Dear Mike (Michael Moore)

[Ion]

...
I agree that RandFan did make assumptions about what some French are thinking in his post, and I don't think they were logically thought out.

RF does this a lot of times.

In a recent thread asking whether Bush is a dolt, demon quoted Chirac' speech that war in Iraq for France is a last resort after all alternatives are exhausted.

In no way is for France a means to let Saddam "...oppress his people while he spent the oil for food money on palaces..." like RF made it up here.

RF read that post because he acknowledged it, then he plays the dishonest here again with the same obsolete lines.

 

[Ion]

We're not talking about Bush now are we?

Moore does.

So talking about Moore who talks about Bush, that's talking about Moore and Bush.

 

[RandFan]

Don't bother, just let RandFan continue to abuse his strawman. No sense arguing.

You really ought to find out what you are talking about before you accuse me of straw men. Oh, and try reading a paper some time. According to google the story ran in the New York times, LA Times, Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc..

I can't find the La Monde article but it ran there also.

Simon Wiesenthal Center

...and the opinion poll in the influential Le Monde newspaper which showed that one third of the French public were hoping for a victory by Saddam Hussein over the Coalition forces.

 

[RandFan]

RF makes this up.

Do you ever bother reading a paper or watchin the news. This was in all of the headlines. I would ask you to at least check your sources before you accuse me of making things up but I know better.

 

[RandFan]

So talking about Moore who talks about Bush, that's talking about Moore and Bush.

No, you are trying to minimize Moore's mistakes by comparing them to Bush.

 

[Ion]

This:

...
RandFan was making a perfectly defensible inference from the poll results, and many people in France pointed out the same thing after that embarrassing poll was published.

is incorrect.

Chirac stated that war in Iraq is a last resort.

When Bush decided alone -against Chirac- that war in Iraq is not a last resort, then the poll says:

"...a third of the nearly 1,000 people..." "...said they did not want United States and close ally Britain to triumph..."

RF says:

"...a third of the French people wanted Saddam..." "...to continue to oppress his people while he spent the oil for fodd money on his palaces..."

RF misrepresents the poll.

 

[RandFan]

"...However, a third of the nearly 1,000 people interviewed by the pollster Ipsos for Le Monde newspaper said they did not want United States and close ally Britain to triumph..."

It's true. The poll does not say that the people wanted Saddam to continue to murder. In order for the US and Britain to NOT triump Iraq would have to win and Saddam would continue to kill and maim and torture.

However,

I will do what you would never do Ion and admit that my post went to far and was technically fallacious. You of course will crow and gloat that I admitted to making a mistake. I can live with that.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not saying RandFan's post was totally valid, and it certain was delivered during some serious venom spitting, but I felt my characterization of him as "bigoted" was unwarranted considering I did not know of the poll he was talking about.

I agree that RandFan did make assumptions about what some French are thinking in his post, and I don't think they were logically thought out.

My thanks,

You are intellectually honest and I appreciate that. I was wrong and I admit it.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Dear Mike (Michael Moore)

Yeah... I'm sure he'll take it seriously from a website called "Michael Moore Hates America." It's like his critics aren't even trying anymore. They call him fat, a liar, hates guns, hates America, ect., ect. Should we expect Bush take a site seriously when it is called, "Bush hates America." Anyone bother to think, maybe he loves his country and the people in it and feels Bush is doing the country harm?

The movie trailer looks like it's just a personal attack on him, unlike "Roger and Me" which is about a town. The interview chase in "Roger and Me" is just to hold the film together and make it comical. Unlike this film which is solely based on an attack on Moore and his work.

Speaking of which who is funding this film? I couldn't find any info.

People see what they want to see. Roger and Me was about corporate greed and poking fun of Roger Smith who probably has his side of the story that never got told. It his fault though. Had he of known what Moore was going to do to him he might have done things differently.

Oh, and BTW Charlton Heston was willing to meet with Moore even knowing how Moore played fast and loose with the facts in Roger and me. And you know what, Moore screwed him in the end anyway.

 

[KelvinG]

My thanks,

You are intellectually honest and I appreciate that. I was wrong and I admit it.

No problem. We certainly aren't in agreement politically, but I occasionally resort to name calling (I'm only human!) and in this particular instance I felt it definitely was wrong.

 

[RandFan]

This:

is incorrect.

Chirac stated that war in Iraq is a last resort.

When Bush decided alone -against Chirac- that war in Iraq is not a last resort, then the poll says:

"...a third of the nearly 1,000 people..." "...said they did not want United States and close all Britain to triumph..."

RF says:

"...a third of the French people wanted Saddam..." "...to continue to oppress his people while he spent the oil for fodd money on his palaces..."

RF misrepresents the poll.

Ion,

I have misrepresented the poll. It should be pointed out that Chirac took the use of force off of the table.

However, one third of the French people wanted the US to loose. Do you know what that means?

• Saddam would continue to take oil for food money and spend it on palaces.
  
• Saddam would continue to kill thousands.
  
• Saddam would continue to main and torture and falsely imprison people.

Perhaps the French didn't WANT Saddam to continue to kill people and maim them but their desire for the US to lose was greater than their desire for those things to stop.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

No problem. We certainly aren't in agreement politically, but I occasionally resort to name calling (I'm only human!) and in this particular instance I felt it definitely was wrong.

Hey,

If we can't be human from time to time with out the willingness to admit that we are wrong and forgive each other then we aren't worth a damn.

 

[RandFan]

I hate to point out the obvious, Ion, but for Saddam to have repelled the Coalition invasion would have meant that he'd remain in power, and few people (even in France) would dispute that this would mean he'd continue to oppress his people and divert oil revenues toward building palaces. RandFan was making a perfectly defensible inference from the poll results, and many people in France pointed out the same thing after that embarrassing poll was published.

My thanks ceo_esq, I see it that way but I'm not sure I can defend it completly.

 

[ceo_esq]

Who in your view has the most serious biases and most questionable grasp about the Iraq invasion and it`s implications, the French or the Americans?

Tough question. I'd say the French are certainly no better off in that regard. Actually, as far as biases are concerned, I'd say the French are worse off.

For example, do you know how many of the French believed that Saddam was connected with 9/11 or that he had WMD that could be launched at them within 45 minutes?

I'm not sure about the Saddam-9/11 question. I wouldn't have said that many people in either country thought there was a direct connection. Interestingly, though, this book was a runaway #1 bestseller here in 2002; it's a "nonfiction" work alleging that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration. No telling how many French people actually were persuaded by it, but one imagines it was more than a few.

As for WMD, prior to 2003 the French government had concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that Saddam possessed some arsenal of (non-nuclear) banned weapons, though as far as I can tell it never shared the alarmist position of the US and UK. I noticed that during the lengthy build-up to the war, the government rhetorically backed off from that position (though not entirely). I'm not sure what percentage of the general population believed this or cared. I think the French government was nearly as surprised as anyone else when next to nothing turned up after the war, which I suppose goes to show that belief or non-belief in WMDs didn't necessarily determine any country's position on the war.

 

[LucyR]

Hey,

If we can't be human from time to time with out the willingness to admit that we are wrong and forgive each other then we aren't worth a damn.

RandFan's certainly the most charming conservative on this Forum. He seems like quite a well-intentioned person, and more or less lacking in ego. A person you could spend a long train trip with.

 

[Ion]

Beware of RF

This:

...
In order for the US and Britain to NOT triump Iraq would have to win and Saddam would continue to kill and maim and torture.
...

is incorrect, again.

What Chirac said -according to the transcript of the broadcast in his address to the French people- was:

"...My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq..."

(quoted in The Guardian from London, on March 15th, 2003).

This shows Chirac's resolve to triumph in Iraq, without starting a war that United States and Britain wanted to start and triumph in .

 

[Ion]

...
Perhaps the French didn't WANT Saddam to continue to kill people and maim them but their desire for the US to lose was greater than their desire for those things to stop.

RandFan

You misinterpret the poll again.

Once Bush decided for war against Chirac's opinion, the poll says that:

.) 53% of French wanted U.S. to win the war;

.) 33% of French wanted U.S. to lose the war.

Out of these 33%, how many French wanted U.S. to lose the war so that Saddam gets his oil for food money for his palaces, and how many wanted U.S. to lose the war so that alternatives by Chirac prevail?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Nice derail Manifesto and Ion.

Anything to keep us from goring your sacred cows. Why deal with the topic of the thread when you can shift focus, right?

WTF? Explaining why Moore owes Wilson nothing is derailing the thread?

Oops, shouldn't have contradicted you- now I guess I'm all 'intellectually dishonest' and sh!t.

 

[RandFan]

Out of these 33%, how many French wanted U.S. to lose the war so that Saddam gets his oil for food money for his palaces, and how many wanted U.S. to lose the war so that alternatives by Chirac prevail?

Ion, I have already admitted that I was wrong. I do not know by the poll alone that they wanted Saddam to kill people, maim or torture.

You obviously lack the graciousness to grant my admission?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Beware of RF

Ion
This:

RandFan
In order for the US and Britain to NOT triumph after invading, Iraq would have to win and Saddam would continue to kill and maim and torture.

Ion
is incorrect, again.

You either don't know what you are talking about or you are making stuff up.

Facts:

1. America and British soldiers invaded Iraq (March 20 1993)
   
2. A poll is taken of French citizens (March 31, 2003).
   
3. Thirty-three percent said they did not want the two allies to win
   
4. At the time of the poll there were Americans and British soldiers fighting Iraqis
   
5. For the one third to get their wish Saddam would have to remain in power, Many Americans and British would have to die and more innocent Iraqis would have to die[/list=1]
   
   

   What Chirac said -according to the transcript of the broadcast in his address to the French people- was:
   
   "...My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq..."
   
   (quoted in The Guardian from London, on March 15th, 2003).
   
   This shows Chirac's resolve to triumph in Iraq, without starting a war that United States and Britain wanted to start and triumph in .

   Irrelevant since the poll was taken after the invasion started. The sentiments of the French people were expressed after the war started. In order to want Iraq to win they had to accept that the Americans and British would have to suffer heavy casualties.
   
   That is an inescapable conclusion that only you Ion will argue against. Please note that no one, NO ONE EXCEPT YOU will dispute because they are not that stupid or obtuse. Only you or American could look at a fact and pretend that it wasn't a fact. You will not admit that you were wrong, and why? Because you lack the emotional maturity or the intellectual honesty to admit that you are wrong.
   
   Edited to add that at least American was willing to admit that he was wrong about REO Speedwagon. You have never admited when you were wrong.