Twin Towers being destroyed? Who sent help?

Nobody.

But when there was earthquakes in Turkey...America was there.

In Iran...there was the US helping within 24 hours.

Who dropped more FOOD and HUMANITARIAN supplies in Afganistan then bombs? Who made sure fresh food, water and other basic needs were there for the Iraqis? Who is still sending supplies to North Korea and other countries that have OPENLY STATED they hate the US?

No, I don't know WHERE I got the idea the US was the world's policeman. But let some hot spot flare up and the first military troops sent in from outside will have an AMERICAN flag on thier shoulders.

You may not be alone, hell, I sure know you aren't. But that just means you're in a crowd of people that don't have a clue, not that you're right.

Tell you what, let's see the US pull out its support from the world and find out just how long the old world can Last. And I mean the whole shebang baby...military, economic..the works.

The world economy is based on the US Dollar.

The US green back is accepted damn near everywhere, no other currency is.

As for the Al Q camps...we know for a fact Saddam was funding the camps. They were NOT in Kurd controlled territories. In fact, the imbedded reporter with the Kurds have HOURS of footage showing the camps well inside Iraqi controlled territory NEAR the Kurdish areas. Please at least get the facts right or close enough that its not blatantly obvious that you don't know what you are saying.

The camps were funded by AL Q and Saddam within the country. That's fact. As far as me saying "Maybe" that was a statement that even if you DON'T BELIEVE that fact, that it remains a fact.

As for MY background, suffice it to say I have Ultra clearance to this day. I have more information on what has been going on in Afganistan and Iraq then I really ever want from comrades on the ground in many, many different areas.

I am not saying alarikf's post is wrong. It is probably far more right then he is even leading people to believe in some areas but, I know for a fact that Saddam was helping Al Q with more then money.

As for who brought down the towers and killed thousands of innocents..it wasn't the Saudi Arabians..it was Al Q operatives who happen to be FROM that country.

But, I do blame SA for allowing the fundamentalist to grow in such power as to enable AL Q to continually get funding from people within thier country as well as more recruits because they refuse to use the billions of dollars they earn each year to help the average Saudi get a better life through a GOOD education (not a filtered one with blinders put on it by zealots).

Do I think the US should tell Saudi Arabia to either put up or take a hike? You betcha. Do I think the average Middle Eastern person hates the US...nope..not really. I think they are listening to the trash spouted on the controlled news outlets and are only given the information that would make any normal, sane person hate a country painted as bad as the US is continually painted.

And as for being old and out dated...

As the saying goes..if its not broke..don't fix it.

And if the US was really the "wild and wooly cowboy" you say, the world would be either a member of the US commonwealth or a smoking ruin.

Understand that there is only ONE superpower left in the world. The US has the ability to project its power where ever it desires. No other country can do that nor even come close.

As I said before, when the towers fell, the majority of the American people wanted blood for blood. It is a testament to the strength of this nation that instead of dropping the hammer on the entire Middle and Near East like the wrath of Almighty God we instead had leaders that remained calm and have slowly, painfully worked to seek out those that would do such horrible acts and stop them.

And it is also a sign of strength that our leaders were willing to do it regardless of the sudden loss of courage on the part of some of our so called "allies" when it became evident that we would find out about thier ILLEGAL dealings with the Iraqi regime.

Have American troops done things that they should feel saddened about...you bet. That is why war should be avoided.

Should they be ashamed...not in my book.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Simeron:

We know that Saddam had WMD and used them in the past on the Kurds and the Sheites within his own country
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">True
Originally posted by Simeron:

when the US lacked the guts to stand up and make the monster pay back in 1991 for his crimes due to "world opinion".
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
US feared to create a new bigger Liban. So the choice have been : better a powerless Saddam than a complete mess in the Gulf.
Nothing to do with balls.

Originally posted by Simeron:

we also know for a fact that Saddam was funding Al Q and providing training bases within Iraq so that this group could continue to attack innocents across the world like the bombing in Bali after 9/11.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">False.
Saddam give money to family of Palestinian kamikaze. Which have nothing to do with Al Quada. Not a single link, even if it could now change due to actual political developpments between US/Israel/Palestinians.

Originally posted by Simeron:

providing training bases within Iraq
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Lie.
Saddam never trusted Al Quada and Bin Laden hated Saddam. Only one group had some camps in northern Iraq, in the part on which Saddam had no control.


Please read the following Stratfor analysis. And keep in mind that so far, they went on target for the whole Iraq story. So far, I'll stay with my opinion : Bush is a failure and a clear danger to US security.


Please feel free to send the Stratfor Weekly to a friend or colleague.

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
11 May 2004

The Edge of the Razor

Summary
The strategy of the United States in its war with radical Islam is in a state of crisis. The global strategic framework is in much better shape than the tactical situation in the Iraq theater of operations -- but this is of only limited comfort to Washington because massive tactical failure in Iraq could lead to strategic collapse. The situation is balanced on the razor's edge. The United States could recover from its tactical failures, or suffer a massive defeat if it fails to do so. One thing is certain: The United States cannot remain balanced on the razor's edge indefinitely.

Analysis

Most wars reach a moment of crisis, when the outcome hangs in the balance and in which weakness and errors, military or political, can shape victory or put it permanently out of reach. Sometimes these moments of crisis come suddenly and are purely military, such as the Battle of Midway. Sometimes they are a long time brewing and are primarily political in nature, like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. These are moments when planning, judgment and luck can decide victors -- and when bad planning, lack of judgment and bad luck can undermine the best and brightest. It is the moment when history balances on the razor's edge. The U.S.-Islamist war is now, it seems to us, balanced on that edge.

There are some who argue that it is not reasonable to speak of the confrontation between the United States and al Qaeda as a war. It certainly does not, in any way, resemble World War II. It is nevertheless very much a war. It consists of two sides that are each making plans, using violence and attempting to shape the political future of a major region of the globe -- the Muslim world. One side masses large forces, the other side disperses much smaller forces throughout the globe. But the goals are the goals of any war: to shape the political future. And the means are the same as in any war: to kill sufficient numbers of the enemy in order to break his will to fight and resist. It might not look like wars the United States has fought in the past, but it is most certainly a war -- and it is a war whose outcome is in doubt.

On a strategic level, the United States has been the victor since the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet strategic victories can be undermined by massive tactical failures, and this is what the United States is facing now. Iraq is a single campaign in a much broader war. However, as frequently occurs in wars, unintended consequences dominate the battlefield. The United States intended to occupy Iraq and move on to other campaigns -- but failures in planning, underestimation of the enemy and command failures have turned strategic victory into a tactical nightmare. That tactical nightmare is now threatening to undermine not only the Iraqi theater of operations, but also the entire American war effort. It is threatening to reverse a series of al Qaeda defeats. If the current trend continues, the tactical situation will undermine U.S. strategy in Iraq, and the collapse of U.S. strategy in Iraq could unravel the entire U.S. strategy against al Qaeda and the Islamists. The question is whether the United States has the honesty to face the fact that it is a crisis, the imagination to craft a solution to the problems in Iraq and the luck that the enemy will give it the time it needs to regroup.

That is what war looks like on the razor's edge.

The Strategic Situation

In the midst of the noise over Iraq, it is essential to grasp the strategic balance and to understand that on that level, the United States has done relatively well. To be more precise, al Qaeda has done quite poorly. It is one of the paradoxes of American war-fighting that, having failed to articulate coherent goals, the Bush administration is incapable of pointing to its real successes. But this is an excruciatingly great failure on the part of the administration. It was Napoleon who said, "The moral is to the physical as 3-1," by which he meant that how a nation or army views its successes is more important than what its capabilities are. The failure to tend to the morale of the nation, to articulate a strategy and demonstrate progress, is not a marginal failure. It is the greatest possible failure of political leadership in wartime.

Nevertheless al Qaeda has failed in its most fundamental goal. There has been no mass rising in the Islamic world, nor has a single Muslim government fallen. Nor, for that matter, has a single Islamic government shifted its position in support of al Qaeda. To the contrary, a series of Muslim governments -- the most important of which is Saudi Arabia -- have shifted their positions toward active and effective opposition to al Qaeda. The current attacks by al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia are a reflection of the shift in Saudi policy that has occurred since just before the invasion of Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is far from the only country to have shifted its strategy. Iran -- for all of its bombast -- has, through complex back-channel negotiations with the United States as well as a complex re-evaluation of its strategic position, changed its behavior since January 2002. Syria, while still not fully in control, has certainly become more circumspect in its behavior. Prior to the Iraq war, these governments ranged from hostile to uncooperative; they since have shifted to a spectrum ranging from minimally cooperative to fully cooperative.

Since the United States could not hunt down al Qaeda, cell by cell and individual by individual, it devised an alternative strategy that is less effective in the short run but more effective in the long run -- and the only strategy available. Washington sought to change the behavior of enabling countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, by making the potential threat from the United States greater than the potential threat from al Qaeda. By occupying Iraq and surrounding Saudi Arabia with military forces, the United States compelled a reluctant and truculent Riyadh to comply with American wishes.

In the long run, changes in the behavior of these governments -- and of other Muslim governments, from Islamabad to Tripoli -- represent the only way to defeat al Qaeda. To the simplistic American question of, "Are we safer today than we were a year ago?" the answer is, "Probably not." To the question of whether the United States is on a path that might make it safer in five years, the answer is "Probably yes," assuming the U.S. effort doesn't collapse under the weight of its pyramiding mistakes in Iraq.

We would argue that the political shifts in the Muslim world that have helped the United States were aided significantly by the invasion of Iraq. We would certainly agree that Islamic opposition to the United States solidified -- we doubt that there was much room for intensification -- but we would also argue that opinion is significant to the extent to which it turns into war-fighting capability. The Poles despised the Germans and the Japanese were not fond of the Americans, but neither could expel the occupier simply on the strength of public opinion. It is the shifts in government policy that contained radical Islamist tendencies that should be the focal point, and the invasion of Iraq served that purpose.

Tactical Failures?

It is at that point that things started to go wrong -- not with the grand strategy of the United States, but with the Iraq strategy itself. A string of intelligence failures, errors in judgment and command failures have conspired to undermine the U.S. position in Iraq and reverse the strategic benefits. These failures included:

* A failure to detect that preparations were under way for a guerrilla war in the event that Baghdad fell.

* A failure to quickly recognize that a guerrilla war was under way in Iraq, and a delay of months before the reality was recognized and a strategy
developed for dealing with it.

* A failure to understand that the United States did not have the resources to govern Iraq if all Baathist personnel were excluded.

* A failure to understand the nature of the people the United States was installing in the Iraqi Governing Council -- and in particular, the complex loyalties of Ahmed Chalabi and his relationship to Iraq's Shia and the Iranian government. The United States became highly dependent on individuals about whom it lacked sufficient intelligence.

* A failure to recognize that the Sunni guerrillas were regrouping in February and March 2004, after their defeat in the Ramadan offensive.

* Completely underestimating the number of forces needed for the occupation of Iraq, and cavalierly dismissing accurate Army estimates in favor of lower estimates that rapidly became unsupportable.

* Failing to step up military recruiting in order to increase the total number of U.S. ground forces available on a worldwide basis. Failing to understand that the difference between defeating an army and occupying a country had to be made up with ground forces.

These are the particular failures. The general failures are a compendium of every imaginable military failing:

* Failing to focus on the objective. Rather than remembering why U.S. forces were in Iraq and focusing on that, the Bush administration wandered off into irrelevancies and impossibilities, such as building democracy and eliminating Baath party members. The administration forgot its mission.

* Underestimating the enemy and overestimating U.S. power. The enemy was intelligent, dedicated and brave. He was defending his country and his home. The United States was enormously powerful but not omnipotent. The casual dismissal of the Iraqi guerrillas led directly to the failure to anticipate and counter enemy action.

* Failure to rapidly identify errors and rectify them through changes of plans, strategies and personnel. Error is common in war. The measure of a military force is how honestly errors are addressed and rectified. When a command structure begins denying that self- evident problems are facing them, all is lost. The administration's insistence over the past year that no fundamental errors were committed in Iraq has been a cancer eating through all layers of the command structure -- from the squad to the office of the president.

* Failing to understand the political dimension of the war and permitting political support for the war in the United States to erode by failing to
express a clear, coherent war plan on the broadest level. Because of this failure, other major failures -- ranging from the failure to find weapons of mass destruction to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners -- have filled the space that strategy should have occupied. The persistent failure of the president to explain the linkage between Iraq and the broader war has been symptomatic of this systemic failure.

Remember the objective; respect the enemy; be your own worst critic; exercise leadership at all levels -- these are fundamental principles of warfare. They have all been violated during the Iraq campaign.

The strategic situation, as of March 2004, was rapidly improving for the United States. There was serious, reasonable discussion of a final push into Pakistan to liquidate al Qaeda's leadership. Al Qaeda began a global counterattack -- as in Spain -- that was neither unexpected nor as effective as it might have been. However, the counterattack in Iraq was both unexpected and destabilizing -- causing military and political processes in Iraq to separate out, and forcing the United States into negotiations with the Sunni guerrillas while simultaneously trying to manage a crisis in the Shiite areas. At the same time that the United States was struggling to stabilize its position in Iraq, the prison abuse issue emerged. It was devastating not only in its own right, but also because of the timing. It generated a sense
that U.S. operations in Iraq were out of control. From Al Fallujah to An Najaf to Abu Ghraib, the question was whether anyone had the slightest idea
what they were trying to achieve in Iraq.

Which brings us back to the razor's edge. If the United States rapidly adjusts its Iraq operations to take realities in that country into account, rather than engaging on ongoing wishful thinking, the situation in Iraq can be saved and with it the gains made in the war on al Qaeda. On the other hand, if the United States continues its unbalanced and ineffective prosecution of the war against the guerrillas and continues to allow its relations with the Shia to deteriorate, the United States will find itself in an untenable position. If it is forced to withdraw from Iraq, or to so limit its operations there as to be effectively withdrawn, the entire dynamic that the United States has worked to create since the Sept. 11 attacks will reverse itself, and the U.S. position in the Muslim world -- which was fairly strong in January 2004 -- will deteriorate, and al Qaeda's influence will increase dramatically.

The Political Crisis

It is not clear that the Bush administration understands the crisis it is facing. The prison abuse pictures are symptomatic -- not only of persistent command failure, but also of the administration's loss of credibility with the public. Since no one really knows what the administration is doing, it is not unreasonable to fill in the blanks with the least generous assumptions. The issue is this: Iraq has not gone as planned by any stretch of the imagination. If the failures of Iraq are not rectified quickly, the entire U.S. strategic position could unravel. Speed is of the essence. There is no longer time left.

The issue is one of responsibility. Who is responsible for the failures in Iraq? The president appears to have assumed that if anyone were fired, it would be admitting that something went wrong. At this point, there is no one who doesn't know that many things have gone wrong. If the president insists on retaining all of his senior staff, Cabinet members and field commanders, no one is going to draw the conclusion that everything is under control; rather they will conclude that it is the president himself who is responsible for the failures, and they will act accordingly.

The issue facing Bush is not merely the prison pictures. It is the series of failures in the Iraq campaign that have revealed serious errors of judgment and temperament among senior cabinet-level officials. We suspect that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is finished, and with him Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Vice President Dick Cheney said over the weekend that everyone should get off of Rumsfeld's case. What Cheney doesn't seem to grasp is that there is a war on and that at this moment, it isn't going very well. If the secretary of defense doesn't bear the burden of failures and misjudgments, who does? Or does the vice president suggest a no-fault policy when it comes to war? Or does he think that things are going well?

This is not asked polemically. It is our job to identify emerging trends, and we have, frequently, been accused of everything from being owned by the Republicans to being Iraq campaign apologists. In fact, we are making a non-partisan point: The administration is painting itself into a corner that will cost Bush the presidency if it does not deal with the fact that there is no one who doesn't know that Iraq has been mismanaged. The administration's only option for survival is to start managing it effectively, if that can be done at this point. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First off, thanks for the very nice info dump. Lots of things in there I have not read before. Can you give me a source on the info so I can check them out?

I still believe that the bases were Al Q though, I have asked some of my buddies and they are saying that may indeed be old hack. I am not active mil anymore (I'm pushing 40 now) but still have my clearance due to inactive reserve status till I am freakin dead..(not sure how I feel about that but hey, what is done is done.)

Also, I want to clarify as alarikf did that nothing I have said or will say here is anything remotely like a "secret". Training still kicks in there not to mention I don't like Kansas (bet all the US mil types understand that quote..heh).

For the moment, let's say Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with AL Q or 9/11. I'll give in on that until I get more information one way or the other.

The fact still remains that the average Iraqi is better off today then they were before the war. They are free, they have a fighting chance to have a true democracy, a first in the Middle East. The average Joe Iraqi's future is brighter now because of the war.

Now, the true test comes to the US...not the beating and ousting of a tyrant but, being able to leave a government in power that will survive.

Personally, I come down on the side of the planners that say 20 years of US presence will be needed in some fashion and here is why.

The old guard will be hard pressed to change thier stripes. It will take teaching, educating and helping the current CHILDREN of Iraq to become the leaders of tomorrow. This means that the kids that are 12 and under are the key. So, in 20 or so years, they will be in a position to take over the leadership (hopefully).

One thing is for certain, what is going to happen, will happen. The die is already cast and the wheels are in motion. All anyone can do now is hope to guide the boulder one way or the other as it goes crashing down the mountain.

[rextorres]

Simeron:

You may be right about the reconstruction - were did you get your figures?

Anyway since when was nation building the reason we went into Iraq? I would have preferred that the ~$200B being spent was used for nation building here at home.

As far as the Al Qaeda link - all I can say is that if what you say were true then GW would be claiming it as well - I guess with your "ultra clearance" you may have some insider information.

BTW: Did anyone notice that there was no mention of WMD?

[ May 26, 2004, 19:45: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Good God, info poop overload. Chocking chocking....h e l p m -

[Mephisto]

Simeron, please, cut your quotes down to the required parts. Please! Thank you!

[AMF]

Oog. Too much to respond to at once. For now, wanted to respond to the part about foriegn aid with simply a quote from the CFR:

"How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks Last among the world?s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world?s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001?almost a third of what America contributed."

This can be found at:
http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid_print.html

More to come...maybe tomorrow...

Originally posted by Simeron:

Who does everyone come to for money, military help, humanitarian aid? What country is the first to offer such things? The old USA. And when has the world ever come to help US?
...
No, I don't know WHERE I got the idea the US was the world's policeman. But let some hot spot flare up and the first military troops sent in from outside will have an AMERICAN flag on thier shoulders.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Simeron]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115046,00.html

If anyone of you has any illusions still about why the war in Iraq had to happen and why further such actions will need to be taken in the future, here is a good news article to demonstrate it.

Due to the current military efforts terrorist Groups are not only having problems getting hardware delivered and finding new, willing victims to blow themselves up but, their leaders are either in hiding or getting killed.

The fact is, fear works, sad but true. And its time the terrorists felt fear instead of the rest of us.

And right now, they are.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by alarikf:
Oog. Too much to respond to at once. For now, wanted to respond to the part about foriegn aid with simply a quote from the CFR:

"How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks Last among the world?s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world?s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001?almost a third of what America contributed."

This can be found at:
http://cfrterrorism.org/policy/foreignaid_print.html

More to come...maybe tomorrow...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Simeron:

Who does everyone come to for money, military help, humanitarian aid? What country is the first to offer such things? The old USA. And when has the world ever come to help US?
...
No, I don't know WHERE I got the idea the US was the world's policeman. But let some hot spot flare up and the first military troops sent in from outside will have an AMERICAN flag on thier shoulders.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Look forward to it and yes, percentage wise, the US ain't first I know.

But when can you take percentage to the bank and deposit it? *wink*

The fact remains that American are the first to go and help, even in countries where the leaders "hate" Americans yet, America never seems to recieve the same gestures.

This is my point.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Simeron:

You may be right about the reconstruction - were did you get your figures?

Anyway since when was nation building the reason we went into Iraq? I would have preferred that the ~$200B being spent was used for nation building here at home.

As far as the Al Qaeda link - all I can say is that if what you say were true then GW would be claiming it as well - I guess with your "ultra clearance" you may have some insider information.

BTW: Did anyone notice that there was no mention of WMD? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Checking with my buds on the Al Q links. Might be dated info as I really have not kept up to the minute with things. The WMD dropped off the radar and I think the Iraqis were working on it but, were nowhere NEAR where we thought they were. We know they had it and used it but, I personally think they honestly did destroy much of it (or hid it REAL good).

My own gut feeling is that any and all WMD headed to Syria when the war started and is still sitting somewhere within it.

On the reconstruction figures those come from US Military status reports from Iraq and similar areas. Part of the US military mission there is to make sure the infrastructure is rebuilt to higher standards then before. A good example is the port of Um Kasar (thing I mispelt that) that is currently at 4 full offloading areas whereas before the war, it was only operating 2. The other 2 are needed for the offloading of supplies both military and humanitarian.

I do want to say that I am not a "100% Bush fan" and think there is alot of things the administration could be doing better but, I also think that they could be doing alot of things worse too. I'll leave the final judgement on that to history.

The cost of the war in $$$...well, yeah, I'd prefer to see that spend elsewhere. But, I also think that its money well invested if for no other reason, its put the "bad guys" in a hunker down mode. Terror pundits are on the defensive and two major backers of such people are off the board now.

Add to this that the other major backers are either scared (Syria, Iran, North Korea to a small extent) or rolling over (Lybia and numerous small cells in the far east) and I personally think the purchase price, at least for now, looks reasonable.

I should warn people that I, quite frankly, think the US should either draw some really hard lines in the Mid East for our so called "allies" or find new ones.

And unless I miss my guess, the second is exactly what we are doing.

I agree that the government should just go ahead and tell us that is the plan in the first place or at least not use smoke and mirrors to cover that fact up but, perhaps, they really were suckered into this with some rather nice misinformation on Iran and/or others parts. My Ultra clearance won't get me anywhere near that info at all.

In all truth, it really only lets me talk with people still in the services I know and get some info I am still allowed to know.

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Mephisto:
Simeron, please, cut your quotes down to the required parts. Please! Thank you! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Will do my very best..and sorry. Was more worried about cutting out something relavent then leaving chaff in there.

Will do better oh lord of the 8th plane of hell *wink*

[Simeron]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Good God, info poop overload. Chocking chocking....h e l p m - <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree...yeesh. And to think originally I was going to avoid OT stuff here...lol.

[Atrocities]

Hey I have said it before and I will say it again, discussion over differing points of view regarding a world topic is good for all of us. Sure we might get mand, frustrated, and hot, but at least we are talking and learning, I hope, from one another. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

OT discussion are the hidden black market that keeps this forum alive.

[dogscoff]

Saddam gone, millions free of a brutal dictator that had 5 year olds imprisoned, and you can't see anything positive that has come from the war?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Like I say, another Saddam will rise up to take his place as soon as the Americans pull out. Or, more likely, a dozen mini-saddams all fighting it out.


As far as "anti western" sentiment in the middle east..geez, take your head out. Since WHEN did the middle east ever NOT have that? The "anti west" sentiment has been there since the CRUSADES, hell, even BEFORE as they came into Europe and sacked ROME.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Agreed, there has always been tension, although in recent times it's mainly been down to ex-colonial tensions and the whole Isreali issue rather than the crusades. However that's no reason to just say "sod it, it's bad, let's make it worse."


Fuel terrorism? Poverty is a far better fuel then political retoric my friend. Its hard as hell to get someone to blow themselves up when they got a nice family, home and life to live for. But make it where they see nothing to live for and they will strap that bomb on thier back and nuke themselves.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which just goes to show how poorly the US understands the mentality out there. Many of the Iraqi attacks on on US troops right now are not Al Qaeda operastives or Saddam's guerilla's, they are regular people repaying blood debts incurred during or shortly after the war. Many Iraqis- particularly in Bhagdad *had* nice homes, families, lives and so on before the war. What are those people doing now? Blowing **** up in Baghdad. What about those brits and americans who went over to afghanistan to risk their lives fighting the americans?


Men, women and children were taken from their homes in the dead of night to be tortured, raped and killed in prisons by thugs on a routine basis,
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">THis still goes on, only now it's the so called "liberators" doing it. FOr as long as they've been in control of Iraq the US has been scooping people up in the dead of night - men, women and children- and whisking them off to camp X-Ray and more local destinations for torture and- sometimes- death. All without trial.


HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS were being killed by the government of Saddam EACH YEAR. In the ENTIRE WAR EFFORT TO DATE we have not come CLOSE to that number if you add up ALL CASUALTIES on ALL SIDES.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hundreds of thousands? I assume those figures are based on the deaths caused by international sanctions in the Last 15 years.


I don't see it happening in Iraq
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Don't you? What do you see? Are you sure you're watching the news and not the Cosby Show?

took out the Taliban in Afganistan. I don't see this happening there so somehow<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Last I heard all was not rosy in Afghanistan. We just don't hear about it because of the press' short attention span. Anyone know the latest on what's going on out there?


The world economy is based on the US Dollar.

The US green back is accepted damn near everywhere, no other currency is.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hooray. Whoopee. Let's throw a party. I don't quite see the relevance, or how that's supposed to endear the US to me.


{Supposed Al Qaeda camps & US aid overseas}
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Addressed by others before I wrote this...


As for who brought down the towers and killed thousands of innocents..it wasn't the Saudi Arabians..it was Al Q operatives who happen to be FROM that country.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you go back to my original post you;ll see that I didn't include the definite article. I said "Saudi Arabians", not "THE Saudi Arabians".


And if the US was really the "wild and wooly cowboy" you say, the world would be either a member of the US commonwealth or a smoking ruin.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think we're well on the way. The PNAC seems to lean more toward the former than the latter.


Understand that there is only ONE superpower left in the world. The US has the ability to project its power where ever it desires. No other country can do that nor even come close.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wow, that makes me really happy.


As I said before, when the towers fell, the majority of the American people wanted blood for blood. It is a testament to the strength of this nation that instead of dropping the hammer on the entire Middle and Near East like the wrath of Almighty God we instead had leaders that remained calm and have slowly, painfully worked to seek out those that would do such horrible acts and stop them.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Again, what channel are you watching? As soon as the twin towers dropped, Bush gave in to the howls for heads and invaded Afghanistan. Then he tried to stir up even more bloodlust so he could take on Iraq and started positioning himself for the grand tour.

And I'll say once again, even if you disagree with all this, you need to appreciate that much (most?) of the world seems to feel the same. ANd you can't just brush me off for being "part of a crowd of people that don't have a clue". If the US is as wonderful as you say it is and so many ppl don't have a clue, you need to ask yourself why? Why are we so misinformed? What are you doing wrong with your PR that your image is so badly misaligned with reality? Or could we actually be right about some or all of this?

[AMF]

Just to clarify, I am basing everything I said in my post on unclassified sources! Holy Cow, I would NEVER make any classified claims. The FACT that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda has been widely reported, verified, and bandied about in the press. Even the administration agrees now that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not friends, ever. Heck, even after the war, captured documents reported in the media showed that Saddam *still* urged his followers to not cooperate with AQ, even when he was living in a dirt bunker and moving from safe house to safe house. Anyone who thinks that there was a connection between AQ and Saddam is engaging in wqillful ignorance and has made a conscious decision to avoid the unpleasant truth (and, I would say, the cognitive dissonance that comes with it).

EDIT: just to clarify re: "my credentials" - My work is boring. I'm an operational analyst, very boring stuff, not intel related *at all* And all my Posts have nothing to do with my work (as far as I recall). I merely stated those things about myself because in today's political environment, everyone is all about ad hominen attacks and I wanted to avoid the inevitable "we'll you're just a liberal so of course you'd say that" phenomenon.

Originally posted by dogscoff:
[QB] Please also read alarikf's post further down, and bear in mind his credentials. here's the relevent quote from his post: "here is a FACT that a person can choose to ignore at their peril: There was NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. "
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[ May 26, 2004, 12:41: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

My sources are various, I would say "Le Monde Diplomatique",some other newspaper (on the web, mostly US ones) and Stratfor.

www.stratfor.com (http://www.stratfor.com)
it is a private intelligence service dealing with geopolitical policies. I have a basic subscription there. But your are allowed to publish only certain analysis, of course not all of them. However, you can suscribe for their weekly newsletter for free.

[tesco samoa]

rextorres
i think that based on the track record of inteligence that having an inside scoop is a bag of beans , of the non magical nature.

Simeron. You fail to release the most of the world does not think of America as saviours. Based on the track record of the actions of USA since the end of WW2 I agree with them.

I am looking forward to when this mess can be cleared up. From the two contrieved invasions to the stupid security procedures that are slowly closing off our shared open border.

[freduk]

Simeron the Foxnews article gives an excellent example of how the Americans are misled by the media (the government) into believing their country is succeeding at the goals set.

Hamas never had any power towards the US, it's a group of terrorists that operate solely on Israelian/palestian (to me unlike for Americans this still isn't decided yet) soil.
The fact they back off their earlier threats, is because of the US is for the first time CONSIDERING to review their unconditional support towards the Israelians who have been greatly misgoverning the situation there. This has nothing to do with the military actions of the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Fox just makes it look as if "fear" (can you seriously frighten a deeply religious civilization with only death???) will make the terrorists comply to US demands/rules/utopia.

Second: Invading Iraq of course was a big mistake. Yes, Saddam=cruel dictator, but not as fundamentalistic as Al-quade and I guarantee you far too intelligent to even to go into jihad against USA.
It is a fact he had WMD's: USA sold a LOT of WMD's to Iraq in the late 80's, especially chemicals and nerve agents which was for the USA an excellent opportunity to monitor the fatality rate amongst the kurds, dispergation at various circumstances etc. That is a fact. Monitoring this, they knew how much was used and thus would remain.
Yes Iraq had, and maybe still has WMD's but no way to deliver them to the US since scuds don't get past the 150 miles mark IIRC.

Saddam hated Al-quada and vice-versa. Now saddam is down. The people of Iraq are regrouping, they have their differences and can be considered as eachothers enemies but they share one common thing: they HATE America. So they start working together now, and this is where Al-Q (who NEVER would have gotten into Iraq earlier) comes in. They organise stuff, and help them to work together, construct bombs and other evil stuff.

In the end USA will have to leave, as they already starting to talk about that now. It's already out of control.
USA media will make it look nice to the USA-pop but I know it will be a monstrosity. A fundamentalistic country, in full support of Al-Q and its terror.

[Slynky]

Ya know, I'm proud to be an American. I'm also ashamed to be an American. Why? Because America has given me the chance to have an open and objective mind. It's this freedom that allows me to dislike (and be ashamed) of some of the things it has done. A dichotomy of sorts.

But I'm not here to represent the "band" of Americans who love to trash their country. Nor am I here to spew forth "blind" pablum about how great America is. I call it as I see it.

EVERY country dabbles in controlling the information (and "spin") delivered to its citizens. Everyone needs to understand that. I'm sure it has the appropriate "twist" to make each citizen think their country is great while others fail to measure up. It's just a fact of what a country does.

America has done some great things and it has done some terrible things. It has done right and done wrong. It's likely we (Americans) are more in the limelight when we do it than other countries. But all countries are the same in that they have made similar mistakes.

I have had the opportunity to visit over 20 other countries, speak with many, many of those people, and listen. It gives me, I think, a bit of perspective that other Americans who have never left our borders don't have.

Now, in the present discussion, I think the US did wrong. The "facts" that were presented to the US public, IMO, were distorted to generate support. I don't know the real reason we went to Iraq. Maybe will never know. I'm cynical enough to even consider it was a "payoff" for campaign support to the big defense manufacturers.

History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?).

I'll close with a quote from "The Devil's Dictionary" written (a compilation) by Ambrose Bierce (that has some application here):

REVOLUTION, n. In politics, an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment. Specifically, in American history, the substitution of the rule of an Administration for that of a Ministry, whereby the welfare and happiness of the people were advanced a full half-inch. Revolutions are usually accompanied by a considerable effusion of blood, but are accounted worth it--this appraisment being made by the beneficiaries whose blood had not the mischance to be shed."

[Fyron]

History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?). <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, the track record is overall pretty neutral. Consider nations such as Japan and Germany after WWII. Definitely new governments were set up after "walking into" these nations.

[geoschmo]

Sorry in advance if I offend anyone with this one, but it was too good not to post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Personally, I think Secretary Powell may be exagerating just a bit again...


http://server5.uploadit.org/files/geoschmo-washington.jpg

[ May 27, 2004, 13:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?). <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, the track record is overall pretty neutral. Consider nations such as Japan and Germany after WWII. Definitely new governments were set up after "walking into" these nations. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I was referring to countries that the US decided needed a change of leadership (and then helped instigate it), NOT countries that went to war with us (and therefore, "earned" the US interest in establishing new leadership THAT way). A difference, the way I see it.

[minipol]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Sorry in advance if I offend anyone with this one, but it was too good not to post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Personally, I think Secretary Powell may be exagerating just a bit again...
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">hehe, good one. maybe Powell says what it would look like if he got himself upgraded to an ICBM sized thingie http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[AMF]

The Michael Moore movie has been released and reviewed by Fox news. Since they are generally considered a "right-wing" news source, and it would be expected that they would trash it, I wanted to post their review here. (fm: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,122680,00.html)

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets Standing Ovations

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

By Roger Friedman

The crowd that gave Michael Moore's controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" a standing ovation Last night at the Ziegfeld Theatre premiere certainly didn't have to be encouraged at all to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host and writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element. But once "F9/11" gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won't be dependent on celebrities for approbation. It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" ? as we saw Last night ? is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty, and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice. Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets like Charlton Heston. "Columbine" too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say. Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and Bin Laden families.

First, I know you want to know who came to the Ziegfeld, so here is just a partial list. Besides Franken and Robbins, Al Sharpton, Mike Myers, Tony Bennett, Glenn Close, Gretchen Mol (newly married over the weekend to director Todd Williams), Lori Singer, Tony Kushner, "Angela's Ashes" author Frank McCourt, Jill Krementz and Kurt Vonnegut, Lauren Bacall (chatting up a fully refurbished Lauren Hutton), Richard Gere, John McEnroe and Patti Smythe, former Carter cabinet member and ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Carson Daly, NBC's Jeff Zucker, a very pregnant Rory Kennedy, playwright Israel Horovitz, Macaulay Culkin, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kyra Sedgwick, Linda Evangelista, Ed Bradley, Tom and Meredith Brokaw, director Barry Levinson, NBC anchor Brian Williams, Vernon Jordan, Eva Mendez, Sandra Bernhard and the always humorous Joy Behar.

If that's not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who's let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon?

And then, just to show you how much people wanted to see this film, there was Martha Stewart, looking terrific. I mean, talk about eclectic Groups!

Now, unless you've been living under a rock you know that this movie has been the cause of a lot of trouble. Miramax and Disney have gone to war over it, and "The Passion of the Christ" seems like "Mary Poppins" in retrospect. Before anyone's even seen it, there have been partisan debates over which way Moore may have spun this or that to get a desired effect.

But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. The film does Bush no favors, that's for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Michigan mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide ? just like the commercials say ? and lives to regret it. Lipscombe's story is so powerful, and so completely Middle American, that I think it will take Moore's critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her.

"F9/11" isn't perfect, and of course, there are leaps of logic sometimes. One set piece is about African American congressmen and women voting against the war with Iraq and wondering why there are no Senators to support them. Indeed, those absent senators include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, among others, which Moore does not elaborate upon. At no point are liberals or Democrats taken to task for not speaking out against the war, and I would have liked to have seen that.

On the other hand, there are more than enough moments that seemed to resonate with the huge Ziegfeld audience. The most indelible is President Bush's reaction to hearing on the morning of September 11, 2001, that the first plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. Bush was reading to a grade school class in Florida at that moment. Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes. Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.

More than even "The Passion of the Christ," "F9/11" is going to be a "see it for yourself" movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker. And that's where Disney's Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career. When Eisner came into Disney years ago, the studio was at a low point. He turned it around with a revived animation department and comedy hits like "Pretty Woman" and "Down and Out in Beverly Hills." But Eisner's short-sightedness on many recent matters has been his undoing. And this Last misadventure is one that will follow him right out the doors of the Magic Kingdom.

[AMF]

Of interest, an article on the report of the partially released 9/11 Commission titled "9/11 Panel Finds No Collaboration Between Iraq, Al Qaeda"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45853-2004Jun16?language=printer

Originally posted by Simeron:
Checking with my buds on the Al Q links. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Atrocities]

Thanks for the info. Never the less I have no intention of seeing this documentary nor will I validate Moore by giving him phraise when he does not deserve any. If this movie would have been released in 2001 it would have suicide for him. He rolled the dice and is now raking in the $ knowning full well that there is very little truth to his subjective - decidedly one sided - attack on Bush.

Oh well, free speech and all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[AMF]

But, dude, uh....you haven't seen the movie. How do you know? I mean, ad hominem and all that, right?

My opinion? I think that our society, especially lately, is too partisan and has lost the ability to debate logically. Personal example: I haven't seen Passion of the Christ movie, so I try not to comment on it. I'd like to see it, I've even brought up the idea of seeing it to my wife. That didn't go too far, let me tell ya. I say, see it so I can comment on it from an informed perspective, she says not a chance she's seeing it.

Another example, a bit more personal: For years I was pro gun-control. But I was never really informed on the issue, I admit. After many discussions with others who were very pro-NRA (some of them even having been in "militias") I got a new appreciation of the whole issue. While I disagree with much of their reasoning, I do understand how they feel the way they do and nowadays I'm pretty open about gun ownership.

Now, admittedly, some issues have chasms that people can't bridge since they are values-based, rather than process-based or fact-based. Abortion is the perrenial example. I think I have a pretty good handle on the arguments on both sides of the issue, and, alas, in the end it comes down to values - not facts, or anything else.

So, for those reasons, I do read Fox News, I do listen to O'Reilly (when I've the time) and I do thumb through both conservative and progressive news magazines, etc...

I guess th epoint being is that, from Logic 101, any given argument must be judged on its merits alone, not on the person making the argument.

Thought experiment: if "Farenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly the same, would you see it?

Just my .02c...

Alarik

Originally posted by Atrocities:
...there is very little truth to his subjective - decidedly one sided - attack on Bush.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[ June 16, 2004, 17:11: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[Atrocities]

You make good points, but the problem with Moore is that he HATES debating his point of view. He just wants everyone to accept it as reality when in fact it is just jibberish and conspiricy theories.

There is no debating this movie. It is a one sided representation of one mans hatred of another. Nuff said.

Why would I want to pay Moore to see his no counter point documentarial attack on the Bush when he himself has admitted that it is a bit "far fetched" and such. Hell if Disney pulled it from the US market then you know there was something wrong with it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(edit) I may not have seen this latest movie but I have seen Roger and Me and his tv spots where he took the NRA interview completely out of context and made the entire organization out to be the next Nazi's of America.

Many phraised Moore as a man of the people and thanked him for his work on exposing the evil within the NRA. (LOL) Then when the NRA published the whole interview and showed the world what he did, and well his credibility went out the window.

With Mr. Moore it is all about credibility; he has none. He makes documentaries/movies based on his view of the subject and does not allow for any other interpitation. That makes his works one sided and open to attack. If he would do a real movie about the facts and have counter point, then no one would go see them. So again, he sticks to his one sided skewed view of a subject and ramps up all the publicity and controversy he can get in order to get people to watch his movies.

The thing is he is a great story tellor, I would love to see what he could do if he put aside his politic views and made a real documentary based on real facts and not conspiricy.

I recall in the earily 90's he was going to do a documentary on how NASA faked the moon landing and how they dilibrately blew up the Challenger in order to kill a whistle blower. That project was understandably declined by every one to whom he pitched it. (Thank God.)

Moore has a talent for P/O people and it is really a shame that he doesn't put his gift to better use in making movies and or documentaries that everyone can enjoy.

In the end whatever side you choose it all boils down to what you believe. I like the fact that some people choose to be informed and refuse to eat the crap the our media is fixated upon shovelling. But honestly this whole thing is just one long chapter in human history. In the end we will be right back where we started having learned nothing and forgotten everything.

And the page turns.


Thought experiment: if "Farenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly the same, would you see it? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No I would not. Again it boils down to a one side view. I just want the full picture not someones subjective views on it who refuse to listen to or suffor counter opinions.

[ June 16, 2004, 17:44: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
...
Are you sure you're watching the news and not the Cosby Show?
... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good point... The Cosby Show is way more intelligent and open-minded than the current US entertainment/corporateagenda/news/entertainment/industry.

PvK

[Slynky]

Originally posted by PvK:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by dogscoff:
...
Are you sure you're watching the news and not the Cosby Show?
... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good point... The Cosby Show is way more intelligent and open-minded than the current US entertainment/corporateagenda/news/entertainment/industry.

PvK </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I read (a long time ago) that the Cosby Show contained subtle racism...that there was an intent in the show to show caucasions in the same kind of negative light that some many shows (before that) showed African-Americans.

[PvK]

Attrocities, even if I accept all your premises as fact without questioning, the logic of what you wrote seems absent.

You acknowldge logic, and then dismiss it based on fixed belief:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You make good points, but the problem with Moore is that he HATES debating his point of view.
... and ...
There is no debating this movie. It is a one sided representation of one mans hatred of another. Nuff said.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you write as if you know both Moore's intention and the facts:

He just wants everyone to accept it as reality when in fact it is just jibberish and conspiricy theories.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then, I certainly hope your Last line is ironic and not serious:

... Hell if Disney pulled it from the US market then you know there was something wrong with it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What's sad is that Baptist/corporate Disney does determine a significant part of Americans' education and exposure to ideas, by its huge presence in the entertainment media.

Not to mention Fox and the rest of the corporate US "news" media, with their IQ 90 or less target demo pretending to fill the role of journalists, and thereby obstructing public contact with intelligent journalism.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Slynky:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by PvK:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by dogscoff:
...
Are you sure you're watching the news and not the Cosby Show?
... <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good point... The Cosby Show is way more intelligent and open-minded than the current US entertainment/corporateagenda/news/entertainment/industry.

PvK </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I read (a long time ago) that the Cosby Show contained subtle racism...that there was an intent in the show to show caucasions in the same kind of negative light that some many shows (before that) showed African-Americans. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ok. I omitted the background that I'm no fan nor advocate of the Cosby Show, either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
There is no debating this movie. It is a one sided representation of one mans hatred of another. Nuff said.

Why would I want to pay Moore to see his no counter point documentarial attack on the Bush when he himself has admitted that it is a bit "far fetched" and such.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, to extract a quote from below:

"But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."

Personally, you're free to feel how you feel (in fact, I served to help maintain those freedoms) but I have to agree with the above remark. I, being a somewhat intelligent and open-minded individual, have a hard time understanding people who hate something and do so without the privilege of having firsthand knowledge of it. Good thing everyone doesn't do that all the time, or so-and-so would would hate Asians merely because of all the stories his (biased) friends told him.

Me? I'm not scared of looking into something I disagree with just to see if all the related material I based my opinions on prior to this event were, in fact, erroneous themselves! Currently, on the US/Iraq topic, many many more highly educated/informed people than you and I have began to wonder what the heck was going on as there still have been no weapons of mass destruction and just recently, a panel has shown there to be (it seems) no connection between Al Queda and Iraq. You would think intelligent and open-minded people would begin asking questions instead of blindly accepting what the administration told them (us) over a year ago.

[Atrocities]

PvK I don't mean to confuse you or any one. I honestly just don't really care to debate sematics or peoples take on what they think was said.

I trust in that people will either accept what I say or will not. If they choose not to then that is fine with me.

When the debate turns south and every word is reflected upon for meaning, that is when I say take it or leave it for whatever you want it to mean.

If you want to break down what I said and try to use it against me well that is your given right and I really could careless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[AMF]

The point I was trying to make is that it is not semantics at all, in fact, it's the opposite. Words do have meaning (unless you're a hardcore deconstructionist, and there are probably very few of those on this forum I suspect) and by your words it really does appear that what you said was that you don't care about the movie, you care about Moore. Which is fine. Repeat: fine. BUT but to then take that statement as a condemnation of the movie is contrary to basic logic. Am I getting it wrong?

So, just to be snarky ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) I'll repeat an earlier question: if "farhenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly identical, would you go see it?


Originally posted by Atrocities:
PvK I don't mean to confuse you or any one. I honestly just don't really care to debate sematics or peoples take on what they think was said.

I trust in that people will either accept what I say or will not. If they choose not to then that is fine with me.

When the debate turns south and every word is reflected upon for meaning, that is when I say take it or leave it for whatever you want it to mean.

If you want to break down what I said and try to use it against me well that is your given right and I really could careless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Slynky:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
There is no debating this movie. It is a one sided representation of one mans hatred of another. Nuff said.

Why would I want to pay Moore to see his no counter point documentarial attack on the Bush when he himself has admitted that it is a bit "far fetched" and such.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, to extract a quote from below:

"But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your first amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."

Personally, you're free to feel how you feel (in fact, I served to help maintain those freedoms) but I have to agree with the above remark. I, being a somewhat intelligent and open-minded individual, have a hard time understanding people who hate something and do so without the privilege of having firsthand knowledge of it. Good thing everyone doesn't do that all the time, or so-and-so would would hate Asians merely because of all the stories his (biased) friends told him.

Me? I'm not scared of looking into something I disagree with just to see if all the related material I based my opinions on prior to this event were, in fact, erroneous themselves! Currently, on the US/Iraq topic, many many more highly educated/informed people than you and I have began to wonder what the heck was going on as there still have been no weapons of mass destruction and just recently, a panel has shown there to be (it seems) no connection between Al Queda and Iraq. You would think intelligent and open-minded people would begin asking questions instead of blindly accepting what the administration told them (us) over a year ago. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am informed about Mr. Moores tactics and choices when it comes to making his documentaries. I may not have seen his movie to know that it is what it is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ June 16, 2004, 18:10: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[AMF]

Dude! The Cosby show rocks! It's like the "Leave it to Beaver" of the 80-90s!

Originally posted by PvK:
...I omitted the background that I'm no fan nor advocate of the Cosby Show, either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[ June 16, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by alarikf:
The point I was trying to make is that it is not semantics at all, in fact, it's the opposite. Words do have meaning (unless you're a hardcore deconstructionist, and there are probably very few of those on this forum I suspect) and by your words it really does appear that what you said was that you don't care about the movie, you care about Moore. Which is fine. Repeat: fine. BUT but to then take that statement as a condemnation of the movie is contrary to basic logic. Am I getting it wrong?

So, just to be snarky ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) I'll repeat an earlier question: if "farhenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly identical, would you go see it?


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">[/QB][/QUOTE]

I guess the point your trying to make is that I should see the movie before commenting on it. I understand that POV however knowning the Man who made the movie allows me an insight into what the movie will have to say. I simply do not wish to suffor that kind of one sided arguement.

I have neither read or seen anything about this movie that would redeem it enough in my eyes for me to consider seeing it.

I am sorry, but that is how I honestly feel.

Edit
I did respond to your question. (OBTW good question too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

quote:
Thought experiment: if "Farenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly the same, would you see it?

No I would not. Again it boils down to a one side view. I just want the full picture not someones subjective views on it who refuse to listen to or suffor counter opinions.

[ June 16, 2004, 18:18: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[AMF]

I'll take the bait http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So, let me see. First, I think I must not have been that clear. I didn't intent to say that having an opinion of the movie based on an opinion of Moore is "jacka**ed" in some way. Rather I'm just saying it's illogical. Illogical in the sense that from an logic 101 "If A= B and B = C then A = C" point of view.

So, with that in mind, when you say "my opinion that it is a bad movie without having seen it first is an abrgation of my 1st ammendment would be in and of itself an abrogation of my first amendment rights."

Is absolutely true logically and content-wise. But just to clarify: you're stating the same right that people claim when they say "Hey, no one can force me to vote!"

Is absolutely true. And pretty silly, as well.


It is also true, as you state, that "I am free to have my own opinion of this movie and the man without ever having seen it."

But, it is not valid, therefore, to claim that you are making this statement based on logic, nor can you then, legitimately, make further claims based on logic.

And, just becuase you dared someone too, you then go on to say "no matter what someone else may think or say about my right to comment on this movie without having seen it, is false logic." But the entire earlier statement is based on false logic. Now I've confused myself, actually, but its clear to me that we've reached a point herein where a meeting of the minds seems unlikely, since we're effectively talking using two different langauges. (I really do need to bone up on my habermas to understand this better)

From Webster's:

ad hom·i·nem : Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

More at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Here we go again. Fore the record I could careless about seeing the movie and quite frankly I don't need some one telling me that I am a jackass for having my opinion even though I have not seen the movie and that I have no right to say that I don't want to see it based off of my opinion of Moore. To accept the logic that I must see the movie before I can say I don't want to, or that my opinion that it is a bad movie without having seen it first is an abrgation of my 1st ammendment would be in and of itself an abrogation of my first amendment rights.

Simply put, I am free to have my own opinion of this movie and the man without ever having seen it. I know Moore and that is enough for me to say that this movie is a continued representation of his historical pattern to only present his one sided views.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Now feel free to call me what you wish, but please keep in mind that no matter what someone else may think or say about my right to comment on this movie without having seen it, is false logic. And if you quote me on this, and I know someone will, keep in mind that if I upset you enough to quote me, then you take the internet far to seriously. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[AMF]

Cool, now I got it.

Why are you "sorry"? especially for how you "honestly feel"? gads, one should never be sorry for that, of all things! Oh, but, wait, you probably mean "sorry" in the sense of not apoligizing for an action but apologizing for perceived offense given. Well, no offense taken here, so no worries there. Sorry! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Did't see your reply earlier. Thansk for the clarification. My bad.

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I guess the point your trying to make is that I should see the movie before commenting on it. I understand that POV however knowning the Man who made the movie allows me an insight into what the movie will have to say. I simply do not wish to suffor that kind of one sided arguement.

I have neither read or seen anything about this movie that would redeem it enough in my eyes for me to consider seeing it.

I am sorry, but that is how I honestly feel.

Edit
I did respond to your question. (OBTW good question too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

quote:
Thought experiment: if "Farenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly the same, would you see it?

No I would not. Again it boils down to a one side view. I just want the full picture not someones subjective views on it who refuse to listen to or suffor counter opinions. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Will]

Just a question, regarding "Bowling for Columbine" for those who have seen it... when I saw it, I really did not come away with any anti-NRA feelings at all. Opponents of the documentary seem to cite the anti-NRA message a lot, especially the sliced-and-diced interview with Charlton Heston. I didn't really think it made him into a defenseless target, since (IIRC) he was just portrayed as refusing to discuss about a situation with a child being killed with a gun while having no prior knowledge of the specific case.

What I did come away with was what I thought was the central thesis to the film: many problems in the US, with guns and other things, has mainly to do with the constant fear-mongering by the political and media systems. Did anyone else come away from it with the same message?

And AT, I do hope that you eventually go see F9/11. As long as you know the (apparent) bias in the film, you will come away with a better understanding of the viewpoints opposite of your own, and can then strengthen or amend your own views based on that knowledge.

[Atrocities]

Damn it! I missed the season finally of the Shield! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Will:
What I did come away with was what I thought was the central thesis to the film: many problems in the US, with guns and other things, has mainly to do with the constant fear-mongering by the political and media systems. Did anyone else come away from it with the same message?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Very glad to find someone from the same advice as me. It really seemed to me the film was more a charge versus US media system than versus the NRA.

[Fyron]

There was definitely a pot shot taken against Charleton Heston, but the film as a whole had nothing to do with the NRA.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Damn it! I missed the season finally of the Shield! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In Atlanta, it comes on 2 more days (our recorder missed the Last minute!)

[dogscoff]

Very glad to find someone from the same advice as me. It really seemed to me the film was more a charge versus US media system than versus the NRA.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, it was, definitely. It's raises some very interesting questions about why gun crime is so high in the USA, when other countries with similar gun ownership laws and levels - Canada being the prime example - have figures so much lower.

Moore himself is a gun-owner who goes hunting and for a long time was a fully paid up member of the NRA. He only started attacking Heston because he objected to the policy of holding huge pro-gun rallies immediately after school-massacres in the towns where the killings had taken place. Some kid would shoot a bunch of students and teachers, and within a week Heston would be in that same town waving his gun around and making contraversial speeches. Of course he has every right to make those speeches, but the insensitivity of his timing is just mind-boggling.

It wasn't the guns that Moore objected to wrt heston, it was the fact that he showed such a blatant lack of compassion.

And just for the record, i get a good laugh every time I hear someone on this thread mention the president of the NRA and the word "defenceless" in the same sentence.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
He only started attacking Heston because he objected to the policy of holding huge pro-gun rallies immediately after school-massacres in the towns where the killings had taken place.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's actually a deliberate lie on the part of Moore. The NRA didn't "decide" to hold a rally after the shootings. They merely held a business meeting that they have to hold every year and had been scheduled for months in advance.


Some kid would shoot a bunch of students and teachers, and within a week Heston would be in that same town waving his gun around and making contraversial speeches. Of course he has every right to make those speeches, but the insensitivity of his timing is just mind-boggling.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you mean the "from my cold, dead hands" remark, that was another lie by Moore. Heston said that many months after Columbine, in another state. Moore spliced the quotes together to make it look like he said it at the meeting.


It wasn't the guns that Moore objected to wrt heston, it was the fact that he showed such a blatant lack of compassion.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Since the "lack of compassion" Moore objected to is a product of his own dishonesty, I don't find that acceptable.
Truth about Bowling for Columbine (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

Moore is a liar. You fell for it. End of Story.

[ June 17, 2004, 15:45: Message edited by: Sinapus ]

[rextorres]

Sinapus,

Bush has been doing the same sorts things in his political commercials that you claim Moore is doing in Bowling for Columbine. Are you prepared to call Bush a liar as well?

Anyway here is an interesting rebuttal to your link.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607

[ June 17, 2004, 17:32: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Atrocities]

Guys lets keep it on a sensable level and all remember that no jubject is worth loosing our cool over. Remember if people on the web PYO, then you take the internet far too seriously. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[AMF]

Who's losing their cool?

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Guys lets keep it on a sensable level and all remember that no jubject is worth loosing our cool over. Remember if people on the web PYO, then you take the internet far too seriously. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[Slynky]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Sinapus,

Bush has been doing the same sorts things in his political commercials that you claim Moore is doing in Bowling for Columbine. Are you prepared to call Bush a liar as well?

Anyway here is an interesting rebuttal to your link.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607 <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Interesting!

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by alarikf:
Who's losing their cool?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Up to now none. But it is better to remind everybody to keep cool while they are listening, isn't it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I got sick of the smooth talk in that link.

I think maybe I might see the film so I can form my own opinion.
Originally posted by rextorres:
Sinapus,

Bush has been doing the same sorts things in his political commercials that you claim Moore is doing in Bowling for Columbine. Are you prepared to call Bush a liar as well?

Anyway here is an interesting rebuttal to your link.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607 <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[PvK]

Just the fellow who missed the Last episode of The Shield, it seemed to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

PvK

Originally posted by alarikf:
Who's losing their cool?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Atrocities:
Guys lets keep it on a sensable level and all remember that no jubject is worth loosing our cool over. Remember if people on the web PYO, then you take the internet far too seriously. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[LordOffender]

An interesting take on this debate about this movie. MSN Article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle)

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I also watched a few interviews with him and I have to say that he has said its not an honest film nor should it be taken as one. However, it is a film and not politics. The politics only reside in the minds of the people who watch the film.

It should be noted that the movie is being released by I think MiraMax and the two brothers who own that company are registared Democrats and JFK (Kerry) supporters.

I think it best that this movie be taken with a huge grain of salt and if seen, not taken seriously. It is after all, and again Moore said this, his opinion on things.

Is it worth the $8.50 price tag? Well I hope not.

[ June 23, 2004, 08:45: Message edited by: LordOffender ]

[Slynky]

Then, while pointing the "Miramax" owners out, you might look into the alignment of the author of the piece as well. Since the piece DOES deal with political material, it tends to polarize a lot of powerful people...especially ones with their hands "under the table" or those who need to "suck up" in order to maintain their status.

[primitive]

Hey Slynky, don’t dish the cred of Christopher Hitchens (the author) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

After all, he has earned it the hard way in his dayjob as a columnist for Vanity Fair
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by LordOffender:
I also watched a few interviews with him and I have to say that he has said its not an honest film nor should it be taken as one.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Uh, I think you probably misheard this part. He might have said it's not balanced. Moore has never hidden the fact that he has an agenda. But everybody has their own agenda, some are just more upfront about it then others. Of course there have been and will continue to be people saying the movie contains distortions or lies, but I would be very suprised to hear Moore himself say the film is anything less then honest.

[dogscoff]

it seems to me that {moore} displays a political bias not unlike the people he is so fond of criticizing.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well... I don't think it's the political bias he's criticising in people like George Bush- it's the business 'bias' he seems to display in some of his political dealings.

Politics should be politics, business should be business. Whenever either one visits the other, it leaves the door wide open for corruption to follow...

[Slynky]

Originally posted by primitive:
Hey Slynky, don’t dish the cred of Christopher Hitchens (the author) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

After all, he has earned it the hard way in his dayjob as a columnist for Vanity Fair
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ROFLMAO!

[Cipher7071]

I don't any more about what's in Michael Moore's "documentary" than anyone else who hasn't actually seen it. But, I have seen Michael Moore interviewed, and it seems to me that he displays a political bias not unlike the people he is so fond of criticizing. It's just one more case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Will]

I went to see the movie Saturday night. It was crazy, I bought tickets for myself and a few friends two hours ahead of time Online, just so we could get in. The theatre was packed, and it seemed like the owners of the theatre decided to conveniently overlook the age of many of the kids who showed up (which I applaud them for, it seems obvious to me that the 'R'-rating was politically motivated, since there was nothing more violent or gruesome in the movie than could be seen by any kid on the evening news or Discovery channel).

Has anyone else gone to see it? What are your thoughts, now that you have?

I personally thought it was an excellent movie and editorial. It is definitely crafted to tug at your emotions, as I was laughing my head off at one point, then on the verge of tears fifteen minutes later (as a full-of-herself ignorant woman goes up to a war protester and the mother of a killed soldier, and has the gall to say that the entire thing is staged -- and the mother walks away in tears after setting the woman in her place).

Even if you are completely for the US actions in Iraq, and for the presidency of Bush, I urge you to go see this movie. It can't hurt you to take a look at the argument of the other side, and see what the human toll of this conflict is. Remember the bias it comes from, but take care to listen to the argument that is made.

[LonghornXtreme]

Well I thought the movie was some of the worst liberal propaganda I've ever seen...

Bear in mind that Moore never mentioned that it was solely Richard Clarke and the FBI that let the Saudi's flee the country... Bush's hands had nothing to do with it. You should go read the 911commission.org website.

I love how he painted the Iraqi's as completely happy and never mentioned anything of how Saddam was stockpiling the UN's oil for food money instead of helping his starving population out.

I have trouble believing that a woman with the guts to be 'unPC' to go up to protester and say 'that's not true' didn't have the guts to argue beyond that. Personally I think that scene was staged. When I confront an idiotarian I make sure I am ready and with facts. And who is Michael Moore to go chasing after a grieving woman? Moore just has a knack to interview the most ignorant of people on both sides. The grieving woman had a huge problem with elementary reading comprehension skills reading a letter she has most likely read to herself numerous times before. The husband also lacked knowledge of how to properly use the verb "to be". But I guess demo's don't know what the meaning of is is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I just can't believe Moore's idea that Bush and the Saudi's planned 911 in order to generate private money. Believe me there's much easier ways to generate that much money if you're the president. All I know is that not only the US but the whole western economic system lost SOOOO much money over the twin towers it is still staggering that Bush has the economy kicking back in again.

I agree with him that something has to be done about the House of Saud (and Iran's nuclear bid...) but its not the time yet. I for one view all the Islamic states as a wierd sort of religious confederation carrying on a modern day jihad, not too unlike the Mahdi's against the British in the 19th century. Just on a greater scale. Hopefully Iraq will act as a draw for all the skilled workers and educated civilians in the neighboring states crippling the other regimes infrastructure... Only time will tell though....

Please excuse my ramblings... Having only recently seen Bowling for Columbine, (his whole America is powerful because we had slavery is such a joke... its quite easy to see we were still a poor nation till well into the 20th) my disgust for Michael Moore and his unabashed anti-Americanism grows ever time I read some of his publicity related quotes out there...

[ June 28, 2004, 10:45: Message edited by: LonghornXtreme ]

[LonghornXtreme]

Since I most like rambled on I felt I'd offer something with more substance... This is a great article over the current situation by Victor Davis Hanson... I really don't think this is OT...

June 14, 2004, 8:11 a.m.
Feeding the Minotaur
Our strange relationship with the terrorists continues.
As long as the mythical Athenians were willing to send, every nine years, seven maidens and seven young men down to King Minos's monster in the labyrinth, Athens was left alone by the Cretan fleet. The king rightly figured that harvesting just enough Athenians would remind them of their subservience without leading to open rebellion — as long as somebody impetuous like a Theseus didn't show up to wreck the arrangement.
Ever since the storming of the Tehran embassy in November 1979 we Americans have been paying the same sort of human tribute to grotesque Islamofascists. Over the Last 25 years a few hundred of our own were cut down in Lebanon, East Africa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, and New York on a semi-annual basis, even as the rules of the tribute to be paid — never spoken, but always understood — were rigorously followed.
In exchange for our not retaliating in any meaningful way against the killers — addressing their sanctuaries in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, or Syria, or severing their financial links in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and their various state-sanctioned kindred operatives agreed to keep the number killed to reasonable levels. They were to reap their lethal harvests abroad and confine them mostly to professional diplomats, soldiers, or bumbling tourists, whose disappearance we distracted Americans would predictably chalk up to the perils of foreign service and exotic travel.
Despite the occasional fiery rhetoric, both sides found the informal Minoan arrangement mutually beneficial. The terrorists believed that they were ever so incrementally, ever so insidiously eroding America's commitment to a pro-Western Middle East. We offered our annual tribute so that over the decades we could go from Dallas to Extreme Makeover and Madonna to Britney without too much distraction or inconvenience.
But then a greedy, over-reaching bin Laden wrecked the agreement on September 11. Or did he?
Murdering 3,000 Americans, destroying a city block in Manhattan, and setting fire to the Pentagon were all pretty tough stuff. And for a while it won fascists and their state sponsors an even tougher response in Afghanistan and Iraq that sent hundreds to caves and thousands more to paradise. And when we have gotten serious in the postbellum reconstruction, thugs like Mr. Sadr have backed down. But before we gloat and think that we've overcome our prior laxity and proclivity for appeasement, let us first make sure we are not still captives to the Minotaur's logic.
True, al Qaeda is now scattered, the Taliban and Saddam gone. But the calculus of a quarter century — threaten, hit, pause, wait; threaten, hit, pause, wait — is now entrenched in the minds of Middle Eastern murderers. Indeed, the modus operandi that cynically plays on Western hopes, liberalism, and fair play is gospel now to all sorts of bin Laden epigones — as we have seen in Madrid, Fallujah, and Najaf.
Much has been written about our problems with this postmodern war and why we find it so difficult to fully mobilize our formidable military and economic clout to crush the terrorists and their patrons. Of course, we have no identifiable conventional enemy such as Hitler's Panzers; we are not battling a fearsome nation that defiantly declared war on us, such as Tojo's Japan; and we are no longer a depression-era, disarmed, impoverished United States at risk for our very survival. But then, neither Hitler nor Mussolini nor Tojo nor Stalin ever reached Manhattan and Washington.
So al Qaeda is both worse and not worse than the German Nazis: It is hardly the identifiable threat of Hitler's Wehrmacht, but in this age of technology and weapons of mass destruction it is more able to kill more Americans inside the United States. Whereas we think our fascist enemies of old were logical and conniving, too many of us deem bin Laden's new fascists unhinged — their fatwas, their mythology about strong and weak horses, and their babble about the Reconquista and the often evoked "holy shrines" are to us dreamlike.
But I beg to differ somewhat.
I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitler's fatwa — Mein Kampf — any more irrational than bin Laden's 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description — in the manner that a blood-sucking, stealthy, and nocturnal Dracula was always spookier than a massive, clunky Frankenstein.
Like Hitler's creed, bin Ladenism trumpets contempt for bourgeois Western society. If once we were a "mongrel" race of "cowboys" who could not take casualties against the supermen of the Third Reich, now we are indolent infidels, channel surfers who eat, screw, and talk too much amid worthless gadgetry, godless skyscrapers, and, of course, once again, the conniving Jews.
Like Hitler, bin Ladenism has an agenda: the end of the liberal West. Its supposedly crackpot vision is actually a petrol-rich Middle East free of Jews, Christians, and Westerners, free to rekindle spiritual purity under Sharia. Bin Laden's al Reich is a vast pan-Arabic, Taliban-like caliphate run out of Mecca by new prophets like him, metering out oil to a greedy West in order to purchase the weapons of its destruction; there is, after all, an Israel to be nuked, a Europe to be out-peopled and cowered, and an America to be bombed and terrorized into isolation. This time we are to lose not through blood and iron, but through terror and intimidation: televised beheadings, mass murders, occasional bombings, the disruption of commerce, travel, and the oil supply.
In and of itself, our enemies' ambitions would lead to failure, given the vast economic and military advantages of the West. So to prevent an all out, terrible response to these predictable cycles of killing Westerners, there had to be some finesse to the terrorists' methods. The trick was in preventing some modern Theseus from going into the heart of the Labyrinth to slay the beast and end the nonsense for good.
It was hard for the Islamic fascists to find ideological support in the West, given their agenda of gender apartheid, homophobia, religious persecution, racial hatred, fundamentalism, polygamy, and primordial barbarism. But they sensed that there has always been a current of self-loathing among the comfortable Western elite, a perennial search for victims of racism, economic oppression, colonialism, and Christianity. Bin Laden's followers weren't white; they were sometimes poor; they inhabited of former British and French colonies; and they weren't exactly followers of the no-nonsense Pope or Jerry Falwell. If anyone doubts the nexus between right-wing Middle Eastern fascism and left-wing academic faddishness, go to booths in the Free Speech area at Berkeley or see what European elites have said and done for Hamas. Middle Eastern fascist killers enshrined as victims alongside our own oppressed? That has been gospel in our universities for the Last three decades.
Like Hitler, bin Ladenism grasped the advantages of hating the Jews. It has been 60 years since the Holocaust; memories dim. Israel is not poor and invaded but strong, prosperous, and unapologetic. It is high time, in other words, to unleash the old anti-Semitic infectious bacillus. Thus Zionists caused the latest Saudi bombings, just as they have poisoned Arab-American relations, just as neo-conservatives hijacked American policy, just as Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz cooked up this war.
Finally, bin Laden understood the importance of splitting the West, just like the sultan of old knew that a Europe trisected into Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism would fight among itself rather than unite against a pan-Islamic foe. Hit the Spanish and bring in an anti-American government. Leave France and Germany alone for a time so they can blame the United States for mobilizing against a "nonexistent" threat, unleashing the age-old envy and jealously of the American upstart.
If after four years of careful planning, al Qaedists hit the Olympics in August, the terrorists know better than we do that most Europeans will do nothing — but quickly point to the U.S. and scream "Iraq!" And they know that the upscale crowds in Athens are far more likely to boo a democratic America than they are a fascist Syria or theocratic Iran. Just watch.
In the European mind, and that of its aping American elite, the terrorists lived, slept, and walked in the upper aether — never the streets of Kabul, the mosques of Damascus, the palaces of Baghdad, the madrassas of Saudi Arabia, or the camps of Iran. To assume that the latter were true would mean a real war, real sacrifice, and a real choice between the liberal bourgeois West and a Dark-Age Islamofascist utopia.
While all Westerners prefer the bounty of capitalism, the delights of personal freedom, and the security of modern technological progress, saying so and not apologizing for it — let alone defending it — is, well, asking a little too much from the hyper sophisticated and cynical. Such retrograde clarity could cost you, after all, a university deanship, a correspondent billet in Paris or London, a good book review, or an invitation to a Georgetown or Malibu A-list party.
Nearly three years after 9/11 we are in the strangest of all paradoxes: a war against fascists that we can easily win but are clearly not ready to fully wage. We have the best 500,000 soldiers in the history of civilization, a resolute president, and an informed citizenry that has already received a terrible preemptive blow that killed thousands.
Yet what a human comedy it has now all become.
The billionaire capitalist George Soros — who grew fabulously wealthy through cold and calculating currency speculation, helping to break many a bank and its poor depositors — now makes the moral equation between 9/11 and Abu Ghraib. For this ethicist and meticulous accountant, 3,000 murdered in a time of peace are the same as some prisoners abused by renegade soldiers in a time of war.
Recently in the New York Times I read two articles about the supposedly new irrational insensitivity toward Muslims and saw an ad for a book detailing how the West "constructed" and exaggerated the Islamic menace — even as the same paper ran a quieter story about a state-sponsored cleric in Saudi Arabia's carefully expounding on the conditions under which Muslims can desecrate the bodies of murdered infidels.
Aristocratic and very wealthy Democrats — Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and John Kerry — employ the language of conspiracy to assure us that we had no reason to fight Saddam Hussein. "Lies," "worst," and " betrayed" are the vocabulary of their daily attacks. A jester in stripes like Michael Moore, who cannot tell the truth, is now an artistic icon — precisely and only because of his own hatred of the president and the inconvenient idea that we are really at war. Our diplomats court the Arab League, which snores when Russians and Sudanese kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims but shrieks when we remove those who kill even more of their own. And a depopulating, entitlement-expanding Europe believes an American president, not bin Laden, is the greatest threat to world peace. Russia, the slayer of tens of thousands of Muslim Chechans and a big-time profiteer from Baathist loot, lectures the United States on its insensitivity to the new democracy in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, in Europe, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, we see the same old bloodcurdling threats, the horrific videos, the bombings, the obligatory pause, the faux negotiations, the lies — and then, of course, the bloodcurdling threats, the horrific videos, the bombings...
No, bin Laden is quite sane — but lately I have grown more worried that we are not.
— Victor Davis Hanson, an NRO contributor, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of The Soul of Battle and Carnage and Culture, among other books. His website is www.victorhanson.com. (http://www.victorhanson.com.)

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by LonghornXtreme:
Bear in mind that Moore never mentioned that it was solely Richard Clarke and the FBI that let the Saudi's flee the country... Bush's hands had nothing to do with it. You should go read the 911commission.org website.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To be fair to Moore this fact didn't come to light until just a few weeks ago, after the movie was completed.

Of course, since Moore did interview Clarke extensively for the production of the film, you might have thought it would have been one of the little details that would have come up in conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Will]

Originally posted by LonghornXtreme:
The grieving woman had a huge problem with elementary reading comprehension skills reading a letter she has most likely read to herself numerous times before.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You try losing a child, then go through and read the Last letter they wrote to you... She kept stopping while reading the letter because of the emotional loss of a dead child, not because of poor reading skills. I really do hope that the http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif at the end of that paragraph was meant for the entire paragraph, lest you seem as ignorant as those Moore interviews (your words).

[dmm]

A quick comment:
Several people have said that Moore detractors should go see the film so they can "get the facts." LOL! Why in the world would anyone go to see Moore's film unless they wanted to make a contribution to the causes that Moore believes in? You would indeed have a good point, if Moore were offering free screenings. You would also have a good point, if there were a conservative Bush supporter with a 9/11 "documentary" purporting to tell the truth. Then we could all go see both propaganda films (let's call a spade a spade). But to tell others that they are close-minded because they don't want to give money and respectability to the enemy! Since you are so open-minded, I suggest that everyone who goes to see Moore's political campaign ad should, in the interest of fairness, also give $5 to the Bush re-election fund, so that Bush can make his own propaganda film.

[psimancer]

for the most part i agree with dmm

however on a non intellectual level

the actions and attitudes of micheal moore are personally offensive to me why i dont know he just ticks me off sorta like barbara steisand i love her early movies but by god seeing her in any other context just causes a massive urge to smack some sense into the woman

i have come to the conclusion that
as my father had to do with me as a immature youth
most of the "activist" stars of hollywood need some common sense pounded into their backsides
i suspect most of them of being raised in a environment devoid of corporeal punishment
which means their personal developement is approximatly 30 years behind (once they hit 60 they might finally gain some common sense but i wont make book on it)

[dmm]

I'd also like to say, without any sarcasm, that I love how this community discusses visceral issues without losing its collective cool. Discussion gets heated, but rarely explodes. A nice change from normality, especially web normality. (You can bet Michael Moore wouldn't Last long here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by psimancer:
i suspect most of them of being raised in a environment devoid of corporeal punishment
which means their personal developement is approximatly 30 years behind (once they hit 60 they might finally gain some common sense but i wont make book on it) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Uhhh !
Do you mean a child will become a retard if his parents don't use corporeal punishment ?
I hope I did miss some humour here. In my book, I have corporeal punishment as an exception, and a bad one.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by psimancer:
i suspect most of them of being raised in a environment devoid of corporeal punishment
which means their personal developement is approximatly 30 years behind (once they hit 60 they might finally gain some common sense but i wont make book on it)<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Isn't there a ironic smiley missing? If not I would suggest you better not raise children in Germany. Corporeal punishment of humans of any age (0-99 years) is a crime, even for parents, and you WILL get convicted for it (I have first hand knowledge as a co-Judge during my court stage).

[Baron Munchausen]

This view of child-rearing is unfortunately still very prevalent in the US, Mephisto. It might not be the 'majority' view anymore but it's still quite common. The readiness to use raw force in basic family life might have something to do with the over-use of raw force in our international policies, too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Urendi Maleldil]

I don't think a good spanking is corporal punishment. That's just discipline. Corporal punishment is when the teacher whacks you across the knuckles with a yardstick.

The real discipline problem is with families. A good chunk of the people I know come from divorced or crumbling homes. Kids need good moms and dads who teach with love and a strong hand. There just aren't that many of them anymore.

It's going to suck when they grow up to be presidents and world leaders... oh wait.

[geoschmo]

Despite my pre-conceived opinion about Moore, I actually would like to go see the movie. I appreciate hearing opinions that conflict with my own, and if nothing else I'm sure it would be good for a few laughs. However, I can't sit through the graphic scenes. I understand he's got scenes of dead and mutilated Iraqi's as well one of the hostage beheadings. While I can understand why he feels the need to show this for shock value or whatever, I don't need proof that war is hell.

Graphic imagary is quite shocking and compelling on an emotional level, but it does nothing to put forward a rational discussion of the issues and events around the descision to go to war.

No sane person loves war. But sane people can come to the conclusion that war is sometimes neccesary. Moore could have made the argument against the neccesity of the war without the graphic images. If he had I probably would have gone to see it.

[ June 29, 2004, 02:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Abdiel]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
This view of child-rearing is unfortunately still very prevalent in the US, Mephisto. It might not be the 'majority' view anymore but it's still quite common. The readiness to use raw force in basic family life might have something to do with the over-use of raw force in our international policies, too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I totally reject that analogy. Spanking a child for disciplinary purpose is a whole world from invading a (not your child even) country for whatever reasons. If so, N Korea and Iran would have been hit a long time ago, instead of Iraq.

We should look for reasons outside of the Freudian world, which is totally ambiguous with its use of extrapolation out of (in this case) a completely unrelated historical incident(s).

Abd.

[Baron Munchausen]

Freud didn't originate the idea that childhood experience shapes the adult, so trying to associate my 'analogy' with Freud is not going to discredit it.

[Abdiel]

Fair enough. But argument by analogy is, in every case, a point for contention. And anyone can simply reject such an argument out of hand, philosophically.

Let's reword it to "Freud-esque" if that suits you better. But to link discipline in the family, being on the receiving end as a child, to the child as an adult tending towards military force... Now that's not such a clear-cut case.

Abd.

[psimancer]

i define corporal punishment as the use of spanking in a controlled and fair manner
unfortunatl as a youth i was not the most obedient nor respectful person
my father did not permit a disrespctful attitude in word or deed to him or more importantly my mother 1 warning 3 noncorporeal punishment chances and then corporeal punishment (spankings )

and he never allowed temper to interfere with punishment (better known as he had me stuck in my room until they deciced on what form of punishment and to what level )talk about anticipation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
i mean 8 hours waiting when i truly ticked him off

as far the the ironic smiley ......no its not missing
i have observed in several individuals continued immature behavior and attitudes espially regarding what the world and their family owes them form their early years (11) to now (27) these observations aae of so far 4 girls and 6 boys who are children of family friends whom at least one parent believes that spanking is detrimental to the development of the child in all cases so far i hae seen a pattern of the child remaining in the parents house and usually being supported by the parent with little or no attempts to support themselves with excuses about the unfair treatment they recieve etc

oh and mephisto heres the bad part my father was raised in germany until he was 6 years old his stepfather's name ...keiser http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif a cuban german
my national background a full third german

in america a child or an advocate can sue or remove the children of a parent for just spanking i know of one woman in ohio who has had this happen
i view it as follows
it is my responsibility as a perent to provide my child the best guidance as i can and the knowledge of the consequences of their actions is a part of thaat responsibility no man or woman can take away these responsibilities they can only take my children and if they do so then they are causing they same damage to my children as if i did not provide the guidance in the first place

baron well i suggest you might consider that many parents are just not discussing their attitudes openly any longer as the long term affects of spanking vs not spanking are easily determined by examination of the atitudes and behaviors of a large enough sample of the american population it is easily demonstrated that in the average not spanking tends to slow the maturation of the individual personality into a responsible adult in american society
however in european society this may be different as the cultual differences may provide suffecient alternate forms of instruction

[ June 29, 2004, 07:50: Message edited by: psimancer ]

[Will]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Despite my pre-conceived opinion about Moore, I actually would like to go see the movie. I appreciate hearing opinions that conflict with my own, and if nothing else I'm sure it would be good for a few laughs. However, I can't sit through the graphic scenes. I understand he's got scenes of dead and mutilated Iraqi's as well one of the hostage beheadings. While I can understand why he feels the need to show this for shock value or whatever, I don't need proof that war is hell. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The graphic scenes are fairly brief. Probably the most graphic images is a approximately 10-second sequence depicting Iraqis dragging incinerated bodies (I'm pretty sure they're soldiers hit with a firebomb) through a street, then suspending them from street lights. The beheading scene is from footage that is several years old, and very grainy; I could only tell that it was a beheading from the text on the screen, since it looked more like a person getting hit with a baseball bat. The rest of the bloody scenes are fairly minor (IMHO, this may be from watching surgery/ER documentaries from a fairly young age), and most of it you can pretty much turn your head away from (the exception being the opening sequence, with black screen and audio from the hijackings).

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by psimancer:
it is my responsibility as a perent to provide my child the best guidance as i can and the knowledge of the consequences of their actions is a part of that responsibility no man or woman can take away these responsibilities they can only take my children and if they do so then they are causing they same damage to my children as if i did not provide the guidance in the first place.<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You know, these lines you said could be copied from the German Constitution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
However, misconduct is still no excuse to punish another human with physical means.
BTW: I have never ever in my entire live been hit by my parents, never ever. And I very well do support myself, support others during my Paramedic job and support some of my relatives which got permanently ill. So much for the spanking theory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PvK]

Ya, good parenting does not need to include physical punishment. If the child values the parents' approval enough, serious disapproval about serious misbehaviour can teach plenty.

Maybe there are some families where some physical punishment can work well.

However, I know there are cases where physical punishment is used badly... and that can be really bad stuff, and do awful things to the parent/child relationship.

As for suggesting that intelligent and accomplished people ought to be forcefully violated because someone disagrees with their opinions, well, no.

When people disagree and can't get along, maybe they should just agree to disagree, and leave each other in peace. I tend to think the USA would be a happier place if the states were much more diverse in their laws and customs, and the Federal government cut back its roles a whole lot, so people could stop interfering with each others' beliefs and cultures, trying to pervert the system to try to control everyone else.

PvK

[Fyron]

Parenting that includes spanking (not to be confused with beating or other harsh punishments) is by no means bad parenting, of course. Just a different approach.

I tend to think the USA would be a happier place if the states were much more diverse in their laws and customs, and the Federal government cut back its roles a whole lot, so people could stop interfering with each others' beliefs and cultures, trying to pervert the system to try to control everyone else. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You must not be a Democrat then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Nor a Republican... they both tend to stand for more control by the government these days... ugh.

[ June 30, 2004, 05:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Atrocities]

Truth in Politics.

My official functions as one of your dually elected congressional DemO'Rep leaders will be to pass into a law obscenely stupid laws that protect you from your god given freedoms and constitutional rights.

Once elected I will completely forget all the campaign promises I have made and embark upon my quest to bilk you out of your hard earned money by raising taxes, reducing freedoms, accepting pay increases that I clear do not deserve, and enjoying the fringe benefits that come free to me but a cost to you. Oh yes, I shall secretly accept all bribes, kickbacks, and freebies that come my way.

When reelection comes I will lie to you again, smear my opponent, and embark upon my second term in office as I did the first. Eventually I shall become so powerful in the Washington political scene that I will run for the office of President where I will gladly accept any and all offers for sex from super models, female interns, and the occasional boy scout.

I will put my own interest ahead of the country and will continue the age-old tradition of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Thank You.

[ June 30, 2004, 07:56: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Truth in Politics.

My official functions as one of your dually elected congressional DemO'Rep leaders will be to pass into a law obscenely stupid laws that protect you from your god given freedoms and constitutional rights.

Once elected I will completely forget all the campaign promises I have made and embark upon my quest to bilk you out of your hard earned money by raising taxes, reducing freedoms, accepting pay increases that I clear do not deserve, and enjoying the fringe benefits that come free to me but a cost to you. Oh yes, I shall secretly accept all bribes, kickbacks, and freebies that come my way.

When reelection comes I will lie to you again, smear my opponent, and embark upon my second term in office as I did the first. Eventually I shall become so powerful in the Washington political scene that I will run for the office of President where I will gladly accept any and all offers for sex from super models, female interns, and the occasional boy scout.

I will put my own interest ahead of the country and will continue the age-old tradition of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Thank You. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That must a translation from Chirac's life.
Probably the only political line he keept following during his life.

[dogscoff]

Atrocities- I'd vote for you. I mean at least you're being honest about it...

[Randallw]

I have ignored this thread because I had no wish to get involved in a debate about some bloke who, in my eyes, is such a staunt democrat and is unhappy his side didn't win an election that he criticises and insults the person who fairly won the elction. Today though I must speak as he has started to insult the democratically elected leader of another country just because we allied with America. I don't think he would insult us if we had allied with a democratic party lead America. I am no fan of democracy, I see many things wrong with it most specifically making opposition parties compulsory. My ideal system would have one party with the best ability to run the country, but we do not live in an ideal world that would allow that. If we must live within a democratic system though, and if a person keeps going on about democrarcy, they should be willing to accept the truth not shout the virtues of democracy on one hand while wroking towards the downthrow of its results.
I am going to make my thoughts public knowledge, not something I usually do as I usually avoid conflict. Michael Moore is an idiot. I may not have much say as I am not American and am not involved in Americas internal politics, but as I said he has come out and started to insult the leader of my own country. I fully expect US democrats to support him, that is their democratic right I suppose, but personally he is an idiot. A few weeks back there was an uproar here because the US president "dared" to imply our opposition shouldn't be elected. This was our opposition supporters eager to jump on any chance to disparage our allies and government. I fully expect such people will turn around and support this idiots right to "dare" to imply our government is wrong.

Edit: look, I apologise for my rant. Usually I don't get so emotional, and in an hour I may have calmed down. For the moment though I am seriously annoyed (to put it politely)

[ July 08, 2004, 04:38: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[Will]

Randall, what's this about Michael Moore insulting Australia's leadership? I haven't heard anything about it, and a quick look at the Australian Version of Google news didn't bring up any headlines.

And just a note about his criticizing Bush: In your eyes, Bush might have 'fairly' won the election, but for a lot of people in the US, it is still not that simple. Bush did *not* get a majority of the votes in the country, and the only reason he did get the higher number of Electoral College votes is because in a closely contested election where Bush's supporters (Katherine Harris, the former Secretary of State of Florida, was responsible for counting votes, and she was the chairwoman of Bush's election team in Florida) were counting the votes, the courts finally stepped in to get some closure over the whole ordeal. So he might have been elected according to the law, but for a lot of people, he was far from being elected fairly.

Just had to throw that in for clarification. The real point of this post is to find out what this insulting stuff is all about. Since I haven't heard anything about it here.

[Randallw]

I have quitened down a bit so I'll return to being civil. first though, as you said technically Bush won. I said I disagreed with the democratic process a bit, but I am lawful, I believe laws are to keep order. According to the law, Bush won. Its a pity the system wasn't changed before hand if you disagree with the result, but society has to accept how things work if thats how its organised. If you suddenly find the results aren't what you wanted then if a majority agrees change the law afterwards. I thought the idea of a Democracy was majority rule. You might say "ah, but the republicans aren't going to change something that got them into power". Well if the republicans are the majority then according to democracy they choose.
You say Bush didn't get a majority?. Well them I'm sorry but it doesn't sound as if your democracy is organised correctly. At least in accordance to my idea of it.

to the matter at hand

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10071829%255E401,00.html

basically he said our Prime Minister has half a brain, and he hopes that he is voted out. If he is going to intrude in our politics depsite having no right then I in turn hope whichever person he votes for in America never gets voted in.

significant statement
"And I hope the same thing happens to him (Mr Howard) as happened to the leader of Spain when he decided to be part of the coalition of the willing."

so he wants our Prime Minister to lose the election due to more than a hundred people being killed in a terrorist attack. The more I learn of this man the more I see he has no credibility.
"he's mad" my mother says.

[primitive]

Randall,
The AQ attack itself (in Spain) was not the reason the Spanish PM lost the election. He was thrown out of office because he tried to use it as a tool in his private war against the ETA/Basque. Most Spanish and Basque alike are way tired of the old conflict and want to patch the old wounds. A warmongering PM who tries to upgrade a conflict between a few hundred diehard terrorists (ETA) into a full scale war between ethnic Groups (Castilians vs Basque) was not what the Spanish people wanted.
Hmmm, strange how this reminds me of another politician who managed to upgrade a conflict with a few Moslem maniacs to a conflict involving Nations.

[Mephisto]

Randall, a democracy is not a democracy if you don't give the minority rights. The rule of the majority without any checks and balances over the minority is not democracy but dictatorship of the majority.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Randallw:
I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it.

[Randallw]

Originally posted by primitive:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Randallw:
I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm sorry I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all. I said, i see (because I see what he means) then, Q: it wasn't what I thought but instead that the PM apparently tried to accuse ETA instead of AQ. I apologise for not realising that the way I organised my reply might be misconstrued. Should I have placed an emote to show I wasn't being sarcastic?. sorry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

edit: just saw the mistake. I should have said "the spanish people were angry not because" not "weren't so much angry"

[ July 08, 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[primitive]

No worries http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Fyron]

You say Bush didn't get a majority?. Well them I'm sorry but it doesn't sound as if your democracy is organised correctly. At least in accordance to my idea of it. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually... the electoral college system in the US is set up to provide checks and balances for the minority (low population states) against dictatorship by the majority (high population states). This ranges from electing the President to the composition of the Congress. As Mephisto said, such checks and balances are needed in a democracy... this was how the people that set up the government of the US balanced it. That, and it was the only way to get the small states and large states to agree to be part of the same union and not have two separate nations after the secession from the British empire...

[Randallw]

I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Also what I meant was surely the point of voting is that the person or party who gets the most votes (ie the majority of voters) is the one elected. All citizens of a country deserve equal rights, but surely, at least in a 2-party system, one viewpoint receives the majority of support. I'll avoid using the US system which I don't know much of, but in Australia we have 2 major parties, the Coalition (which technically is 2 parties but they merge) and labour. If we held an election either one or the other gets the most votes, and thus a majority membership in parliament. Then for the term of government it is the "winning" parties agenda that runs the country, and even then the opposition may have power in the upper house opposing government. This may be effected by independents, the greens or the democrats who, if their small number of elected memebrs vote with the opposition may outweigh the government, stopping the Governments policies.
I said I disagreed with Democracy. My major irritation with it is that instead of getting to the business of running the country in the most beneficial way for the advancement of the state and the people, politicans spend alot of time trying to cosy up to people because they depend on getting people, who don't so much study politics as like which "nice politician goes around shaking hands and kissing babies", to vote for them. Also they spend almost all the time competing with the opposition, and the opposition almost has to oppose anything the government does not just because they have a differing political or economic viewpoint (except when they can't risk alienating the electorate by opposing moral decisions eg. if another country is attacked and our government sends aid the opposition can't be heartless and oppose it) , but because if they agree with everything the government does whats the point of having different parties. Normal opposition is part of the system but it seems these days politicians are getting nastier towards each other, not just having opposing viewpoints but actually insulting other politicians (Like saying they have only half a brain), and I mean the greens in particular (if your Australian, yes I am talking about bob brown). At least we aren't any of the countries which the news shows politicians throwing chairs at each other in parliament. My irritation with democracy is intellectual, I am not going to go out and start a rebellion to topple the government and impose a proper Republic (as opposed to the misleading democratic Version), that is impossible as well as against my belief in obeying the system. I will work with the system and vote for the party I support. The only viable way to make my intellectual thoughts work is if 100% of the population had exactly the same education and, the impossible part, everyone agrees with the same idea. Because of differing economic and living environments, it is impossible for everyone to agree. The US for example (the first modern democracy) has been convinced for 200 years, by which I mean citizens are taught from cradle to grave, that democracy is the one true free political system. Only in a perfect world can we have a perfect system. For this imperfect world we will have to accept an imperfect system, it sure beats some others I know of.

[ July 08, 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[Randallw]

Yes, I know a bit about this. Each state gets 2 senators right?. with 50 states that is 100 senators. So the 2 senators out of a lowly populated state get as much power as the 2 senators from a huge state.

[Caduceus]

Originally posted by Randallw:
Yes, I know a bit about this. Each state gets 2 senators right?. with 50 states that is 100 senators. So the 2 senators out of a lowly populated state get as much power as the 2 senators from a huge state. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, that's the Senate. The House of Representatives is based on population. Both of those compose the Legislative branch of the US Congress.

A bill to be submitted to the President has to pass through both in order to be made into a law.

President and VP are the Executive Branch and the US Supreme Court is the Judicial Branch.

Wildcard

Here's a primer on the electoral college.
Electoral College (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm)

And the House of Representatives
House of Representatives (http://www.house.gov)