Dear Mike (Michael Moore)
- Thread starter RandFan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael moore
Otther:
" Uh...
I just wanted to mention that while I understand the position that 1441 was not breached because the UNSC did not say it was so... it seems to me an absurd one as had the presidential idiot been correct about the WMDs, and we had found several completed nuclear bombs in Iraq... the one taking this position would be forced by consistency to say that Saddam was still not in breach (at least before the UNSC reacted to the hypothetical findings). I do not doubt demon's ( and IdiotIon's) sincerity, as it appears to me such conviction could be the only thing able to compel one to use an argument so disconected from the real world."
My, that's a devastating refutation of my argument!
I realise peoples distaste around here at the idea of acting from consistency but, actually, if the inspectors had found a couple of nuclear devices (not remotely plausible since Iraq was unable to successfully develop one even with years of US/UK/French/German assistance), although they would have constituted clear non-compliance with UN Resolutions, they would not have been an automatic trigger for war or evidence that Iraq had missed its 'final chance'. This seems to be a notion that you're grappling with, but you only go to war and kill lots of people when there's +no+ other option. That`s something few people seem to recognize or are even interested in. Why would UNMOVIC finding even a couple of nuclear bombs in Iraq have necessitated an attack?
Only if Iraq had then attempted to block UNMOVIC from dismantling them and installing monitoring facilities could that argument have been made. Even then, the case for invasion is not made -a surgical strike on the complex perhaps would have been justified but why invasion?
Assuming they didn't obstruct UNMOVIC, then the bombs would have been dismantled, Iraq disarmed, and mission accomplished without any need to invade -and the US objective -a disarmed Iraq would have been achieved without loss of life. And disarming Iraq was the objective wasn't it? .... er, wasn't it?
Disconnected from the real world? I don't think so -I kept my posts on this issue entirely rooted in known fact and logical argument and I sourced all my claims and quotations. If I'm so adrift from the actualite it should be child's play for you to have written a shattering rebuttal of my argument. I don't see one.
Perhaps these are complicated issues but you have to make an effort to understand them and LOOK at the maneuvers of the US and the UK in the run up to war (I set a lot of it out, it has been ignored), before you start arguing about them. The point is, Iraq never breached 1441, and the UN never authorized an attack despite the ridiculous efforts to sanction one by the US and the UK.
Anyone with a clear mind and who resorted to credible evidence saw the WMD thing for what it was - a lie. It was so evident in the run up because the US again and again resorted to discredited evidence, suppressed other credible evidence and NEVER, not once, came through with the evidence it said it would show to convince us. So when you go beyond this point in your discussion of a cynical resolution founded in nothing but the desire for violence by the USUK, you show a disconnectedness that trumps anything you accuse me of showing.
As for those who wish to deny that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and continue to defend the abuse of the UNSC process you might like to take it up with Richard Perle.
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."'
Richard Perle, quoted in 'Bush in Britain : War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal,' in the Guardian, November 20th, 2003.
Go right ahead...pick and choose your absurdities, hell knows there are plenty to go around in this concocted fraud.
" Uh...
I just wanted to mention that while I understand the position that 1441 was not breached because the UNSC did not say it was so... it seems to me an absurd one as had the presidential idiot been correct about the WMDs, and we had found several completed nuclear bombs in Iraq... the one taking this position would be forced by consistency to say that Saddam was still not in breach (at least before the UNSC reacted to the hypothetical findings). I do not doubt demon's ( and IdiotIon's) sincerity, as it appears to me such conviction could be the only thing able to compel one to use an argument so disconected from the real world."
My, that's a devastating refutation of my argument!
I realise peoples distaste around here at the idea of acting from consistency but, actually, if the inspectors had found a couple of nuclear devices (not remotely plausible since Iraq was unable to successfully develop one even with years of US/UK/French/German assistance), although they would have constituted clear non-compliance with UN Resolutions, they would not have been an automatic trigger for war or evidence that Iraq had missed its 'final chance'. This seems to be a notion that you're grappling with, but you only go to war and kill lots of people when there's +no+ other option. That`s something few people seem to recognize or are even interested in. Why would UNMOVIC finding even a couple of nuclear bombs in Iraq have necessitated an attack?
Only if Iraq had then attempted to block UNMOVIC from dismantling them and installing monitoring facilities could that argument have been made. Even then, the case for invasion is not made -a surgical strike on the complex perhaps would have been justified but why invasion?
Assuming they didn't obstruct UNMOVIC, then the bombs would have been dismantled, Iraq disarmed, and mission accomplished without any need to invade -and the US objective -a disarmed Iraq would have been achieved without loss of life. And disarming Iraq was the objective wasn't it? .... er, wasn't it?
Disconnected from the real world? I don't think so -I kept my posts on this issue entirely rooted in known fact and logical argument and I sourced all my claims and quotations. If I'm so adrift from the actualite it should be child's play for you to have written a shattering rebuttal of my argument. I don't see one.
Perhaps these are complicated issues but you have to make an effort to understand them and LOOK at the maneuvers of the US and the UK in the run up to war (I set a lot of it out, it has been ignored), before you start arguing about them. The point is, Iraq never breached 1441, and the UN never authorized an attack despite the ridiculous efforts to sanction one by the US and the UK.
Anyone with a clear mind and who resorted to credible evidence saw the WMD thing for what it was - a lie. It was so evident in the run up because the US again and again resorted to discredited evidence, suppressed other credible evidence and NEVER, not once, came through with the evidence it said it would show to convince us. So when you go beyond this point in your discussion of a cynical resolution founded in nothing but the desire for violence by the USUK, you show a disconnectedness that trumps anything you accuse me of showing.
As for those who wish to deny that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and continue to defend the abuse of the UNSC process you might like to take it up with Richard Perle.
"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."'
Richard Perle, quoted in 'Bush in Britain : War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal,' in the Guardian, November 20th, 2003.
Go right ahead...pick and choose your absurdities, hell knows there are plenty to go around in this concocted fraud.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
Ion said:
Who was keeping Sadman in line and your answer was the UN???
Oh I see I wonder if those in Sadmans prisons getting beat to death only to recover enough for another beating, to be beat to survive only for another beating. Maybe while watching their daughters and wives raped, while they are too weak to do anything.
Or specifically one daughter raped and hung in front of her father by her arms, while the guards electric shock parts of her small body. Then the family is released and in school have to disown their own father who is in jail.
Iwonder if these would agree with your answer that the UN was keeping Sadman in line. Not to mention his sons and their bright adventures.
I understand now you are so clear I see the errors of my ways. The UN was doing a fine job. Things should have stayed the way they were, it was much better.
I have come to the conclusion while looking at your conversations with others, that you have no desire for discussion of any sort.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
Question for RF and et el
Ion you may as well not bother, you ignored it earlier and thats fine with me.
1
I understand the "stuff" in the palaces was basically gone when the troops arrived. I remember a story about a maid saying they packed it all up and took it to a country home. (somewhere along the way she managed to escape)
Now, some was certainly looted especially in the museum but where did it go? Or is it known where is several palaces deep of belongings.
2
Sadman recieved awards for all his work with the children, Other than to make himself look great (like they did on each of his birthdays) WHY does one think that Sadman had so much concern for the children.
Ion you may as well not bother, you ignored it earlier and thats fine with me.
1
I understand the "stuff" in the palaces was basically gone when the troops arrived. I remember a story about a maid saying they packed it all up and took it to a country home. (somewhere along the way she managed to escape)
Now, some was certainly looted especially in the museum but where did it go? Or is it known where is several palaces deep of belongings.
2
Sadman recieved awards for all his work with the children, Other than to make himself look great (like they did on each of his birthdays) WHY does one think that Sadman had so much concern for the children.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
One more thing as I was surfing for that palace question I found a web page that has some interesting quotes.
http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html
I dont know if I agree with Mr Whipple but the quotes are interesting.
It is a complicated world and I would venture a guess that at some time in history each country has been "in bed" with another for some reason or other. The political landscape changes daily, is there a time when there was not war of some kind.
North America has been rather insulated over the years but with the world community expanding, its not so suprising that it starts happening there. Canada remains the only one on the Al queda Hit List that hasnt been. Jordan was the other one left.
http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html
I dont know if I agree with Mr Whipple but the quotes are interesting.
It is a complicated world and I would venture a guess that at some time in history each country has been "in bed" with another for some reason or other. The political landscape changes daily, is there a time when there was not war of some kind.
North America has been rather insulated over the years but with the world community expanding, its not so suprising that it starts happening there. Canada remains the only one on the Al queda Hit List that hasnt been. Jordan was the other one left.
No, I don't have a lot more "...desire for discussion...".Kitty Chan said:
This fact stays unnegotiable:
..............................................
take RF's and OttherIdiotMole's hands, and together off you go to Iraq to prove that WMDs are in Iraq in breach of U.N. Resolution 1441 -just like Bush pretended in order to start his war-, so that you can cover better than until now Bush's oil for blood in Iraq.
Ready?
Go!
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
RF,
This thread is a good example of a valiant attempt at rational argument with people who are insane, e.g., Demon and lon.
If you spend all of your time arguing with people who are nuts, you'll be exhausted and the nuts will still be nuts. That's why you should learn to agree with people who are nuts. But you don't need to agree in a humiliating, suck-up way. Just nod and back carefully away toward the door.
See? You could have done that 6 pages ago and this thread would have had the exact same impact!
-z
BTW: I'm still happy that my grandfather and his buddies participated in D-day to free the French from the Nazis. I just wish the French memory was not so short. The French honoring MM is like the Germans honoring the Vichy French....a clear example of preaching to the choir. Makes me wonder what great film at Cannes was sacrificed so that MM's political screed could win "best film"??
This thread is a good example of a valiant attempt at rational argument with people who are insane, e.g., Demon and lon.
If you spend all of your time arguing with people who are nuts, you'll be exhausted and the nuts will still be nuts. That's why you should learn to agree with people who are nuts. But you don't need to agree in a humiliating, suck-up way. Just nod and back carefully away toward the door.
See? You could have done that 6 pages ago and this thread would have had the exact same impact!
-z
BTW: I'm still happy that my grandfather and his buddies participated in D-day to free the French from the Nazis. I just wish the French memory was not so short. The French honoring MM is like the Germans honoring the Vichy French....a clear example of preaching to the choir. Makes me wonder what great film at Cannes was sacrificed so that MM's political screed could win "best film"??
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
MM was not honoured by "the French". The jury at Cannes consisted of the following people:rikzilla said:
President Quentin Tarantino (USA)
Emmanuelle Béart (France)
Edwidge Danticat (USA)
Tilda Swinton (UK)
Kathleen Turner (USA)
Benoît Poelvoorde (Belgium)
Jerry Shatzberg (USA)
Tsui Hark (Hong Kong)
Peter Von Bagh (Finland)
So, nine people, of which one was French and 4 were American, including the President. Hardly "the French" honouring MM.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Thanz said:
Moore's film won -- and this is according to the Tarantino -- because it was the best film presented at Cannes and not because they agreed with the political message or conclusion presented in it.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
rikzilla [/i][b] The French honoring MM is like the Germans honoring the Vichy French....a clear example of preaching to the choir. Makes me wonder what great film at Cannes was sacrificed so that MM's political screed could win "best film"??[/b] [i]Originally posted by Thanz said:
So the Cannes Film Festival is not "French" then??
Nodding and backing towards door...-z
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
NOt in the way that your message implied. It was not "the French" who decided that Moore should win best film - that was the jury. The festival just happens to be in France. "The French" have just as much say in who wins as "The Finns" or "The Belgians".rikzilla said:
So the Cannes Film Festival is not "French" then??
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Grammatron said:
It may be a good documentary, it may not. It will most likely have deliberate inaccracies in it (based on his Bowling for Columbine). But you do have to wonder about what they based their ratings on. Were all the non-documentaries that poor?
Moore's film won -- and this is according to the Tarantino -- because it was the best film presented at Cannes and not because they agreed with the political message or conclusion presented in it.
...Right. And I'm the tooth fairy.
then again, Tarantino's claim will be accepted at face value, no doubt (together with Moore's "all this controversy is not helping me sell tickets" and "Disney was scared of Jeb Bush and cancelled my contract but for some reason I ain't suing") by the same people who never believe ANYTHING Bush or Cheney say, under any circumstances.
...Right. And I'm the tooth fairy.
then again, Tarantino's claim will be accepted at face value, no doubt (together with Moore's "all this controversy is not helping me sell tickets" and "Disney was scared of Jeb Bush and cancelled my contract but for some reason I ain't suing") by the same people who never believe ANYTHING Bush or Cheney say, under any circumstances.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Skeptic said:
I think Moore can make an entertaining film. Taking an objective stand I could see how Bowling for Columbine was a good movie. If he keeps the same format he could make another fun-to-watch film. I could see how someone could doubt the true intention of the judges but not having seen Moore's film or other films shown at Cannes' it's hard to say if it was truly the best; perhaps other films truly sucked.