| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2003 : 12:28:16
|
WARNING: If you're having a difficult time with anti-US/Bush sentiment (even from loyal US citizens), please don't read this.
Regardless it's typical Moore:
- - - - -
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15406
A Letter to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com
March 17, 2003
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans the ones who never elected you are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.
3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what we don't think so either!
6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.
Well, cheer up there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!
But, hey, who knows maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis they got our oil!!
Yours,
Michael Moore
- - - - - |
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 13:28:47
|
i have to believe that our government wouldnt be making such a huge deal about it if there werent infact somewhat serious weapons of mass destruction, no matter how incompetant bush may be (and probably is), i dont see how he could put himself in this position if he wasnt sure that he was right about the existence of weapons.
-miked |
 |
|
|
NimrodsSon
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1938 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 14:32:27
|
hell you can make fun of bush all you want and i agree half the time ( even though i definitely think we should go to war). but if you really think about it, would you honestly rather have al gore as the president? Just think about that
|
|
|
|
mereubu
= FB QuizMistress =
USA
2677 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 15:18:15
|
| Shit yeah, I honestly would. Al did win the popular vote, you know? Bush wasn't even elected. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 16:45:29
|
Mike, therein lies the problem. You would THINK that "oh, Iraq must have these weapons and that's why the government is so serious about going in." With that sort of fantasy logic, why don't I put a scenario on the table. Here we are, within hours of an official war. Iraq's not giving up, the US government is still stroking its dicks to the thought of owning another country...Saddam doesn't have much of a chance of staying in power...so why doesn't he unleash these weapons of mass destruction that he "probably has but we have no real proof." Why not?
We have weapons of mass destruction. With this war, we set the precedent that we can attack first without any provocation...this is just the beginning of a string of wars against countries we don't agree with. If Gore were president, we wouldn't be dealing with this shit right now. Iraq would be no more of a threat, either. Shit, even if they wanted to produce these fucking nuclear missles, it'll take around 5 years, not to mention they would have to test-fire their rockets (much like North Korea has been doing!), giving a not-so-secret indication that they're not talking shit.
This entire war and administration fucking disgusts me. The world turns from shit to shit-on-shit when you actually start paying attention to news and current events. Although I am very atheist, there's a part of me that hopes there might be some sort of god out there and he will come down and take away all his brothers and sisters who believe, so they can fuck off and we can live in some sort of peace without all the religious conflict...don't you think the world would be better off without religion? |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 20:02:24
|
I think the only way the US can really know if Iraq has WoMD is if they sold them to Iraq.
Who's gonna attack the US when they're the only one left with WoMD?
There's more ways to be a Hitler than killing your own people..
And if you think about it, i don't think any Americans have been killed by Iraqi's, tho the reverse is quite hideous.. (Everyone here familiar with the plow-mounted tanks that buried something like 6000 Iraqi troops alive during the Gulf War? Journalists were shocked when they arrived on the 'battlegrounds' to find none of the regular signs - stink, dead bodies and flies. They did notice the ground was very flat.)
Saddam and many Iraqi's have good reason to hate the US. I don't think many American's have much reason to truly hate Iraq.
Ahh well..
As for the 'real' reasons Bush is so adamant..i doubt anyone here is truly sinister enough to imagine this. |
|
|
|
Mellzah
- FB Fan -
63 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 20:10:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by mdisanto
no matter how incompetant bush may be (and probably is), i dont see how he could put himself in this position if he wasnt sure that he was right about the existence of weapons.
I could. If it guaranteed his re-election, he'd do it regardless. |
|
|
|
floop
= Wannabe Volunteer =
Mexico
15297 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 20:32:43
|
to be totally honest, i've been feeling pretty disgusted and depressed on and off all day.. it hadn't REALLY hit me until today for some reason..
i just hate how so many people are so easily swayed by the media. whenever you hear testimonials from average everyday people who support the war, they're reasons are ALWAYS just such the typical regurgitated horseshit. (this is a war agains terrorism, we must get rid of their WMOD etc.. or, my favorite, "Bush must just KNOW something we don't." ). you never actually hear a convincing reason where you go, "ok, i can see that.. yeah, i see how we need to go to war"..
the whole thing is pretty fucking depressing.
i been meanin' to get out of Hollywood. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 06:54:12
|
You know who really sucks?
Ralph Nader!! I wonder if that punk still thinks there is no difference between Gore and Bush. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 13:26:56
|
| floop, than you, you are right. Before I posted my message yesterday I was just digging around various news sources from (www.whatreallyhappened.com) and I was nearly in tears. This world is just shit...it's turning into more shit, and so many people are just so uninformed...it's just sooo FUCKING depressing, it just makes me feel like shit. |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 13:36:20
|
leave the country and become a human shield then, some people choose to take it that far. not that im suggesting that you should go die, im just saying if it irks you that much then consider getting together with other people who are trying to do something about it (eventhough theres not much they can do)
-miked |
|
|
|
ProverbialCereal
- FB TabMaster -
USA
2953 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 14:03:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
...Saddam doesn't have much of a chance of staying in power...so why doesn't he unleash these weapons of mass destruction that he "probably has but we have no real proof." Why not?
Think about it, right now everyone has their eyes on Iraq, and Saddam and his bastardfulness. There are many countries against this war, and Saddam is probably down with that. So what if he did unleash a WOMD say, tomorrow? Or in two days. You think that would be a good move on his part? If he raided some country this week, then every country against this war, would now be on the United States side because it would turn out Bush was right about Saddam having WoMD. Saddam probably likes how people are against the US right now, and even citizens of the US are against the war. If he unleashed a WoMD now, the people who back this war would double. It wouldn't make sense to use a WoMD under the spotlight, in my opinion. Though I could be wrong; Saddam is pretty nuts.
Derek |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 14:26:50
|
| That was kind of my point. The situation I gave is as much fantasy as mike's "our government wouldnt be making such a huge deal about it if there werent infact somewhat serious weapons of mass destruction" scenario. And as for joining together with other people, I was at the first major protest in DC in October last year. I unfortunately wasn't able to get to the other ones since, but as you can see, it didn't make a difference anyway. Adolf Bush had his fucking mind set since last year. The only thing we can do is vote for a different president...oh wait, we didn't even vote for this one! |
|
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 14:58:54
|
i will assume that everyone here has read stupid white men?
opinions please.
There may be no 'I' in team, but there's a 'ME' if you look hard enough. |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 15:27:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by bazza
i will assume that everyone here has read stupid white men?
opinions please.
Michael Moore is widely viewed as a liar. Note these excerpts from a review of the book at www.spinsanity.org , a site which routinely calls spinmeisters on their transgressions, regardless of ideological stripe:
"One Moore stupid white man
With his factually challenged bestseller, Michael Moore becomes an unfortunate poster boy for dissent.
By Ben Fritz (ben@spinsanity.org)
April 3, 2002
.... With the success of "Roger and Me" also came a critical rap: That he took liberties with the truth, fiddling with the chronology, for greater dramatic effect. But that criticism doesn't seem to have made an impression on Moore, and that's nowhere more apparent than in "Stupid White Men." In it, readers are told that 10 million people left the welfare rolls during the '90s, brutally kicked off by Bill Clinton. He writes that five-sixths of the defense budget in 2001 went toward building a single type of plane and that the recent recession is nothing more than a fabrication by the wealthy to keep down the working classes. And readers who uncritically accept those "facts" -- along with a number of other egregious and sloppy distortions -- will be duped. Good satire also should be grounded in fact. Regrettably, Moore gets his facts wrong again and again and again, and a simple check of the sources he cites shows that lazy research is often to blame.
Consider, for instance, his claim that "two-thirds of [the over $190 million President Bush raised during the presidential campaign] came from just over seven hundred individuals." Given the $2,000 federal limit on individual donations, this claim is obviously false. To back it up, he cites the Center for Responsive Politics Web site (opensecrets.org) and an August 2000 article from the New York Times. As opensecrets.org clearly indicates, however, only 52.6 percent of Bush's total $193 million in campaign funds came from individuals. The Times article Moore references actually states that 739 people gave two-thirds of the soft money raised by the Republican Party (which uses its money for "party-building" activities that support all GOP candidates, not just Bush) in the 2000 election cycle as of June of that year. Whether out of malice or laziness, Moore conflates the party's soft money with Bush's campaign funds.
This pattern -- the very sources Moore cites proving him wrong -- continues throughout the book.
In a discussion of Pentagon spending, he refers to the "$250 billion the Pentagon plans to spend in 2001 to build 2800 new Joint Strike Fighter planes" and states that "the proposed increase in monies for the Pentagon over the next four years is $1.6 trillion." To back this up, he refers to the Web site of the peace activist group Council for a Livable World. CLW's own analysis of the 2001 budget, however, shows that $250 billion is the total multiyear cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program, not the amount spent in one year. $1.6 trillion, meanwhile, was the total amount of money requested by the Pentagon at the time for 2001-2005. It covers five years, not four, and is a total budget request, not a "proposed increase" over previously requested budget levels. It shouldn't even take this much research, however, to determine that out of the total defense budget request of $305.4 billion in 2001, $250 billion was never intended to go toward one type of plane, nor that an increase of $400 billion per year in military spending was never proposed.
Most baffling of Moore's misstatements may come in a listing of categories that the U.S. tops, such as per capita energy use and births to teenagers. In a blatant misrepresentation, he states: "We're number one in budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP)." When Moore wrote his book last year, the United States was running a budget surplus, as it had for the previous three years.
Just how did Moore get so many of his facts wrong? Lazy cribbing from media outlets and the Internet seems the most likely culprit, as evidenced by a four-page list of allegedly dubious policy accomplishments by President Bush, including cutting funds from libraries and appointing former business executives to regulatory posts. All but one of the 48 accusations appear in the same order and with very similar phrasing to a list that has been printed this winter (but before Moore's book came out) on liberal Web sites and, according to Dr. David A. Sprintzen (often wrongly cited, though not by Moore, as its author), was circulating via e-mail last summer. Belying a lack of original research, Moore even apes many of the negative characterizations of individuals, calling judicial appointee Terrence Boyle a "civil rights opponent," for example (the list refers to him as a "foe of civil rights"), with absolutely no context for why exactly Boyle deserves that moniker (one certainly has to wonder whether Moore himself knows).
Curiously, Moore cites no source for this list. He only notes that readers "can keep track of what Bush did and does during his administration" by reading Molly Ivins' syndicated column and the Web sites smirkingchimp.com and bushwatch.com. The latter two did print the list, but not until this winter, well after Moore wrote his book, though before it was published.
Just as worrisome as Moore's frequent mistakes is the distorted manner in which he presents some of his claims that have a factual basis. Consider, for example, this critique of Bill Clinton.
"[H]e has been able to kick ten million people off welfare," he writes in a list of attacks on the former president. While the welfare rolls did drop substantially while Clinton was in office (although the total number as of June 2000 was 8.3 million), many people left voluntarily to take jobs as the economy grew or for other reasons. Far fewer were booted from the rolls by the five-year limits Clinton signed into law in 1996 or by stricter state limits.
Grossly misrepresenting the facts to make Bill Clinton look bad is a pattern in his chapter "Democrats, DOA." Moore also derides Clinton's record on feminism, stating "Clinton learned that by talking a good feminist line, he could arrange it so that not one feminist leader would decry the order he signed in 1999 to deny federal funds to any foreign group that discussed abortion during consultations."
Moore is correct about the law here (although Gloria Feldt of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America did criticize the move). In framing Clinton as having a crafty antiabortion agenda, however, he blatantly ignores that Clinton eliminated the so-called "Mexico City Policy" banning U.S. funding of overseas clinics that perform or promote abortion in 1993 and only reluctantly signed it back into law in 1999 as part of a deal to pay nearly $1 billion in arrears to the United Nations. The funding was then restored in the next year's budget, albeit with concessions to delay its implementation, which Moore also fails to note.
To truly understand how absurdly Moore twists the truth to advance his agenda, consider his description of the economic downturn. After accurately describing the hard times that have hit the country in the past year, he offers this analysis to his readers:
"There is no recession, my friends. No downturn. No hard times. The rich are wallowing in the loot they've accumulated in the past two decades, and now they want to make sure you don't come a-lookin' for your piece of the pie."
Forget about overinvestment during the tech boom, a sharp drop in business spending or even the simple facts of the business cycle. Michael Moore has the real answer: "[The rich have] decided to perform a preemptive strike in the hope that you'll never even think of eyeing their piles of cash." Not content to simply berate the wealthy for their disproportionate advances in income and wealth during the '90s boom, Moore takes his aggressive jargon to extremes by concocting a conspiracy in which the elite simply created a downturn that he claims doesn't really exist. This isn't satire, it's paranoid propaganda.
For the bestselling nonfiction book in the country, "Stupid White Men" has received remarkably little scrutiny and few serious reviews. Moore is much beloved in Britain, and a review on a BBC show called his book "fantastic" with "loads of research." Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have read much of it -- though the thousands of people who have bought his book surely don't know that."
|
|
|
|
ObfuscateByWill
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1887 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 16:39:26
|
A man is looking for something under a streetlight. A passer-by asks what he is looking for.
"My keys," says the man.
The passer-by helps him search for a while, then asks, "Are you sure this is where you dropped them?"
"Actually," the man replies, pointing, "I dropped them over there."
"Then why are you looking here?" asks the passer-by.
"Because this is where the light is," replies the man. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 17:56:48
|
hmm.. I personally don't credit Moore at being statistically (rhymes with testically..are you testicklish?) um..accurate.
I prefer his general commentary. |
|
|
|
theonecontender
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
565 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 21:42:23
|
Sorry Dave.. I have a really hard time reading or viewing anything that Moore clown puts out. His logic is like one of those circus mirrors, distorting reality for the lesser minds to absorb and feel like they have an opinion on something.
I suggest getting your own (non-polar) opinion rather than following this master of manipulation. Or maybe I'm wrong, and following this guy is in itself an opinion. Not sure.
1c |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 03:54:10
|
i like the way you put that onecontender, not implying this of dave or barto, but it seems like people will take what moore says and run without becuase he seems like he must be right. anyway, i dont see whats so fantastic about assuming that our government knows something we dont. i mean, im pretty sure that almost all of the people who support this war in anyway do so becuase they think that we are protecting the world by disarming Iraq of these weapons. should there be no significant weapons, absolutely noone will ever trust bush again, even the people who support him now in this time where support of him is thin. i dont see how any person could really put themself in that position with confidence if there wasnt some bit of knowledge that he/she had over the rest. ill believe that until proven otherwise, and hopefully i wont be, becuase then we' be screwed
-miked |
|
|
|
pong
= Cult of Ray =
France
315 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 04:09:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Saddam and many Iraqi's have good reason to hate the US. I don't think many American's have much reason to truly hate Iraq.
yes, that's so right !
- Pong
"i'll be on the first fligh" |
|
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 04:22:07
|
i like michael moore... and i love his books - but as qualified microbiologist some of his material about prions etc. isnt 100% accurate. interested to hear about what you lot have to say about him. thanks for the time.
There may be no 'I' in team, but there's a 'ME' if you look hard enough. |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 09:29:44
|
noone hates iraq, they hate saddam
quote:
Originally posted by pong
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Saddam and many Iraqi's have good reason to hate the US. I don't think many American's have much reason to truly hate Iraq.
yes, that's so right !
- Pong
"i'll be on the first fligh"
-miked |
|
|
|
theonecontender
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
565 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 11:11:22
|
miked speaks truth. Let's remember that the U.S is not going in there to explicitly kill Iraqis - they are going over there to kill a man who kills Iraqis and has the 'potential' and the will to do much more devastating things.
Stop defending a murderous dictator. It is not becoming of an educated and wordly population.
1c |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 12:15:30
|
| Wow, do the types who accuse the general public of lapping up what the media serves them see the irony of their own regurgitation of half-truths and out and out lies by Michael Moore? Instead search out the article by the liberal British Labor party PM that came out a couple days ago about Saddam's 'human shredding machine' and his rape rooms. Then see if you still wish to defend Saddam's rights... |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2003 : 12:17:59
|
| Oh yeah, this war will effect oil prices...IN FRANCE. The French have literally profited from Saddam's ruthlessness for decades. The continued oppression of the Iraqi people is of economic benefit to the French. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 03:41:07
|
saddam has been playing games with the un and the inspectors since it all started, bush and others have already hinted to what they have, if they tell exactly where they are, saddam will just move them. its all a charade to make the U.S. look bad, not that it already doesnt look bad. Atleast this "war" seems to be going pretty well. although ill admit that the planned "shock and awe" thing is a little rediculous. 6 to 7 thousand targets hit simultaniously, seems a bit excessive. but they might not even need to do it.
-miked |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 06:48:50
|
| This isnt complicated. If the US or its allies have a source giving them information, or a technology that is capturing information, releasing everything that it discovers would compromise the source. If it is a human source (a mole) they could be discovered and killed. If it is a tech. source (a bugged building, a 'non-secure' phone line) it could be discovered and made useless. Damn, why does this need to be explained?? |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 07:40:11
|
Not that this matters to the folks who hate the US, but here is an initial report as to how the US troops are being rec'd in Iraq:
As American forces took the border town of Safwan, residents waved. "A woman threw herself at the Marines' feet until a man hurriedly came and led her away," Fox News reported today.
Another resident told reporters why he welcomed the arrival of U.S. troops. "We're very happy. Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher."
Let's recall this quotation from Dominique Dord, a deputy from French President Jacques Chirac's own party: "We would look really stupid if Iraqis applaud the arrival of Americans." Well said.
|
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 09:56:26
|
If you want to read about the lies in "Bowling for Columbine", visit this link http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Here's the intro below. Go to the linked article for the ironclad evidence. This is especially for the Europeans who think Moore is even attempting to provide an accurate image of America.
"BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
Documentary or Fiction?
Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine won at Cannes and has been nominated for an Academy Award in the documentary category.
Bowling fails the first requirement of a documentary: some foundation in the truth. In his earlier works, Moore shifted dates and sequences for the sake of drama, but at least the events depicted did occur. Most of the time. Bowling breaks that last link with factual reality. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. The viewer is invited to draw inferences which the producer must have known were wrong. Dates are transposed and video carefully edited to create whatever effect is desired. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered.
These occur with such frequency and seriousness as to rule out unintentional error. Any polite description would be inadequate, so let me be blunt. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.
A film which does this may be a commercial success. It may be amusing, or it may be moving. But it is not a documentary. One need only consult Rule 11 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary must be non-fictional, and even re-enactments (much less doctoring of speech) must stress fact and not fiction.
Serious charges require serious evidence. The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or that its conclusions are incorrect. No, the point is that Bowling is deliberately, seriously, and consistently deceptive. A viewer cannot count upon any aspect of it, even when the viewer believes he is seeing video of an event occurring or a person speaking. Those are strong charges. Let's look at the evidence."
|
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 12:33:17
|
I never suggested Saddam was a 'good' person. I don't think anyone should be killed tho, regardless of what they've done. It's simply barbaric.
As for killing Saddam, the US and UK armies have and will kill MANY more innocents (these 'US cheering Iraqi's' than they will kill Saddam's. Their tactics are absolutely barbaric as well.
Murderous dictator? That's Bush and Blair, tho i guess it's not your typical dictator since they're dictating the explosive deaths of citizens outside their respective countries.
And for inspections, the US sent 300 inspectors and 300,000 troops. You do the math and figure out whether or not they were committed to peace or violence.
I agree with Moore's sentiment, tho i don't base my opinion on what he says. I'm polar on the peace process, which happens to be something Moore promotes as well, and that doesn't mean i agree with everything he says either. (Like how i don't like how he manipulates statistics, like the number of gun deaths in the beginning of Bowling -- on a per-capita basis, the numbers aren't nearly so shocking.) I don't think he really represented Canada well, tho i did notice people in the US (i spent 6 months there in 2001) did lock their doors more..and if you walked in on someone, they'd prolly kick your ass..heheh |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 13:19:13
|
i think its kinda unfair to call them murderous dictators, they are doing absolutely all they can to protect life and achieve an objective which many feel is just. regardless of "W.M.D." removing Saddam seems on all accounts to be a good thing, some iraqis will probably die in the process, as will americans, and they are certainly not worthless, but i think in the end more harm would have been done if saddam was still in their to the same iraqis.
-miked |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 14:04:22
|
"i think in the end more harm would have been done if saddam was still in their to the same iraqis."
Again, that's just more speculation. I have speculation for you...with all the missles, napalm, etc. that we're dropping...how many civilians do you think are already dead? We'll never fucking know, cause they will be obliterated. I'm willing to speculate that more civilians will die in this war than Saddam and his people have reportedly "raped, murdered, tortured, etc." It's not too farfetched! Do you think all civilians just disappear into safe hiding when war comes? |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 16:19:39
|
yes it is farfetched to start saying that already hundreds of thousands of iraqis have been killed by us.
-miked |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 19:35:05
|
| I don't see what right the US should have to determine if a few Iraqi's should die. |
|
|
|
Chip Away Boy
= Cult of Ray =
914 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 21:36:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
I don't see what right the US should have to determine if a few Iraqi's should die.
If you have the belief that killing is NEVER right then yeah US/UK have no right nor does anyone
However if you feel that war is sometimes a necessary evil then things are different. One of the deals for us pulling out of Iraq during the gulf war was that they would disarm the weapons that we knew they had back then...It's not so much that we know what they have NOW, but that they haven't produced evidence of disarming the weapons they had back in the early nineties.
Not to mention kicking UN inspectors out of palaces and research facilities for the past 12 years...UN inspectors, not US inspectors...I'd like to know what the people that are against the war think is suddenly going to change about inspecting weapon facilities without any military action. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
