Originally Posted by Jerrek

Michael Moore is apparently not happy with just deceptive film editing. He was caught lying. Again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT



[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Originally Posted by orangebird

I find it fascinating that MM get's a damn sight more publicityfor his 'lies' than his truths ie the rigging of George Dubya JNRs election win.... :sleep:

I think MM is fab - he should run for president. Better than that half witted, illiterate buffoon that's currently making a hash of it..... :rolleyes: :afire:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Duck and cover!! http://www.liquidninjas.com/bbs/imag...r/peepwall.gif

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Michael Moore is apparently not happy with just deceptive film editing. He was caught lying. Again.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT



http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives...Fallujah-X.gif

Originally Posted by scastle

Ahh. Micheal Moore lies... And, the American Government doesn't?

Originally Posted by scastle

Ahh. Micheal Moore lies... And, the American Government doesn't?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Found moorelies.com ........for anyone interested :)

Originally Posted by Flubflow

Ah, but they could be lying too.

Originally Posted by Flubflow

Ah, but they could be lying too.

Originally Posted by andygrif

I think like any journalistic opinion you need to listen to what Moore says, listen to what the opposite view is then use your own brains to make up your own mind. Branding Moore as a liar becuase someone disagrees with him doesn't really demonstrate independent thought to me.

Originally Posted by Russ D

It's amazing how rabid the yanks can get with someone who commits the oh-so-despicable act of being "anti-american"..... :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by darkangel

not at all like the welsh,english,scottish or irish then:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Richard M

Well we can say "our country (UK) sucks", and that's fine because it's true and everyone agrees. :D

Originally Posted by darkangel

grrr..want an argument do we;) most Brits are quite ignorant of the American people and their way of life and often misunderstand their enthusiastic devotion to their country as arrogance etc, maybe this country needs a little blind faith and love of our own country maybe the fact that we can say "this country sucks" without 99% of people saying anything is a good example of a missing sense of belonging and patriotism that we no longer have as a country and a people?

Originally Posted by dr wadd

No, we do not need any blind faith. That has nothing at all to do with patriotism.

There is no misunderstanding with regard to the USA. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is not a land of free speech, it is a land of people to scared to speak up for fear of criticism. Unfortunately they are in the minority, the rest are just incapable of thinking and seeing through the FUD that their government feeds them on a daily basis.

Patriotism has nothing to do with blindly accepting what you have and what you are told. I would argue that true patriotism could involve taking up arms against your own government under extreme circumstances.

Originally Posted by darkangel

and u belive in what?

Originally Posted by dr wadd

In regard to what specifically?

Originally Posted by darkangel

think where going off topic here..was think of ur political beliefs

Originally Posted by Mr_love_monkey

In my opinion - patriotism is protecting your country - not the government of your country - if your government is doing wrong then it is patriotic to try and stop it, to save yoru country.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Patriotism = environmentalism ??

Originally Posted by downquark1

I saw him vs O'reilly and I was very disappointed he should really have done better.

Originally Posted by punky

Really? Do you know whwn it was or have a video of it? I'd like to see that (as with all his interviews)

Originally Posted by downquark1

Interview here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html
Video

And o'reily bragging and hypocritical bullsh*t:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127898,00.html
Video

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Jesus H Christ! Stop the war! I never knew we were sending pre-pubecent soldiers into war!
That's outrageous!
I don't believe it but it must be true if MM said it!

Originally Posted by downquark1

exactly, I've come up with better arguments on this forum. I think they bribed him with cake

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Exactly, claiming we're sacrificing children, oh get real, they're soldiers and no sensible person joins up thinking they'll never be put in danger

Originally Posted by Flubflow

The general idea is that when you send soldiers to war you ARE sacrificing them so that the rest of you can hopefully sleep more peacefully in your beds.
When you send teenage soldiers to war then you are sacrificing children. It is a perfectly valid point of view and to some extent depends on your legal/moral definition of "child".

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Jesus H Christ! Stop the war! I never knew we were sending pre-pubecent soldiers into war!
That's outrageous!
I don't believe it but it must be true if MM said it!

Originally Posted by punky

Let's just say Bush said it was a purely humanitarian issue. Would they still support the war? And if yes, how does it matter what Bush said, when the overall action, was good?

Originally Posted by Graham

Whilst getting rid of Saddam might be classified as "an improvement", I'd hardly describe the current situation in Iraq as "good".

And if it being humanitarian is so good, why haven't the USA invaded the Sudan?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Someone who's old enough to sign up in the US military is not a child.
And the thing about soldiers is, ultimately, part of their job is to be sacrificed. That's one of the reasons why I have such high regard for them, they are willing to lay down their lives.

Originally Posted by Flubflow

But they are not considered responsible or adult enough to legally buy alcohol until they are 21.

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Or china or Korea or Zimbabwe or many other arab countries, theres plenty of South Amewriccan countries that have human rights issues, why not invade them?

You cant make a statement like that and ignore the countries that offer no financial gain or OIL for your country.

Dubya is a moron and the sooner he is out of the whitehouse the safer the planet will be.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

But they are considered responsible or adult enough to drive, or sign up to the military forces.
So what exactly is your point?
You're still a child until you're able to buy booze? :confused:

Originally Posted by Flubflow

I also think that 16 is far too young to get a driving licence in the USA.
The point is that there are many landmarks in going from adolecence to adulthood. You think that an 18/19 year old is adult and mature enough to go fight in a war whereas I don't. Signing up is not a problem but I think they need a good 5 years training at home before they are put in a war zone to make mistakes. At 18/19 I don't think they can possibly have had enough training and are not only a risk to themselves but also to their older fellow soldiers in the field.
It is a perfectly valid point of view and if you still don't get it then I doubt that I can help you anymore.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It's a point of view not shared with the majority, the military, or those people signing up.
If the law states that someone is an adult at 18, then they are not a child.
And with regards to the issue raised about it in the debate, we are not sending our children to be sacrificed, no children are being sent, and the adults that are going are volunteering to go by being members of the armed forces.

Originally Posted by Flubflow

To many people, this US soldier could quite easily be considered a child - especially by her parents. [Click]
Oh well, I suppose she did have one whole year of legally adult life experience (in the army) before she was sacrificed.

Originally Posted by zovat

Ok, here we go .... (note this is an OPINION).

If you choose to join the military, in any country (including reserves/National Guard/TA/etc), then you must accept the fact that you may well be putting you life at risk at some point in your career - why else would we spend so much time learning how to shoot, and how to treat people who have been shot, as part of the basic training ?

If you join the military with the attitude of "it'll never happen to me" then you do not have a grasp on reality.
Most countries will not allow you to serve overseas until you are 18 (or 17.5 in some cases).

If you die, that is unfortunate, but it is an occupational hazzard.
It is often very hard for the people who care about you to cope with the fact that you willingly put your life on the line for others - in truth that is not how you see it.

I would put it more along the lines of "You do the job you have to do, and have the faith in your training, your team and (unless you are British :( ) your equipment to see you through it".
You do not sit there in the vehicle on your way to some far off battle-scarred land thinking "I may have to die for my country", you sit there thinking "Lets get the job done and get the XXXX out of here and back to my family and friends".

We all know the risks of the job we choose to do - we accept that risk because we have that faith in ourselves and our team.

Therein lies the crux - we choose to do this job, we train for it, we practice in all conditions. We know the risks, but we accept them because we believe in what we are doing.

If you are old enough to choose to be a soldier, then you are old enough to understand the risks. I know that those around you may not feel the risk is acceptable, but it is your choice, and your life that you risk.


As I have said - it is often harder for those that care about you to cope with the fact that you are in a war zone than it is for you as a soldier - you know the job, the risks, and the real situation - those at home can never understand the emotions and thoughts you have, nor do they ever truly know what is going on - they only see what they press want them to see (and the military allows the press to show).

Thanks for listening ;)

(note sig comments) :angel:

Originally Posted by zovat

Ok, here we go .... (note this is an OPINION).

If you choose to join the military, in any country (including reserves/National Guard/TA/etc), then you must accept the fact that you may well be putting you life at risk at some point in your career - why else would we spend so much time learning how to shoot, and how to treat people who have been shot, as part of the basic training ?

If you join the military with the attitude of "it'll never happen to me" then you do not have a grasp on reality.
Most countries will not allow you to serve overseas until you are 18 (or 17.5 in some cases).

If you die, that is unfortunate, but it is an occupational hazzard.
It is often very hard for the people who care about you to cope with the fact that you willingly put your life on the line for others - in truth that is not how you see it.
<snip>

Originally Posted by American cynicism becomes terrorist tool

Kathleen Parker, Tribune Media Services. Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, a Tribune newspaper
Published August 4, 2004

For a few days last week, it was possible to embrace American optimism and to believe that, but for a few tweaks here and there, the Earth would continue to turn on its axis without interruption.

Then came Monday with the sort of portentous tidings that make Mondays forever our bane. Newspapers across the country led with the news that the Bush administration on Sunday had declared a "high risk" of terrorist attack.

Officials based the warning on unusually specific information that Al Qaeda operatives had conducted reconnaissance missions at certain sites, including the New York Stock Exchange and the Citigroup buildings in Manhattan; the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington; and Prudential Financial in Newark, N.J.

We have become like Israel, waiting for the next attack, no longer wondering if, but when. Or have we?

Not if you are a Michael Moore disciple and subscribe to the conspiracy theory popularly known as "Bush lied." In which case fact and fiction are, like identical twins, difficult to tell apart.

In Moore's world: (1) the only reason for going to war against Iraq was for oil and profit; (2) the Bush family's longstanding friendship with the Saudi royals is part of a larger conspiracy to control the world via the Carlyle Group and Halliburton Co.; (3) the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that killed some 3,000 people on American soil were allowed to transpire so that all of the preceding could evolve.

And finally: Terror alerts such as the one announced early this week are strategically engineered for political gain, fictitious inventions of the evildoers in the Bush administration.

Although the New York Times reports that "few prominent Democrats" are charging President Bush with fear manipulation, cynical chatter began almost on cue. By noon Monday, an e-mail from a former Clinton administration official crossed my electronic transom to begin the charge.

Morris Reid, former aide to then-Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and now a managing partner of the Washington-based consulting firm Westin Rinehart Group, issued the following statement:

"Heightened security measures are in place today as the Bush administration attempts to steal post-Democratic National Convention thunder with a raised terror alert.

" ... This is a blatant abuse of power and a clear-cut display of election year politics."

Bush, it seems, is in the quintessential parental predicament of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." What if there were a terrorist threat and Bush said or did nothing? Damn him, as critics damned him for not connecting the dots before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. What if Bush issued a terrorist warning and nothing happened? Damn him again for instilling fear and, as some are insisting even now, manipulating emotion for political gain.

What, one wonders, is the alternative? Where does such cynicism lead? To a John Kerry and John Edwards victory in November? Then what? Do we trust terror warnings under a new administration? Do we cease to have terror threats because Al Qaeda will have succeeded in its mission of derailing Bush? Are we safer then?

Reality gets lost amid such cynicism and paranoia. We believe nothing if it comes from a Bush White House but believe everything if it comes from a Michael Moore dreamscape. Yet Moore, whose film has become the video generation's Declaration of Disbelief, is demonstrably dishonest in his documentary.

In just one example, Moore flashes headlines across the screen about Florida's contested 2000 election results. One purportedly from the Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, issue reads, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."

The only problem is, no such headline appeared on the front page that day. Instead, the headline ran in a different, smaller typeface above a letter to the editor on Dec. 5, 2001, as noted by Pantagraph columnist Bill Flick in a mid-July column.

Headlines that run with letters to the editor typically reflect the letter writer's point and are not necessarily factual. But who cares about facts, or logic for that matter?

Except in the twisted logic of the bitterly partisan, there is no reason for Bush to fake terrorist threats, especially against financial institutions. When he needs economic growth and stability for re-election, no real-world benefit accrues to him from threats that could shake market confidence.

What is nearly as frightening as any terrorist chatter is a degree of cynicism that makes fact out of fiction, heroes of villains and Bush-hatred more compelling than appropriate distrust of and caution toward our enemies.

----------

E-mail: kparker@kparker.com

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Interesting article in todays Chicago Tribune.