Fahrenheit 9/11
- Thread starter CadillacCTS
- Start date
- Status
Unregistered
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- May 9, 2003
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 3
Tyler, Patrick E.
8-18-2002. "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas." New York Times. August 18. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/i...M.html?ex=1030606992&ei=1&en=078f424219c1eb05
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq.
The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.
Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.
The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."
"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."
Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."
Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.
Iraq shared its battle plans with the Americans, without admitting the use of chemical weapons, the military officers said. But Iraq's use of chemical weapons, already established at that point, became more evident in the war's final phase.
Saudi Arabia played a crucial role in pressing the Reagan administration to offer aid to Iraq out of concern that Iranian commanders were sending waves of young volunteers to overrun Iraqi forces. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, then and now, met with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and then told officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iraq's military command was ready to accept American aid.
In early 1988, after the Iraqi Army, with American planning assistance, retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf, a defense intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Rick Francona, now retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers, the American military officers said.
He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory, one former D.I.A. official said. Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions. (Colonel Francona could not be reached for comment.)
C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of the war front.
Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran.
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Colonel Lang asserted that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.
Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, but the intelligence officers say they were not involved in planning any of the military operations in which those assaults occurred. They said the reason was that there were no major Iranian troop concentrations in the north and the major battles where Iraq's military command wanted assistance were on the southern war front.
The Pentagon's battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested. Iran claimed that it suffered thousands of deaths from chemical weapons.
The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews.
Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment of the issue — publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield — was an example of the "Realpolitik" of American interests in the war.
The effort on behalf of Iraq "was heavily compartmented," a former D.I.A. official said, using the military jargon for restricting secrets to those who need to know them.
"Having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran," he said, "the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy."
One officer said, "They had gotten better and better" and after a while chemical weapons "were integrated into their fire plan for any large operation, and it became more and more obvious."
A number of D.I.A. officers who took part in aiding Iraq more than a decade ago when its military was actively using chemical weapons, now say they believe that the United States should overthrow Mr. Hussein at some point. But at the time, they say, they all believed that their covert assistance to Mr. Hussein's military in the mid-1980's was a crucial factor in Iraq's victory in the war and the containment of a far more dangerous threat from Iran.
The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration.
"I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within the administration that `we have demolished a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' " he wrote.
Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. Mr. Shultz declined further comment.
© 2002 The New York Times
Here's one from Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. He seems pretty credible as a journalist.http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm
8-18-2002. "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas." New York Times. August 18. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/i...M.html?ex=1030606992&ei=1&en=078f424219c1eb05
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.
Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq.
The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.
Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.
The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."
"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."
Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."
Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.
Iraq shared its battle plans with the Americans, without admitting the use of chemical weapons, the military officers said. But Iraq's use of chemical weapons, already established at that point, became more evident in the war's final phase.
Saudi Arabia played a crucial role in pressing the Reagan administration to offer aid to Iraq out of concern that Iranian commanders were sending waves of young volunteers to overrun Iraqi forces. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, then and now, met with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and then told officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iraq's military command was ready to accept American aid.
In early 1988, after the Iraqi Army, with American planning assistance, retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf, a defense intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Rick Francona, now retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers, the American military officers said.
He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory, one former D.I.A. official said. Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions. (Colonel Francona could not be reached for comment.)
C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of the war front.
Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran.
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Colonel Lang asserted that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.
Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, but the intelligence officers say they were not involved in planning any of the military operations in which those assaults occurred. They said the reason was that there were no major Iranian troop concentrations in the north and the major battles where Iraq's military command wanted assistance were on the southern war front.
The Pentagon's battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested. Iran claimed that it suffered thousands of deaths from chemical weapons.
The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews.
Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment of the issue — publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield — was an example of the "Realpolitik" of American interests in the war.
The effort on behalf of Iraq "was heavily compartmented," a former D.I.A. official said, using the military jargon for restricting secrets to those who need to know them.
"Having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran," he said, "the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy."
One officer said, "They had gotten better and better" and after a while chemical weapons "were integrated into their fire plan for any large operation, and it became more and more obvious."
A number of D.I.A. officers who took part in aiding Iraq more than a decade ago when its military was actively using chemical weapons, now say they believe that the United States should overthrow Mr. Hussein at some point. But at the time, they say, they all believed that their covert assistance to Mr. Hussein's military in the mid-1980's was a crucial factor in Iraq's victory in the war and the containment of a far more dangerous threat from Iran.
The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration.
"I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within the administration that `we have demolished a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' " he wrote.
Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. Mr. Shultz declined further comment.
© 2002 The New York Times
Here's one from Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. He seems pretty credible as a journalist.http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1980s/wpost121586.htm
Last edited:
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
Thank you Unregistered, for doing what I was too lazy to do lol
CadillacCTS
Don Juan
I went and watched it AGIAN!!! well I snuck in, after watching White chicks, lol
Derek Flint
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 41
Woodward might be credible, but the unnamed "anonymous" sources aren't.
Again, Moore is a propagandist.
Why do you think he purposely does things the way he does?
If things were really the way he claims, he wouldn't have to resort to such shenanigans.
Think about that.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Read this:
Phil Seibel, pitcher for the Boston Red Sox is the greatest pitcher in Major League Baseball, possibly ever. He's better than current greats Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, and former greats like Cy Young. Here's the proof: Martinez and Johnson have each lost over 70 games, and have given up over 1500 hits. They have given up over 700 runs each. Cy Young lost over 300 games, gave up over 7000 hits and 2000 runs. Phil Siebel has lost fewer games, given up fewer hits, and fewer runs than any of those great pitchers. In fact, Phil Seibel has given up fewer hits, runs, and losses in his CAREER than those guys did in their BEST YEAR!. It get's better.....in fact, Phil Seibel has given up fewer hits and runs, and lost fewer games than ANY pitcher in history. Clearly, Phil Seibel is the greatest pitcher ever!
Here's Phil Seibel's stats....... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7312 .....there's THE PROOF! SHOW ME WHERE ONE THING I SAID IS INACCURATE???? THE STATS DON'T LIE!!!
That is EXACTLY what Michael Moore does.......
Again, Moore is a propagandist.
Why do you think he purposely does things the way he does?
If things were really the way he claims, he wouldn't have to resort to such shenanigans.
Think about that.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Read this:
Phil Seibel, pitcher for the Boston Red Sox is the greatest pitcher in Major League Baseball, possibly ever. He's better than current greats Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, and former greats like Cy Young. Here's the proof: Martinez and Johnson have each lost over 70 games, and have given up over 1500 hits. They have given up over 700 runs each. Cy Young lost over 300 games, gave up over 7000 hits and 2000 runs. Phil Siebel has lost fewer games, given up fewer hits, and fewer runs than any of those great pitchers. In fact, Phil Seibel has given up fewer hits, runs, and losses in his CAREER than those guys did in their BEST YEAR!. It get's better.....in fact, Phil Seibel has given up fewer hits and runs, and lost fewer games than ANY pitcher in history. Clearly, Phil Seibel is the greatest pitcher ever!
Here's Phil Seibel's stats....... http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7312 .....there's THE PROOF! SHOW ME WHERE ONE THING I SAID IS INACCURATE???? THE STATS DON'T LIE!!!
That is EXACTLY what Michael Moore does.......
Last edited:
The Ultimate Fahrenheit 9/11 Killer - Best of all, written by a liberal author (former writer for The Nation, or just read his article about Reagan).
I'd like to see anyone make an argument on Moore's behalf after reading through that.
I'd like to see anyone make an argument on Moore's behalf after reading through that.
Derek Flint
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 41
This one was written by a Nader supporter:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
Derek Flint,
see the movie before you comment on the manipulation of stats because hypotheticals mean jack sh1t here. MM doesn't even really use stats in his arguments. Infact most of the movie is more of an appeal to your emotions (IE hearing the mother who's son died, or Bush's reaction when he was told about 9/11 in the classroom). The only statistic that I can remember from the movie is the number of congressmen with sons in the mid east (1), and that's hard to use out of context.
And your assertion that MM is a propagandist is absolutely, 100% irrelevent. In fact there is NO documentary that isn't a biased piece of propaganda. You can even take it a step beyond that and say that NOTHING you are told by another person isn't an attempt to persuade you. And information used in persuation is the definition of propaganda. MM has NEVER said this documentary isn't an attempt to get Bush out of office - he's made it VERY clear that he IS trying to get Bush out of office. So you can stop saying MM is a propagandist like it's some grand red flag for the ignorant - NO ONE is saying MM isn't a propagandist.
One more thing - a Nader supporter is as good as a Bush supporter. I even read an article in the LA Times today that republicans are petitioning to put Nader on the ballots of some states, because they realize that one vote for Nader is one less vote for Kerry. Nader is a joke and the very fact that your author supports him makes this link suspect.
blienk,
I will read that and respond when I get more time.
see the movie before you comment on the manipulation of stats because hypotheticals mean jack sh1t here. MM doesn't even really use stats in his arguments. Infact most of the movie is more of an appeal to your emotions (IE hearing the mother who's son died, or Bush's reaction when he was told about 9/11 in the classroom). The only statistic that I can remember from the movie is the number of congressmen with sons in the mid east (1), and that's hard to use out of context.
And your assertion that MM is a propagandist is absolutely, 100% irrelevent. In fact there is NO documentary that isn't a biased piece of propaganda. You can even take it a step beyond that and say that NOTHING you are told by another person isn't an attempt to persuade you. And information used in persuation is the definition of propaganda. MM has NEVER said this documentary isn't an attempt to get Bush out of office - he's made it VERY clear that he IS trying to get Bush out of office. So you can stop saying MM is a propagandist like it's some grand red flag for the ignorant - NO ONE is saying MM isn't a propagandist.
One more thing - a Nader supporter is as good as a Bush supporter. I even read an article in the LA Times today that republicans are petitioning to put Nader on the ballots of some states, because they realize that one vote for Nader is one less vote for Kerry. Nader is a joke and the very fact that your author supports him makes this link suspect.
blienk,
I will read that and respond when I get more time.
CyranoDeBergerac
Master Don Juan
I'm hearing a lot of you repeating the fallacy," If he was lying, they would have sued him, he'd be in jail right now."
This is at best a critical oversight, and at worst its nothing short of naive.
Political disputes are tried in the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Bush won the election. He won it on a technicality, but he won. He won in a court of law. Most people still think he stole the election and at least half of america right now seem to have an aversion to using the words 'President' and 'Bush' concurrently in the same sentence.
Politically speaking, let's say you're a head of populist state and there's some rabble rouser making his name by taking partial truths and weaving elaborate fictions dragging yours through the mud. He lies like a cheap persian rug, but he's a serious pain in your arse. However, the public is enthralled and entertained by him. So do you nail the guy or do you ignore him?
Option A) You fvck him.
Hard. In the arse. No Lube. You make him hurt.
Public perception becomes one of irritation with you because you just destroyed one of their favorite distractions.
Next the David and Goliath scenario is applied. You're so big and powerful and he's just some guy. It seems like you can't take a joke. It seems like overkill. Unfair or sadistic or both. Either way you're a bastid.
For such a powerful guy to take time from all his important business to adress this hack, the fact that you evidently felt such force was justified leads people to ask why you considered him such a threat. You've elevated him to your level. Could it be that he was telling the truth?
Finally they come to the conclusion that not only are you a bastid, and him telling the truth, but the pain and ruination he suffers at your behest makes him a martyr.
Some punk with a bullhorn and a stick up his arse has just turned into a full-scale public revolt. By swatting a fly you've inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest.
Option B) You brush him off.
You ignore him.
You take it on the chin for a while, but you maintain your dignity and because of this his attacks just seem to slide off your back.
If his arguments spark enough of an outcry to demand a response, you have a lower level functionary state your case and refute his attacks point by point. (Think Powell at the UN)
Eventually, the public turns its attention elsewhere. A war, a drought, a famine somewhere.
Your nemesis is still talking, but no one's really listening anymore.
_________
Politically speaking, if you scratch an itch, no matter how annoying, its only going to get worse.
This is not a question of legality or slander to be settled in the courts. Moore has everything to gain by being martyred, and that's what he wants. His film gets wider circulation and buzz factor and his message gets to more people. Bush has nothing to gain and everything to lose by going after him.
This is not a case of of truth and reason.(Moore makes only the slightest appeals to either in his film) This is a case of Bread and Circuses, Gentleman. This is politics.
"He must be telling the truth because he hasn't been jailed yet?"
C'mon...
Even if you haven't read Machiaveli or the 48 laws of power, surely you've seen 'Gladiator".
One last thing, to anyone making the argument that a bunch of militiamen can't stand against a modern Army with tanks and helicopters, I'd love to hear what they think happened in Vietnam or how Castro came to power...
-CyranoDeBergerac
This is at best a critical oversight, and at worst its nothing short of naive.
Political disputes are tried in the court of public opinion, not a court of law. Bush won the election. He won it on a technicality, but he won. He won in a court of law. Most people still think he stole the election and at least half of america right now seem to have an aversion to using the words 'President' and 'Bush' concurrently in the same sentence.
Politically speaking, let's say you're a head of populist state and there's some rabble rouser making his name by taking partial truths and weaving elaborate fictions dragging yours through the mud. He lies like a cheap persian rug, but he's a serious pain in your arse. However, the public is enthralled and entertained by him. So do you nail the guy or do you ignore him?
Option A) You fvck him.
Hard. In the arse. No Lube. You make him hurt.
Public perception becomes one of irritation with you because you just destroyed one of their favorite distractions.
Next the David and Goliath scenario is applied. You're so big and powerful and he's just some guy. It seems like you can't take a joke. It seems like overkill. Unfair or sadistic or both. Either way you're a bastid.
For such a powerful guy to take time from all his important business to adress this hack, the fact that you evidently felt such force was justified leads people to ask why you considered him such a threat. You've elevated him to your level. Could it be that he was telling the truth?
Finally they come to the conclusion that not only are you a bastid, and him telling the truth, but the pain and ruination he suffers at your behest makes him a martyr.
Some punk with a bullhorn and a stick up his arse has just turned into a full-scale public revolt. By swatting a fly you've inadvertently stirred up a hornet's nest.
Option B) You brush him off.
You ignore him.
You take it on the chin for a while, but you maintain your dignity and because of this his attacks just seem to slide off your back.
If his arguments spark enough of an outcry to demand a response, you have a lower level functionary state your case and refute his attacks point by point. (Think Powell at the UN)
Eventually, the public turns its attention elsewhere. A war, a drought, a famine somewhere.
Your nemesis is still talking, but no one's really listening anymore.
_________
Politically speaking, if you scratch an itch, no matter how annoying, its only going to get worse.
This is not a question of legality or slander to be settled in the courts. Moore has everything to gain by being martyred, and that's what he wants. His film gets wider circulation and buzz factor and his message gets to more people. Bush has nothing to gain and everything to lose by going after him.
This is not a case of of truth and reason.(Moore makes only the slightest appeals to either in his film) This is a case of Bread and Circuses, Gentleman. This is politics.
"He must be telling the truth because he hasn't been jailed yet?"
C'mon...
Even if you haven't read Machiaveli or the 48 laws of power, surely you've seen 'Gladiator".
One last thing, to anyone making the argument that a bunch of militiamen can't stand against a modern Army with tanks and helicopters, I'd love to hear what they think happened in Vietnam or how Castro came to power...
-CyranoDeBergerac
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
He won absolutely legally according to the constitution, yes, but he also won due to flaws with the electoral college system. The whole electoral college system is really fvcked up anyway, and I don't think most Americans realize how it works. It is a fact that Gore got more votes than Bush. The problem is that the people who make up the electoral college don't have to vote consistantly with how the people vote. The electoral college members can vote how they want. Usually it's consistant, but not in this election. The other problem is that each district for an electoral college does not contain the same amount of active voters. A district in California might contain 20k voters, while a district in Florida might contain 30k voters. Yet each of these are equal to 1 electoral college vote when selecting a president. Makes you wonder what the point of voting is.
CyranoDeBergerac
Master Don Juan
Hence, Bush won the election (even if you want to attribute it to flaws in the electoral system, and that's a whole nother debate), but the disillusionment remains to this day to the point where even my most reasonable friends refer to him as 'the resident', 'the commander in theif', 'Dumbya', 'Shrub the second', 'Bush1t', or some other less than polite derivation.
That was exactly my point. In matters of politics or sociology or anything else that deals with people in the aggregate, the law is just a side-note. How long were blacks treated as second class citizens after the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were passed? The legal framework was there, but legality makes very little difference in matters of public opinion and public opinion is what matters.
That's why he's not being taken to court or sent to jail. That's why Moore's getting a pass.
This is very true, a vote for Nader helps Bush more than anyone. It's especially funny when you keep in mind that in 2000, Michael Moore endorsed and personally voted for none other than...Ralph Nader! So despite Moore's persistant, idiotic claims that Bush "stole" the election, his victory can be indirectly attributed to Moore himself.
GlutusMaximus86
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 640
- Reaction score
- 1
Hmmm well I read in my government book that had nader dropped the election, it wouldn't have made any difference in who had won. And besides, like shiftkey said, Gore got more popular votes then Bush anyway, it's just that the electoral college is fvcked up.
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
I know this is a tangent, and I'm not assuming that you don't already know this, but you bring up another point too regarding the 2000 election. Before the 13th amendment is was legal to own slaves, but does that mean that before the 13th amendment people should own slaves, or it's ok to own slaves? The same could be said about Bush winning the 2000 election. Just because he legaly won, doesn't mean he should've won or it was ok that he won. That's why people say he was selected and not elected.
But we don't live in a democracy or a republic despite what average Joe would tell you on the street. We live in an oligarchy of the rich.
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
Touche. I didn't know that.
CyranoDeBergerac
Master Don Juan
I know what you're saying, that sometimes the law is just wrong (Prohibition anyone?). Again, I'm not going to take up arms in the battle over whether or not the electoral college should or should not exist as it does because laws can't be enforced retroactively. Even if you change the law, it doesn't effect the outcome of the 2000 election. I also don't see it coming that close again, so its really arguing a moot point in this context.
Also, because that's the way the system was at the time, he was elected, not selected. The courts did not choose him, they merely ruled on the basis of constitutional law, which states that the electoral college votes along their districts and then boom. Not one electoral college vote deviated from the populace in the state it represented. This is why our system is called a representative democracy.
I will say this; I read an interesting statistic about population density. If America was balanced on the head of a pin and every person weighed the same, the pin would have to be placed somewhere in Maryland to balance everything. With that in mind, let's assume it was one person/one vote, and a vote came up to ship all the homeless people east of the appalachians to Los Angeles. Everyone east of apalachia sees this as in their best interests, so the vote for it. The sheer population density of the east coast ensures that it passes, effectively screwing California and dumping a huge humanitarian and logistical night-mare into their collective lap.
Again, I understand why people are so irrate. There aren't too many people happy with the president, but only the most died-in-the-wool partisans and talk radio pundits ever denied Clinton's official title when they mentioned him during the impeachment proceedings. At what point do you just need to let it go already?
Before I go, I have to disagree with your 'Oligarchy of the rich' remark. If there were only a few rich people running everything, unions would not exist, nor would entitlement programs, and taxes would be barely over ten percent. Ken Lay would not be indicted, nor would Martha Stewart. "Oligarchy of the rich' is just another political catch-phrase born of disenchantment and class warfare. Keep in mind that there's always a balance of power, and that power is ever shifting.
-CyranoDeBergerac
I hate to break it to you, but any capitalist society will always have class divisions and it's only natural that the rich are more powerful than the poor.
But that does not make the U.S. an oligarchy. Cyrano's comments about Ken Lay and Martha Stewart are right on. Their (former) wealth isn't helping them out much nowadays, is it? And despite what socialists like Moore will try and tell you, it is very possible for a person to rise from poverty to success, it just takes true determination and hard work, not government hand-outs and self loathing.
Just look at Bill Clinton or Colin Powell, who were both born into poverty...Rather than pitying themselves or blaming others they worked hard and perservered to become some of the most powerful men in the country.
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
I'm not talking about class division or haves and have nots. I'm talking about who selects the president, and how those selectors get that possition. Oligarchy means a government by the few. Those few are the electoral college. In a democratic republic, every adult would choose the government. That would be so if our votes were counted, but they are not - the electoral college votes are counted. This was well established in the 2000 election. How do you become an electoral college member, the people who's votes do actually count when choosing the president? You donate 10 million dollars to the party of the appropriate district. Thus, the rich are the few of the oligarchy. Thinking the US is a democratic republic is one of the biggest myths of modern politics.
And the rich do have ways to pay less than 10% tax. It's only the lower and middle class who actually pay more.
This is not true. Those in power have to appease the less powerful to prevent violent rebelion. In fact during the industrial age, a union called the knights of labor DID rebel violently until modern unions were established and more fair labor laws were put into place.
And the rich do have ways to pay less than 10% tax. It's only the lower and middle class who actually pay more.
For those who've done this: Please, don't be like the White House (calling the movie "lies" and "fiction"), but then turn around and say you haven't seen the movie yet. It just makes you sound ignorant.
I read the anti-Fairenheit 9/11 page and it's nothing more than an opinion piece itself. If F9/11 is liberal propaganda then that page is conservative propaganda.
No one needs to be a genius to know that Bush isn't a very intelligent man. Everyone knew this before Moore's movie, before the wars, before 9/11. In fact, people started poking fun at his intelligence before he was elected--if any of you can remember that far back. Then again, most of you were probably still in high school or middle school. Bush says and does stupid things, this is nothing new.
The movie itself doesn't present anything new, most of it is stuff we've heard about in the news, but it does raise a few questions. The points that the "Unfairenheit 9/11" page disputes are Moore's opinion pieces. His facts are facts, and you can take away from them what you want. He had an army of lawyers and, if I remember correctly, the people at Newsweek cross check his facts. Take them or leave them.
Like everything else, people here get obsessed with stupid details whether it be girls, religion, etc. The point of Moore's movie, at least what I took away from it, was that we should not send our troops into war unless it's absolutely necessary. The rest of the movie is trying to prove that the war in Iraq was not necessary.
Can anyone here honestly argue that the war in Iraq was "absolutely necessary?" No we all know that it wasn't, but you can argue whether it was appropriate so say, "watch this drive" after giving an anti-terror speech. In all honestly, who cares? The conservatives are always going to support Bush and trash Moore's movie, while the liberals are going to try every way to get Bush out of office by recommending everyone see Moore's movie. Can you blame them, they all want jobs, or at least to keep them.
You see, the only time an opinion is "wrong" is when it does not agree with your opinion. So take the movie for what it is, whatever that may be, but it's not the end-all-be-all nor does it really deserve a 3-page thread.
"The most pernicious kind of bias consists in falsely supposing yourself to have none."
-- Sir Walter Moberly
I read the anti-Fairenheit 9/11 page and it's nothing more than an opinion piece itself. If F9/11 is liberal propaganda then that page is conservative propaganda.
No one needs to be a genius to know that Bush isn't a very intelligent man. Everyone knew this before Moore's movie, before the wars, before 9/11. In fact, people started poking fun at his intelligence before he was elected--if any of you can remember that far back. Then again, most of you were probably still in high school or middle school. Bush says and does stupid things, this is nothing new.
The movie itself doesn't present anything new, most of it is stuff we've heard about in the news, but it does raise a few questions. The points that the "Unfairenheit 9/11" page disputes are Moore's opinion pieces. His facts are facts, and you can take away from them what you want. He had an army of lawyers and, if I remember correctly, the people at Newsweek cross check his facts. Take them or leave them.
Like everything else, people here get obsessed with stupid details whether it be girls, religion, etc. The point of Moore's movie, at least what I took away from it, was that we should not send our troops into war unless it's absolutely necessary. The rest of the movie is trying to prove that the war in Iraq was not necessary.
Can anyone here honestly argue that the war in Iraq was "absolutely necessary?" No we all know that it wasn't, but you can argue whether it was appropriate so say, "watch this drive" after giving an anti-terror speech. In all honestly, who cares? The conservatives are always going to support Bush and trash Moore's movie, while the liberals are going to try every way to get Bush out of office by recommending everyone see Moore's movie. Can you blame them, they all want jobs, or at least to keep them.
You see, the only time an opinion is "wrong" is when it does not agree with your opinion. So take the movie for what it is, whatever that may be, but it's not the end-all-be-all nor does it really deserve a 3-page thread.
"The most pernicious kind of bias consists in falsely supposing yourself to have none."
-- Sir Walter Moberly
Shiftkey
Master Don Juan
I think the point of the movie was to always question the government's actions. Thus the title Fahrenheit 9/11, which is derived from a book that critisizes government censorship and oppression. The war in Iraq is just the perfect example.
His movie is more or less a modern 1984, Animal Farm, or F451.
The rest of your reply I agree with G_S. Well said.
- Status