Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[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"?).

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.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

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"?).

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.

---

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.

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

hehe, good one. maybe Powell says what it would look like if he got himself upgraded to an ICBM sized thingie

[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_frien...22680,00.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...nguage=printer

Originally posted by Simeron:
Checking with my buds on the Al Q links.