Farenheit 9/11 (Bush & Iraq) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Farenheit 9/11 (Bush & Iraq)

star
05-23-2004, 02:17 PM
I wanted to share this with those interested, but didn't know where to post it. So.......... sorry for the clutter of a new thread.

This is a review of Michael Moore's film about Bush's reaction to 9/11.

Frank Rich: Beautiful minds and ugly truths

Frank Rich NYT

Friday, May 21, 2004
NEW YORK "But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer." - Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
.
She needn't have worried. Her son wasn't suffering. In one of the several pieces of startling video exhibited for the first time in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," we catch a candid glimpse of President George Bush about 36 hours after his mother's breakfast TV interview - minutes before he makes his own prime-time TV address to take the nation to war in Iraq. He is sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. A makeup woman is doing his face. And Bush is having a high old time. He darts his eyes about and grins, as if he were playing a peek-a-boo game with someone just off-camera. He could be a teenager goofing with his buds to relieve the passing tedium of a haircut.
.
"In your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine Franklin Roosevelt behaving this way 30 seconds before declaring war, with grave decisions and their consequences at stake," said Moore in an interview before his new documentary's premiere at Cannes last Monday. "But that may be giving him credit for thinking that the decisions were grave." As we spoke, the consequences of those decisions kept coming. The premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" took place as news spread of the assassination of a widely admired post-Saddam Iraqi leader, Ezzedine Salim, blown up by a suicide bomber just a hundred yards from the entrance to America's "safe" headquarters in Baghdad, the Green Zone.
.
Whatever you think of Moore, there's no question he's detonating dynamite here. From a variety of sources - foreign journalists and broadcasters (like Britain's Channel Four), freelancers and sympathetic American TV workers who slipped him illicit video - he supplies war-time pictures that have been largely shielded from our view. Instead of recycling images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, once again, Moore can revel in extended new close-ups of the president continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to elementary school students in Florida for seven long minutes after learning of the attack. Just when Abu Ghraib and the savage beheading of Nicholas Berg make us think we've seen it all, here is yet another major escalation in the nation-jolting images that have become the battleground for the war about the war.
.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.) When he first announced this project last year after his boorish Oscar-night diatribe against Bush, he described it as an exposé of the connections between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties. But that story has been so strenuously told elsewhere that it's no longer news.
.
Moore settles for a brisk recap in the first of his film's two hours. And, predictably, he stirs it into an over-the-top, at times tendentious replay of a Bush hater's greatest hits: Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Harken Energy, AWOL in Alabama, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the lazy Crawford vacation of August 2001, the Patriot Act. But then the movie veers off in another direction entirely. Moore takes the same hairpin turn the country has over the past 14 months and crash-lands into the gripping story that is unfolding in real time right now.
.
Wasn't it just weeks ago that we were debating whether we should see the coffins of the American dead and whether Ted Koppel should read their names on "Nightline"? In "Fahrenheit 9/11," we see the actual dying, of American troops and Iraqi civilians alike, with all the ripped flesh and spilled guts that the violence of war entails. We also see some of the 4,000-plus American casualties: those troops hidden away in clinics at Walter Reed and at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where they try to cope with nerve damage and multiple severed limbs. They are not silent. They talk about their pain and their morphine, and they talk about betrayal. "I was a Republican for quite a few years," one soldier says with an almost innocent air of bafflement, "and for some reason they conduct business in a very dishonest way."
.
Perhaps the most damning sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the one showing American troops as they ridicule hooded Iraqis in a holding pen near Samara in December 2003. A male soldier touches the erection of a prisoner lying on a stretcher underneath a blanket, an intimation of the sexual humiliations that were happening at Abu Ghraib at that same time. Besides adding further corroboration to Seymour Hersh's report that the top command has sanctioned a culture of abuse not confined to a single prison or a single company or seven guards, this video raises another question: Why didn't we see any of this on American TV before "60 Minutes II"?
.
The New York Times reported in March 2003 that Americans were using hooding and other inhumane techniques at CIA interrogation centers in Afghanistan and elsewhere. CNN reported on Jan. 20, after the U.S. Army quietly announced its criminal investigation into prison abuses, that "U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners." And there the matter stood for months, even though, as we know now, soldiers' relatives with knowledge of these incidents were repeatedly trying to alert Congress and news organizations to the full panorama of the story.
.
Moore says he obtained his video from an independent foreign journalist embedded with the Americans. "We've had this footage in our possession for two months," he says. "I saw it before any of the Abu Ghraib news broke. I think it's pretty embarrassing that a guy like me with a high-school education and with no training in journalism can do this. What the hell is going on here? It's pathetic."
.
The movie's second hour is carried by the wrenching story of Lila Lipscomb, a flag-waving, self-described "conservative Democrat" from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, whose son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq. We watch Lipscomb, who "always hated" antiwar protesters, come undone with grief and rage. She clutches her son's last letter home and reads it aloud, her shaking voice and hand contrasting with his precise handwriting on lined notebook paper.
.
Sergeant Pedersen thanks his mother for sending "the bible and books and candy," but not before writing of the president: "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever. I am so furious right now, Mama." By this point, Moore's jokes have vanished from "Fahrenheit 9/11." So, pretty much, has Moore himself. He can't resist underlining one moral at the end, but by then the audience, crushed by the needlessness of Lipscomb's loss, is ready to listen. Speaking of America's volunteer army, Moore concludes: "They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
.
A particularly unappetizing spectacle in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is provided by Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of both the administration's Iraqi fixation and its doctrine of "preventive" war. We watch him stick his comb in his mouth until it is wet with spit, after which he runs it through his hair. This is not the image we usually see of the deputy defense secretary, who has been ritualistically presented in the U.S. press as the most refined of intellectuals - a guy with, as Barbara Bush would have it, a beautiful mind.
.
No one would ever accuse Moore of having a beautiful mind. Subtleties and fine distinctions are not his thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell.
.
The New York Times



See more of the world that matters - click here for home delivery of the International Herald Tribune.
< < Back to Start of Article
NEW YORK "But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer." - Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
.
She needn't have worried. Her son wasn't suffering. In one of the several pieces of startling video exhibited for the first time in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," we catch a candid glimpse of President George Bush about 36 hours after his mother's breakfast TV interview - minutes before he makes his own prime-time TV address to take the nation to war in Iraq. He is sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. A makeup woman is doing his face. And Bush is having a high old time. He darts his eyes about and grins, as if he were playing a peek-a-boo game with someone just off-camera. He could be a teenager goofing with his buds to relieve the passing tedium of a haircut.
.
"In your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine Franklin Roosevelt behaving this way 30 seconds before declaring war, with grave decisions and their consequences at stake," said Moore in an interview before his new documentary's premiere at Cannes last Monday. "But that may be giving him credit for thinking that the decisions were grave." As we spoke, the consequences of those decisions kept coming. The premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" took place as news spread of the assassination of a widely admired post-Saddam Iraqi leader, Ezzedine Salim, blown up by a suicide bomber just a hundred yards from the entrance to America's "safe" headquarters in Baghdad, the Green Zone.
.
Whatever you think of Moore, there's no question he's detonating dynamite here. From a variety of sources - foreign journalists and broadcasters (like Britain's Channel Four), freelancers and sympathetic American TV workers who slipped him illicit video - he supplies war-time pictures that have been largely shielded from our view. Instead of recycling images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, once again, Moore can revel in extended new close-ups of the president continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to elementary school students in Florida for seven long minutes after learning of the attack. Just when Abu Ghraib and the savage beheading of Nicholas Berg make us think we've seen it all, here is yet another major escalation in the nation-jolting images that have become the battleground for the war about the war.
.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.) When he first announced this project last year after his boorish Oscar-night diatribe against Bush, he described it as an exposé of the connections between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties. But that story has been so strenuously told elsewhere that it's no longer news.
.
Moore settles for a brisk recap in the first of his film's two hours. And, predictably, he stirs it into an over-the-top, at times tendentious replay of a Bush hater's greatest hits: Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Harken Energy, AWOL in Alabama, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the lazy Crawford vacation of August 2001, the Patriot Act. But then the movie veers off in another direction entirely. Moore takes the same hairpin turn the country has over the past 14 months and crash-lands into the gripping story that is unfolding in real time right now.
.
Wasn't it just weeks ago that we were debating whether we should see the coffins of the American dead and whether Ted Koppel should read their names on "Nightline"? In "Fahrenheit 9/11," we see the actual dying, of American troops and Iraqi civilians alike, with all the ripped flesh and spilled guts that the violence of war entails. We also see some of the 4,000-plus American casualties: those troops hidden away in clinics at Walter Reed and at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where they try to cope with nerve damage and multiple severed limbs. They are not silent. They talk about their pain and their morphine, and they talk about betrayal. "I was a Republican for quite a few years," one soldier says with an almost innocent air of bafflement, "and for some reason they conduct business in a very dishonest way."
.
Perhaps the most damning sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the one showing American troops as they ridicule hooded Iraqis in a holding pen near Samara in December 2003. A male soldier touches the erection of a prisoner lying on a stretcher underneath a blanket, an intimation of the sexual humiliations that were happening at Abu Ghraib at that same time. Besides adding further corroboration to Seymour Hersh's report that the top command has sanctioned a culture of abuse not confined to a single prison or a single company or seven guards, this video raises another question: Why didn't we see any of this on American TV before "60 Minutes II"?
.
The New York Times reported in March 2003 that Americans were using hooding and other inhumane techniques at CIA interrogation centers in Afghanistan and elsewhere. CNN reported on Jan. 20, after the U.S. Army quietly announced its criminal investigation into prison abuses, that "U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners." And there the matter stood for months, even though, as we know now, soldiers' relatives with knowledge of these incidents were repeatedly trying to alert Congress and news organizations to the full panorama of the story.
.
Moore says he obtained his video from an independent foreign journalist embedded with the Americans. "We've had this footage in our possession for two months," he says. "I saw it before any of the Abu Ghraib news broke. I think it's pretty embarrassing that a guy like me with a high-school education and with no training in journalism can do this. What the hell is going on here? It's pathetic."
.
The movie's second hour is carried by the wrenching story of Lila Lipscomb, a flag-waving, self-described "conservative Democrat" from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, whose son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq. We watch Lipscomb, who "always hated" antiwar protesters, come undone with grief and rage. She clutches her son's last letter home and reads it aloud, her shaking voice and hand contrasting with his precise handwriting on lined notebook paper.
.
Sergeant Pedersen thanks his mother for sending "the bible and books and candy," but not before writing of the president: "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever. I am so furious right now, Mama." By this point, Moore's jokes have vanished from "Fahrenheit 9/11." So, pretty much, has Moore himself. He can't resist underlining one moral at the end, but by then the audience, crushed by the needlessness of Lipscomb's loss, is ready to listen. Speaking of America's volunteer army, Moore concludes: "They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
.
A particularly unappetizing spectacle in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is provided by Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of both the administration's Iraqi fixation and its doctrine of "preventive" war. We watch him stick his comb in his mouth until it is wet with spit, after which he runs it through his hair. This is not the image we usually see of the deputy defense secretary, who has been ritualistically presented in the U.S. press as the most refined of intellectuals - a guy with, as Barbara Bush would have it, a beautiful mind.
.
No one would ever accuse Moore of having a beautiful mind. Subtleties and fine distinctions are not his thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell.
.
The New York Times
NEW YORK "But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer." - Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
.
She needn't have worried. Her son wasn't suffering. In one of the several pieces of startling video exhibited for the first time in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," we catch a candid glimpse of President George Bush about 36 hours after his mother's breakfast TV interview - minutes before he makes his own prime-time TV address to take the nation to war in Iraq. He is sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. A makeup woman is doing his face. And Bush is having a high old time. He darts his eyes about and grins, as if he were playing a peek-a-boo game with someone just off-camera. He could be a teenager goofing with his buds to relieve the passing tedium of a haircut.
.
"In your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine Franklin Roosevelt behaving this way 30 seconds before declaring war, with grave decisions and their consequences at stake," said Moore in an interview before his new documentary's premiere at Cannes last Monday. "But that may be giving him credit for thinking that the decisions were grave." As we spoke, the consequences of those decisions kept coming. The premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" took place as news spread of the assassination of a widely admired post-Saddam Iraqi leader, Ezzedine Salim, blown up by a suicide bomber just a hundred yards from the entrance to America's "safe" headquarters in Baghdad, the Green Zone.
.
Whatever you think of Moore, there's no question he's detonating dynamite here. From a variety of sources - foreign journalists and broadcasters (like Britain's Channel Four), freelancers and sympathetic American TV workers who slipped him illicit video - he supplies war-time pictures that have been largely shielded from our view. Instead of recycling images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, once again, Moore can revel in extended new close-ups of the president continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to elementary school students in Florida for seven long minutes after learning of the attack. Just when Abu Ghraib and the savage beheading of Nicholas Berg make us think we've seen it all, here is yet another major escalation in the nation-jolting images that have become the battleground for the war about the war.
.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.) When he first announced this project last year after his boorish Oscar-night diatribe against Bush, he described it as an exposé of the connections between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties. But that story has been so strenuously told elsewhere that it's no longer news.
.
Moore settles for a brisk recap in the first of his film's two hours. And, predictably, he stirs it into an over-the-top, at times tendentious replay of a Bush hater's greatest hits: Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Harken Energy, AWOL in Alabama, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the lazy Crawford vacation of August 2001, the Patriot Act. But then the movie veers off in another direction entirely. Moore takes the same hairpin turn the country has over the past 14 months and crash-lands into the gripping story that is unfolding in real time right now.
.
Wasn't it just weeks ago that we were debating whether we should see the coffins of the American dead and whether Ted Koppel should read their names on "Nightline"? In "Fahrenheit 9/11," we see the actual dying, of American troops and Iraqi civilians alike, with all the ripped flesh and spilled guts that the violence of war entails. We also see some of the 4,000-plus American casualties: those troops hidden away in clinics at Walter Reed and at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where they try to cope with nerve damage and multiple severed limbs. They are not silent. They talk about their pain and their morphine, and they talk about betrayal. "I was a Republican for quite a few years," one soldier says with an almost innocent air of bafflement, "and for some reason they conduct business in a very dishonest way."
.
Perhaps the most damning sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the one showing American troops as they ridicule hooded Iraqis in a holding pen near Samara in December 2003. A male soldier touches the erection of a prisoner lying on a stretcher underneath a blanket, an intimation of the sexual humiliations that were happening at Abu Ghraib at that same time. Besides adding further corroboration to Seymour Hersh's report that the top command has sanctioned a culture of abuse not confined to a single prison or a single company or seven guards, this video raises another question: Why didn't we see any of this on American TV before "60 Minutes II"?
.
The New York Times reported in March 2003 that Americans were using hooding and other inhumane techniques at CIA interrogation centers in Afghanistan and elsewhere. CNN reported on Jan. 20, after the U.S. Army quietly announced its criminal investigation into prison abuses, that "U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners." And there the matter stood for months, even though, as we know now, soldiers' relatives with knowledge of these incidents were repeatedly trying to alert Congress and news organizations to the full panorama of the story.
.
Moore says he obtained his video from an independent foreign journalist embedded with the Americans. "We've had this footage in our possession for two months," he says. "I saw it before any of the Abu Ghraib news broke. I think it's pretty embarrassing that a guy like me with a high-school education and with no training in journalism can do this. What the hell is going on here? It's pathetic."
.
The movie's second hour is carried by the wrenching story of Lila Lipscomb, a flag-waving, self-described "conservative Democrat" from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, whose son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq. We watch Lipscomb, who "always hated" antiwar protesters, come undone with grief and rage. She clutches her son's last letter home and reads it aloud, her shaking voice and hand contrasting with his precise handwriting on lined notebook paper.
.
Sergeant Pedersen thanks his mother for sending "the bible and books and candy," but not before writing of the president: "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever. I am so furious right now, Mama." By this point, Moore's jokes have vanished from "Fahrenheit 9/11." So, pretty much, has Moore himself. He can't resist underlining one moral at the end, but by then the audience, crushed by the needlessness of Lipscomb's loss, is ready to listen. Speaking of America's volunteer army, Moore concludes: "They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
.
A particularly unappetizing spectacle in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is provided by Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of both the administration's Iraqi fixation and its doctrine of "preventive" war. We watch him stick his comb in his mouth until it is wet with spit, after which he runs it through his hair. This is not the image we usually see of the deputy defense secretary, who has been ritualistically presented in the U.S. press as the most refined of intellectuals - a guy with, as Barbara Bush would have it, a beautiful mind.
.
No one would ever accuse Moore of having a beautiful mind. Subtleties and fine distinctions are not his thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell.
.
The New York Times
NEW YORK "But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer." - Barbara Bush on "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
.
She needn't have worried. Her son wasn't suffering. In one of the several pieces of startling video exhibited for the first time in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," we catch a candid glimpse of President George Bush about 36 hours after his mother's breakfast TV interview - minutes before he makes his own prime-time TV address to take the nation to war in Iraq. He is sitting at his desk in the Oval Office. A makeup woman is doing his face. And Bush is having a high old time. He darts his eyes about and grins, as if he were playing a peek-a-boo game with someone just off-camera. He could be a teenager goofing with his buds to relieve the passing tedium of a haircut.
.
"In your wildest dreams you couldn't imagine Franklin Roosevelt behaving this way 30 seconds before declaring war, with grave decisions and their consequences at stake," said Moore in an interview before his new documentary's premiere at Cannes last Monday. "But that may be giving him credit for thinking that the decisions were grave." As we spoke, the consequences of those decisions kept coming. The premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" took place as news spread of the assassination of a widely admired post-Saddam Iraqi leader, Ezzedine Salim, blown up by a suicide bomber just a hundred yards from the entrance to America's "safe" headquarters in Baghdad, the Green Zone.
.
Whatever you think of Moore, there's no question he's detonating dynamite here. From a variety of sources - foreign journalists and broadcasters (like Britain's Channel Four), freelancers and sympathetic American TV workers who slipped him illicit video - he supplies war-time pictures that have been largely shielded from our view. Instead of recycling images of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, once again, Moore can revel in extended new close-ups of the president continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to elementary school students in Florida for seven long minutes after learning of the attack. Just when Abu Ghraib and the savage beheading of Nicholas Berg make us think we've seen it all, here is yet another major escalation in the nation-jolting images that have become the battleground for the war about the war.
.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is not the movie Moore watchers, fans or foes, were expecting. (If it were, the foes would find it easier to ignore.) When he first announced this project last year after his boorish Oscar-night diatribe against Bush, he described it as an exposé of the connections between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties. But that story has been so strenuously told elsewhere that it's no longer news.
.
Moore settles for a brisk recap in the first of his film's two hours. And, predictably, he stirs it into an over-the-top, at times tendentious replay of a Bush hater's greatest hits: Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Harken Energy, AWOL in Alabama, the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, the lazy Crawford vacation of August 2001, the Patriot Act. But then the movie veers off in another direction entirely. Moore takes the same hairpin turn the country has over the past 14 months and crash-lands into the gripping story that is unfolding in real time right now.
.
Wasn't it just weeks ago that we were debating whether we should see the coffins of the American dead and whether Ted Koppel should read their names on "Nightline"? In "Fahrenheit 9/11," we see the actual dying, of American troops and Iraqi civilians alike, with all the ripped flesh and spilled guts that the violence of war entails. We also see some of the 4,000-plus American casualties: those troops hidden away in clinics at Walter Reed and at Blanchfield Army Community Hospital in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where they try to cope with nerve damage and multiple severed limbs. They are not silent. They talk about their pain and their morphine, and they talk about betrayal. "I was a Republican for quite a few years," one soldier says with an almost innocent air of bafflement, "and for some reason they conduct business in a very dishonest way."
.
Perhaps the most damning sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the one showing American troops as they ridicule hooded Iraqis in a holding pen near Samara in December 2003. A male soldier touches the erection of a prisoner lying on a stretcher underneath a blanket, an intimation of the sexual humiliations that were happening at Abu Ghraib at that same time. Besides adding further corroboration to Seymour Hersh's report that the top command has sanctioned a culture of abuse not confined to a single prison or a single company or seven guards, this video raises another question: Why didn't we see any of this on American TV before "60 Minutes II"?
.
The New York Times reported in March 2003 that Americans were using hooding and other inhumane techniques at CIA interrogation centers in Afghanistan and elsewhere. CNN reported on Jan. 20, after the U.S. Army quietly announced its criminal investigation into prison abuses, that "U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners." And there the matter stood for months, even though, as we know now, soldiers' relatives with knowledge of these incidents were repeatedly trying to alert Congress and news organizations to the full panorama of the story.
.
Moore says he obtained his video from an independent foreign journalist embedded with the Americans. "We've had this footage in our possession for two months," he says. "I saw it before any of the Abu Ghraib news broke. I think it's pretty embarrassing that a guy like me with a high-school education and with no training in journalism can do this. What the hell is going on here? It's pathetic."
.
The movie's second hour is carried by the wrenching story of Lila Lipscomb, a flag-waving, self-described "conservative Democrat" from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan, whose son, Sergeant Michael Pedersen, was killed in Iraq. We watch Lipscomb, who "always hated" antiwar protesters, come undone with grief and rage. She clutches her son's last letter home and reads it aloud, her shaking voice and hand contrasting with his precise handwriting on lined notebook paper.
.
Sergeant Pedersen thanks his mother for sending "the bible and books and candy," but not before writing of the president: "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever. I am so furious right now, Mama." By this point, Moore's jokes have vanished from "Fahrenheit 9/11." So, pretty much, has Moore himself. He can't resist underlining one moral at the end, but by then the audience, crushed by the needlessness of Lipscomb's loss, is ready to listen. Speaking of America's volunteer army, Moore concludes: "They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"
.
A particularly unappetizing spectacle in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is provided by Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of both the administration's Iraqi fixation and its doctrine of "preventive" war. We watch him stick his comb in his mouth until it is wet with spit, after which he runs it through his hair. This is not the image we usually see of the deputy defense secretary, who has been ritualistically presented in the U.S. press as the most refined of intellectuals - a guy with, as Barbara Bush would have it, a beautiful mind.
.
No one would ever accuse Moore of having a beautiful mind. Subtleties and fine distinctions are not his thing. That matters very little, it turns out, when you have a story this ugly and this powerful to tell.
.
The New York Times

lizabeth..*
05-23-2004, 02:30 PM
Hahaha he cracks me up....I loved Bowling For Columbine so I wouldn't mind seeing this!!!
Congrats to him for winning the award in Cannes too!!!

Catsou
05-23-2004, 02:43 PM
Thank you very much Star for that article. What can I say, I can wait to see that movie. I really liked Bowling for Columbine. I was really glad to hear yesterday that he won the Palme d'or at Cannes. Hopefully it's going to be a little bit easier now for him to show that movie in the States.

When he went at the Oscar ceremony last year and said his speech I couldn't beleive most of the people were ashame of him. After the Oscar I watched some of his interviews on telly and journalists and interviewers were talking to him like he was a non patrotic mad man...I was so in shock and was really impressed by his courage of going out there and say no to war when everyone were bashing you if you say you were against it. Even if his movies have some flaws at least they open discussions in a society were discussions about war was almost prohibited a year ago.

star
05-23-2004, 02:47 PM
Yes. He's courageous.

He's very emotional and biased and has an agenda. But unlike most people, he freely admits it. And no matter how flawed his movies are, he at least is making movies about very serious things, and not just for making millions of dollars.

I'm sure this will be a very difficult movie to watch. :sad:

star
05-23-2004, 02:51 PM
Oh and did I mention how much and for how long I have despised "Saint" Barbara Bush?

She has been portrayed as this sweet motherly white-haired woman, but :rolleyes: I saw her once on a panel with former first ladies, and was shocked at her venom and bile in comparison with Roselyn Carter and Betty Ford who were modulated and intelligent and had interests and causes to talk about.

Kristen
05-23-2004, 02:53 PM
That's a huge review!
I'll read it all in the morning( Its 1am and I have to be up at 6... I dunno why I'm still up.
On the radio tonight they played us a little tape of some American radio station. The DJ's were horrified that he'd won the award, were basically hissing at him like he was the scum of the earth. "Anti-American propoganda" LOL! I find his point of view rather refreshing.

star
05-23-2004, 02:55 PM
I don't always agree with Moore's every twist and turn, but his movies do have the effect of making one think. Even if those who disagree are forced to think.

But, I am sure that the fox news types will think this is just one more insult from France. :)

denim
05-23-2004, 05:54 PM
The point everyone seems to miss with iraq is they were sold weapons years ago by usa and the hardcore of american people are lovely people and had nothign to do with all this shit but now you got some grey hair gorilla saying i love you people and my duty to protect you (seeing as hes factory produced twat that puts a country under threat)

And Bush is a guy who would have been in there trading and a total arsehole just like tony blair, but i do like to read these articles and have big interest.

Seriously anything to do with Blait and Bush I am getting to end of my fuse, just want them both voted out and 2 human beings put in their place.

Ballbuster
05-23-2004, 05:58 PM
aaahhhh, you europeans are priceless. What you don't know is that America hates Michael Moore.

denim
05-23-2004, 06:02 PM
no i just hate bomb dropping and innocent lives killed to prove what point??????

and how u get taxes shoot sky high and billed for war u never wanted and had no CHOICE in...it only takes two pratts who cant grow up and stop playing toy soldiers but i guess they will have their supporters..

denim
05-23-2004, 06:04 PM
aaahhhh, you europeans are priceless. What you don't know is that America hates Michael Moore.


us europeans??? whats that supposed to mean?? you already got us all catogerised in one bracket then????

Ballbuster
05-23-2004, 06:10 PM
yeah pretty much, denim

undomiele
05-23-2004, 07:36 PM
As if gbpgbp02 speaks for all americans. :haha: :rolleyes:

Sounds like this movie is going to help bury the Bush administration for fucking up completely. Sounds good to me. I can't wait to see it.

star
05-23-2004, 09:19 PM
aaahhhh, you europeans are priceless. What you don't know is that America hates Michael Moore.

America hates Michael Moore?

It's quite a big country, you know, and I don't hate him, and I know many people who don't hate him. I don't worship him. He's got big flaws, but I'm glad he's around and making movies and in general I agree with him.

I wish this would bury Bush, but not enough people will see the movie. Disney refuses to release it, and it has to be bought from Disney before anyone can release it in this country. What would bury Bush is for gasoline prices to continue to climb sky high. But of course if that happens congress is also going to approve oil drilling in the Denali preserve, and anywhere else in Alaska that it can.

Dirk
05-23-2004, 09:33 PM
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Read this and tell me if you still respect the wonderful documentary filmmaker Moore. I can't wait to see this one picked apart as well. Oh and this rag the NY Times is the same rag that will review every single liberal book and film but hasn't review a conservative publication in a long time. Just keep that in mind folks.

andylover_16
05-23-2004, 09:55 PM
aaahhhh, you europeans are priceless. What you don't know is that America hates Michael Moore.

Well, i love him.

Someone with some sense. We need more people like that in America!

katrientje
05-23-2004, 09:59 PM
yeah pretty much, denim

Lucky enough we're smart enough not to think all Americans are like you

undomiele
05-24-2004, 12:24 AM
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html Read this and tell me if you still respect the wonderful documentary filmmaker Moore. I can't wait to see this one picked apart as well. Oh and this rag the NY Times is the same rag that will review every single liberal book and film but hasn't review a conservative publication in a long time. Just keep that in mind folks.

The NyTimes is not a rag. Its one of the most preeminent newspapers in the world. And of course it has a liberal slant, in the same way that the Wallstreet Journal has a conservative slant --another world-renowned newspaper. Doesn't mean you can't find worthwhile opinions or reporting in either.

ANd I really don't think you can hold the author's article against the NyTimes--- all he does is concede Moore's bias but mentions the documentary is worth viewing despite the bias for the images of war you can't see anywhere else (and that deserve to be seen IMO). I don't see the problem here.

Dirk
05-24-2004, 01:17 AM
Its liberal bias has hurt the reputation of the paper and the circulation as well. ;) Jason Blair and there are many other examples of reporters sprewing lies. The Wall Street Journal has no embarrassing examples and its good that they are around to balance out the NY Rag. Oh and Let me ask you all one thing, HOW DO WE GET INTEL FROM THESE ANIMALS IN THE PRISONS!?!?!??!?!!?!?!?!? :fiery: We can't humilate them to get info, we can't do this and that. So what should we do? Oh and don't give me this Genvea Convention crap because its doesn't apply to them. Only to civilians and official members of the military. They are terrorists who are trying to keep Iraq in the dark ages. Oh and at least these animals, these subhumans aren't having this done to them. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/103418.shtml

star
05-24-2004, 01:30 AM
The Geneva Convention "crap."

No they aren't at war with the U.S. The U.S. simply invaded Iraq. That wouldn't put the Iraqis at war with the U.S.

Each side can call the other side sub-human, and that makes it so much easier to do terrible things to one another. The problem is that I don't want my country to be filled with those who consider ANY human being subhuman. I love the ideals on which this country was founded. I want them upheld even in difficult circumstances. It is only when it is difficult to stick to one's principles that one's principles are truly tested. I don't want this country to come up short. Because some very cruel people have done cruel things to my country and countrymen, does not make me think that those people should also be treated cruely.

You write off the people who are held captive in Iraqi prisons as terrorists. Yet you have no evidence that all those held are terrorists. There is in fact very little evidence to support the idea that Iraq was involved in terrorism at all. It is certain that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

You also have no evidence that Iraq was in the "dark ages." Iraq was an industrial nation prior to the invasion.

Further, the Wall Street Journal also had a scandal similar to that of the New York Times prior to Jason Blair. You might also want to check out the New Republic's scandal. The New Republic was once a left leaning magazine that was taken over by conservative ownership. Under that ownership there was a journalist who fabricated stories. They made a movie about it. Shattered Glass.

You seem quite full of hatred and venom toward the Iraqis and full of hatred and venom toward anything you deem "liberal." In my mind the New York Times is anything but a liberal newspaper. It is at best middle of the road.

And please don't come up with any new graphic descriptions of the torture and death you fantazise for me. Once was quite enough. :hatoff:

Dirk
05-24-2004, 01:45 AM
Star, you stupid skank, think for a second. Why did our troops put those Iraqis who they detained in prison? Many of the ones in there have attacked your troops who are fighting for their freedom. I can't believe how stupid some people in this country our. I just can't believe it. Iraq was run by one man for 30 years. No freedom what so ever. Now if you don't consider that dark ages, then your hopeless. Even in your misinterruptation of applying the Geneva Convention to this situation it doesn't hold up. They are not civilians or members of the Iraq army. They are terrorists who are not only attacking the US army but killing Iraqis who want a democratic future. There have been terrorist links to Iraq prior to 9/11 and I would search out the info for you but it wouldn't change your mind. The enemy will use the PC police and our civil rights against us to do their bidding. They are not stupid. Oh and Star, I was simply Illustrating what your life would be like in Iraq. Its not my fault if you wouldn't like your new home.

star
05-24-2004, 02:01 AM
I have no doubt that some are terrorists. However, you have no evidence at all that every prisoner is in fact a terrorist. We do know that many of them are members of the military and members of the Sadaam government. We also know that some are civilians.

Yes, there have been a few terrorists links to Iraq, but not many. The fact also remains that the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with Al Queda. In fact, Bin Laden did not like or respect Sadaam because he had a secular rather than a religous government.

And I understand that you supposedly were telling me what my life would be like in my new home, but in fact you were enjoying the description immensly. The relish with which you wrote the words was clear.

It is very sad that you think the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is one of this country's weaknesses and merely a weapon for our enemies to use against us. It is interesting to me that you prefer this country to act in a cruel and totalitarian manner. This is something I have observed among many conservatives. It occured during the cold war and it is occuring again.

This time it is more than mere McCarthisim. Now citizens of the United States who have never raised a weapon against a member of the United States armed forces are being held as enemy combatants.

Your dream of what I might suffer in my "new home" might rapidly come to pass in this country. If Bush declares me an enemy combatant on the strength of some hearsay affidavit filed, I will be as effectively imprisoned incommunicado as if I were living in a totalitarian state, without recourse to legal assistance, trial, the right to confront my accusors, or any of the rights that I should be happy now to have. And, now we also know that I can look forward to brutal treatment as well while I am incarcerated because after all the Geneva Convention "crap" would not apply to me.

Conservatives embrace this war as liberating Iraq, getting rid of Sadaam, and ending terrorism. What is painfully clear is that this invasion will cost the United States dearly in the long run. What sort of government will grow out of a destabilized Iraq? The odds are it will be a conservative islamic state, and one not likely to be a friend to the United States or it's policies. What threat does that bring to Saudi Arabia, our staunchest ally in the region? The threat from Sadaam was puny compared to the threat we are constructing ourselves.

I live in a rural conservative state that may never have gone democratic. Certainly not in the last 50 years. Yet anger is growing here. I sincerely hope that anger explodes across America.

And next time, Dirk, don't resort to calling me names when repsonding to my opinions. Name calling is the tool of those whose rational arguments are failing. Now you have offended twice: Once by calling for my prolonged and bloody death (involving sexual torture) and now again my calling me an obscene name. I would hope that you could show that you are an honorable man who doesn't need to stoop so low.

undomiele
05-24-2004, 02:03 AM
Its liberal bias has hurt the reputation of the paper and the circulation as well. ;) Jason Blair and there are many other examples of reporters sprewing lies. The Wall Street Journal has no embarrassing examples and its good that they are around to balance out the NY Rag. Oh and Let me ask you all one thing, HOW DO WE GET INTEL FROM THESE ANIMALS IN THE PRISONS!?!?!??!?!!?!?!?!? :fiery: We can't humilate them to get info, we can't do this and that. So what should we do? Oh and don't give me this Genvea Convention crap because its doesn't apply to them. Only to civilians and official members of the military. They are terrorists who are trying to keep Iraq in the dark ages. Oh and at least these animals, these subhumans aren't having this done to them. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/16/103418.shtml

Dude. I have several friends in the military who have just come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and they are really pissed at what has been happening at the prison and most especially at Bush for putting them in harms way in an unnecessary war(and a lot of them were/are Republicans). Need I remind you that the sole reason these pictures came out in the first place is because some ethically well-balanced soldiers and their families have been distraught at these activities and sent these pictures to congress and the media in the first place? Obviously they saw a problem where you don't. Hell, even Bush saw a problem and he issued a very public apology for what has been going on. That said, there is simply no excuse for the level of inhumane disregard to what has been done to these people IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. And to equate these people as terrorists and/or animals when the US are the invaders and occupiers of a country and population it claims to be **saving** (and Iraq is NOT a terrorist nation or at least wasnt before the invasion) makes me think you're rather soulless, or ignorant or both Dirk. And I don't want to believe that you think there is any excuse for violating human rights. I really don't. But if you really do, then you're seriously **fucked** up.

Do you remember this little event called the Nuremberg trials??? When it was made clear to everybody (mostly by the United States and the other western powers) that "following orders" just simply wasn't going to cut it when it comes to blatantly violating human rights? Everyone responsible for what happened at Abu Gharub deserve to do jailtime for what they did and probably worse, cos they should have known better as representatives for the "beacon of democracy" the US claims it is. In case you didn't know Dirk, democracy was created to protect human rights, especially those who are in the least position to claim them. Ring a bell Dirk???

I also think its good to have the conservative paper media to balance out the liberal media. But to suggest that the liberal media is the only side to distort or misreport information to its readership or whatever (and its not as if Jason Blair was intentionally placed there by the paper) is pretty disingenious. Both sides do it. The key is to draw from various sources and acknowledge the failures and good points of every paper. I happen to think the NYTimes employ really good writers and are pretty good at reporting and interpreting international news. The problem is when the whole media network conspires to gloss over key important facts to a war that everybody should care to know about. Like how many Iraqis have needlessly died in the invasion. Its only when you realize how much the Iraqi people care about this fact, that you begin to understand why the Iraqis don't want the US in there anymore. Especially after those photos. I wasn't surprised at their reaction, were you?

Dirk
05-24-2004, 02:56 AM
Polls show they still want us there. Star you would never be taken into custody for speaking your mind. We aren't arresting the protesters over in Iraq but many of them are either attacking us or doing some other crime in the country that sends them to that prison. Of course there are a few innocent people in the prison, but war is unpredictable and we have let out many of the prisoners who we don't have enough information on to hold them. The difference between us and them (Iraq as it was) and our enemy is, we do have ethics and we do care if they are not upheld. Do you think Saddamn enforced ethics in those prisons??? Of course not because there was no ethics. I don't support the sodomy or any of the very servere activties going on, but some of the stuff that wasn't physically harmful I do support. Also there is ONE FACT that has been left out. A few days before this abuse starting happening there was a riot in the prison. Now I don't support our troops torturing them for that reason. I would have just shot all the rioters dead. Naturally any intel they have dies with them so they couldn't do that unless the army had to protect their lives. The jailors are being punished by the way, wouldn't it be nice if jailors in Islamic nations would be punished by their own nations? Oh and if you take a look at my link I previously posted. I think the Iraqis are happy that stuff isn't happening anymore or the mass graves being filled. Naturally innocent people die in war, but the last poll issues last week most Iraqis say it was worth it. Oh and your friends are allow to say and think whatever they want Undomelie. Shamefully that wasn't going on in Iraq before we went there. Star ( still not smart enough to understand my illustration, but hey its your problem not mine) and Undomelie. Did you ever wonder why it took 8 and 7 years to rebuild Japan and Germany? Do you think that a year into the post war rebuilding there wasn't plenty of terrible news?

Dirk
05-24-2004, 02:58 AM
One more thing, in the Numberg trials they deserved to die. We weren't butchering and murdering the prisoners, big difference there.

star
05-24-2004, 03:15 AM
You hope that I would never be taken into custody for speaking my mind, but without recourse to the court system, a legal defense, or indeed even the ability to communicate with anyone outside the prison, how would anyone know whether a person taken into custody as an enemy combatant was there for simply speaking his/her mind or indeed in holding a belief that the U.S. Government should be overthrown. It has never been illegal to desire the destruction of our own government. One can in fact, advocate the overthrow of the government legally. I think that doing so now would amount to being labled an enemy combatant. There are U.S. citizens imprisoned now who were arrested on U.S. soil. These people are being denied the right to have the government prove the allegations against them.

I take it that you concede there are military persons and persons of Sadaam's government who are imprisoned in Iraq by U.S. military forces. What is the basis for your claim that Geneva Convention does not apply to them?

You describe prisoners in this manner: "many of them are either attacking us" Now, normally when citizens defend their own country from an invasion and occupation it is considered justified. When citizens of European countries put up armed resistance against German occupation, they were lauded as heros and patriots. They fought with methods that one would now call terrorism althought at that time it was called guerrila warfare.

Actually the torment of the prisoners in Iraq had gone on before that supposed prison riot, and until I get more reliable information about that incident, I don't give it so much credence. The Red Cross had detailed mistreatment of prisoners months prior to that incident. The military dismissed the report and chose not to believe it.

You believe that in the long run the invasion will prove to be benifical to the Iraqis and to the U.S. I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong. I also believe that it is the long view that is important and not isolated incidents. I am not as sanguine as you about the future. Unfortunately, my predictions about what would happen in Iraq that began a few weeks after 9/11 have proven accurate.

Catsou
05-24-2004, 03:23 AM
Sorry Dirt no offense but I never thought I will hear so much stupidity on this board. You really got the ``Palme d'Or`` here. What you say is sooooooo full of hate and prejudice it's shocking...

And please stop giving us some analogy with other period of the past. A lot of people including mysefl have studied politics sciences and history and realized that you don't know s*** about what you are talking about.

Lee
05-24-2004, 03:24 AM
I was wondering how that poll mentioned by Dirk was conducted?

And after I heard the stories from my friends who are Vietnamese and/or Cambodian refugees, I never trust what the US government said!

undomiele
05-24-2004, 03:26 AM
Dirk, you're only believing on what you want to believe honey. And you're filling in the spaces in your argument with pretty poor assumptions and interpretations of history. Along with an all too obvious ignorance about Muslim societies in the Middle East.

Unlike Japan and Germany, whose societal classes were structurally mobile, Iraq is a society completely built on an tribal structure that happen to be very culturally dogmatic. Do you know what that means Dirk? These are tribes who haven't interbred in several hundred years and who have waged war with eachother for much longer than that. Considering how Saddam has treated his enemy tribes and the current vacuum of power, why don't YOU tell ME how Iraq **ISN'T** going to plunge into civil war?
Iraq is a thousand times more similar to Afghanistan than a post-war Germany or Japan. And God knows that country is going to the dogs. But of course its convenient and easier for you to compare Iraq to a western Christian society in Europe, or a religion-neutral homogenous society in East Asia, than a fellow Muslim tribal society next-door neighbor that is Afghanistan right?

You really don't know much about this topic Dirk and Im calling you out on it.

Dirk
05-24-2004, 03:29 AM
One can speak overthrow and desire it, but if they organize and plot illegal acts to do it,then that is when they fall into the enemy combatant or terrorist section.

If they are wearing uniforms and have id to prove they are from the military that is different. Most of the troops we caught during the war have been released. The army has been disbanded and now we are trying to rebuild it.

Star, under Saddamn was the country the Iraqis' country or his? Ok nuff said on the point you were making about Europeans defending their country from Hitler. The ones who are fighting us either or loyalist to him or terrorists from Syria and or Iran and some of from clerics such as Sadr.

The abuse that was in the photos took place last fall. The investigation started in January. If you wish I will send you information mentioning the riot.

Dirk
05-24-2004, 03:35 AM
Lee the poll was done by a survey group. I don't think it was connected to the government but next time I see a poll on it I will post it here. Oh and Catso please join in the discussion. I'm not saying a civil war won't happen but if it does, then it will happen after we leave. If it does and democracy fails, then its their fault. I only brought up Germany and Japan to make a point. That it took a long time for their countries to be rebuilt and it wasn't easy and pretty. I never ever compared their society to the middle east.

Catsou
05-24-2004, 03:40 AM
Star, you stupid skank, think for a second.
That comment is soooooooo wrong and rude it doesn't have a place on this board IMHO. And no thanks on your invitation to join that discussion don't get me wrong it's not because you have a totally differant opinion than I do but I think it is pointless to discuss with you.

undomiele
05-24-2004, 03:42 AM
One more thing, in the Numberg trials they deserved to die. We weren't butchering and murdering the prisoners, big difference there.

Ah but if you actually studied the legal implications of Nuremberg on International Law -- and they teach this in law school --you would understand that it was more than just executing the top officials of the Nazis. While it was mostly about giving these abhorrent criminals a trial, finding them guilty under due process of law, and exucuting them which was the opposite of what the Nazis did when they were charge (and the approach you advocate by the way) of shooting first and asking questions later (or no questions at all). Nuremberg also codified into military and international law the fact that outright blatant torture should never be used to extract statements (paralleled in the Miranda laws of reading one's rights to those arrested in the United States) and that hiding behind "orders" just wasn't going to cut it when violations are quite clearly human rights violations.

Dirk
05-24-2004, 03:49 AM
The bigwigs of the Nazi army and their officials I supported a trial for before executing them. I supported what was done there.

Dirk
05-24-2004, 03:54 AM
The artifacts most of them were sealed in a storage room in the museum. Some where taken by workers of the museum. As for the Fox Camera men, I never heard or read the story before.

undomiele
05-24-2004, 04:00 AM
Dude its going to take a lot more than a poll to make up for the lousy holes in your argument. I had dinner with a friend in the military who *just* got back from a year in Iraq and he can definitely tell you that the Iraqis don't trust the Americans and want them out ASAP. Ill take his solid word over your hazy memory of one day reading some poll that might somehow save your disturbing arguments.

Oh and to say that its Iraq's fault that theyre going to plunge into civil war is like blaming them for not having the WMD's they were never supposed to have in the first place. I mean come on!!! :rolleyes: Talk about stupid and circuitous reasoning!!!

Dirk
05-24-2004, 04:07 AM
um the poll wasn't an hundred percent in favor of the US being there so yeah there are some who want us out. Saddamn was the one who was supposed to turn over all the information and proof that he destroyed the WMDS. He didn't comply. Oh and we found sarin gas in a rocket last week. Who knows how many more are there. Oh and the chemicals that were found in Jordan in those trucks that would have rammed into serveral govenment buildings and possible killing 80,000 people as it was reported. Those chemicals were I forget Mustard or Sarin gas. I forget which one it was but it was a chemical not being made in Sryria where the trucks came from. The only place in the region that made that type of gas and chemical was Iraq, but the media didn't hop on that story too much now did they.

Dirk
05-24-2004, 04:11 AM
Disturbing arguements? OK Undomelie, tell me how we fight the war on terror? Oh and don't tell me there wasn't any Iraq links to terrorists because there are and I could find them in case your not informed enough. Oh that terrorist attack in Jordan that was going to happen was set up in Iraq in 1999. The prisoners said the war against the Taliban only delayed their attempt they said.

undomiele
05-24-2004, 04:33 AM
Dude, youre embarassing yourself now.

Lets go over your arguments here.

um the poll wasn't an hundred percent in favor of the US being there so yeah there are some who want us out.

Wheres this famous poll? You can't use a poll you can't even find or quote in an argument and expect to be taken seriously. You can't even remember what it said, who conducted it, etc. I mean come on!

Saddamn was the one who was supposed to turn over all the information and proof that he destroyed the WMDS. He didn't comply.

He didn't have to. Every major countries intel agencies (and the Russians and Europeans have VERY sophisticated intel ops in the Middle Easy as opposed to the US who learnt almost everything from lying Iraqi criminals and Israel --hardly an objective source in the region) totally knew what the US and UK were claiming was complete bullshit. Or that Saddam's capabilities were nil after 99% of his stock was destroyed by the UN. Small wonder nobody else joined the invasion. They knew Powell was making shit up. In fact, even Powell suspected he was reading complete bullshit. What an oscar performance that was.

Oh and we found sarin gas in a rocket last week. Who knows how many more are there.

Wow. One rocket --that was probably smuggled in from Syria or Iran AFTER the invasion. :rolleyes: And all this time, North Korea has been building nuclear weapons in the hundreds and there the US is, finding a single rocket that most likely isnt even Iraqi a full year after Powell promised the world you'd find thousands within the week and that the Pentagon knew "exactly where they were".

Oh and the chemicals that were found in Jordan in those trucks that would have rammed into serveral govenment buildings and possible killing 80,000 people as it was reported. Those chemicals were I forget Mustard or Sarin gas.

Yes, and they were found in JORDAN, NOT Iraq. You have to prove these things originated in Iraq honey and not some other US-hating middle eastern country (of which there is definitely more than one).

I forget which one it was but it was a chemical not being made in Sryria where the trucks came from. The only place in the region that made that type of gas and chemical was Iraq, but the media didn't hop on that story too much now did they.

Yeah right, theyre going to be made in impoverished, sanctions-gutted Iraq where random things like syringe needles and aspirin were strictly kept of the country by the allies, and whose scientists were watched like the devil, not in countries like Saudi Arabia (or whatever) that are a thousand times more resourceful with ample money and scientists to build these weapons where terrorists still abound.. Theres a reason why the US couldnt find WMD in the places they just "knew" they would be --Iraq just simply didn't have the capacity to make them. The sanctions were overzealously successful in that respect. So overzealous the people were starving.

undomiele
05-24-2004, 04:46 AM
Disturbing arguements? OK Undomelie, tell me how we fight the war on terror?

By not giving them legitimate reasons to hate America. And yes, there are several legitimate reasons to hate America --or better said, the American GOVERNMENT. The American ppl themselves often just don't know or don't care whats going on. Or they cling on to delusional fictional realities about the world we live in... *ahem* Dirk.

Oh and don't tell me there wasn't any Iraq links to terrorists because there are and I could find them in case your not informed enough.

Not informed enough? What a joke. Here's a fact, none of the terrorists that flew into the world trade centrer and the pentagon were Iraqis. The vast majority were SAUDIS. Find me these so-called fictional links linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda... I'm sure they'll give me a good laugh. There's nothing substantial in those weak weak claims at all! Even the administration has given up on trying to prove a link and are trying to pretend the real reason they went into Iraq was about establishing democracy, when it really was about the WMD's.


Oh that terrorist attack in Jordan that was going to happen was set up in Iraq in 1999. The prisoners said the war against the Taliban only delayed their attempt they said.

You're just not making sense here at all. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What attack? Which prisoners? The taliban live in Afghanistan not iraq. What?

Dirk
05-24-2004, 05:05 AM
I will look for that poll, but not sure I will be able to find it. I'm surprised the news follower you are didn't see it. I'm not going to even bother looking for these links since you already think they will be fictional terrorist links and laughable. The US did have faulty intelligence but at no point before the war began did I see or hear Russia and other European nations declare Iraq was clean. Otherwise, why would those countries sign on for resolution 1441 back in fall of 02. You will believe what you will and I will do the same. I simply give up on this argument. I should have just posted the link to the fact checking of Moore's film and left it at that.

undomiele
05-24-2004, 06:29 AM
Look to be fair I did remember reading a poll somewhere about Iraqi opinion. It was a Zogby poll (a very well-respected pollster) and I tried looking it up just now but its no longer available on his website. From what I remember, it was a poll asking the iraqis if they were going to be better off five years from now. And most of them said yes, I also remember a plurality of them believing the US should only stay for a *maximum* of a year but that they had to go right after that. This was way before the crime wave, the suicide bombings, and the Pictures, etc. The poll could be seen to support America's invasion but I didn't see it that way at all. Allow me to explain.

I believe that ultimately, all the Iraqi ppl want to do is build a muslim democratic country by muslims and not by Americans (who by the way they've always inherently distrusted --they remember what it was like to be ruled by the Brits) or anyone else, and after years of living under Saddam anything but Saddam sounds good right?? But after a couple of months of living under US rule they start to think, well this is better than Saddam but these guys are foreigners of the most powerful country in the world (and then theyre reminded of the British) and they see what the US is doing with the Iraqi Council and the Halliburton contracts and they get nervous as well as impatient. Again, Iraq was one of the most educated societies in the Middle East before Saddam and they want to be free NOW, because they believe they are capable of doing everything themselves etc, and are resentful and upset with everthing the US has bungled. They figure, if Iraq is going to be a mess, it might as well be OUR mess. hence the enormous dissatisfaction the Iraqis have for America right now.

The problem is, and Bush Sr. knew this as does every major expert of the region, that theres no way you can "free" Iraq and prevent subsquent civil war that would take the whole region into turmoil. Churchill, of all people, and the western powers, fucked it all up in the beginning of the 20th century when they drew up national boundaries in the Middle East and parts of Europe. Back then, the powers had a problem with the idea of creating small states and opted to include warring tribes, ethicities,etc in large countries under authoritative rulers because they thought they would be easier to manage that way. Of course, that can never really work in the long run as Yugoslavia (another beautiful Chruchill creation), the former USSR and places like French vs. British Canada remind us. Bush Sr. didn't want to upset the already tenous balance of power in the middle east and ultimately decided having Saddam there was better for the stability of the region (and US economic and political interests) by keeping the warring tribes and Iraqi civil war at bay, albeit in a brutal dictatorship. His son thought differently and believed sticking his fingers in the Iraqi pie would win him an election, keep his business buddies happy, help Israel and American interests by having a big democracy in the Middle East, contribute to the American economy, and prove America is strong and wonderful aka during WWII, and quash the liberals and strike fear into Al-Qaeda's heart.

But Bush Jr. is wrong, as we are beginning to see now, the US is taking the fall both poltiically, economically (and in terms of global credibility) for the natural violent process of Iraqi civil war that it could totally have left alone to leave for another day. Everything he thought he would achieve is turning into a nightmare of the opposite case scenario. (for example: The terrorists are getting stonger instead of weaker.) So now we are probably about to witness the fall of Iraq, and the beginning of a long civil war not unlike yugoslavia, but in a much more volatile region, and the US, rightly or not, is going to take the blame for all of it. What a stupid move!!! :rolleyes: Commited by your retard of a president and his conceited administration. :retard: So of course the Iraqis are optimistic about being able to live better 5 years from now, but not even they can predict how harsh the turmoil about to come (similar to what afghanistan is going through) is going to affect them 5 years from now. And it is going to happen, you mark my words.

In the end, the US invited itself into a situation that is going to cost it a lot more than it can ever get back from the whole situation. Hence, the term quagmire. But this time, the terrorists of the region (NOT Iraq-- at least not the pre-invasion Iraq) known as Al Qaeda are striking back. So in a way, this is probably bigger than Vietnam. At least as far as Western populations are concerned --just ask the Spanish.


So what you have to understand Dirk, is that the poll is meaningless in the long run. Its just that a poll, a poll made of numbers that only measures sentiment for a given time. It can no way be representative or foreboding of the future or the long run. "Because In the long run", as all economists like to say "we're all dead anyway."

Dirk
05-24-2004, 08:32 AM
Damn it I wanted to end this, but there was plenty of good news and bad the 1st year after post war in WW2 in the countries we were rebuilding. To say its a failure and compare it to Vietnam where we lost over 600 soliders a month is ridicious. We haven't even lost a total of a 1,000 in both wars.

Undomiele, Without the US and other members of the coalition there. Iran and Syria step in and take over. The Bathe party of Syria is NOT HAPPY that their fellow members are no longer controlling Iraq. Iraq CANNOT DO IT WITHOUT US!!!! They don't have the means to rebuild themselves and let alone secure themselves from those two nations. Those american and foreign companies are there to rebuild and modernize the country because only they can do it. It doesn't matter how smart the Iraqis are, if they don't have the resources to rebuild it won't happen. Oh and education went down the toilet during the Saddamn years as you dulying noted.

Bush Sr. didn't wipe Saddamn out because UN wouldn't give him the resolution. The French wouldn't go for it, so that is why we didn't take him out in the early 90s. The good old wonderful UN (which can't even run the oil for food program legally and ethically) stood in the way of the Iraqis freedom.

Bush went to war because he believed Iraq had WMDs and would pass them on to terrorists and we had intelligence of an Al Qaeda high member meeting with Iraq officals in 98 and another member sought treatment there during the war with the taliban. Now the Jordans have stopped that plot which would have made 9/11 look like a bus accident we learned that this attack was planned in Iraq in 1999. Condi Rice read a list of terrorist groups being supported in Iraq during the Saddamn years in a recent interview. I will look it up. We are still looking for the weapons and there is many sites to still look at. Another report is due in June. The UN was never happy with Saddamn's corporation and Blix said so at every UN update. Therefore we went in under resolution 1441. Now you can throw all the conspiracy theories you want around but none have held any water.

Oh and Al Qaeda is not getting stronger. The adminstration has said that about 2/3s of Al Qaeda are dead or captured. This is not a war that will end soon and its not limited to just Al Qaeda but all terrorist organizations, nor will building a democracy in Iraq go up as fast as a website.

Iraq is not about to fall, it fell during Saddamn's years. We are trying to build it into a strong democratic country with many of the people there. We are not bungling it up. The terrorists are the ones causing all the trouble and trying to stop progress. After they are built up and their security forces are strong enough most of the soliders will leave but we will always have some troops sationed there for a long long time to protect them from their neighbors. If it wasn't for this military action, Iraq would likely never gain their freedom and chance at democracy, because one of Saddamn's sons would have taken over and then it would be likely passed on to the next of kin and so on. I'm an optimist and I hope the US will see this through no matter how long it takes. Nato is in charge of Afghanistan not the US so its up to them to take the right action. That country is far better off without the Taliban and let's not be unrealistic with progress being made and let's play it down either. Things are much better off in both nations and things will get better as long as the monsters of the past are being dealt with in those nations. Naturally we will always hear and read more of the bad news since it is what sells.

You're right that poll means nothing in the long run and it was done in April I believe April or March of this year. You looking into your crystal ball and predicting that a civil war will ensure could be off as well. I disagree with pretty everyone here politically. Its a real liberal la la land here, but at least you all seem to want the best for Iraq.

undomiele
05-26-2004, 01:54 AM
Dirk. You have a good heart honey, but you couldn't recognize a crooked administration if it was trampling all over you. Your last post was riddled with abundant unprovable assumptions and a notable regurgitation of insignficant and/or misleading news stories -- right now Im 99% positive that Fox News or some other deeply conservative rag(s) is your main if not only news source. Either that or your judgment apparatus is tragically flawed in as much as it supports a fairly naive perspective of your government and the world in general. You know what this argument has been about? Its been about you trying to defend some false and naive idea of the United States being a good and altruistic nation, led by an equally well-intentioned government, that only mostly commits acts in world politics for the best of human reasons and/or intentions. And while I sincerely believe its people have the best intentions, its Government (like all Governments) does not. (Ever hear of the phrase that "the Road to Hell is paved with the best intentions"?, well, the "road to hell" is the Government and its pavement stones the good intentions of its people.) Now if only you guys would realize how clever your government has been in creating some of these Global Hells. I think its the greatest (and subtlest) brain-washing movement in the Western world! From mindlessly reciting the Pledge of Alliance in elementary school (without understanding why), to studying fictional events in American history (Paul Revere's ride never happened) , to watching 1 of the zillion nauseatingly "patriotic" Hollywood movies like Pearl Harbour, to finally easily swallowing the idea that the nuclear vaporisation of 80,000 innocent Japanese civilians was somehow a victory and NOT a horrific, horrific crime against humanity, I cannot help but feel astonished (yet not surprised) at how many people in the United States carry such a poor understanding of how other people in the world regard its often brutal and destructive track record across other countries that are often too weak and/or impoverished to stand up to rich countires' governments and their desires.

And now its arrived to this --pre-emptively invading a nation in the incredibly volatile Middle East, over overwhelmingly condemnatory global public opinion on the premise of a bogus wild-goose chase that ends up costing thousands of human lives while intentionally misleading its own people to believe WAR was the only acceptable solution to a terrorist "problem" in Iraq that was more imagined (or desired) than real. It really is astounding how completely wrapped up the American public can be in believing its own bullshit, as in "It's Us vs. Them", and "how can we NOT be the good guys? We've ALWAYS been the good guys!" I had to come here to believe it. And thank God half of the citizenry doesn't get too carried away by it or the Government would be completely doing whatever the hell it pleased in the rest of the world (not that it doesn't already anyway --it just usually doesn't do it so openly).

Now you may *want* to think this administration invaded Iraq for altruistic reasons, for democracy, or whatever. But it didn't. And it never really intended to. It did it for oil, glory, a high popularity boost, Saddam vendetta,etc. But keep in mind that right now as I write Bush's administration is currently preparing to abandon Iraq and his bullshit ideals of real democracy for Iraq (an idea that provides many great soundbites but trust me it ain't going to happen and he knows it) in order to save his ass in the election. They can't do it fast enough. You don't believe me??? Its *already* happening!! *NO WAY* could a government interested in promoting democracy have plans to retreat the vast majority of its troops in a month when Iraq is in the state it is. How the hell is it going to restore democracy otherwise?? Answer me how Dirk? How?
Why else do you think Bush is going back to the UN right now? He despises that organization! He's going back cos he needs the allies and the support to save face on what is obviously becoming a falied mission. Bottom line is you cannot say that this withdrawal is the act of a nation concerned or interested in establishing democracy or in preserving Iraq from potential civil war or Syria and Iran. Its the act of a self-serving administration who is backing out of its responsibilities in order to save its ass in an election it currently finds itself losing. Snap out of it dirk. You're the one living in la-la land. And its called the United States of America.

star
05-26-2004, 03:05 AM
Bravo! That was a beautiful and brilliant small essay.... And in a second language too!

:worship:

undomiele
05-27-2004, 05:19 AM
Thank you star. :) :D I just really dislike it when people don't question their governments enough (not the person however --never the person!!)