Dear Mike (Michael Moore)

[Lothian]

. 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

Much better for America to take the oil money and give it to profiteering American companies.

Since the war started thousands have been killed

The coalition have tortured and falsely imprisoned people

 

[RandFan]

Much better for America to take the oil money and give it to profiteering American companies.

Assumes that we will deprive the Iraqis of food and medical attention the way Saddam did.

Since the war started thousands have been killed

Not capriciously and not to keep a dictator in power. We would desperately like to turn the whole bloody thing over to the Iraqis.

The coalition have tortured and falsely imprisoned people

And America has had to face the wrath of international scorn and is currently investigating. The press is reporting the abuse and people are speaking out against it and there is every reason to believe that the wrongs can be corrected. This was not the case under Saddam.

The irony lies in your ability to see the difference.

 

[Lothian]

We would desperately like to turn the whole bloody thing over to the Iraqis.

Apart from the army which would stay and be immune to any prosecution for law breaking, and the exploitative contracts with American companies which will not be able to be renegotiated for cheaper alternatives thus giving the Iraqis more money for food and medical attention.

The irony lies in your ability to see the difference.

Sorry I don't understand your use of 'Irony' here. Can you please explain ?

 

[Questioninggeller]

Re: Re: Re: Dear Mike (Michael Moore)

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.

I'm a Moore fan, and if possible (depending on the release-- I'm not going to buy it online just to see it) I'd like to check out Moore Hates America (rent it). I hope it actually deals with something because I'm really sick of these people who just flat out don't like liberals who claim "Michael Moore is a liar," or "Michael Moore is fat," ect, ect. without anything to support their claims on why they don't like it or why he is a liar.

For example, one of the most recent attack on him on this BB said he used two cameras in one scene. One to shoot a scene with Heston, and one shot later to show him holding a picture of a girl that he showed to Heston. Those kind of attacks that he "didn't explictly state he used extra cameras, ect." or "subtitle that the video was shot later," is a really lame excuse and fails to strike at the heart of the matter. So Moore shot pictures after he talked to Heston to show the audience what he showed Heston. And so Moore is busy in France and can't do an interview for a no name film maker using his name to sell a few videos. So Moore is liberal... so what.

We'll see how this young man's film stacks up. In the end I bet it will sell decently to the anti-Moore audience, and as stated earlier, people will believe what they want to believe. This young man will probably wind up making money off this for being anti-Moore, rather then in the "Roger and Me" where chasing Smith for an interview was more of a parody in a film that documents the decline of town. There is a difference between the purpose of the two people who want interviews from people who it seems that can't get a word from.

I believe that young film maker wants to make a name for himself and in the process give Moore a hard time because he's liberal. Moore on the other hand was a young film maker (Roger and Me) who's town was destroyed by men who wanted to turn a buck, and therefore he wanted to give Smith a hard time.

 

[ceo_esq]

Apart from the army which would stay and be immune to any prosecution for law breaking, and the exploitative contracts with American companies which will not be able to be renegotiated for cheaper alternatives thus giving the Iraqis more money for food and medical attention.

I have two observations here:

1. Obviously, armies as such are never subject to prosecution; individuals are. But are you suggesting that American soldiers and officers are immune from prosecution for lawbreaking? That's simply untrue.

2. Isn't it the case that the contracts to which you refer are financed exclusively by the American taxpayer, such that their renegotiation would in any event have no effect on how much money Iraqis have for food and medicine?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have two observations here:

1. Obviously, armies as such are never subject to prosecution; individuals are. But are you suggesting that American soldiers and officers are immune from prosecution for lawbreaking? That's simply untrue.

I interpeted the original statement to mean that he had reason to believe that US forces would not be subject to Iraqi law, even after June 30 or whenever they end up "officially" handing over governance.

2. Isn't it the case that the contracts to which you refer are financed exclusively by the American taxpayer, such that their renegotiation would in any event have no effect on how much money Iraqis have for food and medicine?

I interpreted the original statement on this issue to mean that he had reason to believe that Iraqi institutions (probably the army and the oil industry that was was nationalised under Hussein and is now being privatised) would be locked into long-term contracts with US companies that the new Iraqi government would not be permitted to break off.

I have no idea about the facts of the matter on either issue, but that's how I took the original statements.

 

[Skeptic]

I've liked Moore in the past but less so now not because of the views he espouses per se but just because he's become so political.

What happened to Moore, I think, was that he became a trade name, a corporate asset, of exactly the same sort that he likes to berate in others.

His earliers films were (to say the least) manipulative, but at least he seems to have meant it. But now, after his conspiracy-theory stuff, it is simply impossible for him to take on any target that isn't Republican / CEO / Bush related, or to examine anything that might make either look good. His viewers won't stand for it.

He became "McMoore"; there's no reason to watch him anymore--not only because he is inaccurate, but because you know from the start exactly what you're going to get.

 

[Skeptic]

Much better for America to take the oil money and give it to profiteering American companies.

Well, it isn't doing that, as you know; but even if it DID, it would be better for the Iraqis.

Virtually all of the oil money Saddam got went to his own palaces, or the republican guard that kept him in power, or (to the tune of $2 billion) to the UN beurocrats that he bribed.

If one had to choose between giving one's oil to "profiteering oil companies"--not that this is happening--or to UN beurocrats and Saddam Hussein's sons, it's an easy choice. At least the companies create jobs and don't execute anybody.

Let's put it this way: if you could, would you undo the war? You now have the power to say the magic word, making it so that the US never invaded--and therefore, Saddam Hussein still reigns supereme over the Iraqis in Baghdad.

Would you do it? How many Iraqis do you think would want you to?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Mr. Manifesto:
It's amazing that these reports were only commissioned after public pressure was put on Nike to stop these practices, no?

What's amazing is that I don't see any compelling evidence that this is the case.

That's nice.

Glad that we're in agreement on something.

No. Michael Moore, for all his faults, raises public awareness about issues that the American media don't really care about. Not when there are more important things happening, like Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez breaking up, or Michael Jackson getting arrested for diddling kids again, or George W Bush saying he doesn't like terrorists.

Begging the question re environmental atrocities and the like. And if Michael Moore' analysis of the situation in Northern Ireland is anyhting to go by, all he's capable of raising is ignorance.

 

[RandFan]

Apart from the army which would stay and be immune to any prosecution for law breaking, and the exploitative contracts with American companies which will not be able to be renegotiated for cheaper alternatives thus giving the Iraqis more money for food and medical attention.

That is a lot of horse crap. We will not be doing the things that Saddam did. The people will not be in want of food and medical attention.

Sorry I don't understand your use of 'Irony' here. Can you please explain ?

It was late I should have said inability to see the difference. And there is a very real difference. If you honestly believe that the Americans will treat the Iraqis the same as Saddam then you are blind we are already paying a price for mistakes made. Saddam never paid any price. He simply built more palaces. Your argument is spurious.

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Beware of RF

...
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.
...

You are wrong again.

The sentiments of the French people were expressed after the war started -like I pointed out, and like you repeat here- to say that:

.) 53% wanted U.S. to win (like saying 'Oh well, the war started anyway against France's wishes, U.S. might as well win versus Saddam this way');

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

Again, out of these 33%, how many wanted U.S. to lose the war so that Saddam keeps his money for palaces, and how many wanted U.S. to lose the war so that Chirac's peaceful alternatives to war prevail and Saddam cannot keep his money for palaces?

You claim that out of 33%, all of them, all 33% wanted U.S. to lose the war so that Saddam keeps his money for palaces.

Can you support this claim?

As for 33% who wanted U.S. to lose the war knowing that it means for U.S. and Britain to suffer "...heavy casualties...", well Bush and war supporters pushed for the war while Chirac pushed for alternatives to the war.

So Chirac and the French (including 33% of the French who wished U.S. to lose) are not responsible about Bush's war and his "...heavy casualties...".

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dear Mike (Michael Moore)

I'm a Moore fan, and if possible (depending on the release-- I'm not going to buy it online just to see it) I'd like to check out Moore Hates America (rent it). I hope it actually deals with something because I'm really sick of these people who just flat out don't like liberals who claim "Michael Moore is a liar," or "Michael Moore is fat," ect, ect. without anything to support their claims on why they don't like it or why he is a liar.

I for one am not a person who flat out doesn't like liberals. On the contrary I have a great deal of respect for liberals. I also liked Roger and Me. It was not conservatives who started the whole "fat" business. Al Franken wrote a book called Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. Before he lost his weight it was a quick and easy cheap shot to make at Rush and I didn't notice any outrage at that fact coming from the left side of the fence.

Michael Moore is a liar.

For example, one of the most recent attack on him on this BB said he used two cameras in one scene. One to shoot a scene with Heston, and one shot later to show him holding a picture of a girl that he showed to Heston. Those kind of attacks that he "didn't explictly state he used extra cameras, ect." or "subtitle that the video was shot later," is a really lame excuse and fails to strike at the heart of the matter.

You miss the point. The shot is not real. We are led to believe that his show is reality and it is not. It takes dramatic licence. It is spliced and edited to tell a false story.

http://mooreexposed.com/

A look at Bowling for Columbine (my main analysis to date). In producing his Oscar-winner, Moore altered history, misled his viewers, and edited the footage and audio in such a way as to reverse the meaning. In one case, he took a speech of a person he desired to target; the problem was that the speech was in fact conciliatory and mild. So he spliced in footage from another speech, cut out paragraphs, and spliced the beginning of one sentence to the ending of another. In another, when he wanted to criticize a political advertisement, but it wasn't as pointed as he wanted, he spliced together two different political ads, then added titling which was in neither.

So Moore shot pictures after he talked to Heston to show the audience what he showed Heston. And so Moore is busy in France and can't do an interview

1.) The film maker has been trying to get Moore to do an interview for a long time.

2.) So Roger Smith was too busy to do an interview.

3.) Hypocrisy pure and simple.

...for a no name film maker using his name to sell a few videos.

Like when Moore was a no name film maker using Roger Smith to sell a few videos?

So Moore is liberal... so what.

Did I attack Moore for being liberal?

We'll see how this young man's film stacks up. In the end I bet it will sell decently to the anti-Moore audience, and as stated earlier, people will believe what they want to believe. This young man will probably wind up making money off this for being anti-Moore, rather then in the "Roger and Me" where chasing Smith for an interview was more of a parody in a film that documents the decline of town.

Don't you mean farce? If you mean parody, parody of what? Moore attacked Smith blaming him and the board for the decline of the town.

There is a difference between the purpose of the two people who want interviews from people who it seems that can't get a word from.

I fail to see any difference. Moore uses and misuses people to make money and advance and agenda. He is not immune from the criticism. The movie is sauce for the gander.

I believe that young film maker wants to make a name for himself...

Like Moore wanted to make a name for himself.

...and in the process give Moore a hard time because he's liberal.

No, in the process expose Moore and deception. The answer to bad speech is more speech.

Moore on the other hand was a young film maker (Roger and Me) who's town was destroyed by men who wanted to turn a buck, and therefore he wanted to give Smith a hard time.

I reject that it as simple as saying that a town was destroyed by men who wanted to turn a buck. Corporations exist to make a profit not to prop up towns. Corporate executives must answer to the board not town leaders. I think what happened in Flint is tragic and the movie, while myopic in its view told that story in a humorous way. I applaud it but I am not so blind that I don't realize that life isn't as simple as stating that the corporation destroyed the town out of greed.

Your nic suggests that you are a skeptic. Blindly believing in propaganda is not becoming of a skeptic.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Beware of RF

33% wanted U.S. to lose the war.

Agreed.

Again, out of these 33%, how many wanted U.S. to lose the war so that Saddam keeps his money for palaces...

I have said twice that I was wrong. You are now just being a jerk. How many times do you want me to say that I was wrong and that I am sorry?

...and how many wanted U.S. to lose the war...

1. To lose the war meant that the US would have to suffer heaver casualties.
   [/list=1]
   
   

   ...so that Chirac's peaceful alternatives to war prevail and Saddam cannot keep his money for palaces?

   There is no evidence what so ever that this is true. For 12 years Saddam refused to comply. For 12 years he let his people suffer out of spite. There is every reason to believe that he would have continued. Can you support this claim?
   
   

   You claim that out of 33%, all of them, all 33% wanted U.S. to "...to suffer heavy casualties..." and lose the war so that Saddam keeps his money for palaces.

   I have stated that it was wrong and I predicted that you would continue to make the argument after I backed down.
   
   

   Can you support this claim?

   No, I was wrong. I can't support this claim. Can you accept that I said I can't support the claim? How long will you go on demanding that I admit that I can't support the claim after I have admitted that I can't support the claim. Please note that you are the only person here who lacks the human decency to accept an admission of making a mistake.
   
   As I said earlier, I don't dislike liberals. I would not make the mistake of supposing that other liberals are like you.

 

[Ion]

Assumes that we will deprive the Iraqis of food and medical attention the way Saddam did.
...

The assumption looks true.

 

[RandFan]

The assumption looks true.

Based on what? We have already provided more medical attention and food than Saddam did previously. We are airlifting children to the united states for medical care. The assumption is demonstrably false.

 

[Ion]

Much better for America to take the oil money and give it to profiteering American companies.

Well, it isn't doing that, as you know; but even if it DID, it would be better for the Iraqis.
...

Well it is doing that and it is worse for Iraqis.

 

[RandFan]

Well it is doing that and it is worse for Iraqis.

Saddam was cutting hands and ears of Iraqis, there was no medical supplies and little food. How was it worse?

 

[Ion]

Based on what?
...

and

Saddam was cutting hands and ears of Iraqis, there was no medical supplies and little food. How was it worse?

Based on my comparative numbers in this forum between how many people Bush killed since 2000 and how many Iraqis Saddam killed since 1992.

 

[Jocko]

Based on my comparative numbers in this forum between how many people Bush killed since 2000 and how many Iraqis Saddam killed since 1992.

Would these be the same methods you used to "prove" there was no economic recovery in progress (i.e., personal bias and ad hoc redefinitions of terms)?

 

[Ion]

...
If you honestly believe that the Americans will treat the Iraqis the same as Saddam then you are blind we are already paying a price for mistakes made. Saddam never paid any price. He simply built more palaces...

U.S. does kill more Iraqis than Saddam did since 1992, for oil.

In Iraq, U.S. wants permanent oil contracts and military bases that keep Iraq pro-U.S., and Iraqis don't matter to the U.S..