quote:

---

as for her aims, yes, she does hope to employ her grief for a certain cause, and therein lies the rub. i'm not sure soldiers die so that others can use their memories for political goals. but thats just me.

---

Lila's response to her son's death is only one effect of his death. Just because she chose to mourn her son's death in teh way she did does not mean I think that is "why he died." There is no why for his death. He died in a helicopter crash. It was a random incident. I do not think he died so that his mother could convince some people not to vote Republican, nor do I think he died so that some Iraqis' lives could be made better. He just died. That's it. His helicopter fell from the sky and he is no more. And his death has who knows how many effects, this is one of them. But surely it's not the only one.

It sounds good to say that people like Michael Moore are using or exploiting the soldiers in their agenda against the Bush administration, but no matter what, that use pales in comparison to the exploitation of those same men by Bush for his oil conquest. Moore is using their misfortune to make a point yes, but Bush is using them as expendable bodies, sending them to their deaths, in order to secure more oil reserves for our country's corporations. But see, this is why we'll never see eye to eye ... I see this war as a land grab to gain control of an economic resource. You see it as a war of liberation and taking down a terrorist regime. And that's fine ... there's no way for either of us to know the exact truth so we are both entitled to make up our own minds as to what it is.

what puzzles me is this perceived conspiracy by "neocons" and the bush administration to stage a war to get oil. Oil is extremely cheap. It would cost us 10 times as much to man those oil fields ourselves or to drill for new oil and then pipeline for exportation. Everybody knows that. If wanted Iraq's oil, why wouldn't we simply stick around in 1991 when we had the country by the throat?? Because oil is CHEAP! Get over "The Oil War." Look it up.

SparkleMotion:

The reason why we didn't hang around after the first war in Iraq was simple, we didn't want to be in the mess we're in today, George Bush the father was not the dummy that his son was.

Winning is easy, we did it twice; what else is the point of being the world's only superpower? Especially against an enemy whose military is conventional pre-Cold War era, and a country that, after over 10 years of economic sanctions, had to depend on outside sources to feed its own people.

I wouldn't be so simple-minded as to dismiss oil as a geopolitical motive, particularly in the long term. But there were other motives.

To secure a military presence in the area, since our stay in Saudi Arabia, formerly our strongest ally in the Arab world, was getting problematical. So, contrary to Bush administration reassurances, I suspect we'll have troops stationed in Iraq for as long as Americans can stomach the on-going attrition.

To create a more moderate political and military atmosphere for Isreal in the region: Saddam openly funded Palestinian causes and provided compensation for families of suicide bombers, in addition to development of military weapons that might be used as a threat to Isreal.

There is a reason why we didn't attack N Korea. They claimed to actually have nuclear devices, you know, WMD. And to invade there would have involved the vaporization of 36,000 American troops stationed in the DMZ in the first 5 minutes.

And KT,

Let's not allow nitwits to gloss over George Bush's deceit in the rationale for the war on Iraq, and its occupation.

Because we don't live in a dictatorship, George Bush must create "consent" for his military adventure. And he did so by lying to us: WMD, Iraq-9/11 link, imminent threat. And when these never materialized, George Bush wants us to believe that this war is a war of liberation and the taking down of a terrorist regime.

This is crass propaganda and deceit. This is spin to divert us from what is a failed foreign policy predicated on arrogance and stupidity.

A similiar failed foreign policy cost us 42,000 American military personnels (and millions others) in Vietnam, and took us ten years to extricate ourselves.

With any luck, comes November, we'll send George Bush back to Crawford and make his mistake a short one. His father was right, George wasn't "the smart one."

Slightly off the topic but not really: I keep hearing about the "reputation" of America in the world community as something that needs repair. Do you remember when we found that Sadaam's bunker was German made? Or that the explosive mines which were lining the waterways in southern Iraq were French maid? I would think they should be a little more worried about their "reputations" in the world community, to say nothing of their respective roles in the oil for food scandal. Why don't they worry about that stuff? And why wasn't any of that chronicled in Fahrenheit 9/11??

SparkleMotion:

I think you have framed this argument in a rather artful and rather disingenuous way.

Some of us may have said that George Bush and his foreign policies (invasion and occupation of a non-belligerent country, violation of the Geneva conference in regard to prisoners of war, unilateral withdrawal from treaty obligations, etc.) have "damaged" our reputation overseas.

No one said that it was "something that needs repair."

First of all, your reputation is your good name. If you damaged it you loose the good regard of others. They no longer trust you. They don't believe what you say. And you are not likely to persuade them to your ideas or agendas.

But that is true only if you care about the society of others, or the society of the community of nations.

If you don't care, why bother? Your average criminal or rapist could care less about the regard of the average citizen. Some white-collar criminals, they hide their faces because they still have some sense of shame. Otherwise why should they care?

When the United States attacked and occupied Iraq over some obviously contrived and fabricated premises, people elsewhere (and their governments) accused us of being criminal, and because none of these premises have been substantiated, they accuse us of being deceptive and having bad motives.

Our reputation is damaged.

I'm not sure it can be repaired, even if we're inclined to. And we're not inclined to because George Bush and his cronies have never admitted error.

They have learned the technique of the big lie, that if you tell a lie over and over, you can get away with it. As law enforcement people will tell you, there are no guilty individuals in our prison system, just unsuccessful liars.

The only allies we have are those we paid for or browbeat. Those that disagreed with us, they're content to see us struggle and fail (or are you one of these who can look at the daily news out of Iraq and say, I'm going there on my vacation?).

As I said, when your reputation is ruined, I don't think you can "repair" it. I mean, someone scammed you, you're gonna give him another $5000 because he promised not to do it again? Or your girlfriend sleeps with 3 guys you don't know about, but now she say its just you?

I'm not sure the world works that way, neither do you.

You kick the asshole out; you show your girlfriend the door.

So if we care about the opinions of others, we'll have to give someone else the job at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave comes November.

But only if we care. We can stay in Iraq; they can continue to hate us and kill us. We can choose to believe lies. Our choice. Your choice.

(If you need to have all your opinions validated, why not listen to Russ Limbaugh, he agrees with you in pretty much everything, and you wouldn't need to loose any sleep at night.)

Why didn't you answer the question. Why do you focus on our "failings"? What about the specific aid that France and Germany gave to genocidal Sadam Hussein? He killed 129,999 Kurds over the course of 3 weeks. Want to know what happened to that last guy? He's still alive, but Sadaam has a contract on his life because he knows that guy is the only survivor of the Kurdish holocaust. He was buried under a pregnant woman's corpse -- her baby's stillborn until his legs. But the left in this country is still concerned over our motivations for going to war. What about France assisting this madman? Taking his oil money? Mining his waterways knowing they'd never assist in the efforts to remove him?

The U.S. freed france in WWII. We single-handedly are responsible for the freedom of Taiwaan and South Korea. We are responsible for the freedom of Israel. We were responsible for the freedom of the millions under the iron fist of the old Soviet Union. So if you are worried that a CIA chief was able to convince Bush, Congress (including Kerry & Edwards) and the rest of the world that there were weapons in Iraq -- and that the possible movement of these weapons to Syria, Iran, and Jordan now destroys our position on the high ground? All I can say is that we've got bigger fish to fry. Why don't you protest the government of the Sudan for its genocide of the Christian Afraicans in the south of that country? Why won't Anan get the U.N. involved there? Politics. He relies on the Sudan vote to keep him in power. Yet another reason why we'd never subject ourselves to the laws of the U.N.

SparkleMotion:

Somehow I always get the feeling that you think we should all be shocked by the shortcomings of others, or the evil that others do. But conveniently, you want us to ignore our own, or our own complicity in equally bad things. Again: others are bad, we’re good. How convenient. You must think that anybody that disagrees with you is simple, or naïve, or lack the capacity for complex thought.

Let’s consider what you’ve said with at least some modicum of perspective and critical thought:

“Do you remember when we found that Sadaam's bunker was German made? Or that the explosive mines which were lining the waterways in southern Iraq were French maid?”

Yes, but you forgot to mention that while Germany and France are arms suppliers to the world, so is Israel, Britain and the United States. In fact, the United States is the biggest supplier of arms worldwide. (And you do know that our allies - Pakistan sold nuclear technology to N. Korea and Israel sold sensitive technology to China?) Our Apaches and Abrams and Stingers are used to defend freedom and oppress native populations everywhere. Should we be shocked?

“What about the specific aid that France and Germany gave to genocidal Sadam Hussein?”

What about the aid we gave to genocidal Sadaam Hussein when he was at war with Iran? We provided him with strategic and tactical war intelligence AND chemical technology. Did you conveniently forget that? Are we shocked?

“He killed 129,999 Kurds over the course of 3 weeks.”

Maybe you can explain why we didn’t invade and occupy Rwanda, Cambodia, post-WWII Russia and China, just to name a few places where genocidal events occurred with little intervention but humanitarian lip-service on our part, or where we assisted oppressive regimes like Chile, Shah Iran, or where we destabilized representative rule for the sake of military dictatorships, like the one that preceded the rise of the Baahist in Iraq because they were socialist or left-leaning. Let’s not even mention why we give Israel and Egypt approx 12B annually, certainly not to enhance democratic processes. Our bloody handprints are everywhere. Should we be shocked?

“But the left in this country is still concerned over our motivations for going to war. “

Yes, and you know why? Because we’re THERE. And it’s a mess because we’re THERE. And we’re THERE because of the Bush administration's mendacity and deceit.

“Why didn't you answer the question. Why do you focus on our ‘failings’? “

Simple, because the “failings” are OURS. And believe it or not, there is a question of moral judgment. Like: something is right or wrong. Are you going to punish the French or the Germans or the Chinese? They would laugh at you. You clean your own house. When you do something wrong, you acknowledge responsibility, and you do the right thing. Pointing your fingers at the French and the Germans doesn’t absolve you of your unwarranted act of war, or the moral bad faith that justifies it, or the Bush administration’s deceit to us and to others.

“The U.S. freed france in WWII. “

How long do they need to be grateful?

“We single-handedly are responsible for the freedom of Taiwaan and South Korea. We are responsible for the freedom of Israel. We were responsible for the freedom of the millions under the iron fist of the old Soviet Union.”

Tad self-serving, don’t you think? Maybe even megalomania. Even if these claims are true, which they are not, we had vested interest that superceded our desire for their freedom, like containing China and the USSR in the post-war era. And unfortunately in Israel, we are complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians.

“So if you are worried that a CIA chief was able to convince Bush, Congress (including Kerry & Edwards) and the rest of the world that there were weapons in Iraq -- and that the possible movement of these weapons to Syria, Iran, and Jordan now destroys our position on the high ground?”

This administration wanted to go into Iraq from day one, 9/11 simply created the opportunity. George Bush required no convincing from any CIA chief or anybody else. Dick Chaney made over 10 trips to Langley to finesse the facts to suit the case for war. Get real, instead of parroting Bush propaganda.

“ All I can say is that we've got bigger fish to fry. Why don't you protest the government of the Sudan for its genocide of the Christian Afraicans in the south of that country?”

Why doesn’t Bush invade the place? Why can’t they have freedom and democracy too?

“Why won't Anan get the U.N. involved there? Politics. He relies on the Sudan vote to keep him in power. Yet another reason why we'd never subject ourselves to the laws of the U.N.”

Sure, why not! International laws as it applies to others, but not to us. We’re the good guys, everybody else, they’re bad guys.

By the way, what question did you have in mind? You might want to think about some of the things you say before you say it. Either you must think we're naive, or you are.

wrong 828: "And unfortunately in Israel, we are complicit in the oppression of the Palestinians."

That's my sign to end the discussion. Have a good day!

After a word from our sponsors, we'll be back with tonight's episode of "Fahrenheit 9/11." What do YOU think about it and do YOU have the guts to share that?

To quote from our fearless leader and my favorite individual in the whole wide world:

"Bring it on."

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
To quote from our fearless leader and my favorite individual in the whole wide world:

"Bring it on."

---

Ouch...

Footnote:

As a footnote to all of the above, those interested in more light on the subject, as oppose to heat, should take a gander at the recent “America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order” by Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, two conservative intellectuals who clearly want to distance American conservatism from the virulence of neo-conservatism, and made the case that neo-conservatism’s ascendancy in the Bush administration have led to foreign policy disasters. It is an ironic side note that where traditional conservatism had advocated for isolationism, the Bush administration have created a world where we are in fact isolated from much of the world’s public opinion, where we’re alone with the consequence of our foreign policy.

The authors detail the roots of neo-conservatism from the days of Commentary (marking the first break of Jewish intellectuals with liberalism over the issue of race and entitlement) to Weekly Standard (the current standard bearer of neo-conservatism with favored access into the Bush administration) and such policy mills as Project for the New American Century and American Enterprise Institute (from which many, if not all, of Bush’s foreign policy advisors had sprung from - to fill a head-of-state who prides himself as someone who neither read newspapers nor watch television, and previous to his presidency, had little to no interest in foreign affairs, except the family’s oil business.).

Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke’s critique of neo-conservatism is by no means unique. Their book is merely one of dozens in the recent marketplace, but remarkable because it comes from the house of conservatism, where ideological parents finally saw fit to distance themselves from, and maybe acknowledge the shortcomings of a bad offspring. Still there remains new conservatives like John Russell Meade who, while stepped back from botched disasters like Iraq, remains unrepentant in thinking that we should assume the mantle of imperial empire, thinking that we have an obligation (translate, right) to impose “democratic” values elsewhere worldwide.

I think there is an adage that goes, “There are no want of fathers for victory, but defeat is an orphan.” Not exactly like rats off a sinking ship, since the American public still has to weight in on this this November, but you can see it coming.

I haven't seen "F 9/11" yet, but I have seen the other Michael Moore films, even "Canadian Bacon" with John Candy. I don't know if anyone cares, but did you see that Moore is foregoing a possible "Best Documentary" nomination and going strictly for the "Best Picture" Oscar? Maybe this info will light a fire at Documentaries. If you read this and don't care, please start your own thread somewhere. Later, Gators.

I would not think so. Yes, I thought the movie was good, mostly because I really don't like Bush. But this movie wasnt perfect and it took some long-off evidence and didnt neccesarily hold together perfectly. I doubt that it will win best documentary and I strongly doubt that it will even get nominated for best picture, but that is just me.

NETWORKS BAR ADS FOR FAHRENHEIT DVD

Sony has protested the decisions by each of the major networks to refuse to accept advertising on its news programs for the DVD version of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which is due to be released on Oct. 5, L.A. Weekly columnist Nikke Finke reported in the online edition of the publication Wednesday. After first making the ads offbounds to the nightly newscasts, a Sony insider told the columnist, they then extended the ban to include magazine and morning talks shows as well. "That becomes very problematic to any advertiser trying to reach an adult audience," the source said. Finke reported that Sony's protests have begun to have an effect with the ban on the morning programs now lifted and NBC making ad time on Dateline available.

So what's up with the networks here?? I don't get it. Are they now reacting to the whole Dan Rather thing, overcompensating so as not to look like they've got a horse in the presidential race by apparently supporting Moore? Crazy sh.t.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RayRay:
NETWORKS BAR ADS FOR FAHRENHEIT DVD

Sony has protested the decisions by each of the major networks to refuse to accept advertising on its news programs for the DVD version of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which is due to be released on Oct. 5, L.A. Weekly columnist Nikke Finke reported in the online edition of the publication Wednesday. After first making the ads offbounds to the nightly newscasts, a Sony insider told the columnist, they then extended the ban to include magazine and morning talks shows as well. "That becomes very problematic to any advertiser trying to reach an adult audience," the source said. Finke reported that Sony's protests have begun to have an effect with the ban on the morning programs now lifted and NBC making ad time on Dateline available.

So what's up with the networks here?? I don't get it. Are they now reacting to the whole Dan Rather thing, overcompensating so as not to look like they've got a horse in the presidential race by apparently supporting Moore? Crazy sh.t.

---

This is actually better than advertisements. Just more hype. My prediction: "Farenheit" will tear up rental shelves.

All you Michael Moore/Farenheit fans need to give your head a shake. Michael Moore has created another piece of Grade A Trash. This "crockumentary" as those who know what's going on have begun to call it, is one of the worst, fake, fraudulent, garbage films ever made, created by, and I quote "One of the sloppiest journalists"-BBC News.

I cannot begin to write down the many ways Moore misleads you, stretches (and in some cases makes up) the facts. For a taste of how thick Michael Moore is, visit :

www.davekopel.com/Terror/ Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Anyone who believes the crap Moore is pumping out needs to wake up. Also, if you get a chance, pick up the book "Michael Moore is a Big, Fat, Stupid White Man."

One of the worst films made by one of the worst "directors". A waste of time, money, and film.

If you are tired of Moore's snarky, self-important demeanor, just go see "Team America"...they put him in his appropriate light.... I laughed my ass off....

No matter what your politics, you can't blame Moore for everything ridiculous which Bush says or does. I mean...this isn't "What's Up, Tiger Lily?". Moore didn't dub Dubya's voice to make him say every silly thing he says.

Also, Moore has a way with a line of narration. If you don't like it, OK, but he's funny and often he's dead on, even if he's "stretching" the "alleged" truth.

Now, go ahead and cry that this is all lies. Do you actually remember what happened four years ago?, and how Jeb Bush, Dubya's campaign manager in Florida, and some other "weird" things got in the way of a "free" country's right to a "free" election? Oh well, I guess politics is more important than freedom.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark f:
Now, go ahead and cry that this is all lies. Do you actually remember what happened four years ago?, and how Jeb Bush, Dubya's campaign manager in Florida, and some other "weird" things got in the way of a "free" country's right to a "free" election?

---

Moore would have been effective covering this topic more in depth. [note]Being a resident at the time of West Palm Beach, FL, I admit to a bias on the topic. People ask me why I left gorgeous West Palm for Seattle after the election...funny[/note]
Why is there no further investigation on this matter? Why was George W. Bush allowed to be President in the first place? This really is a smoking-gun for Moore's point, and he doesn't do much to examine it.
It is sad that Michael Moore had to be the one to do this film, because people easily attack Michael Moore the man and not the messages presented by him. Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, among any number of others would have been better at handling it.