OT: Interesting Read
 

Firehouse Rot

Its a political article so be warned. Read at own risk.

Even More

Micheal Moore and the Truth I found this one to be the most interesting as I did not know about Moore, and I think everyone should.

[ August 04, 2004, 05:21: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I must say I am relieved to find that there are people willing to make rational judgement of Michael Moore rather than automatically taking one viewpoint or the opposing. I dislike people who veil there own personal hatreds and goals as the "100% right thing, and anyone who disagrees might as well worship satan".

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Everything anyone says or does expresses an opinion. Taking that third article alone, you have no assurance that it is anything more than a lying, hate-fueled rant. additional data from at least one other source is needed to triangulate.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is a simple way to check at least one segment; get the movie, and confirm that it makes the points he says it does in the order he says it does. The rest, without listed sources, is very difficult to confirm or deny from other places; but if you were to watch the movie with the checklist in hand (esp., if you had it on DVD, and could pause easily), there's a pretty good chance you could confirm/deny the list, at least, in a reasonably certain manner.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

True, however, that still requires another data-source, the movie, for triangulation.

Which is a nit-pick. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Quality control:

Once again the ramblings of Cristopher Hitchens (a Vanity Fair columnist) pops up as “the truth”. This is a hateguy who takes a swing at anything that will get him a bit of attention. A personal favourite of mine is his attacks on Mother Theresa http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Now, Michael Moore may not have the best cred in the world, but this Cristopher Hitchens has even less.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Primtive. Thankyou for bringing his views of Saint Theresa of Calcutta to my attention. As much as I would like (nay, love even) to accept any criticism of Michael Moore as relevant, I now have to dismiss his opinion as criticism on a par with Michael Moore himself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif (and its a pity as he seemed to be pointing out the same ideas I had gathered). Narf, yes everyone has an opinion. It is inevitable that some people will disagree with other people. My stance is you can disagree with people while being polite. For example I vote Liberal, the opposition is Labour (or "the communists" as I call them). Opposition supporters are people too (I am told http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) so I am polite if I meet them. It doesn't stop me hoping their opposing views never get power http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif . Michael Moore is just rude, a man so angry at his party not being elected that he makes up stuff to criticise his government, this Cristopher Hitchens seemed to me to be reasonable although I think I may have seen him being annoying on tv.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

I was encouraging skepticism, not a particular treatment of anybody.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

One can also analize the data for internal consistancy and signs of bias, but that requires previous experience to triangulate.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Trust me, if this article were the product of fiction, it would not have been posted at MSN.com.

MSN cannot afford to be victimized by a COOKED story.

There was an office joke going around about the kind of people who believed that the Blare Witch Project was a real documentary footage of some kids who mysteriously came up missing, are the same kind of people who believe that Moore’s movie is a factual and real documentary. LOL

I have to say, when I saw it, most of the people were booing at it. It was quite funny to say the least. Then I stumbled onto this article and now I know why they were laughing. Nearly the entire movie is BS. I feel completely duped by it as I thought I was seeing a factual and fair documentary on the President of the United States, created by a Filmmaker whom has been phrased for his honesty and integrity. Riiiiiiiighhhhhht.

I no the truth now.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From what I read, quite a few respected newspapers in USA admit they have been cooked having them supporting to wage war in Irak, so a phoney article written by a republican equivallent of More is indeed a strong possibility.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

He is a Republican?. I got the impression he was left wing. He even refers to his associates as comrades, which in my book is as left as you can get. Mind you the NSDAP was right wing and they were all "Kamerad".

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

He’s a flip flopper. He was leftwing (Trotskyist by his own words) when being Reaganism was in vogue. When being “political correct” become the norm he flopped to neo-facism http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

He is just a moron with as talent to spew out hate-articles. To be honest, I don’t think he even have an opinion of his own. He just lashes out at everything that moves to sell a few more copies of Vanity Fair.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

LOL, You totally misunderstand me Geo (on purpose ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Although I agree with Moores general policies more often than not, I am no fan of his way of labelling his political commentaries as “documentaries”.

Back in CNC’s original post, CNC uses Hitchens as “proof” of Moores inaccuracies. Hichens past articles clearly shows he is of the same breed as Moore so how anybody can slam one and praise the other (for accuracy, not views) beats me.

As for the views:
Anybody still believe the invasion of Iraq was to introduce peace and democracy to the poor suppressed Iraqi’s ? Or WMD’s ?
Take a look at the oil prices. A destabilized Iraq on the verge of full civil war has shot the oil prices through the roof. Now who could have guessed ?

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Another example of Moore's "factual and fair documentary" of G. W. Bush

Newspaper Claims Moore Altered Front Page

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I have never believed it was to help the Iraqi's. Of course the US acted in it own interest. Why would you go to war to "help" the Iraqis?. It makes no Logical sense to waste your own resources in someone elses interest for no tangible benefit. You fight wars to oppose threats to your country, or for your own benefit, not for altruistic reasons.

[ August 05, 2004, 15:06: Message edited by: Randallw ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Is a destabilized Iraq, and high oilprices in USAs best interest ?
As one of the most oildependend contries in the world, a sanctioned but stable Iraq would have been much better. The only Americans who profit from the current situation is the oil-mafia.

Donno why I keep *****ing about this. I live in a country that benefits gratly form high oilprices and I don't even own a SUV http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

CNC you missed one of Hitchen's diatribes:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...32&method=full

Do you agree with him here as well?

Anyway the Hitchens article that bugged me was the first one originally posted.

It's hilarious reading all these conservatives contort themselves to justify spending my social security in Iraq and then claim that we don't have enough money for Americans here at home.

[ August 05, 2004, 16:33: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Actually Hitchens is pretty left on most issues. On the Iraq War though he's in strong agreement with the current administrations policies. That's not flip-floppy though unless you think the Iraq War is somehow a left-right issue.

Of course people like Moore (and Primitive) think exactly that. And that's why they loathe Hitchens so much. Because they can't understand why someone that agrees with them on so many other points in their world view could be so irrational as to disagree on this thing.

So instead of discussions on substative issues and raising rational counter points to his commentary you'll get elitist comments like, "Hitchens? Oh never mind him, he only writes for Vanity Fair afterall." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ August 05, 2004, 13:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, A stable Iraq would be better. The US needs to crack down on the insurgents and eliminate any threat. I ponder the question, If the Iraqis have bad feelings against the US then why waste the time to "help" them. I can see that most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives and abhor part of their population causing chaos (eg. blowing up Iraqis, not American soldiers mind you, who are lining up to join their own police force to keep order). There exists though some part of the population that opposes the US. This is understandable what with Abu Ghraib (which is another example of retarded incompetence), but you have terrorists from other countries coming to Iraq to cause trouble. In this case a proportion of the liberated do not have the same mindset as the liberators.

US: "Congratulations we have freed you from tyranny and introduced democracy to Iraq"
Insurgents: "I spit on Democracy, Iraq needs a
shariast government"

Considering the oil, I for one look forward to the day when we no longer need oil (eg electric cars etc), then lets see the middle east survive without any useful resources.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">None of us right now will live long enough to see that. There's just too much money being made off oil, too many people with great power & prestiege, for world dependancy, especially in the United States, of oil to go away.

The technologies exist right now to do away with oil. You can buy a car and heat your house without a drop of oil. Unfortunately those technologies are being kept at an especailly high price, making them virtually unatainable to all but the wealthiest people.

Does anyone here think that the people making their fortunes in oil would simply stand by and let their 'money tree' shrivel up and go away with the debut of cheap no-oil alternatives? HELL NO! There's so much money being made off oil, so much money being spread out, that we'll likely never see these better alternatives come into full bloom.

I for one am praying that the Republican Party is ousted in November, because if it's not, you can kiss the United States goodbye. Vice President Chaney, speaking at a rally yesterday or the day before, told the attending audience that Kerry & Edwards had the audacity to vote against a bill (proposed by the Republican Party) that would have helped clear the way towards prospecting, and eventually drilling, for oil in several natural reserve parks in the US, including the land in & around the Grand Canyon.

And that's not the worst that Bush & the Republican Party have done, or are trying to do.

I won't even go into how the Republican Party is trying to manipulate voters in Florida again...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Damn, and I'm not even American!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Well I'm not American and I don't even live next door, but I hope the Republicans win.

Edit: I just need to add this bit. I am paraphrasing a bit, but you will hopefully get the gist.

President Bush was giving a speech, heres roughly what he said

Our enemies are driven and resourceful
just like us
They take every opportunity to do us and our country harm
just like us.

I've got to tell you, its a funny old world and youv'e got to laugh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

[ August 06, 2004, 05:19: Message edited by: Randallw ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure, that would have been better. However; if the US government really wanted a stable Iraq, they would have done a better job. The war itself was executed perfectly, but the immediate post war period was blundered hopelessly beyond recovery.

Allowing the riots + creating a power vacuum by dissolving the Iraqi army and not having a new Iraqi government ready immediately, destroyed any chances the US ever had of creating a stable Iraq.

I just can’t believe GWB and his henchmen is that incompetent. Only logical conclusion I can see is that they wanted to turn Iraq into a new Lebanon.

Why ? beats me. It drives up the oil price for sure, but that can’t be the only reason. Hopefully it’s a well thought out scheme to keep the Saudis in place and not just a mad Texan on a powertrip.

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Mistakes were made. But the loss of life now might well have paled the loss of life if Saddam had achieved his goal of becoming a nuclear power. Again something that I am thankful we will never know.

Begin Rant:
(Why we went to war.)
I would also like to note that by beating the **** out of the biggest meanest arse in the Middle East despite the anti sentiment in the world, we sent a message to the rest of that terrorist breeding SOB's that we will come after them regardless of world or liberal media opinion.

And I do not let the media or actors/singers tell me what I should and should not believe. I think I am independent enough to make up my own mind and do not need to be "protected" or fed heavily opinionated propaganda all wrapped up under the disguise of a documentary.

Hell this is something I would have expected from the Nazi party not the Democratic Party!

End rant.

[ August 06, 2004, 10:11: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Saddam ? Nuclear power ?
Thought everybody had understood by now that Saddams nuclear program was a joke.
If you wanted to go after rouge or borderline nations with real capabilities to make nuclear weapons, there would have been at least 10 nations more worthy of an intervention. North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Algeria and every former Soviet Central Asian republic to mention a few.

As for sending a message:
US armed forces have sent the message they have the capability to take whatever land they want. Kudos to them.
However; politically GWB has shown all his cards. Any rouge nation now knows that he/you won’t come if they can inflict losses of a few thousand and make it necessary with an expensive occupation afterwards. Mr Sung and the Ayatollahs probably sleeps much better now than they did a year and a half ago.

[ August 06, 2004, 11:01: Message edited by: primitive ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am sorry Primitive, but you missed my sarcastic point. I am far too tired to explain it to at the moment, but I will say is this. Mistakes were made, but in the end, what could have happened will most likely not happen. And whether or not it would have ever happened, well we will never know. And since we have taken on Iraq, terrorists have blown up no US main land buildings. Lets just hope that as time goes on, more and more people decide against terrorism and that the term and ideology that is terrorism fades into obscurity never to be heard from again. (Wishful thinking I know.)

Please don't take this to be mean, but I have to ask you, what would you have done if you were the leader of the US and you had to deal with the same info, situations, and people that Bush has had to contend with? I feel that the simple answer would have to be "I don't know." Why, well because both you and I would be second guessing someone who has information, insight, and choices to make that we will, thankfully, never have to face in our simple protected little lives. Bush was elected to do a job, he has done that job, and I honestly feel that if Gore had been in office instead of Bush, we still would have gone to war against Iraq. I just hope that the next president of the US has enough common sense to recall that appeasement of terrorism only breeds more terrorism. A sad, but true fact of the world we live in.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and we the arm chair warriors/diplomats of the world, will always second guess the decisions that are made by those that we elect into power. That is what it means to live in a free society, and for the first time in over 30 years, the Iraq people have that freedom as well. Albeit some of them choose hostile activities over PEACEFUL ONES!

The Last I looked, no allied force has beheaded anyone. And I do agree, he has shown all his cards, however in this kind of game, that sometimes has to be done. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

(edit: spelling errors)

[ August 06, 2004, 11:26: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Here we go again with the Nazis.

Atrocities let's look at the real analogies:

Invading a smaller country and convincing your constituency that they are a threat to your people and way of life.
Do this under the guise of patriotism.
Pass laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom of movement (aka the patriot act).
Utilize the popular media to further your agenda - AM radio and Cable News.

Hmm . . . who sounds more like a Nazi?

[ August 06, 2004, 16:47: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Rex I was being sarcastic, thats all. Nothing more, nothing less. Just sarcasim. I would not literally compare those two parties. (although there are some simularities, that can be said for all parties.)

"Pass laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom of movement (aka the patriot act)."

LOL that people keep bring this up as a republican thing. Democrats voted on this as well. Otherwise it would have never gotten to the presidents desk to be signed into law.

And for the record, we are at war and in war we do invade other countries from time to time. Tis the it goes.

"Utilize the popular media to further your agenda - AM radio and Cable News."

LOL- Utilize the popular media to further your agenda - FM Radio, Tv, Satellite Tv, Movies, books, magazines. Do you really need me to list them out for you? LOL No ONE can deny that the Liberals have the corner marketed in this regard. LOL. Who the hell listens to AM radio or watches public access on cable? Really this does make me laugh.

EDIT:

Not to harp on a sore subject, but this Patriot Act does have me worried. You see under it, any sitting president can expand, broaden, change, or add to it. Under Kerry I fear that it will become a noose around our necks and that alone has me scared to death. I simply do not trust him or his law suite crazy running mate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I guess this can be said about Bush as well, but simply put, I trust Bush more than I do Mr. Kerry at this point in time.

[ August 06, 2004, 21:16: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am sorry, I thought was linking terrorism to the attacks. I did not say that "saddam" did it nor did I say that Iraq was behind it.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree. But the end result, although not justifying the means, will prove its self to be better for Iraq in the long run.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I guess what I was trying to convey to you is that GWB was given information, lots of it, and based on that intel, worthless as it now seems to have been, made a decision to invade a country.

We all have to remember the war with Iraq started in 1991 and was never finished. We backed out of our duty and a lot of inocent kurds died. We played cat and mouse with Saddam for over a decade and finally it was time to end it. We had the military mobalized, and yes to get the job done some intel that was of extreme questionable origins was used to validate the invasion. Although I think what we did was the right thing to do on many fronts, I am concerned that we did ulitmiately invade Iraq on a lie. Tell us the truth and let us make the call. However, the choice to go to war is really not up to us, it is up the President and our elected officals.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I respect that. I wish our leaders would have had the foresight to predict something that seemed as logical and as strait foreward as 1 + 2 = 3. I feel that going into the war and being unprepared for the end of the war was and is a criminal act of negligence on the militarys part. I am sorry, but this is how I feel, and even though the buck stops at the white house door, I do not fully hold GWB to blame for the mess. He is after all only one man. I would go after the men that were directly tasked with the responsiblity and make them answer the hard questions. I will bet top dollar they all will blame someone else. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[ August 06, 2004, 21:00: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Interesting Read
 

Once again AT, you link Saddams Iraq to the 911 terrorists. Why is that ? Do you believe the 911 commission which frees Saddam of any suspicion on this point to be in error ?

Whatever reasons GWB had to go to war against Iraq, 911 was not one of them. Neither was WMDs or the wish to bring democracy to the poor Iraqis.

As for me making the same decision as GWB:
No chance (of course I never would have been elected to an office of power http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ). I pride myself in basing my actions on logic and GWBs actions are totally illogical on any level.

BTW: This is not hindsight.
While the US press was all gung ho and supported the ”once they see the benefits of democracy they will come around” theory, most of the European press and analysts foresaw the mess we’re in.

[ August 06, 2004, 12:12: Message edited by: primitive ]