Tonight on Fox: When Angry Liberals Attack!! 5!!!

[demonixz]

Guess what kids! I just got in from the new Michael Moore film!

I suspect some people would have guessed me seeing it would trigger an anti-Bush rant...

I'll get that out of the way. Americans: Your president is a corrupt, cheating, insane, trivial minded, murdering bastard! If you elect him (I don't blame you for last time), I'm giving up on your country!

That's out of the way. Mike's film didn't change my opinion on that subject one bit - I've always felt that way about the Chimp-a-like ruler of the 'free world'.

Here are the things I am going to rant on:

1. People hating Mike for not being impartial, and spinning like a top.
2. Why Mike is right about the Orwell connection.
3. Why the hell did we never get to see that footage? You know the stuff. The dead baby. The bombing run. All the dead American soldiers. How did they hide all that?
4. Why are there children fighting in a war?

And a couple of other related points.

(Note:  At this point I went to cook a roast dinner)

Post roast rant:

Mike and spinning like a top - why do people have a problem? He's a polemecist guys - he's not setting out to be impartial, and if you even think he is, you're nuts. That's like saying a republican election campaign is unbiased, or that Fox news is totally impartial. His aim is to convert you to his point of view, or if you already agree, to crank you up to a higher level of agreeing. He spins, he manipulates (yeah, like Jerry Bruckheimer or whoever consulting on the coverage of the war for the US govt.), he omits things and near as damn lies about stuff, he bigs up spurious connections. All that.

But you know actually? That's not a bad thing. Christ, in the states it looks to me like you guys seriously need at least one person to do this, to be biased my way, and Mike's way. Because your media is bent so hard the other way it hurts my head to think about it. Seriously. If you are American, possibly you don't know how insane your media coverage of Iraq was to somebody seeing it from outside the bubble (I know very few yanks get non-American news). Newscasters cheering the war and vocally stating a bias towards the government? What is that about? See why I think you lot need Mike? No matter how blue you bleed, even if you've got BUSH written in the middle of you when you get cut in half.. You've got to see my point here - somebody has to spin the other way, America is so right wing anyway (yeah, your Democrats are somewhere right of our Conservatives mostly), that you need at least one person to pitch for our pinko-commie team. And as far as I can see, Mike's about the only guy who can do it on a scale to make a dent - not to mention, you'd need to be blind not to spot that part of the point of his documentaries is to satirise CNN, Fox & the mob.

So quit your whining about him not telling the story dead down the middle, we need Mike spinning the other way. Somebody has to.

So why do I think Mike's slightly OTT Orwell reference is actually spot on?  I used my memory.

That changed record is nothing - hands up who has to make an effort to remember that we went to war to find WMDs? Hands up who only just recalls that Afghanistan pipeline? Rice, Bush, Blair, Powell... All certain of where those phantom WMDs were? Does anybody remember a guy called Blix? Hey - how about Bush saying Iraq wasn't a threat?

See my point? Somehow even a rabid tree-hugger like me has been so spun by everybody, that I found these things fuzzy. I'd started to actually believe the Bush-Blair myth. Remarkable.

This rolls nicely on into the mystery footage. I didn't see that on the 9 o'clock news. I didn't see that dead baby. I didn't see that bombing - I saw bombing, I never saw the sky burning like that. I didn't see those charred bodies either, or that freaked out soldier.

I live in the UK, I saw stuff I'd guess never made it to Fox.. But even here, we saw none of that. Not that kid's arm blown to ... And I don't know why. I can guess, that the footage was tough to get hold of, so on.. But somehow, that's not a great explanation....

What else? Those kids. The child-soldiers. That girl telling her team they were almost certain to be attacked. What are children doing killing, and dieing? Please tell me that? And hey, those kids listening to metal music whilst shooting the Iraqis? You think they're grown-up enough to do that? To be there? I didn't. They looked less mature than my 15 year old brother.

One last thing here. I can see a bunch of reasons the US, or more specifically Bush, went to war (Oil, revenge, elections, distraction, diversion), but I want to know why in the name of all that really matters.. Why, did Teflon Tony drag us in too? We knew for a fact that Iraq wasn't a risk. But somehow I can't make myself believe that we went in to 'free' Iraq. It doesn't jive. We don't fight wars over that, and certainly not without the backing of the UN.

So why were we there? That's one hell of a choke-hold, your country has over mine, to make us do that. I want to know what it is.  


***EDIT***

Your language is way over the line.

[demonixz]

Tonight on Fox: When Angry Liberals Attack!! 5!!!

[Mefistofeles]

Its quite obvious why Britain became involved in Iraq: to participate in the reconstruction and create a limited British sphere of influence in the middle east.  Billions of dollars worth of reconstruction contracts have gone to British firms in addition when the shooting stops British multinationals will play a crucial role in rehabilitating and receiving the wealth of Iraq's oil industry.

For political reasons being Iraq also helps establish Britain as a power (albeit as a junior partner in an American led alliance) in the middle east.  Besides the Brits can always play the role of "good cop" in the Anglo American alliance "restraining" the "bad cop" in exchange for some sort favors or accomodation from the arabs.

I think this deal was too good for Tony Blair to pass.  Unfortunately for Blair the British people do not feel the same.

In light of the relatively light British casualties and the economic and political oppurtunities opened up by the war in Iraq I'm quite surprised that the British people have reacted so negatively towards this limited foray into empire.

[demonixz]

I'd tend to agree with you, but I couldn't possibly prove it.

And there are a lot of reasons - we don't like the fact that our PM is Bush's sycophant, we weren't happy with the reasons given for war, or that we went even though most of us didn't want to.. So on, and on, and ariston.

[Zut50]

Its a good film isnt it! I laughed, I cried (seriously; Im very wet!!), and I genuinely found it all quite fascinating.

Like demonixz said, Blair is afraid to say no to Bush! I think hes trying to keep America sweet so that European relations can afford to slide whilst he gets Mandelson to spin it for him

Whats the Orwell connection you are refering to?.. I cant remeber that bit anymore!

[Mefistofeles]

Unfortunately you bring up a good up point.  No matter how much the war may benefit Britain at the very least he misdirected the British people about the war.  Britain also has a relatively large muslim population; I am sure that has probably done wonders for this war support as well.   Although I can't be sure I suspect that underlying ethnic and racial tension in British society may have adversely affected support for the war.

Another problem Tony has is the British public's aversion to empire.  Playing the empire game is probably the last thing the British public wants; no matter how compelling the economic and political benefits might be.

I think there are many good arguments for and against the war regardless of the WMD issue.   I happen to be against the war but even without the WMD I think its possible to make a very strong case for going to Iraq.

[demonixz]

No doubt, there was good cause for getting rid of Saddam.  But that wasn't why we went, and if it was, why did they lie to us? Not to mention, getting rid of him the way we did was farcical.

And I can't speak for the rest of the UK, but I dislike what I see as an empire mindset in both Teflon Tony, and Bush.

Zut - right at the end, there's a long quote from 1984, specifically a bit on the reasons for the unending war that goes on in that book. I don't entirely agree with how Mike uses it, but I do think its an appropriate reference to make.
Michael Moore films always take me on a bit of a ride, I laugh, I cry, and I end up feeling really, really angry

[ScutMonkey]

Nine Lies of F-911

A little logic about this "Bush Lied" craziness.

Things only Fox is reporting.  This right after the 9/11 report said that British and American intellegence actually BOLSTERED the fact that Saddam was working towards nukes.  Of course, this was buried in the press, not shouted from the hills like every casualty is each night.  Casualties, which I might add, have gone towards a deed that's kept the US safer at home, if not in Iraq, but Americans were never safe in Iraq.

Other things the Kay Report found in Iraq, but the press refuses to talk about.

Yet more things our mainstream media isn't discussing.  Which leads to the ENTIRE Food for Oil scandal and the fact that German, Russian, and French intellegence all was presented to the UN showing Iraq had WMDs and they were the reason for inspections in the first place.  What's worth noting is that the countries that voted against us and the countries that had illegal contracts with Iraq are one and the same - Russia, France, and Germany.  It's even goes up to the top because the man that arranged those contracts was Kofi Anan's son and good ole Kofi is none other than the head of the UN.  But of course, our press isn't talking about it and neither is Michael Moore.  Why?  Because it doesn't support his contentions.

The number of things supporting Bush that don't make it into the mainstream news could fill an ocean, so I don't buy any of this twaddle about how the American media is in the pocket of Bush or whatever, because it's not.

PS.  Vorlon, Connor?  Here you have yet another international representative posting in our forums.  Add him to your list.  Please note that he's a regular with over 700 posts.

[Laurie]

Sorry, but "the other side is doing it too," will never be a valid argument to me.  Call me an idealist, but I maintain that it is possible to present an alternative, even argumentative viewpoint without resorting to emotional manipulation and bending of the truth.  If both sides do that, where does it leave the people stuck in the middle?  

I'm all for getting both sides of a story represented to the people. But when propaganda seems to be the only thing that works to get through to us, it seems that we, the people, have a lot to answer for when it comes to the state of rational political discourse in this country (and elsewhere.)

[Wunderbolt]

Perhaps the Right Wing should make a movie praising GWB and the work he's done. Put in all the stuff that Scut linked to. Maybe get a sort of Counter-Moore personality to make it.

[Mefistofeles]

I don't know how to tell you this Laurie but people like the Truth up to a Point.   Cognitive psychologist know that people have a distorted perception of themselves and tend to think more highly of themselves than they actually are.   Supposedly the only sort of people with an "accurate" self image tend to be either clinically depressed or suffer from self esteem.  We are prone to self deception.

In my opinion if we discussed oil and war we would have to ask ALOT of question about society itself.  We are running out of oil; the large oil field at GHAWAR Saudi Arabia has been pumping for nearly 40 years.  There have been few discoveries that will be able to produce at the same level as those fields in Saudi Arabia. From what I understand production here in California has been declining preciptously.   We have to face an ugly fact: that the world may be running out of oil.

Of course if the world is running out of oil then we have to ask ourselves painful questions: should we build mass transit.  Should government begin instituting MUCH HIGHER CAFE standards?  What would happen to the big three automanufacturers if we serverely curtailed SUV production?

If you ultimately look the war( regardless of the reasons that it was actually fought) it raises some very serious questions about the sustainiability of current energy consumption.   Of course what this means is will we have to reduce our expectations for our standard of living.   These are questions that people do not want to ponder because they mean less consumption.  Americans live for the here and now and howl and scream if anyone in Washington had enough courage to tell them the truth: that they burning up too much energy and unless we invest the money and technology into alternative energy this society's standard of living may fall precipitously.

[Zut50]

Scut - You cant fight propaganda with more propaganda and expect us to suddenly beleive you. But by the same token, if you expect any right minded person to go into F9/11 and come out thinking 'MY GOD, Bush is EVIL!!' then you would also be mistaken!! The film is VERY compelling but ultimately people make up their own minds, and Im pretty sure Moore knew that; he seemed to me to present a very broad spectrum of arguments such that the whole audience could be persuaded.

But those nine lies look rather dodgy to me... #9 for instance it total BS. It assumes that there IS a link between Iraq and 9/11, and then it tries to suggest that Saddam was a threat??? WTF?! If the average American family was moving to the US then I might buy that, but it is TROOPS in Iraq that are threatened in such a way. Troops that were sent to invade the region. Americas and american soil were not and are not threatened by the Iraqis.

[demonixz]

Quote
Originally posted by: Wunderbolt
Perhaps the Right Wing should make a movie praising GWB and the work he's done. Put in all the stuff that Scut linked to. Maybe get a sort of Counter-Moore personality to make it.

I'd go and see it I imagine, and if I did, I'd get mad about how they've spun the facts too

There is a complete source list for the film - all the facts are true, but even Mike says that all the opinions are his - disagree with his spin, but the facts are real facts.

Laurie - I wish it would work that way, but unless both sides agreed to do it like that, and we had referees... One side gets pounded.  But there is something in what you say, do you take the moral highground, let people make up their own minds based on the facts, and get the crap kicked out of you because the other guy isn't playing fair? I don't even know really. Probably a question of how far you go.
In this case, Mike made a movie, and to some extent, you couldn't do this one without emotional manipulation... Could you do any movie without that?


Actually what the world probably needs is somebody impartial to come along and do the same thing, but present both sides of the argument. Not going to happen though.

Scut - that first source is as biased as Mike, Republican National Committee? Hm.

Mind you, some of what they're saying is valid if you consider the movie a documentary - of course you're seeing a lot of single inferences drawn with others ignored. Doesn't mean the single inferences are to be dismissed.

#2 is again, a 'young conservative journalist', and Mr. Moore never said Clinton, Blair etc. etc. weren't lieing. I'm inclined to think that most of them were, but then, I'd guess Saddam was as well. (The bastard did keep saying he had WMDs after all).

#3 is more interesting, but I can't find any reports besides the Fox one right now, so I'll comment later.

#4 isn't a source I'd be comfortable calling reliable because it looks like their info on that comes from Insight, which has the entire frontpage of its site dedicated to bashing Kerry, and also looks like a bit of a tabloid. And again, I'd need a bit of time to go looking for other sources on this.

And number five.. I thought everybody had now agreed that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Quaeda? This smells like Mike's dodgy bit on the Saudi's funding Bush to me.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: demonixz

Quote
Originally posted by: Wunderbolt
Perhaps the Right Wing should make a movie praising GWB and the work he's done. Put in all the stuff that Scut linked to. Maybe get a sort of Counter-Moore personality to make it.

I'd go and see it I imagine, and if I did, I'd get mad about how they've spun the facts too

Haven't seen it, but it's supposed to be fascinating.

Quote
There is a complete source list for the film - all the facts are true, but even Mike says that all the opinions are his - disagree with his spin, but the facts are real facts.

Then why has he hired lawyers and fact checkers to defend his film?  Regardless, it's as much the facts that don't make it into his film as anything else.

Quote
Laurie - I wish it would work that way, but unless both sides agreed to do it like that, and we had referees... One side gets pounded.  But there is something in what you say, do you take the moral highground, let people make up their own minds based on the facts, and get the crap kicked out of you because the other guy isn't playing fair? I don't even know really. Probably a question of how far you go.

In this case, Mike made a movie, and to some extent, you couldn't do this one without emotional manipulation... Could you do any movie without that?

Sure you could, but the real question is would people watch.  Emotional manipulation works better than dry fact telling.  

Quote
Actually what the world probably needs is somebody impartial to come along and do the same thing, but present both sides of the argument. Not going to happen though.

You're right.  It's not.

Quote
Scut - that first source is as biased as Mike, Republican National Committee? Hm.

Oh yeah it is.  Several of my posts were, but my point was for you to take a look at what the other side is saying and see if you could find anything compelling in it.  There are plenty of facts presented in all of those pieces and some of them are very striking.  The link about the Kay Report is something I've seen on a couple of sites, but I've never seen it on any mainstream media outlet and that's more than a little disturbing.  If anybody wanted to go find it, the Kay Report should be public record and any of us could check that article's veracity against it.

Quote
Mind you, some of what they're saying is valid if you consider the movie a documentary - of course you're seeing a lot of single inferences drawn with others ignored. Doesn't mean the single inferences are to be dismissed.

The "documentary" lable is the single most frustrating thing about Moore's movies.  They aren't documentaries.  They are propoganda.

Quote
#2 is again, a 'young conservative journalist', and Mr. Moore never said Clinton, Blair etc. etc. weren't lieing. I'm inclined to think that most of them were, but then, I'd guess Saddam was as well. (The bastard did keep saying he had WMDs after all).

It's just too big a leap to saying that many leaders of that many countries were lying.  Bush didn't lie.  He was mislead by bad intellegence and so were leaders from all over the world.

Quote
#3 is more interesting, but I can't find any reports besides the Fox one right now, so I'll comment later.  

That's my point.  You don't find things like this is most American press because it supports Bush.  Our media hates him.  Google News on Uranium removal.  There are links from all over the world about that story, but there ain't many from the US.  Ask yourself why.

Quote
#4 isn't a source I'd be comfortable calling reliable because it looks like their info on that comes from Insight, which has the entire frontpage of its site dedicated to bashing Kerry, and also looks like a bit of a tabloid. And again, I'd need a bit of time to go looking for other sources on this.  

I've seen at least two other places that talk about it on the web.  I'd google some of those sentences with findings and see what it turns up.

Quote
And number five.. I thought everybody had now agreed that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Quaeda? This smells like Mike's dodgy bit on the Saudi's funding Bush to me.

There are plenty of people out there that haven't conceeded that point because the fact of the matter is Hussein opperatives met with Al-Queda opperatives twice before 9/11 happened.  I can't remember specific details right now, but once was in Eastern Europe and the other was in SE Asia.  It also doesn't help that we found a terrorist training ground in Iraq with a jet on a training ground used for manuevers and it also doesn't help that Saddam was hiding terrorists like Abu Nidal (among others) in his country.  

Now the question I ask myself when I see all of these links in conservative commentary, but NOT in mainstream news is "why am I not hearing about this everywhere" and that bothers me.  There is alot of disturbing information out there that is either being ignored, or is being buried on the back page.  Nobody's talking about the Oil For Food scandal and that's easily the biggest scandal in the history of the UN.  Billions in illegal oil contracts with that money diverted not to food for starving Iraqis but to a homicidal dictator who openly supports terrorism.  Fact:  Saddam openly paid $25,000 to the family of each Palestinian suicide bombers.  Fact:  Saddam openly praised 9/11 terrorists and said they were doing the "will of God."  That story should be bigger.

[demonixz]

Eh. I imagine the reason he's got the lawyers & fact checkers is because everybody says he's a big fat liar, and he'd like to prove he isn't. I'm told you can make $10,000 if you can prove any of his facts in the movie are fabricated as well.

I may look into the 'Siege' film. Although I can already feel it making my blood boil

We did have stuff about Oil for food in several UK papers, as well as on the BBC in fact, same with Saddam supporting the 11/9 terrorists.

And as always, the facts are usually intruigingly different to the way you see them spun.  But y'know, I would trust Mike not to be fibbing, but I wouldn't trust my government or the states not to be.

/me is off to rifle google news again.

[VorLonUK]

I haven't seen it yet, ie the film, but what I did see in the trailors was indicative with everything I see when I watch GWB on the TV. All Moore has done is "highlight" for the benefit of the American people those traits the rest of the world can see without squinting.

Extreme?, yes, probably. But probably needed to actually get the message and facts across as we know how dismissive some Americans can be. If he's caused a stir, then he's done the job and got the message across.

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK
...we know how dismissive some Americans can be.

Yeah, almost as dismissive as those Liberal Brits  

[VorLonUK]

Quote
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK
...we know how dismissive some Americans can be.

Yeah, almost as dismissive as those Liberal Brits  

LOL True

But seriously do you know who are the "Liberals" in the UK?

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK

Yeah, almost as dismissive as those Liberal Brits  

LOL True

But seriously do you know who are the "Liberals" in the UK?

Well Blair's party, actually.  I'm willing to bet that about the only thing political I share in common with him is Iraq.

[Overkill]

Quote
Well Blair's party, actually

Uh-uh!! The Liberals are a party in the UK (Liberal Democrats) and tend to eptomise all that the American Right hates. Funny that!! Mind you if the US right hates them, they must have some seriously good ideas...............

Blairs "New Labour" government is about as "Liberal" as Mrs T.    

[GonnaBiteIt]

demonixz. Zut50 and VorLonUK you guys don't belong to some sleeper cell in the UK do you by any chance?  Intellegence is noticing an increase in anti-American comments coming from threads you participate in.  I think we need to have a pre-emptive strike.  We know you have WMD (Words of Mass Destruction).

Nothing personal, just an observation as of late

[Overkill]

Quote
Intellegence is noticing an increase in anti-American comments coming from threads you participate in

Uh huh............. So, it's ok to slag everybody else off in the World, but when it's the "good ole' USA" taking a bit of Flak suddenly it's uncool? Give us a break!!

Scut and the others defend the US's corner quite nicely without having to stoop to that one liner.

[GonnaBiteIt]

Quote
Scut and the others defend the US's corner quite nicely without having to stoop to that one liner.

By nothing personal, I meant there was nothing wrong with it.  It would be a quiet forum if everyone thought the same way about everything.  We have plenty of people in here to attack and defend almost any issue.  I guess I play too many online games and I am used to the one liners.  I have to much apathy to research real debatable solutions to the worlds problems, I'll leave that to those in power.  

Just as Rugged gets called out for his crude comments towards Muslims or the French I figured I could turn on a spotlight too.  

[Overkill]

Quote
Rugged gets called out for his crude comments towards Muslims or the French

Hey, leave Ruggles out of this!!

[demonixz]

Eh. The USA is the most powerful nation in the world, you guys can take the rest of us having a go