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.

[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 ]

[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 ]