OT: Interesting Read

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
MSN cannot afford to be victimized by a COOKED story.

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.

[Randallw]

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".

[primitive]

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

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.

[primitive]

LOL, You totally misunderstand me Geo (on purpose ? )

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 ?

[Perrin]

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

Newspaper Claims Moore Altered Front Page

[Randallw]

Originally posted by primitive:

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 ?

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 ]

[primitive]

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

[rextorres]

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 ]

[geoschmo]

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."

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

[Randallw]

Originally posted by primitive:
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

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.