- This topic has 38 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
On a lighter
note: 
US troops ‘tortured’ man with rap music
Quote:But Jaber said he kept one secret from his captors, fearing the treatment could get worse. "I mean I like rap, just imagine them playing jazz."
A slightly related, quite disturbing story:
"dB stands for den Buck" wrote:A slightly related, quite disturbing story:Scary read.. Nice find
i’ll be honest, i haven’t read everything in this thread, and there are tons of points i would like to expand on, but for the sake of being nice, i’ll keep it to one:
"K7" wrote:Michael Moore- At first I was really impressed by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to this conclusion. Michael Moore is self serving. Don’t let him fool you. Michael Moore is on Michael Moore’s agenda. He doesn’t care about Columbine, rather the money he makes off of exploiting it. Notice how he is able to point fingers and give reasons for why things like Columbine happened, but he doesn’t have any solutions. It’s easy to push the blame, but the real heroes are the one’s who fix what’s wrong. We didn’t create Saddam. We may have helped, and I’m not saying that the U.S. involvement with him was always in everyone’s best interest. But when “the monsterâ€I’m not attacking Mr. Moore…
the more I hear from him the more I realize I really don’t care what he has to say. Once, again, in the quote selected from him, he’s busy pointing fingers but offering no real solutions. Hindsight is 20/20, I think we can all agree on that. The question is, where do we go from here? Mr. Moore has no insight as to what to do next, or if he does, he sure isn’t offering it. People like him make me sick. They leech off of society and contribute nothing to it. If he starts giving some ideas on how to fix the problem, or prevent it from ever getting out of control, or in any other way steps up to the plate when it comes to tackling big issues, then I might just be interested in listening. Until then, I will never rent another Moore movie, or read a Moore book, or do anything else that might contribute to his financial gain. I don’t care for Michael Moore or what he has to say because he contributes NOTHING, it’s as simple as that.
"K7" wrote:I don’t care for Michael Moore or what he has to say because he contributes NOTHING, it’s as simple as that.But, if he asks (some of)the right questions and get people aware of the fact that there are more sides to the story than the version of the government/big business, and if this make people think/reflect -doesn’t that count for something? (Even though he doesn’t give any answers.)
isn’t bringing the problem into a public light contributing something? as far as bowling for columbine goes, its a documentary, the very nature of the medium is to present a slice of life, which doesn’t always have an answer. he has contributed a major thing to the rest of us who oppose the war: showing that we will not be intimidated into going along with it (hense the fox news backlash that sounds alot like what you are saying). he has (just from a quick look at his website) links to the armed forces emergancy relief funds, a whole page full of ways to help american soldiers, ways to help relief for iraqi citizens, the uso, and gives his books and movie to US soldiers for free. i mean, his main message on how to make america better is to only back anti-war candidates for congress and president (kucinich, dean, sharpton or clark). i like how you say you aren’t attacking him then say he "makes you sick".
I agree, if asking the question serves as a catalyst for like minded people to act upon it’s all good
Just a small example of that was in the bfc documentary, when those two kids got the store to quit selling ammunition, completely their idea but doubt they would have been heard by the company had MM not been there with a camera in hand.I do have some issues related to his presentation of Canada in the documentary, very homogenized view of a number of things here…race relations, gun control, crime stats, poverty & homlessness.
We have a horrendous hx in our relations with the 1st Nation people of Canda, very paternalistic, which continues to this day. Their lack of access to adequate health care, their skyrocketing suicide rates, hopelessness of the children…its a shameful state of affairs thanks to the Canadian government ! Lots of our cities have a higher per capita murder rate than some big American cities, we just get more up close & personal about it, most murders are commited by knives versus guns. Our gun control program is costing us billions of dollars, not sure the benefit outweighs the cost. It might have been a good idea for MM to look outside that center of Canada Ontario (
) for a more balanced idea of what really goes on. Poverty & homelessness are alive & well in Canada, that so called ghetto he showed in the documentary looks nothing like the area I drive thru daily on my way to work…prostitution, crack houses, people living & dying on the street, decrepit unsafe rooming houses, boarded up abandoned houses…not quite the pristine ghetto he showed in his documentary.Watching Charlton Heston in the documentary was frightening, although with his admission of experiencing alzheimers like dementia, gotta wonder if he was acting a role for the nra versus spouting off his beliefs…more nra manipulation
He looked confused & overwhelmed with MM questioning him….yeah yeah I know , but having worked with dementia pt’s I do have some insight into their fragile sense of self… 
Other than that I loved the documentary
"king of carrot flowers" wrote:i’ll be honest, i haven’t read everything in this thread, and there are tons of points i would like to expand on, but for the sake of being nice, i’ll keep it to one:first and foremost, I suggest you go back and read through all of these posts, because Michael Moore has very little to do with what this topic is really about.
In Bowling for Columbine, Moore throws out the statistic (these are approximations because I don’t remember the exact amounts, but the figures are somewhere close to this) that there are 120 (?) murders by guns in Canada for every 11,000 (?) in the U.S.
This makes it appear as though the crime rate in the U.S. is 100x greater than in Canada. Now let’s do a REAL COMPARISON, unlike this fake one Moore is throwing out.
U.S.
Population in year 2000- 281,421,906
Crime rate per 100,000 people- 4,124
Murder rate per 100,000 people- 5.5Canada
Population in year 2000- 30,750,000
Crime rate per 100,000 people- 7,655
Murder rate per 100,000 people- 1.8England
Population in year 2000- 58,991,500
Crime rate per 100,000 people- 9,766
Murder rate per 100,000 people- 1.7(if you want, I can give you the details of these stats. I can tell you what kind of crimes aren’t/are included, what weapons were used if need be, I’m just trying to keep it simple)
Very interesting indeed. Of course there are more murders in the U.S.! There’s alot more people here! As you can see, the murder rates aren’t really all that much different when you do an actual COMPARITIVE study. Moore wants you to believe that the the murder rate is so much higher here in the U.S. then everywhere else and the gun is a HUGE part of that. When in fact, murder rates are almost equal in Canada where there are plenty of guns, and England where there shouldn’t be any guns. The U.S. comes in not a whole lot higher than that. Moore wants to say the U.S stand so far out from everyone else and that we have an "infatuation with guns" and why is that, when in fact, guns are probably the smallest part of the big picture.
He goes on to preach about how the U.S. has this "culture of violence" and maybe that it is responsible for all our gun violence. But as you can clearly see, violent crimes are much higher in Canada and England. So is it really guns that cause all the problems? He has blatantly only given you the numbers he wants you to see, and has even skewed them to his own personal preferences to try and say the U.S. is full of crime.
Everyone wants to blame the gun, when in fact, (and the England example clearly shows) it’s the person behind the gun. If not by gun, someone will still find another way to kill you if they really want to. A knife, a car, a bomb, poison, baseball bat, or even their own bare hands. But Moore doesn’t want to draw attention to this fact
Do you still want to argue that there is no hidden agenda here?
Then, he goes on to say how he’s a member of the NRA. This is an attempt (pathetic) to suggest that since he’s a member of the NRA, therefore his views couldn’t possibly be slanted, and more than likely his views side with the "conservative right" since he has that membership. Once again, misleading the audience.
Do you still want to argue there is no hidden agenda here?
Michael Moore also fails to mention that the murder rate per 100,000 people has DROPPED from 10.2 in 1980 to 5.5 in 2000. That surely would have been an interesting statistic to put in when he was throwing up all his stats. Moore wants you to believe that this is a growing epidemic. He blames the media for our "culture of fear", when in fact, he is also spreading that "culture of fear" and making a buck or two off of it as well. He also fails to mention that Canada’s crime rates are on the rise. England’s crime and murder rates have hit all time highs. Don’t you think information like this would have been infromative in Moore’s "documentary"?
Do you still want to argue that there is no hidden agenda here?
Moore shows you Terry Nichols’ brother suggesting he represents your typical gun owner. Terry Nichols blew up a building because of his disgust for the U.S. Don’t you think his brother is probably just as nuts as he is? Moore shows you members of the Michigan Militia. Does the Michigan Militia really represent your typical gun owner? Hell no! They represent the extremists of gun owners. Where is the average-joe that owns a gun? He’s nowhere to be seen in this movie because Moore wants you to believe that all gun owners are whackos who put guns to their heads and act like they want to shoot themselves or crawl around all day in army camo shooting at bowling pins.
Do you still want to argue that there is no hidden agenda here?
A documentary should be informative. It should give you as much information as possible, and let the audience be the judge and form it’s own opinion. But again, it’s quite evident, that Moore doesn’t want you to have that kind of information. You might be able to make an informed decision then.
Do you still want to argue there is no hidden agenda here?
Moore works for the film industry. As far as I can tell, it’s one of the larger industries here in the U.S. It makes millions and billions for lots and lots of people. He makes a boat load of money off of blasting the U.S. about it’s shitty culture, it’s shitty corporations, it’s shitty health care, it’s shitty laws and anything else he can find to say is shitty about the U.S.. All the while, he’s filling his pockets and doing the exact same things he so dearly criticizes. Look in the mirror Mr. Moore, you are exactly what you’re against. He’s utilizing capitalism to it’s fullest, but then has the gull to piss on the U.S. Don’t shit where you eat my friend!
He reminds me of Oprah. She is a heroine because she draws light to the subject. Meanwhile she’s exploiting the subject for her own personal gain. She doesn’t need all her millions. If she was truly dedicated to making the world a better place, why doesn’t she live on a cool 70k a year and donate the rest? Because she draws light to the subject, therefore she’s already done her job? Yeah, she’s great at donating money, as long as it’s YOUR money. Michael Moore is the same. Everyone knew all about Columbine long before Moore ever came along. Now tell me, is he really eposing anything we didn’t already know? Is he really drawing light on a subject if we already know all about it. Or is it that maybe, just maybe, he’s exploiting it for his own personal gain.
I just bought girl scout cookies. For every box I bought, money goes to buy girl scout cookies for our soldiers overseas. Does that make me a hero? Does that make me some sort of great soul, because I’m helping our troops?
Columbine was about a couple of fucked up kids who murdered some other kids. No more screwed up then the Menendez brothers who killed their parents, or O.J. who killed his wife, or Scott Peterson who killed his wife and unborn child, or Dr. Swango who poisoned his patients, and so on and so on. They’re fucked up people, who just happened to do it in an extravagant style.
Please look past what he shows you. Do some research. Become informed.
Here’s a little interesting fact for you all. Did you know that in the year 1999, the beloved DEMOCRATIC president Bill Clinton budgeted 12 BILLION dollars for the military with a 110 BILLION dollar increase over the next 6 years. This is the biggest military budget increase since 1984! That’s a lot of money! Did you know that it cost the Clinton administration approximately 40 billion a year just to deal with Iraq? I here everyone crying and complaining about the 87 billion Bush is spending on Iraq. Why, because he got the job done?
Let’s do the math…40 billion times 8 years= 320 billion dollars. Anyone else starting to see the difference? Who do you think is paying for all this? That’s right! YOU! So which would you rather pay? 87 billion or 320 billion. It’s a no brainer!
Anyways, it was fun all. Hope I didn’t offend anyone, it wasn’t my intention. Just wanted to get some facts out in the air, and defend some of my earlier statements.
I do realize that my "he makes me sick" line is attacking Moore. But that wasn’t my intention. I was just rying to say he isn’t exactly the type of person I’d look to for a true and neatral point of view.
Now, could we get this back onto the original subject, which is Iraq, and the relations of everyone involved? :aliensmile:
Michael Moore doesn’t hide his political ideas/beliefs, think people should expect his films & books to reflect that. Sort of like when you watch that fair & balanced news presentation on fox or cnn, take it with a grain of salt & understand that stuff presented may be skewed to the direction of the person/agencies/corporations politics or market driven bottom line.
Like I said above, I had a problem with his presentation on crime stats/figures, race relations in Canada, cool to see the comparisons between different countries. I still believe that his films/books serve a purpose, for both his personal gain & getting people excited about issues, motivating them to research further into the ideas presented. I don’t have a problem with that, I also don’t have a problem with him making cash off these, it’s a business like any other.
Oprah is the devil, although like Moore, she has motivated people to do wonderful things locally in their communities which is a very cool thing. I don’t expect people to become martyrs to the ideas/charities/causes they support, don’t think many of the charities would turn down her money due to her total income/% tax deductible donations…both sides use each other, I think the charities benefit more which is cool with me. Bill Gates recently dontated tons of cash to Canadian HIV research, some of the research being done would not have moved forward had he not provided that cash…cool with me as well.
back to the war in iraq…
My problem with the war in iraq has always been the reasons for going to war that were presented to the world…imminent threat to the us, weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism, these were just not factual. So, yeah he got the job done, but what job was that…the one presented to the world thru the UN or finishing off a job his dad started but didn’t finish years ago…I vote for the 2nd. While I agree Saddam was a nasty so & so, needed to be taken out at some point, I don’t believe the war had to happen like it did. Lot more hot spots in the world, many people have pointed them out in this thead, that the US chooses not to get involved in…why Iraq, why now? It’s a question of ethics & honesty…seems everyone has an agenda, including the current US government.
Will be interesting to see what the UN decides about the transfer of power back to the Iraq governing council/elections.
Another interesting story…Arar versus Ashcroft
Can’t wait to see how that plays out
pissing on the u.s.? that’s a leap. you’re attacks on him totally miss my whole point. does his making money off of his movie change the fact that we support horrible dictators? no. does it change the fact that we took down the weakest horrible dictator in a region inhabited by horrible dictators under false pretenses? no. i know moore has his own agenda, that’s not the point. the point is don’t dismiss everything he says, just because he says it. i have read zinn, chomsky, fisk, et al. i get my info from better sources. i have a degree in political science and have taken many international relations classes.
nice that you decide to go down the partisan road, i particularly like the democratic in bold letters. i thought clinton’s stance on iraq was wrong, the inspectors were thrown out of iraq because they found no banned weapons and clinton refused to lift the sanctions. do we believe that he doesn’t have banned weapons? no, we even invade, and our government STILL won’t acknowlege that there were not these terrible things that were going to blow up new york. did we remove a terrible dictator? yes. is america better off? not really. we still protect the saudis, do business with the egyptians and pakistanis, who are just as bad if not worse than saddam. saddam is an easier sell, a weaker target and made for better tv. paul o’neill even has said that an invasion was talked about in the first cabinant meetings before 9/11. not that saddam and 9/11 have anything to do with each other. war is only justified when a country presents a clear and present danger to another. how was iraq supposed to attack us? i liken this situation to ancient roman generals that wanted more territory. they convinced the populous that the desired territories were about to attack the empire, so they needed to attack first. the territories were conquered easily, and the people rejoiced and the general’s hold on power increased. take away the iraq war and bush is a mediocre president at best. $1.5 billion to promote marriage? republicans are supposed to be good with money, and he is destroying that reputation.
There’s a real good article on the myth of weapons of massdestruction in Iraq, written by Kenneth M Pollack. He’s a former CIA "expert" on the middle east, now working at the Brookings Institute in Washington.
I still have a lot to say about Michael Moore and especially the Columbine shooting, but I agree with you, let’s stick to the iraq war.
"king of carrot flowers" wrote:war is only justified when a country presents a clear and present danger to another.Now this is an interesting point. A lot of people nowadays feel that war is also justified when you want to protect the people of that country from its leader(s). I think many Americans felt that the war would justified even if there were no WMD, because Saddam was a dictator. I wonder if these people want to keep starting wars until all countries are democracies. Or: How many (western) lives are we willing to sacrifice for World Peace?
I think I heard someone say that the war on terrorism would last at least 50 years. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So, in 2054 George W. Bush’s grandson is going to state that from then on, there will be no more terrorist attacks?
There should be an international intelligence agency fighting terrorism, but this will go on forever. We have to get used to the fact that we can’t beat terrorism, as scary as that may sound.Olaf
"Samwise" wrote:A lot of people nowadays feel that war is also justified when you want to protect the people of that country from its leader(s). I think many Americans felt that the war would justified even if there were no WMD, because Saddam was a dictator. I wonder if these people want to keep starting wars until all countries are democracies. Or: How many (western) lives are we willing to sacrifice for World Peace?totally agree. are we going to fix the congo next? that’s among the worst places in the world.
King of Carrot Flowers
First of all, I’m only really trying to shy away from Moore because that’s not what this post is about. The PoliSci degree is sweet! I’d say you would be a very informative individual in assessing world relations, which is the exact kind of viewpoints I’m looking for.
Second, I’m only saying I don’t give a lot of credit to what he has to say, and I am defending that statement based on the fact that he doesn’t give you a clear picture. He is no different than George Bush in that they both manipulate whatever the subject is to suit their own interests. I take everything either one says with a grain of salt.
Third, I am not missing the point of what your’re trying to say aobut the U.S. atacking a sovereign nation. I wholey understand this idea and am trying to get to the root of all the reasons for the current situation the world is in. In turn, you address other issues i.e. business with Saudia Arabia/Egypt/Clinton’s sanctions etc. and these are the kind of viewpoints I’m looking for.
Fourth, I am not taking a partisan standpoint. I hate Bush. I don’t agree with a lot of his policies. I think it is very scary that this particular man runs the this country. The more I read about Clinton, the more I discover he was a royal turd in his own right. I made DEMOCRAT bold to suggest that a person’s political affiliation really has nothing to do with it.
Lately I keep hearing from a lot of people through daily conversation and all they can talk about is how Bush sucks and Clinton is so great and how they are going democrat no matter what. These are the very same people who don’t have the facts. They don’t realize just how much Clinton was involved with Iraq. They play partisan politics, loyal to their affiliated party, rather than looking at who can serve them best. These are the very same people who would be very easily swayed into believing whatever it is someone like Michael Moore would tell them. Rather than research and educate themselves and form they’re own opinion, they just consume whatever is crammed down their throats that day and regurgitate it as their own opinions and beliefs. So many people stand behind a candidates affiliation, rather than the candidates priorities. I was just trying to point this out and that’s why I highlighted DEMOCRAT. This is what really scares the hell out of me.
Samwise makes a very interesting point about protecting poeple from their own leaders. It’s very interesting because I see a lot of that here. Not in the sense that we need to protect ourselves from our government, but in the fact that our government seems to feel this need to protect us from ourselves. Our governent is chipping away at our own personal freedoms in the name of "fighting terrorism", and is also becoming less accountable for it’s own actions. Hence, we were able to go to war under false pretenses, with no accountability for our actions, and are feeling a backlash of opposition around the world. It’s a very interesting situation indeed.
How come no one comlained when the U.S. intervened on it’s own accord in Rowanda or Somalia?
Terrorism never ending? I whole-heartedly agree. There will always be disgust with the United States and there will always be terrorism. You can’t stop it. It’s sad, but it’s true. What really scares me though, is losing all my civil rights in the name of stopping it. But I guess that’s for another topic.
I also like the comparison of the U.S. to Rome. I see it everyday in the stances the U.S. takes. And we all know what happened to Rome in 476 A.D. right?
Thanx to all again for the insight
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.