Fahrenheit 9/11 & Harper

[InTO]

Michael Moore is of one extreme, but so too is the current right-wing US Govt. and its mass manipulation of the mainstream American media.

It's at times like these one is grateful for the CBC.

Stephen Harper will walk in goose-step tandem with the Americans, same as Mulroney did, if given the opportunity.

As for the film itself, it will be viewed widely in Canada as was his previous flick Bowling For Columbine (Moore's films are usually funded by a number of Canadian sources). I doubt it will have the same impact in right wing Alberta that it will in the rest of Canada.

While most Torontonians I know are fed up with the Liberals, they aren't naive enough to fall for the bible-thumpin', homophobic, potenial Rights infringing Conservative Party.

My hope is Canada won't give the PMO to Harper (or to anyone with a majority govt.). Like him or hate him, and though I'm not voting Liberal, Paul Martin could be our best bet for a PM of a minority govt.

[Hawk]

Except, as I point out above, none of us have seen the movie, so the accusation of "liar" is invalid.  Go see it then get back to me.  It's a straw man argument.

Who said I was talking only about the new movie? Moore has yet to publish a single novel or movie that isn't completely and intentionally deceptive. That makes him a liar and I can gaurantee you his new movie wont break the trend =p

The depth of corruption from the White House is deeper than just connecting Hussein and al Qaeda.  The Cheney/Halliburton deals, the abuse scandal, WMD ad nauseum.

First off the abuse scandel was a terrible thing, does that mean Bush went over to Iraq and personally oked those prisoner's sexual harrassment? No, if you believe that then you are gullible. Sometimes people act out of turn, that was the case there.

WMD is still an unsettled issue, thinking there was none is just ignorance, read up on some of the missile heads and so on they find over there.... what happened to the rest of them?

I always thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution.  Are you suggesting that we turn a basic rule of law on it's head to suit your purpose?

As for trusting the press, I haven't in a LONG time. 

You are right about the burden of proof, but the problem then arises when the defence uses that as a form of attack on the credibility of the prosecution. It is extremely near-sighted and unless you search every square inch of Iraq and still find no WMD you cannot claim you are right and Bush is wrong. Its word against word =p

Its good you dont trust the press, but you seem to echo alot of the Liberal media that is why I assumed you did.

Silly semantics... terrorism is perpetrated against governments, not by it.  Hence, Saddam COULD be a supporter of terrorism against OTHER countries, but HE'S not a terrorist.  Even the White House never slapped him with that label, because it's incorrect. 

So now you use the White House as your defence when just one minute ago you were trying to destroy their credibility? My my my

You see the most common stereotyped terrorist as being the only form of terrorist to exist, that is incorrect. I showed you the literal definition of Terrorist and Saddam fits the bill thereby he IS a terrorist and I believe the USA is at war with them

Obviously he wasn't.  Bush came into the White House with a "get Iraq" agenda, at the cost of other, more important, security concerns, including al Qaeda and North Korea.  By scraping "whole cloth" the largely "international law enforcement" bent of the previous administration, they completely botched their efforts against bin Laden.  I guess testimony during the 9/11 commission doesn't count for anything? 

Ok how did he botch up efforst against bin Laden first of all? Also your basing your argument on your own personal assumption that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, therefore attempting to justify yourself with your own thinking and that doesn't work.

The point is to highlight that many have thought that the policy of containment instigated by the Bush I administration and continued by Clinton's was a failure, and that it should have been addressed years ago.

Then I agree with you, they should have cleaned up the mess long ago. But are we going to cry about spilled milk for all of eternity or are we gonna get down and clean it up?

That's another bogus argument, as it's clear that Iraq didn't have nuclear capabilities.  Remember the faked documents saying Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria, the British dossier that said Iraq could launch an attack with 45 minutes notices, which was also a bunch of hyperbole?

You sound just like those Liberals who said 'its clear Germany does not have the power to defy Europe' oh my weren't they proven terribly wrong, the difference between you and me is that you would wait for some terrible tragedy to happen to you or your people before acting, whereas I would ensure there was no danger and therefore nothing would happen.

The "damned if you, damned if you don't" stance doesn't hold up, when, as I mentioned before, the majority of the UN wanted to re-examine the situation in Iraq for years, but was consistently stonewalled by the US/UK.  They just let it fester for a decade.  Of course, that probably doesn't count in your eyes, because it was mainly people who are "left of centre" who were pushing for it. 

The "damned if you, damned if you don't" stance DOES hold up and has been proven in various points in history. If you dont believe me study the major wars, always the pacifists were downplaying the danger of the aggressor and the failure to act decisivley and quickly has ALWAYS been a bad move.

I'll admit that the UN is flawed and needs reform, but the international rules of engagement and justification for war are credible, unless you think it's better to just abolish it and let any nation declare war on another, using faked evidence.

If you do recall this war is still a legal war, Iraq was in violation of UN resolution and defiant to the end. There was a lack of cooperation to UN inspectors even, and so the USA, tired of waiting months for the UN to do nothing about these violations and fearing for the international security of the world made the decisive move for us. Try and convince the Iraqis that Saddam and his murderous reign were 'faked' =p

I thought Iraq is a shining example of that.  For decades, US foreign policy has propped up dictators to further their economic interests, regardless of said dictator's behaviour to their own citizens.  Not only in the Middle East, either.  They've done the same thing in this side of the ocean as well.

Bin Laden is another example, or are you going to play apologist for the CIA in it's support of bin Laden in the 80's?

You must look at situations in perspective, the USA built up Bin Laden to hold off the Russians which were a FAR greater danger to both the Afghani's and the USA. They propped up Saddam because they needed to indirectly fight Iran and the radical Islamic movement. They fought the greater evil with a lesser evil, and now when they are finally destroying the lesser evil's completely you turn around and condemn them for doing it =p

Here's my point in a nutshell.

US foreign policy has bred terrorism and hatred towards them through many regions of the world.  If they refused to support leaders who are brutal dictators to their people, the main reason for hatred towards the US in these regions would be largely diffused.

If you fail to see connections, there's not much I can do about that.

Your point is unfounded, mainly because you claim people hate North America for 'breeding' terrorism and hatred towards them. People hate North America because we 'have' and they 'have not', jealousy is the most comon cause of hatred and it has been cultivated by various world leaders since it is an excellent tool to get votes (just look at the Liberals, they have a 'proud' history using anti-Americanism to gain votes)

[Hawk]

Michael Moore is of one extreme, but so too is the current right-wing US Govt. and its mass manipulation of the mainstream American media.

You have GOT to be kidding me, the only news source in USA that is right-wing biased is Fox News and that gets so much flak its amazing

It's at times like these one is grateful for the CBC.

HAHAHAAA!! The CBC? Talk about a biased media outlet, you say the US government manipulates the media and yet you support the most blatantly left-leaning Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Yet again, more Liberal naivety

Stephen Harper will walk in goose-step tandem with the Americans, same as Mulroney did, if given the opportunity.

I bet you dont know the first thing about Harper, you simply are spouting off what you have heard your media sources say. If you knew anything about conservatives it is that we are right-wing, but we are Canadian. Therefore, while some policies might seem American, that is because the USA is currently furthur to the right than Canada. So when we get a right-wing government in that is Canadian OF COURSE there are going to be similarities, does that means we will become the 51st state? Heck no, over our dead bodies =p

As for the film itself, it will be viewed widely in Canada as was his previous flick Bowling For Columbine (Moore's films are usually funded by a number of Canadian sources). I doubt it will have the same impact in right wing Alberta that it will in the rest of Canada.

His films are a debauchery of truth, they intentionally decieve the public and fuel controversy.. If you are willing to believe such an outright liar such as Michael Moore then you have no business declaring judgement on the conservatives

While most Torontonians I know are fed up with the Liberals, they aren't naive enough to fall for the bible-thumpin', homophobic, potenial Rights infringing Conservative Party.

Bible thumping? Nah. Homophobic? Are you crazy? potenial Rights infringing? Bill c-250 anyone? Liberal majority?

My hope is Canada won't give the PMO to Harper (or to anyone with a majority govt.). Like him or hate him, and though I'm not voting Liberal, Paul Martin could be our best bet for a PM of a minority govt.

Paul Martin, the guy responsible for the waste of untold billions of taxpayer dollars, for a legacy of corruption and the destruction of the Canadian society that made this country the best on earth...

As Alexis de Tocqueville once said:

"I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors, in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is Good, and if America ever ceases to be good America will cease to be great."

You are supporting the downfall of North America InTO

[Bionic Antboy]

Except, as I point out above, none of us have seen the movie, so the accusation of "liar" is invalid.  Go see it then get back to me.  It's a straw man argument.

Who said I was talking only about the new movie? Moore has yet to publish a single novel or movie that isn't completely and intentionally deceptive. That makes him a liar and I can gaurantee you his new movie wont break the trend =p

There are so many points to address in this....

First, the discussion IS on THIS movie. His other work is only good as a frame of reference. For that matter, his work has evolved to become less and less documentarian in nature, no doubt. This film, apparently, swings back in the other direction, according to reviews (both good and bad) I've read (although I've discounted the "reviews" by WSJ and Ben Shapiro, as they offered reviews on something they haven't even seen, hence they don't count). How do you propose to guarantee that F 9/11 is going to be like BFC (which, incidentally, wasn't like Roger & Me OR Canadian Bacon)?

The depth of corruption from the White House is deeper than just connecting Hussein and al Qaeda.  The Cheney/Halliburton deals, the abuse scandal, WMD ad nauseum.

First off the abuse scandel was a terrible thing, does that mean Bush went over to Iraq and personally oked those prisoner's sexual harrassment? No, if you believe that then you are gullible. Sometimes people act out of turn, that was the case there.

WMD is still an unsettled issue, thinking there was none is just ignorance, read up on some of the missile heads and so on they find over there.... what happened to the rest of them?

Here you're putting words in my mouth. I clearly say the White House, not Bush. For the record, IMHO most of the policy has seemed driven more by Cheney and Rumsfeld, not Bush. They clearly have a long term, far right, almost fascistic (and not in a hyperbolic sense of the word) agenda that was clearly documented well before 9/11. Of course, maybe reading "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" before 9/11 made me suspicious of those two a LONG time ago.

As for gullibility, maybe those who haven't read the entire text of the PNAC "bible" are the truly gullible ones, as are the media who don't bother discussing the agenda set forth by that far-right think tank that now occupies a large portion of the seats of power in the White House.

www.newamericancentury.org

As for WMD, we shall see what we shall see. So far it's not amounting to the stockpiles the US tried to sell to the UN in it's PowerPoint presentation. I doubt it will.

I always thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution.  Are you suggesting that we turn a basic rule of law on it's head to suit your purpose?

As for trusting the press, I haven't in a LONG time.

You are right about the burden of proof, but the problem then arises when the defence uses that as a form of attack on the credibility of the prosecution. It is extremely near-sighted and unless you search every square inch of Iraq and still find no WMD you cannot claim you are right and Bush is wrong. Its word against word =p

Its good you dont trust the press, but you seem to echo alot of the Liberal media that is why I assumed you did.

The defense has every right to attack the credibility of the administration, because the administration pointed out specific locations that they said had WMD. Searches of those places have revealed nada (except barrels already known and tagged by the UN). The administration CLEARLY either lied, or exaggerated their case.

As for my take on the whole "Liberal Media", that hasn't existed in the mainstream news media in well over a decade. Ever since the conglomeration of news media, it has become less than critical, and prefers to maintain the status-quo. Especially the news "networks", where, like it or not, the majority of people still get their news from (not saying the people here).

I'll give you that the media is more "Liberal" when it comes to domestic social issues, but certainly not in international reporting. It's downright atrocious.

Silly semantics... terrorism is perpetrated against governments, not by it.  Hence, Saddam COULD be a supporter of terrorism against OTHER countries, but HE'S not a terrorist.  Even the White House never slapped him with that label, because it's incorrect. 

So now you use the White House as your defence when just one minute ago you were trying to destroy their credibility? My my my

You see the most common stereotyped terrorist as being the only form of terrorist to exist, that is incorrect. I showed you the literal definition of Terrorist and Saddam fits the bill thereby he IS a terrorist and I believe the USA is at war with them

Yep, I'm using the White House. My point is from what I've noticed post 9/11 is that only pundits with a more rabidly pro-war "Hawk"ish attitude refer to Hussein himself as a terrorist. A terrorist being one that commits acts of terrorism, which I always took to mean...

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

(from the American Heritage dictionary)

or

the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

Therefore, call Hussein a tryrant, sure, a torturer, no problem. But a terrorist? Nah... that puppy don't float. Let me clarify...

When the State holds a gun to the citizen's head, it's called tyranny or oppression, NOT terrorism. Terrifying act, yes, but terrorism, no. Plain and simple.

Obviously he wasn't.  Bush came into the White House with a "get Iraq" agenda, at the cost of other, more important, security concerns, including al Qaeda and North Korea.  By scraping "whole cloth" the largely "international law enforcement" bent of the previous administration, they completely botched their efforts against bin Laden.  I guess testimony during the 9/11 commission doesn't count for anything? 

Ok how did he botch up efforst against bin Laden first of all? Also your basing your argument on your own personal assumption that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, therefore attempting to justify yourself with your own thinking and that doesn't work.

I'm basing my opinion on the reports ignored before 9/11. I'm basing it on the agenda that has been clearly reported by many administration officials. I'm basing it on Condi Rice having the gall to say that a report entitled "bin Laden Determined to strike in the US" was a historical document, and hardly a peep out of the so-called leftist press. It was a blip.

I'm basing it on the fact that under international law, it WAS the wrong (illegal) thing to do.

I'm basing it on reports that when Bush took over, he threw out the Clinton administration's policy of treating terrorism as an international law enforcement issue.

A policy which DID stop dozens of terrorist attacks - look up foiled plots against the following... Lincoln Bridge, UN Headquarters, FBI headquarters, 12 commercial jets simultaneously, the millennium bombings, Papal assassination and more, all in cooperation with international police forces, without the need to enact something like the Patriot Act, to boot.

The Bush administration threw out that policy whole cloth, even though, in the final few years of Clinton's administration especially, it had proven highly effective.

I was never a big fan of Clinton, but anti-terrorism policy worked. Of course, this meant that he was happy to keep Iraq contained, as Iraq was much less a threat (which lead to untold suffering and death in Iraq at the time).

The point is to highlight that many have thought that the policy of containment instigated by the Bush I administration and continued by Clinton's was a failure, and that it should have been addressed years ago.

Then I agree with you, they should have cleaned up the mess long ago. But are we going to cry about spilled milk for all of eternity or are we gonna get down and clean it up?

Exactly, but I don't think the way to clean it up was to use a metaphorical flamethrower. That's where we differ.

That's another bogus argument, as it's clear that Iraq didn't have nuclear capabilities.  Remember the faked documents saying Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria, the British dossier that said Iraq could launch an attack with 45 minutes notices, which was also a bunch of hyperbole?

You sound just like those Liberals who said 'its clear Germany does not have the power to defy Europe' oh my weren't they proven terribly wrong, the difference between you and me is that you would wait for some terrible tragedy to happen to you or your people before acting, whereas I would ensure there was no danger and therefore nothing would happen.

When one has wanted change in the Iraq policy for many years, how is that like a Liberals who said 'its clear Germany does not have the power to defy Europe' . Isn't it the people who let the status-quo exist who have their heads in the sand?

Specious argument to say the least! That also applies to your next paragraph, so I won't bother quoting it.

I'll admit that the UN is flawed and needs reform, but the international rules of engagement and justification for war are credible, unless you think it's better to just abolish it and let any nation declare war on another, using faked evidence.

If you do recall this war is still a legal war, Iraq was in violation of UN resolution and defiant to the end. There was a lack of cooperation to UN inspectors even, and so the USA, tired of waiting months for the UN to do nothing about these violations and fearing for the international security of the world made the decisive move for us. Try and convince the Iraqis that Saddam and his murderous reign were 'faked' =p

The tyrannical rule of Hussein is not in question (another straw man?). What IS in question are the issues previously raised re: WMD and links to al Qaeda. The US did NOT even bother with a vote on their last draft and they did not prove their case for launching a pre-emptive war. Even Richard Perle agreed that the war was in conflict with international law, and that was back in the fall of 2003.... let me google it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...1089158,00.html

I thought Iraq is a shining example of that.  For decades, US foreign policy has propped up dictators to further their economic interests, regardless of said dictator's behaviour to their own citizens.  Not only in the Middle East, either.  They've done the same thing in this side of the ocean as well.

Bin Laden is another example, or are you going to play apologist for the CIA in it's support of bin Laden in the 80's?

You must look at situations in perspective, the USA built up Bin Laden to hold off the Russians which were a FAR greater danger to both the Afghani's and the USA. They propped up Saddam because they needed to indirectly fight Iran and the radical Islamic movement. They fought the greater evil with a lesser evil, and now when they are finally destroying the lesser evil's completely you turn around and condemn them for doing it =p

You've proven my point that the old axiom "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" DOES indeed bear bitter fruit.

Nuff said.

Here's my point in a nutshell.

US foreign policy has bred terrorism and hatred towards them through many regions of the world.  If they refused to support leaders who are brutal dictators to their people, the main reason for hatred towards the US in these regions would be largely diffused.

If you fail to see connections, there's not much I can do about that.

Your point is unfounded, mainly because you claim people hate North America for 'breeding' terrorism and hatred towards them. People hate North America because we 'have' and they 'have not', jealousy is the most comon cause of hatred and it has been cultivated by various world leaders since it is an excellent tool to get votes (just look at the Liberals, they have a 'proud' history using anti-Americanism to gain votes)

This is where we disagree. I don't think it's just a matter of jealousy. It's been cultivated because these countries have been used as pawns between larger powers, with neither side giving a $h!+ about them, causing the death of thousand and keeping them down. It's been going on since the beginning of the civilized world. Many in the Middle East, and parts of Asia and Central/South America haven't had the CHANCE for self-governance because of this giant chess game, which I'm sure they'd be more than happy not to be a part of.

As for the Liberals using anti-Americanism to gain votes, sure (especially when they support some of the same integration the Conservatives do, though not as boldly). I won't argue that, but that doesn't make all their points invalid.

I'm not stating my opinion to defend the Liberal Party of Canada by ANY stretch of the imagination.

I also understand that you're not a fan of the UN, so any points I raised re: the legality of the war are suspect to criticism on those grounds. That's worthy of a discussion forum all it's own.

PS: if any parts of this post sound overly snarky, read them with a smiley. With all the quoting, I was "over quoto" on emoticons. Apparently there's a limit on the forum

[noelandmero]

QUOTE 

Michael Moore is of one extreme, but so too is the current right-wing US Govt. and its mass manipulation of the mainstream American media.

You have GOT to be kidding me, the only news source in USA that is right-wing biased is Fox News and that gets so much flak its amazing

QUOTE 

It's at times like these one is grateful for the CBC.

HAHAHAAA!! The CBC? Talk about a biased media outlet, you say the US government manipulates the media and yet you support the most blatantly left-leaning Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Yet again, more Liberal naivety

QUOTE 

Stephen Harper will walk in goose-step tandem with the Americans, same as Mulroney did, if given the opportunity.

I bet you dont know the first thing about Harper, you simply are spouting off what you have heard your media sources say. If you knew anything about conservatives it is that we are right-wing, but we are Canadian. Therefore, while some policies might seem American, that is because the USA is currently furthur to the right than Canada. So when we get a right-wing government in that is Canadian OF COURSE there are going to be similarities, does that means we will become the 51st state? Heck no, over our dead bodies =p

QUOTE 

As for the film itself, it will be viewed widely in Canada as was his previous flick Bowling For Columbine (Moore's films are usually funded by a number of Canadian sources). I doubt it will have the same impact in right wing Alberta that it will in the rest of Canada.

His films are a debauchery of truth, they intentionally decieve the public and fuel controversy.. If you are willing to believe such an outright liar such as Michael Moore then you have no business declaring judgement on the conservatives

QUOTE 

While most Torontonians I know are fed up with the Liberals, they aren't naive enough to fall for the bible-thumpin', homophobic, potenial Rights infringing Conservative Party. 

Bible thumping? Nah. Homophobic? Are you crazy? potenial Rights infringing? Bill c-250 anyone? Liberal majority?

QUOTE 

My hope is Canada won't give the PMO to Harper (or to anyone with a majority govt.). Like him or hate him, and though I'm not voting Liberal, Paul Martin could be our best bet for a PM of a minority govt.

Paul Martin, the guy responsible for the waste of untold billions of taxpayer dollars, for a legacy of corruption and the destruction of the Canadian society that made this country the best on earth...

As Alexis de Tocqueville once said:

QUOTE 

"I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors, in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and matchless Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is Good, and if America ever ceases to be good America will cease to be great."

You are supporting the downfall of North America InTO

Spot on.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Michael Moore is of one extreme, but so too is the current right-wing US Govt. and its mass manipulation of the mainstream American media.

It's at times like these one is grateful for the CBC.

Stephen Harper will walk in goose-step tandem with the Americans, same as Mulroney did, if given the opportunity.

As for the film itself, it will be viewed widely in Canada as was his previous flick Bowling For Columbine (Moore's films are usually funded by a number of Canadian sources). I doubt it will have the same impact in right wing Alberta that it will in the rest of Canada.

While most Torontonians I know are fed up with the Liberals, they aren't naive enough to fall for the bible-thumpin', homophobic, potenial Rights infringing Conservative Party.

I think this guy would probably choose Cuba or China over the United States any day. Just because we don't share your socialist view of the world, does'nt mean were all bible thumpers.

What do you want a version of Pravda to come in, for some reason I can see your paradise being based on the books 1984, and Animal Farm, all socialist paradises were the government is allways right.

No offense to you people in Toronto, but you guys are weak, I mean why the hell did you have to call in the military when their was a snow storm, I bet in Newfoundland, and every other part of Canada we would'nt ask for military help when it snowed to much.

Tell us all how Toronto has such an enlightened view over all of us commoners here in the rest of Canada.

It's also been proven that in Micheal Moore's films he also spewd BS. He basically twisted around the facts to get his point of view across.

The guy's a wackjob, he also said after Sept 11, that Osama Bin Laden should have targeted planes coming from conservative regions instead of liberal areas in order to hurt the government.

What a nut.

Is'nt it also the left wing that gutted the military beyond repair, and disbanded the once great Canadian Airborne Regiment instead of just replacing the commanding officers and charging those who were guily of hazing.

[caesar]

Friends and relatives have visited Cuba nad had a great time there. The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions) are happy and very friendly.

Do not call everyone who criticizes the present US government and it actions as being anti American. My views are now shared by a majority of Americans. I expect even more will come to realize the reckless arrogant aggressive actions with Bush allowing prisoners to be tortured; He has now admitted to okaying stripping, sleep deprivation and threatening with dogs. Little by little admissions are coming. How dare they prosecute their soldiers who were following orders. Scapegoats again, they did the same during Vietnam mess.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Friends and relatives have visited Cuba nad had a great time there. The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions) are happy and very friendly.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with a oppressive communist leftist government in the region. Once again blaming the United States for all of the worlds problems. Cuba can solve that problem by actually allowing their people some liberty.

Do you really think all Cuban's enjoy living in a communist authoritarian state.

[takeanumber]

Do you really think all Cuban's enjoy living in a communist authoritarian state.

No, I think Florida's Cuban community are terribly pissed off, all the time, and arn't happy at all.

*drumkick*

Thank you, I'll be here all night.

[idealisttotheend]

good one TN lol

[Argus]

Friends and relatives have visited Cuba nad had a great time there.  The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions) are happy and very friendly.

Ahhh, uhm, the truth or lies of whether or not a people are "happy" is usually exposed by what they do when they have the freedom to get out. Cuba has demonstrated that any time it eases the tight patrols around their paradise island the seas immediately begin to fill with desperate people frantic to leave; more than willing to risk their lives by enduring incredibly difficult crossings in barely seaworthy rafts and boats. If Cuba ever lifted its ban on travel completely the whole island would fly off.

Your friends and relatives might have liked the tourist areas, tightly guarded, and with Castro's secret police on the look for anyone talking against the government. I doubt they'd have liked living there.

[maplesyrup]

Fahrenheit 9/11 starts tomorrow, and the line-ups have already started. This is going to have an effect on the campaign.

'No moviegoer will be bored ...'

US critics find Michael Moore's anti-Bush missive entertaining and persuasive, even must-see cinema. Just don't call it a 'documentary'

Thursday June 24, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11: 'Trades more in emotional appeals.' Photo: AP

 

"While Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 will be properly debated on the basis of its factual claims and cinematic techniques, it should first of all be appreciated as a high-spirited and unruly exercise in democratic self-expression."

AO Scott, New York Times

"No moviegoer will be bored. The documentary's scathing attack on the war in Iraq and George W Bush's presidency is informative, provocative, frightening, compelling, funny, manipulative and, most of all, entertaining."

Claudia Puig, USA Today

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is at its best when it provides talking points for the emerging majority of those opposed to the Iraq incursion. In sum, it's an appalling, enthralling primer of what Moore sees as the Bush administration's crimes and misdemeanours."

Mary Corliss, Time

[Bionic Antboy]

Ahhh, uhm, the truth or lies of whether or not a people are "happy" is usually exposed by what they do when they have the freedom to get out. Cuba has demonstrated that any time it eases the tight patrols around their paradise island the seas immediately begin to fill with desperate people frantic to leave; more than willing to risk their lives by enduring incredibly difficult crossings in barely seaworthy rafts and boats. If Cuba ever lifted its ban on travel completely the whole island would fly off.

Your friends and relatives might have liked the tourist areas, tightly guarded, and with Castro's secret police on the look for anyone talking against the government. I doubt they'd have liked living there.

True, but to deny that sanctions have played a major role in the relative prosperity of the people is just a little disingeuous.

As for the "tourist areas" comment, it's not hard, or illegal for a tourist to rent a car and strike out on the highway. In fact, I recommend it, if you want a truly surreal experience.

[maplesyrup]

Purchasing a ticket to view Fahrenheit 9/11 is quickly becoming a political statement. This is big..

Can you imagine, all these so-called free speech proponents want the movie banned. Ha!

[Argus]

Purchasing a ticket to view Fahrenheit 9/11 is quickly becoming a political statement. This is big..

Can you imagine, all these so-called free speech proponents want the movie banned. Ha!

Such as whom?

[Hugo]

True, but to deny that sanctions have played a major role in the relative prosperity of the people is just a little disingeuous.

For your information, Castro sent a communique to Nicaragua once warning them not to cut off trade links with the West as he had done.

I also think that it's ridiculous when people such as yourself blame US sanctions for the plight of the Cuban people, and then lambast the US for trading with dictatorial regimes - which is it? Should they sanction, or not? Clearly, there is no right answer that the US can give you. US sanctions are to blame for the poverty of the Cubans and Iraqis, and US trade is to blame for propping up evil regimes in China and Saudi Arabia.

Consider this massive inconsistency and hypocrisy for a second.

Friends and relatives have visited Cuba nad had a great time there. The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions) are happy and very friendly.

I guess they would be, after Castro murdered an estimated 141,000 Cuban citizens who were not "happy and very friendly". After that, I'd put a big grin on my face and rave about my socialist paradise too.

[August1991]

US sanctions are to blame for the poverty of the Cubans and Iraqis, and US trade is to blame for propping up evil regimes in China and Saudi Arabia. Consider this massive inconsistency and hypocrisy for a second.

Extremely good point.

More likely, US trade is to blame for poverty in the third world. (Those big US corporations come in and buy everything up paying dirt poor wages to the locals.)

[Bionic Antboy]

True, but to deny that sanctions have played a major role in the relative prosperity of the people is just a little disingeuous.

For your information, Castro sent a communique to Nicaragua once warning them not to cut off trade links with the West as he had done.

I also think that it's ridiculous when people such as yourself blame US sanctions for the plight of the Cuban people, and then lambast the US for trading with dictatorial regimes - which is it? Should they sanction, or not? Clearly, there is no right answer that the US can give you. US sanctions are to blame for the poverty of the Cubans and Iraqis, and US trade is to blame for propping up evil regimes in China and Saudi Arabia.

Consider this massive inconsistency and hypocrisy for a second.

Ahhh... over-generalizing again...

In the same vein, I could point to the inconsistency and hypocrisy of sanctions BEING on Cuba, and not on Saudi Arabia, but I wouldn't want to over-generalize, as some like to do.

Isn't it hypocritical to HAVE sanctions on Cuba, and none on Saudi Arabia or China? See what happens when you start to over-generalize?

I never said that sanctions were the ONLY factor in Cuba's case, nor did I say that sanctions and other diplomatic means AREN'T valid tools when dealing with various governments. The policy itself strikes me as somewhat inconsistent, and lacks some ethically sound reasoning. When sanctions are proven to only harm the people of a country, and have little effect on the leaders of said country, there's something to be said for rethinking that policy, don't you think?

As for putting words in my mouth re: China and Saudi Arabia, well, there's really not much more to say except you're putting words in my mouth, probably as a jumping off point to launch some kind of "God Bless Dick Cheney's America" tirade of some sort.

Oops, now I'M making assumptions!

'Nuff said.

[Bionic Antboy]

US sanctions are to blame for the poverty of the Cubans and Iraqis, and US trade is to blame for propping up evil regimes in China and Saudi Arabia. Consider this massive inconsistency and hypocrisy for a second.

Extremely good point.

More likely, US trade is to blame for poverty in the third world. (Those big US corporations come in and buy everything up paying dirt poor wages to the locals.)

Could it be that we're getting a little closer to a real truth here?

I'd agree with that statement, in that US foreign policy ISN'T primarily dictated by the need to spread democracy throughout the world.

I'd say it's more driven by the wants and needs of corporations who only give a crap about human rights and dignity, the envionment and democracy when it's expedient to THEIR bottom line. (IE: when 60 Minutes airs a piece on sweatshops or some such thing).

Note that this isn't to say that Canada, Britain, France and most other Western nations AREN'T hypocritical in their policies either.

[Hugo]

I never said that sanctions were the ONLY factor in Cuba's case

Yes, you did. Your exact words were:

"The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions)"

You did not say "thanks largely to US sanctions", "thanks in part to US sanctions", "thanks, amongst other things, to US sanctions". You said "thanks to US sanctions."

You should watch what you say more closely. Somebody may hold you to it.

When sanctions are proven to only harm the people of a country, and have little effect on the leaders of said country, there's something to be said for rethinking that policy, don't you think?

Ah, so you think the UN should have dropped sanctions against Iraq? What should they have done instead?

Could it be that we're getting a little closer to a real truth here?

No. There's another thread on globalisation running right now, feel free to get stuck in. It's a fact, though, that countries that do more trade with the West end up with improved real incomes, life expectancy, standard of living and so forth, whereas those that keep closed doors (like Cuba) don't.

Here's an example. In the early 1980s, China opened up to foreign trade for the first time in history, really. Since then, the average Chinese income has quadrupled - a massively higher rate of growth than anything prior. In 1980, the average American was 12 times as rich as the average Chinese, now, the average American is about 7 times as rich.

There's not a shred of evidence that globalisation and US trade have a generally negative effect on participants, in fact, quite the opposite. There's also plenty of evidence that globalisation has a levelling effect on world wealth, contrary to what you think.

I've already had Blackdog, Blair and Thelonius flailing around wildly trying to prove this giant misconception, do you want to try?

I notice you didn't try to pursue your ridiculous point about the "happiness" of the Cuban people. Good idea, you might look like a fool.

[maplesyrup]

Fahrenheit 9/11 filmmaker burns Harper

Fahrenheit 9/11 filmmaker burns Harper

Last Updated Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:16:30

WASHINGTON - U.S. filmmaker Michael Moore sounded off Wednesday on Canada's election, warning voters not to elect a Conservative government.

Moore, in Washington for the official American premiere of his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, said he hopes his film will convince Canadians to bypass Stephen Harper.

[Bionic Antboy]

In your zeal to denegrate anyone and everyone who doesn't share your point of view, you CLEARLY opt to misquote and misrepresent what others say.

I never said that sanctions were the ONLY factor in Cuba's case

Yes, you did. Your exact words were:

"The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions)"

You did not say "thanks largely to US sanctions", "thanks in part to US sanctions", "thanks, amongst other things, to US sanctions". You said "thanks to US sanctions."

You should watch what you say more closely. Somebody may hold you to it.

(snipped)

I notice you didn't try to pursue your ridiculous point about the "happiness" of the Cuban people. Good idea, you might look like a fool.

Before misquoting me, you SHOULD have read what I typed, it's up there, and you quoted it.... you can either re-read it, or in the interest of saving your scrolling finger I'll quote it again...

My exact words were...

True, but to deny that sanctions have played a major role in the relative prosperity of the people is just a little disingeuous.

That's it...

Similarly, I wasn't the one who wrote

Friends and relatives have visited Cuba nad had a great time there. The people though poor,(thanks to US sanctions) are happy and very friendly.

Would you like your humble pie served a la mode?

Just as a little tip. When quoting multiple people in a reply, it may help you to make note of who said what, to avoid further embarrassing slip-ups

[Hugo]

Would you like your humble pie served a la mode?

Pardon me, I did misattribute caesar's words to you. My apologies.

I now await your further comments on the points I raised regarding globalisation and UN sanctions on Iraq.

[Black Dog]

Purchasing a ticket to view Fahrenheit 9/11 is quickly becoming a political statement. This is big..

Can you imagine, all these so-called free speech proponents want the movie banned. Ha! 

Such as whom?

Farenheit 9-11 ban?

Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.

At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.

[maplesyrup]

QUOTE (maplesyrup @ Jun 24 2004, 09:39 AM)

Purchasing a ticket to view Fahrenheit 9/11 is quickly becoming a political statement. This is big..

Can you imagine, all these so-called free speech proponents want the movie banned. Ha!  

Argus relied;

Such as whom?

Argus.....duh.