I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jul 1st, 2004 06:17 PM

kellychaos

Actually, Moore did admit it was more of an op/ed piece than a documentary prior to it's release. Not that I don't think that he's a smug, opinionated shithead with an agenda but he was honest in that respect.

Jul 1st, 2004 05:37 PM

Bobo Adobo

I know, but i am. And Micheal Moore is apperently saying it isn't propaganda. Propaganda gives me the runs.

Jul 1st, 2004 10:26 AM

ziggytrix

i don't think anyone is trying to make that point tho, bobo.

Jul 1st, 2004 02:39 AM

Bobo Adobo

I just saw it. I liked it. It was very funny and had some great points. but it is definitally one sided propaganda. anybody who says otherwise is just stupid.

Jun 30th, 2004 11:40 PM

Matt Harty

I expected for him to use more ironic comedy like in Bowling For Columbine, but it was pretty good.

My Bush fanatic grandpa brought me to see it. Right after the movie ended he said "Fuck Moore" but said the movie was good.

Jun 29th, 2004 11:17 PM

Jixby Phillips

this movie wasn't as funny as cannadian bacon :/

Jun 29th, 2004 04:15 PM

conus

Quote:

lets start with cleaning up our conduct.

That might take some doing. The conduct of a few soldiers in the field pales when you compare it to some U.S. foreign policies and actions over the last fifty years. They've put into power and/or subsidized some of the most insane dictators ever to have walked this earth.

Jun 29th, 2004 03:52 PM

AChimp

Then you should issue a formal declaration of war against that country, not simply cross it's borders with your army and say that you're only looking for a handful of people.

Jun 29th, 2004 03:41 PM

Brandon

Quote:

lets start with cleaning up our conduct. step one might be to publicly abolish the policy of pre-emptive war.

Well, I disagree with that. I think preemptive war could be justified if a country has been proven to be sponsoring or planning terrorist activity against another.

Jun 29th, 2004 03:22 PM

ranxer

Quote:

Being taken prisoner is normal conduct in a war.

Having your head chopped off is normal conduct in a Middle Eastern prison.

the U.S. has been ignoring the Geneva convention.. do you think others should obey it when we aren't? i'm not defending beheading but i think its a tiny minority engaged in atrocities so we should be very careful how we react to that.. i'd hate to see more innocents killed as a result of this.

lets start with cleaning up our conduct. step one might be to publicly abolish the policy of pre-emptive war. [/quote]

Jun 29th, 2004 01:32 PM

george

i thought i made it clear that was just as bad as the marine. i was only going on about the military aspect in response to perndog making light of the situation.

Jun 29th, 2004 01:26 PM

ScruU2wice

so it's ok for middle aged contractors who have little to no military connection to be beheaded.

Just because beheading is commonplace doesn't mean it's alright, it's considered just as bad there as it is here...

Jun 29th, 2004 12:39 PM

george

i somehow doubt i was far off the mark.

yes, yawn, you have nothing to worry about. you are perfectly safe in your middle class insignifigance.

Jun 29th, 2004 12:27 PM

Perndog

Yawn. Ad hominem is fun, right? Especially when you don't know anything about your target, right? And when you're on the Internet so you don't have to provide any evidence at all, right?

Being taken prisoner is normal conduct in a war.

Having your head chopped off is normal conduct in a Middle Eastern prison.

I don't have anything more to say on the topic.

Jun 29th, 2004 12:05 PM

george

they chopped the head off a marine yesterday.

the marine was enaged in the occupation of a country we should have never invaded. even if you accept the occupation of iraq as something we should have been involved in (and being a dumb ass you might) then you can not seriously think that getting kidnapped and having your head chopped off is perfectly normal conduct during a war. it is murder no matter how you stand on the iraq issue.

it is easy for you to say "they volunteered for it". no they did not. they volunteered to defend their country against foes foriegn and domestic, not be the instruments for US oil policy. just cause somebody with more guts than your sorry ass will ever have made a commitment to serve the needs of his country does not mean that that pledge should be abused and misused and then shoved in their face to show them where they stand. it is especially people like you that make me disgusted by the current state of our country, you sit there in all your wussy splendor minimizing the loss of brave people with a smug "they volunteered for it" while you have never volunteered to do anything more signifigant than to buy the next round.

Jun 29th, 2004 12:03 PM

ziggytrix

But it IS murder if they capture you, then decapitate you while you are their prisoner.

Jun 29th, 2004 11:53 AM

Perndog

"murdered" soldiers

It's not murder if you volunteer for military service. Military = war = people die.

Jun 29th, 2004 11:40 AM

george

i plan to see this movie mostly because i already hate bush, and seeing him lampooned will amuse me. i dont care if moore is right or not, you can not want bush out of office ENOUGH as far as i am concerned.

ok, earlier there was sympathy for bush avoiding hard questions on the golf course by getting them to watch him swing the club, because he is on the golf course and what else should he be doing? HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE FUCKING GOLF COURSE!!!!!! HE IS ON FUCKING VACATION WHILE AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND CITIZENS ARE BEING FUCKING MURDERED IN A MOTHERFUCKING WAR THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER FUCKING EVER STARTED

I REALLY DONT KNOW WHY THAT IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU. IF YOUR BUSINESS IS FAILING, YOU STAY AT THAT MOTHERFUCKING JOB UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS FIXED. we all live like this, except for the laziest, lowest morons. he is playing fucking golf while i am paying five fucking dollars a gallon for milk to pay for american soldiers to be murdered. "now watch this swing" indeed

and for those of you in the 18 to 25 range, unless you feel like a mandatory vacation in southwest asia, you better get on the anti bush wagon, cause the government is preparing for it. they have been slowly hiring people into the selective service offices, and laying the groundwork.

bush IS evil, and there are so many reasons that it could make you puke if you reviewed them all ( i will start another thread for that idea), and no one seems to see it.

i am just glad moore is adding fuel to the anti-bush fire.

Jun 28th, 2004 03:15 PM

ScruU2wice

Some one made an interesting point about the whole Iraq playground scene, that we were totally being prepped for the war by the media but it musta been a total suprise to the people in Iraq. I think the whole playground thing was that people were living life as they do and all of a sudden America invades outta nowhere.

Jun 28th, 2004 12:43 AM

GAsux

Middle ground

Can we at least agree that you're probably better educated on the subject and more grounded than 70% of the country who will see this movie?

While someone who's relatively informed and interested in the subject may have the ability to determine what is or isn't being conveyed, how many do you suppose will have that same ability?

Moore in my opinion has been purposely ambigious on many fronts, not just the bin Laden issue because it makes his case much stronger than if he got into the detials. Veiled references leaving the viewer to draw their own conclusions about what hes hinting at is far more effective. Regardless of the validity of the argument.

Jun 28th, 2004 12:00 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Re: Why not...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

But does not that then rationalize the argument to detain prisoners at Gitmo? There very well may be no charges against them either, and perhaps they are guilty of nothing more than association as well, but by that logic it seems to me to justify detention of them as well. In fact, the folks at Gitmo are probably MORE connected to terrorist attacks and Al Qaeda than bin Laden's family.

IT WASN'T EVEN A WEEK AFTER 9/11!!!!!!! YES, detaining potential terrorists or terrorist-links is a GOOD thing, but detaining them with no trial for an undetermined amount of time at Gitmo seems to me like a BAD thing, but I digress....

They should've waited like everyone else, and more importantly, they should've been investigated again in light of their relative attacking our country. If we can detain people with Arabic names, or probe people who opposed the war in Iraq, then we can certainly inconvenience the fucking Bin Laden family for a few extra days. Put them up in a nice hotel, treat them like the royalty they certainly think they are. Do whatever, but keep them, probe them, and MAKE SURE.

Quote:

And again, it alludes to a veiled reference that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

I disagree. I think the point he was making was that the Bush family would/will kowtow to the Saudis, and that they would kowtow so much as to let people with possible terrorist attachments fly out like beloved diplomats. I don't think Moore ever argues for Bush complicity with 9/11, although you could certainly argue that his ambiguity dances on the line at times throughout the film....

Jun 27th, 2004 10:58 PM

GAsux

Why not...

I wont get into all of that because it becomes a long winded argument which Im too lazy to engage in on a Sunday night.

But does not that then rationalize the argument to detain prisoners at Gitmo? There very well may be no charges against them either, and perhaps they are guilty of nothing more than association as well, but by that logic it seems to me to justify detention of them as well. In fact, the folks at Gitmo are probably MORE connected to terrorist attacks and Al Qaeda than bin Laden's family.

I agree they should have had to wait just like everyone else. But that's not the heart of the argument. And again, it alludes to a veiled reference that Bush was somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Jun 27th, 2004 10:11 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Re: Stuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

Regardless, here's what I'm saying with regards to the bin Laden family. The familes activities, connections, etc are well documented. They've been traced, followed, etc for the better half of the 90s. When the CIA created is "bin Laden" team, they basically obsessed themselves with everything Usama.

The reason I beleive it's NOT a valid argument is because I believe that bin Laden's family connections had already been exhaustively studied, with the conclusion being they had virtually no ties, almost no communication (there was indications that he contact mom a few times) and no control or persuasion over anything he did.

I'm fairly certain that if you took a poll of Americans, and askedthem the number one failure that may have led to 9/11, more people would point to CIA intelligence failures than to the Bush/Bin Laden links. You say that the Saudi/Bin Laden point had already been harped upon, when it reality it's only post 9/11, and more specifically post 9/11 panel hearings, that those matters have taken on a wider debate within the general public. Yes, intellectuals and ex-CIA operatives have been writing books for years. But those people are always writing books and are always expressing opinions on how the world does or should function. In contrast, a small cottage industry has appeared to pop up in regards to intelligence failures, more books have been written, and it has become "common knowledge" that our intelligence is supposedly poor.

Moore was presenting, from his partisan perspective, a more nefarious argument that implcates the President more so, and strips him of that deniability. I think you're wrong when you argue that the Bush/Saudi link has been exhausted. Perhaps amongst a select few, but the debate is just now taking it's place in the spot light, and rightfully so, IMO.

Quote:

It wasnt as if bin Ladens family was living here in the U.S. and all around the world for years while we were targeting him as a chief backer of terrorism without pursuing that avenue. It was already done and over at that point and there was no reason to believe that they had any worthwhile information in the first place.

So why not let more people fly? As Moore himself points out, why ground harmless Ricky Martin? The comparisons to O.J., and McVeigh's mom, and whoever, just don't apply to this scenario. Once again, IMO, "exhausted outlets" could endure just a bit more "exhausting" when 3,000 Americans die.

And who says they had no worthwile information? You don't even question them? Fine, granted, let's say they were exhausted resources. Why do they get special exceptions? Why does this government scoop them up around the country? And please, don't give me the American backlash argument. They could've been protected in that case.

I'll say it again-- it's a day or two after arguably the worst attack on American soil ever, and you're going to tell me that we can go ahead and give them the green light to leave as a special exception, because the resource had been "exhausted" already.....?

Jun 27th, 2004 10:02 PM

Brandon

Re: Clarity

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

Why not focus on real issues instead of arguments that lead nowhere? The bin Laden argument seems to imply that Bush is somehow mysteriously complicit in the 9/11 attacks, although the connection is vague and blury. It still gives the feeling that something sinister was afoot. The inability to stop suspected terrorists from entering the country in the first place or monitor their suspicious activities once they were in the country speaks more to beauracracy and mismanagement, which is far less sexy and sells far fewer books/papers/movies.

Moore seems much more interested in making the Bushies out to be pure evil. Case in point? Intercutting video of Lila Lipscomb's grief with video of Bush smirking, blinking, or just generally looking clueless.

Jun 27th, 2004 09:51 PM

GAsux

Clarity

To further express what I'm getting at, the bin Laden family thing is suspect at absolute best. There has been no connection or indication of bin Laden having any type of communication with his family. Even if there had been an investigation, what could the possibly have hoped to get.

Rather than marginalize the argument with heresay and paper dragons, why not address the fact that at least half of the people who ACTUALLY COMMITTED the acts of 9/11 were on suspected terrorist "watch" lists, yet still managed to gain access to the country and live for several years in some cases, completely unmonitored.

Why not focus on real issues instead of arguments that lead nowhere? The bin Laden argument seems to imply that Bush is somehow mysteriously complicit in the 9/11 attacks, although the connection is vague and blury. It still gives the feeling that something sinister was afoot. The inability to stop suspected terrorists from entering the country in the first place or monitor their suspicious activities once they were in the country speaks more to beauracracy and mismanagement, which is far less sexy and sells far fewer books/papers/movies.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off