Closed Thread Icon

Preserved Topic: One moore reason... (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="http://www.ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=21531" title="Pages that link to Preserved Topic: One moore reason... (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Preserved Topic: One moore reason... <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-24-2004 18:19

...to explain why I dislike Michael Moore.

quote:
Moore's Make of It

Speaking of the deadly violence in Iraq, filmmaker and left-wing activist Michael Moore says -- "The majority of Americans supported this war ... and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us."

Moore also says U.S. contractors in Iraq -- some of which have been murdered and mutilated -- "are not contractors. ... They are mercenaries and soldiers of fortune. They are there for the money." As for the Iraqis who kill Americans, Moore says -- "They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."




. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-24-2004 22:19

What do you dislike about these statements?

I will say that I dislike Michael Moore as well, and I find his first statement in your quote perhaps a little melodramatic, but I find little to disagree or find objection with...

As for his second paragraph - it seems abotu dead accurate to me.....


WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 04-24-2004 22:38

I must admit, Bugs, DL has some good points. As for Michael Moore...*shrugs* Personally, I don't know the guy. I certainly don't follow his writings.

As for Iraq, well, you already know how I feel about that.

Get the troops out of there as quickly as possible.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-24-2004 23:28

Forgive us for what? He still doesn't get it. He's fat and comfortable in a country that protects his right to speak his mind but does he care about people living under extreme oppression? Perhaps he gives lip service to it, but I seriously doubt he would support any action that would actually result in a better life for someone in a country like that.

The second paragraph is putting the lives of terrorists who think nothing of blowing up children on their way to school with contractors, as if there is something evil about being a contractor. This man is beneath contempt for saying such a thing. You don't deserve to die for being a contractor. And calling the Iraqi insurgents revolutionists as if they have a valid cause? Are you kidding? This is not the Iraqi people blowing up their own kids and murdering contractors, this is an extreme minority trying to destabilize the country so they can further their own political agendas. Poll after poll of the Iraqi populace shows that they aren't exactly happy that we're the occupiers but they want us to stay until the violent entities are subdued.

And I have a feeling he gets some sort of sick "I told you so" satisfaction out of saying "they will win". Who? Not the Iraqi people, but the ones murdering Iraqi children and innocent civilians. The second paragraph stinks to high heaven to me.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

norm
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: [s]underwater[/s] under-snow in Juneau
Insane since: Sep 2002

posted posted 04-25-2004 01:08

hey Bugs:

Not to many folks die because they deserve to die, but lots of them die from stupidity. Both their own and that of their political leaders. Going over to Iraq right now just to make a buck ranks as Stupidity in my book. Did you notice the capital 'S' on that?

Yes, Mr Moore has a good and easy life, but then all of us in the USA do when compared to most of the people in many countries. At least he has the courage to be vocal and adamant in his stands, and he is willing to risk the wrath of both popular opinion and the powers that be. Michael Moore has my respect.

As far as the majority of the people supporting( or at least tolerating) the war in Iraq, here is a sobering quote:

quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a facist dictatorship, or a parliment or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall.
at the Nuremberg Trials



It looks to me like this works the same today as it ever did.

Skaarjj
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: :morF
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 04:23

That is, sadly, quite true.

But as for Michael Moore being some fat guy who lives comfortably in a country that protects his right to free speech...ok, we'll talk about rights for a moment. Where in the constitution of America, Britain, Australia, Spain or any of the other countires that joined the so-called 'Coalition of the Willing' does it give them the right to declare a pre-emptive war on a country simply becuase they don't like who is in power? I mean, they obviously aren't doing it for the people's sake, or they would have been doing it long before now (and I'm not counting Gulf War 1, becuase that wasn't for the people either...that was for the oil). If they cared about the people at all, then they wouldn't have been financing people like Mr. Hussein, or the bin Laden family at any point, and in any way. But they did. They did for a long, long time.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not in support of Saddam, Osama or any of them, and I'm not in support of terrorists. But neither am I in support of the Coalition of the Deluded and the troops they send over there to 'liberate' these people from opression. A war that is fought becuase one side caused a tradgedy in the other's country...that I can at least understand, even if I don't support it. But this latest conflict? Totally preemptive, based on the assumption of posession of Weapons of Mass Destruction which, it turns out (and no surprise at all on my part), he doesn't have at all, as far as anyone can tell. Hell, we've even got Dubya making very lame jokes over the fact that they can't find them, looking under the rug in the oval office 'n all. Maybe someone should be looking under his rug...see if they can find a brain between his ears, not the pocket of hot air I'm coming to believe more everyday is resident there.

Justice 4 Pat Richard

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 04:52
quote:
Where in the constitution of America, Britain, Australia, Spain or any of the other countires that joined the so-called 'Coalition of the Willing' does it give them the right to declare a pre-emptive war on a country simply becuase they don't like who is in power?

That's a very good question, Skaarjj. I'm not a constitutional scholar and I'm not really sure if our constitution directly speaks to that or not. I can tell you one thing though. This war on terror requires pre-emptive action *IF* we want to prevent more 9/11s.

If our constitution blocks pre-emptive actions then we will need to amend it. In the time our constitution was drafted, the ability to launch missiles from half way around the globe was not even remotely possible and if you were going to be attacked, it had to be done the old fashioned way.

North Korea claims they have weapons that can reach you and me, (you're in Australia right?) If you knew they would likely attack in that way, would you wait until they did, take the hit and *THEN* strike back? I suspect even you would consider a pre-emptive move prudent in a situation like that.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-24-2004 19:53)

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 04-25-2004 05:14

When Moore says:

quote:
Moore also says U.S. contractors in Iraq -- some of which have been murdered and mutilated -- "are not contractors. ... They are mercenaries and soldiers of fortune. They are there for the money."



He means it more literally - a lot are actually mercenaries and some of the people employed (specific the 2 South Africans that were caught in a recent hotel blast) are, by anyone's definition, evil scum.

One question though - whats your source for that Bugs? That looks like it has been editted and I think I'd need to see the full text of what he said to ge the proper gist of it.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 05:53

Straight from the horse's ........

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 06:00

Emps, and the other "contractors" that are actually doing the work of contractors? Are they mercenaries too because they are doing a job that pays them money? Are you telling me he was only referring to a few in Iraq leaving most people to assume he means anyone working there for a profit?


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Skaarjj
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: :morF
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 06:23

If you knew for certain that you were going to be attacked, and they weren't simply stockpiling 'for protection' the way America does, and if you knew for certain that absolutly nothing else you could do would stop it, then pre-emptive war may be the only option you have left. But it's a Devil and the Deep Blue Sea situation. I still wouldn't like it, and I still wouldn't support it, but if it's the only thing that can be reasonably done, then it's the only thing that can be reasonsably done.

However, we didn't know for certain that we were going to be attacked, and when it comes to Iraq, we didn't even know for certain if the weapons capable of doing that existed, and we still don't know now. This is the kind of war that I won't stand for. It's pre-emptive war, not for any such noble ideal as protecting the innocent or protecting the soverignty of your nation, but simply becuase you* can. Becuase you* are a super-power, and so feel like flexing your muscle by taking on someone you can safely convince everyone is the enemy.

*You: as in a collective you, signifying the members of the Coalition of the Willing, not you personally.

Justice 4 Pat Richard

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-25-2004 06:37

I appreciate your reply, Skaarjj We most certainly didn't think Iraq was going to attack us directly. That was never an issue. The only thing that came close would be them helping another group like Al Qaeda to do such a thing. That was a real possibility as long as Hussein was still running the show. So basically I'm hearing from you that you just don't like war under any circumstances and basically will never support one even when you think it's necessary. Fair enough.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Mooreon
Obsessive-Compulsive (I) Inmate

From:
Insane since: Apr 2004

posted posted 04-26-2004 16:19

I needed that, I'm referring to Bug's words. I've disliked Michael Moore for a long time now, ever since Bowling for Columbine, and the whole tired trend that followed it. As a "young person" I find I rarely have anyone I can politically relate to. Especially as a college student since I swim in a crowd of liberal, mindless, trend followers, every day. Anyway, that's all I had to say. I just stumbled upon this place, by chance, and am glad I did.

-Heather

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 04-26-2004 16:41
quote:
Bugimus said:

Straight from the horse's ........
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14



Thanks for that. Although I agree with the occasional point in that (when you dig through the bombast) like:

quote:
Halliburton is not a "company" doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested -- or worse.



The things you quote and more (if you'll exucse my pun) are him talking out his well upholstered backside. Its slightly embarassing being on his side of the debate sometimes

That said I suspect the right have their fair share of looney loudmouths who run fast and loose with the facts - in some ways I'm suprised we have so few

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 04-26-2004 18:12

^yeah, what he said.

I have no like for Moore, but just because he's an ass doesn't mean he doesn't have the occasional point.

Bugimus - You have to see that to many of the Iraqi people, the fear of US control of Iraq isn't much more appealing than a tyrannical dictator. Given the actions of the US and the Europeans in the middle east in the past, they cannot have anything other than a negative and distrusting view of our continued presence there.

It's hard for anyone other than Americans to see us the shining saviours you view us as...

austizmo
Nervous Wreck (II) Inmate

From: Texas
Insane since: Apr 2004

posted posted 04-26-2004 19:24

What I don't understand is where the Iraqi freedom fighters are. It seems to me that there are lots of Iriqis fighting agains -us-, but not so many fighting against the Sadam regime. Wouldn't a people who wanted to be free take action and ask for help, rather than letting someone bigger than they are come in and sieze power? Why are our sons and daughters fighting and dieing for Iraqi freedom when the only Iraqis doing the same are fighting against a completly different enemy. Us, for example?

No, to me this war wasn't about freedom for Iraqis, it was so Bush could save some face. He was new in office when the towers came down and people blame those in power for what goes wrong. Politically, he had to do something. It's just unfortunate that he chose to launch us into this ridiculous 'War on Terror'. Which is why I'll be voting for that jackass Kerry. At least with him in office we'll (hopefully) move out of Iraq and stop playing cowboy.

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: raht cheah
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 04-26-2004 20:16
quote:
It's hard for anyone other than Americans to see us the shining saviours you view us as...



This is simply not true, well, I guess it's true if you use the rather strong term "saviour" but I don't think the tone or implication is true at all. I have a few military friends on active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq and the citizens where they work day in and day out are quite happy about sharing the country and neighborhood with coalition troops.

You can spin that a hundred different ways but I'll leave that to abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, bbc, Moore and O'Reilly etc.

bitdamaged
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: 100101010011 <-- right about here
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-26-2004 21:06
quote:
We most certainly didn't think Iraq was going to attack us directly.



That's not entirely true. The whole WMD issue was based on the assumption that these weapons could be used to attack the U.S. directly.

Personally I run to the liberal side and while I do not always agree with the opinions of Michael Moore, I do respect him as an outspoken proponent of the left. The right has many very vocal supporters with equally strong statements (Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush etc. ) These ultra-conservatives every day voice opinions which are eqaully as outrageous if not more so. \\

quote:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
- Ann Coulter

"You and all your sodomite friends should all get AIDS and die"
- Michael Savage

(and my fav)

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be
convicted and they ought to be sent up."
- Rush Limbaugh.



All's fair in love and politics.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 04-26-2004 22:34

You will get no argument from me that both sides of the political spectrum have proponents such as these.

My main reason for posting this thread was to help explain why *I* dislike Moore. I have expressed my disgust with him in the past and I was asked why at the time. When these kinds of statements are made, I want to comment on them before I forget.

bit, what I meant by a direct attack from Iraq was that we didn't think Iraq was going to launch a chemical missile at us from that country or from a navy ship off our shores in a conventional war fashion. He didn't have the capability to do that. What was feared, however, was that he would be able to share WMDs with more clandestine groups that could use them against us.

Heather, welcome to the Asylum. Perhaps you can stumble by moore often. I just wish you weren't such a mooreon.

quote:
Bugimus - You have to see that to many of the Iraqi people, the fear of US control of Iraq isn't much more appealing than a tyrannical dictator. Given the actions of the US and the Europeans in the middle east in the past, they cannot have anything other than a negative and distrusting view of our continued presence there.

I absolutely do see why they would think that way. But their fears are not based in reality and it is imperative that we remain steadfast in demonstrating to them that we do not seek empire. Pulling out now would do far more damage to their opinion of us than any other single action we could take. Now that we've removed the tyrant, we must stay the course and give their country back to them in a way that it will be able to sustain itself while ensuring the rights of all minorities. It can be done, the question is whether we will stick with it or not.

quote:
It's hard for anyone other than Americans to see us the shining saviours you view us as...

Saviors perhaps... *shining*? Hardly. I have never seen us in that light. I take a long term and pragmatic approach to this. I see us as one of many players on the world stage. Whether we be angels or devils we will have to interact with our global neighbors. If you don't care how we act just that we do, then let's just become another Rome and drop all the pretext. But if we care to act in our own selfish interests *while at the same time* make life better for another country, why not? In my view, this is preferable to acting completely devoid of concern for others. I know that this is perhaps too muddled of a view to set well with many here, but I see much of the dealings in this world as extremely gray, I leave the black and white to the Michael Moores and Ann Coulters of the world.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-26-2004 13:36)

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu