On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:05, Greg Andle wrote: > Well, when one is deliberate, like Moores, then I'd say that there is > a huge difference. GW didn't lie..he/they just used crap intelligence I think you can safely say the GW, little Johnny and Mr Blair, their cronies and their public service depts. all knew that they were being very, very economical with the truth. The fact that Blair and Bush appoint some people to whitewash it really is neither here nor there. > (or so it seems) It's easy to sit back and pick apart someone, after > the facts are out. > Was the US Intelligence flawed? Probably. In that they were producing evidence to outline a case for war on Iraq? Yes it was flawed. They knew they were stretching truths about as far as they could go. That is why this war is so unsupported by most of the rest of world. It was unjustified and set us up for more invasions under pretext of whatever. Face it, the excuses for this war could be applied to: Pakistan. WOMD India. WOMD Umpteen African Nations. Nasty evil ruler. Russia. WOMD China. WOMD. Not democratic and could easily be accused of being nasty. North Korea. WOMD. NED. Iraq. no WOMD but an all new Nasty Evil ruler. Opps, we've already fixed that one haven't we? Doh. So I guess if Bush gets back in we're in for a whole load of new wars? No because some of these nations can fight back and the rest have no resources to exploit for Bush's mates. > Was it indeed false and possibly misleading, intentionally? Highly > doubtful. I'm not into conspiracy theories (unlike Moore). I'm an ex > Vet from the US Army (GW1 and Somalia) and as much as I'd like to say > we're perfect...we are inly human. Intelligence in that part of the > world is nearly impossible, because of the shrewed and ruthlessness of > the ruling parties. If it was a democracy, where secret police were > not arresting everyone who sneezed, then yes, maybe it would be easy > to gather intel. > > ##MISSING WMD's??## > I don't need anymore proof than the nuclear weapons parts and > machinery they uncovered during the early stages of the occupation to > call it justified. Maybe thats bullyish, but these were banned > equipment under UN mandate. Not to mention the 2 IED's made from > chemical agent artillery shells, although they wouldnt have performed > as they were made to do, could have still proven toxic. Where theres > smoke, theres fire, and 2 shells containg NBC only means theres more > out there somewhere. The problem is...where? > I've been there. Its a huge G.D. sandbox, with a million of places to > hide, and most right in plain sight. Not to mention the head start > they had in hiding it, and manipulation of the UN Inspectors...which > in itself was a joke. > > Say what you want about the US, Bush, and the CIA...but don't tell me > you don't think the world is one step closer to better times, > especially in that region. And people who support Moore and this > movie, IMHO, are about as braindead as a head of cabbage. F 9/11 > should have been classed as fiction adapted from real world > events...not a documentary. > > That's my 3 shillings worth > > On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 10:55, James Ponza wrote: > > Does anyone else find it interesting that, regardless of the content of the > > movie, or the rightness or wrongness of Moore's position, there is more of an > > uproar (in the mainstream media) over percieved lies in this piece of mass > > marketing than there was over George W. Bush's marketing of the Iraq War? > > > > So if Moore lies who does it hurt? And if George W. Bush lies who does THAT > > hurt? I think there is quite a gulf between them (so to speak ;) One man's > > lies have the power to kill thousands of people. Art (if we assume film is a > > form of art) doesn't always have to represent absolute accuracy in its > > portrayal - sometimes it's designed to just make people question and think > > about things... as opposed to mass media, which is designed to stop people > > from thinking or questioning. Both are probably factual to about the same > > degree, but the difference is in their intent. Manipulation for personal gain > > on the one hand, and manipulation to induce a desire to learn the truth on > > the other. > > > > On the other hand, I am hungover and can't remember how my sentences or even > > thoughts began so if this makes no sense - you know why :P > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 20 July 2004 10:32, Stuart Cooper wrote: > > > > but Disney and > > > > it's right wing Republican buddies were doing > > > > everything to stop this > > > > movie being seen by the American public.. > > > > > > Ummm Disney told Mike Moore 12 months ago it > > > wouldn't be distributing the film. Moore kicked > > > up some crap story to get publicity > > > and was caught out 24 hours later when people > > > pointed out he'd known for a year what the > > > distribution rights for the past year. > > > > > > Several right wing republicans have defended > > > Moore's right to screen the film while > > > at the same time vigorously debating it. > > > > > > If you want to cry censorship kindly provide > > > an actual example. I can't see any example > > > of Disney or right wingers trying to stop > > > the movie being seen by Americans. > > > > > > > If Michael Moore used an Isreali right wing group to > > > > distribute his > > > > movie would you still be complaining. > > > > > > We've already established that he's not using > > > Disney. > > > > > > Stuart. > > > > > > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. > > > http://au.movies.yahoo.com > > > > Greg Andle > > Underground Revolution > > Contact Me > > ---------------------------- > > Why's it have to be this way? > > Need Hosting? > > Free Blogs with no banners. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Why's it have to be this way?