3
   

Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 06:15 pm
Quote:
And for whatever reason you obsess on it. You'll probably have to do so alone, as I can't imagine it being interesting or profitable to continue to discuss this.


Sorry Craven,

I was kidding......I should have used more smileys. I won't do it again. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 06:18 pm
Ahh, I see. Sorry to misunderstand you.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 06:38 pm
au1929 wrote:

Regarding Bosnia, Clinton acted in concert with the European nations to stop the ongoing genocide. Do you think that is wrong?



I assume you are claiming that the Bosnian Serbs were perpetrating some sort of genocide.

That's worse than wrong; it's total BS. There are a lot of chapters in that story, but the one which seems to provide the best flavor of the kind of thing which was actually going on is the story of Trnopolje:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/film/judgment.htm

There's compelling evidence that Bosnians were willing to kill sizeable numbers of their own people to procure western intervention.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 01:04 am
swolf wrote:
Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Swolf in response to your picture of Michael Moore and his Ministry Of Truth: socialism is not the same as marxism. A common mistake it seems.


It's not my picture, just something I found which seems to express most people's sentiments about the guy fairly well. I'd have added tusks if I was drawing it.

I wasn't accusing you of something (although it seems I was Confused ), just wanted to let you know.

swolf wrote:
au1929 wrote:

Regarding Bosnia, Clinton acted in concert with the European nations to stop the ongoing genocide. Do you think that is wrong?


I assume you are claiming that the Bosnian Serbs were perpetrating some sort of genocide.

That's worse than wrong; it's total BS. There are a lot of chapters in that story, but the one which seems to provide the best flavor of the kind of thing which was actually going on is the story of Trnopolje:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/film/judgment.htm

There's compelling evidence that Bosnians were willing to kill sizeable numbers of their own people to procure western intervention.

I'll just call MOU Cool
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 06:19 am
Wolf
What do you suppose was happening in Kosovo.
Regardless do you believe that the US and NATO's actions were wrong when the intervened in that conflict. Should they have kept out and let the slaughter continue?
0 Replies
 
TradingWise
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 06:27 am
Michael Moore is not a liberal, he is a stupid socialist :r
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 06:37 am
There's nothing wrong with socialists. There IS something wrong with communists though. But again, socialists are not communists.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 06:43 am
au1929 wrote:

You however, have missed the point entirely regarding the Moore film and propaganda. People at least republicans are decrying Moore's movie as lies and propaganda. But eat up the lies and distortions put out by the Bush campaign in their attack adds. A lie is a lie no matter who tells it.



Isn't that what I have been saying? Me "eating up Bush propaganda" is no different from you "eating up Moore propaganda." What is different is the source. Where as I try to read a much as possible and listen to the news and get as many sources as possible to make an educated decision you are listening to a Hollywood film maker who has admitted that the film was made simply to attack Bush.

au1929 wrote:
Regarding Clinton, to begin with He is not the president nor has he been for almost four years. The constant republican ploy of pointing a Clinton to defend Bush won't play any longer. In addition what is worse someone who tried to beat the draft which is a game played by thousands or someone who shirks his duty by going AWOL


I am not defending Bush by bringing up Clinton, I am merely pointing out the fact that liberal politics are just as two faced as conservative politics.

au1929 wrote:
Regarding Bosnia, Clinton acted in concert with the European nations to stop the ongoing genocide. Do you think that is wrong? In no way does that compare with Bush's preemptive attack upon Iraq.


My problem with this statement (and perhaps liberal politics in general) is: It is real easy to be liberal. When against a war in Iraq you say "War is bad!" and show us pictures of dead bodys and Mothers crying in front of the White House because they lost their son. When a smaller offensive is mounted (by a liberal president) in Bosnia you tell me it is to stop genocide and ask me if it is wrong. The answer to you is 1.) yes war is bad. People die. 2.) No stopping genoicide is not bad.

But even though war is bad it is sometimes a neccesary evil. A lot of people died in Iraq too but you want us to sit back and keep talking to Saddam. Or let the inspectors have more time. Is an Iraqi life worth less then a Bosnians? No, we did not go to war on the basis of freeing the Iraq people... we went there to find WMDs. And this is where I have a problem with Bush (as stated before). But the Iraqi people have a real shot at a stable country in the future and that might be worth it. We have all these resources: the richest country in the world with the greatest militarty in the world. I think the tougher question is should we just sit back in our own little side of the world and let everybody else do as they please or should we use our resources to help make a safer more stable world even at the cost of some of our own lives?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 06:55 am
Thank goodness I can see this film soon - and read this thread!

I have been waiting to see what I think of it, before reading all this debate about it - but it's been driving me nuts.

Don't quite know why I felt the need to say that - but there you are....

Carry on.
0 Replies
 
TradingWise
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 07:07 am
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
There's nothing wrong with socialists. There IS something wrong with communists though. But again, socialists are not communists.


Maybe my post was incorrect, i meant that Moore is not a liberal. Liberals favour as less government intervention as possible; respecting civil liberties, free trade, etc. Moore is more like a social-democrat. Social-democrats favour government intervention, they believe society needs adjustment in all sort of areas. Though social-democrats often hold liberal positions on ethical issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) they do not on economic issues.

Socialist also favour common production and possession of goods and distribution. There is no difference with communism.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 07:13 am
JPM
Quote:

Isn't that what I have been saying? Me "eating up Bush propaganda" is no different from you "eating up Moore propaganda." What is different is the source? Where as I try to read a much as possible and listen to the news and get as many sources as possible to make an educated decision you are listening to a Hollywood film maker who has admitted that the film was made simply to attack Bush.


I did not nor have I defended Moore. In fact the question I posed had nothing to do with his film. It was about his speeches and bad mouthing of the US to adoring audiences in Europe. However regarding the movie which is being roundly condemned by the right I ask why are the lies of this administration in there attack adds not as roundly condemned. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander?

Quote:
I am not defending Bush by bringing up Clinton, I am merely pointing out the fact that liberal politics are just as two faced as conservative politics


Agreed politics is a dirty business. However, IMO this administration has refined it beyond all others.

Regarding Iraq. IMO opinion Bush jumped the gun when he invaded Iraq. War should have been a last resort and it was not. I do not however, advocate pulling out until we have repaired the damage caused by our invasion. Whether a stable "democratic " government can be established is questionable, very questionable. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. The miscalculations of this administration as regards to Iraq have been monumental.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 07:21 am
TradingWise wrote:
Socialist also favour common production and possession of goods and distribution. There is no difference with communism.

Ever been to Europe? I do consider myself to be a socialist, though I despise communism. Maybe Americans see "socialists" as communists, but I can assure you, that is not true. We do not preach total state control; we do not preach the abolishment of all religious institutions; we do not preach the killing of our political opponents - all facets of (Soviet) communism (the branch of communism many Americans identify as being the real communism). I do not see a difference when you call someone a social-democrat or a socialist. Actually, socialism is an umbrella under which you can place both communism and social-democrats (if you will). But personally, when I'm talking about socialism, I am NOT talking about communism.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 07:36 am
JPM
Quote:
I think the tougher question is should we just sit back in our own little side of the world and let everybody else do as they please or should we use our resources to help make a safer more stable world even at the cost of some of our own lives?


I would ask you who appointed the US to be the conscience and policeman of the world expending our resources and youth to right what we or at least the powers that be consider to be wrong. Should we have the attitude that you are either with me or against me?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 07:47 am
Our global needs appointed us. A stable global economy serves the best interests of the United States. We cannot afford to be isolationists like many of the other countries of the world.
0 Replies
 
TradingWise
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 07:48 am
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
TradingWise wrote:
Socialist also favour common production and possession of goods and distribution. There is no difference with communism.

Ever been to Europe? I do consider myself to be a socialist, though I despise communism. Maybe Americans see "socialists" as communists, but I can assure you, that is not true. We do not preach total state control; we do not preach the abolishment of all religious institutions; we do not preach the killing of our political opponents - all facets of (Soviet) communism (the branch of communism many Americans identify as being the real communism). I do not see a difference when you call someone a social-democrat or a socialist. Actually, socialism is an umbrella under which you can place both communism and social-democrats (if you will). But personally, when I'm talking about socialism, I am NOT talking about communism.


Ik ben Nederlander Wink

According to the definition socialist favour common possession of products and distribution of goods. I know the dutch Socialistic Party doesn't favour just that, but that's because they aren't real socialists, even if they say they are.

This is the definition from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism

Although labour and the socialistic party in the Netherlands are very different, they should both be seen as social-democrats. Though labour holds liberal positions on ethical issues where the socialistic party does not (and supports milder government intervention).

Michael Moore is like labour, he favours government intervention. From trade issues (discriminating against 3rd world countries by making provisions before releasing trade) to (positive) discrimination at a variety of issues.

Liberals don't support these actions, they favour a liberal policy on economic and ethical areas. Government intervention can only be justified where necessary. MM is not a liberal.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 10:23 am
If you'll notice, the definition of socialism varies from source to source. I always believed that because of the confused semantics and historical interpretation of the word that it was difficult to apply to modern society. Perhaps we need a new word. As it is now, read all of the defintions, not just American Heritage. It's amazing how dictionaries are even influenced by bias.

Today's "liberalism" without resorting to all the varieties of definitions does not bear a lot of resemblance to traditional liberalism which also included live and let live towards business as well as individuals. Modern society doesn't bear much resemblance to the society at the time of Jefferson, a true liberal. Since nearly everyone would agree that Jefferson was the most intelligence and scholarly of the bunch (he started the first university and it was free), we would also have to consider that he may not have had any concept of the advances of society driven a great deal by the advances of technology. Technology that has made incredible strides in contrast to political world that has not. In many ways, politcis has become more backward.

Political Science

Really -- another oxymoron.

BTW, although true liberalism would believe that individuals need policing, my guess it would also mean that corporations and even small businesses also need policing.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 11:04 am
au1929 wrote:
Wolf
What do you suppose was happening in Kosovo.
Regardless do you believe that the US and NATO's actions were wrong when the intervened in that conflict. Should they have kept out and let the slaughter continue?


What do I suppose was happening in Kosovo? I mean, I've made the effort to find out what was happening in Kosovo; you clearly have not or you wouldn't be asking the kinds of questions you are asking.

Any sort of thorough research will turn up the reality that the whole problem in Kosovo was always the Albanian Kosovars and not the Serbs. The present problems seemingly began with Milosevic rescinding the autonomy of the region in 1989. The truth is that he had no options, and that all other ethnic groups in Kosovo were being brutalized by the Albanian Kosovars:

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Binder87NYT.htm

Further readings and articles from the 80's tell much the same story:

http://members.tripod.com/~sarant_2/ksm.html

Kosovo is the ancient center of Serbia which contained about 1500 historic shrines, churches, monasteries etc. and priceless art treasures associated with them (all destroyed by the AKs since 1999). Albanian Kosovars are basically a bunch of savages and the KLA was and is basically a branch of AlQuaeda operating in the Balkans.

That's the basic answer to your question as to what I think was going on in Kosovo. You had a sovereign nation (Serbia)which had never given anybody cause for offense trying to maintain order against a group of criminals basically wishing to take over and steal a piece of land which the nation had owned since the early middle ages, and which was being supplied and abbetted by AlQuaeda and other terrorist organizations, by the deep pockets of the Saudis and by the machinations of one Slick Klintler.

Now, why, you might ask, would Slick Klintler wish to involve himself or our own country in such a mess? Granted no rational person in this world gives a rat's ass about "Albanian Kosovars", there were about a half dozen realpolitik type reasons for it which included:

  • The oil pipeline through Albania, for which the Albanians demanded Kosovo as recompense. This might make sense to somebody who didn't know that American oil companies actually preferred the Russian pipeline plan, which did not require Albanian
    approval...
  • The 5 - 20 trillion in mineral wealth of the Trepca mines in Northern Kosovo.
  • Fear of Albanian population spillover into NATO countries, destabilizing them.
  • The fact that Yugoslavia represented a salient into an otherwise solid block of NATO territory.
  • The fact of Milosevic having taken Yugoslavia out of the IMF in 94 after seeing the harm the IMF had done to neighboring states. Milosevic started out life as a banker and the bankers who run the NWO apparently see him as one of their own gone bad.


All of that, basically did not add up to a case and the pentagon recommended against it. Nonetheless, the two things which were on the headlines of all of our newspapers at the time were Chinagate, and the Juanita Broaddrick rape story, which Klintler needed to get off the headlines as quickly as could be contrived.

That was basically the real reason for Kosovo. Two weeks after the Kosovo operation started, there were pictures in the papers showing Slick and his cronies doing high fives and talking about having hit a "home run".

Hope that answers your question, more or less.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 11:21 am
au1929 wrote:
Should they have kept out and let the slaughter continue?


I should have addressed that more specifically; there was no slaughter going on in Kosovo prior to the NATO aggression in 99; just a low-grade civil war with handsfull of terrorists being killed here and there, but in numbers not greater than our own murder rates in cities and areas in which drug-dealing and other criminal activities are major industries.

In particular, there was never any "ethnic cleansing" going on,

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

and there was never anything remotely like genocide going on.

http://www.counterpunch.org/biglie.html

Nothing in fact but a bunch of fabricated bullshit and a bunch of poor sorry people (Serbs) having to defend themselves against an armed insurrection supported and supplied by outside powers.

And, the hell of it is that, if the precedent of Kosovo is allowed to stand, we can anticipate within the next five years having the UN over here demanding that we hand Texas and California straight over to Mexico on the same perverted basis of ethnicity being everything and things like rightful ownership and sovereignty not meaning anything anymore.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 11:58 am
TradingWise wrote:
Ik ben Nederlander :wink:

Very Happy Leuk! Er zijn hier niet zoveel Nederlanders - nimh is dan wel de bekendste hier, verder heb je nog ehm wat is haar naam ook al weer, ehhh (...denkt....), ik ben de naam vergeten Embarrassed , en dan heb je ook nog magnum uit Rotterdam, en dat is het dan ongeveer al weer (waarschijnlijk ben ik er een paar vergeten, nimh zal me dan wel verbeteren :wink: ). Maar welkom!

TradingWise wrote:
I know the Dutch Socialistic Party doesn't favour just that, but that's because they aren't real socialists, even if they say they are.

And there's the big difference between you and me. I call the SP, GroenLinks (GreenLeft) and PvdA (Labour party) here in the Netherlands all socialists. You can not say that the SP is not a socialist party, just because the definition doesn't fit. You have to keep in mind that definitions can change - definitions aren't sacred. This can sound rather silly (who am I to say definitions don't fit), but compare the definition of 'marriage' in the 21th century and 'marriage' in the 17th century (to give an example). In my PERSONAL OPINION, I believe socialism in the Netherlands should not only be applied to the New Dutch Communist Party, but also to the SP and the GreenLeft (and less to the Labour Party; under Wouter Bos they have gone too far to the centre of the political spectrum in my opinion).


I know from an earlier debate that MyOwnUsername already pointed out that this source (htttp://www.srpska-mreza.com) isn't very reliable (Serbian nationalistic).
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 12:20 pm
Isn't very reliable? How about not at all reliable.

Bullshit is bullshit is bullshit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Michael Moore (Why Democrats will win big) - Discussion by edgarblythe
My Declaration - Discussion by edgarblythe
Michael Moore's October Surprise?! - Question by tsarstepan
Michael Moore on the Election - Discussion by edgarblythe
Moore on Obama - Discussion by edgarblythe
Slacker uprising - Discussion by ehBeth
Bowling for Obama - Discussion by nicole415
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:28:57