No More Moore!

Of course swaying the gullible voter was Moore's intent. Have you watched Tough Crowd? Rich Vos bought into the whole thing. :'D

Nice posts all around. Posts we should keep around. Bradylama and CCR, your response?

There's nothing to really respond to, since I already made a closing statement. Quietfanatic's post was more informative than relative for me at that point in time. I acknowlege that my previous perception of the anarchist movement was innacurate. Although, now that I do have a basic idea of what the movement was about, it seems to me ideologically authoritarian. Not to mention that the basic concept is still seriously flawed.
 
ConstipatedCraprunner said:
Now this is what I'm scared of more then BLOOD FOR OIL semiinsane consipricy theroies; fat demegouges deciding the election with half-truths, shaky facts and outright lies.

Of course, much of the really damaging evidence came out before the film and didn't come from Moore.
 
Moore does, however, have this thing called film technique. It allows him to paint a picture that didn't really happen. Like giving the impression that post-invasion Iraq was a wonderland.
 
You mean pre.

Moore is a dangerous demegouge who manipulates facts in a way that makes Stalinists horny. He can't seem to tell a fact with a straight face, it's actually kind of remarkable.

It's really a pretty amazing attention to detail with manipulation. For instance, in Bowling for Columbine, Moore talks about America "Re-instating the Dictator of Kuwait". He of course forgets to mention that Saddam is like Stalin without the Georgian foods. But hey, knowing Moore he probably has as many books about Stalin as Saddam did.
 
Moore is a dangerous demegouge who manipulates facts in a way that makes Stalinists horny. He can't seem to tell a fact with a straight face, it's actually kind of remarkable.
Ehe. This makes me think of Bush. ;)
 
Bradylama said:
Moore does, however, have this thing called film technique. It allows him to paint a picture that didn't really happen. Like giving the impression that post-invasion Iraq was a wonderland.

You know, I remember when Bush was trying to put us on a war footing versus Iraq. The administration released a set of talking points centered on how iraq had a budding middle class and was therefore very likely to take to democracy. All the major news networks then proceeded to run stories and specials on this. I remember on CNN they showed footage of Iraqis at the market and in the city. Everything looked very cosmopolitan and everyone seemed very similar to you and me.

Now, we dont get those kinds of images and any, ANYONE, showing any images of Iraq as being anything other than a backwards country of ungrateful barbarians is a liar and a traitor to his country.

I am glad Moore showed those images as they were necessary to round off the images we have been getting. Its a sad fact that most, Ive heard numbers around 80%, of our so called Shock and Awe precision bombing missed the mark and that our collateral damage killed many. In all, we have slaughtered over 11,000 Iraqi civilians. Many of them were young couples, children and so on - just like those pictured in Moore's film. If you cant deal with it, then go ahead and keep on shouting the neocon mantra - maybe if you say it enough times itll turn true.
 
Now, we dont get those kinds of images and any, ANYONE, showing any images of Iraq as being anything other than a backwards country of ungrateful barbarians is a liar and a traitor to his country.

The beauty of an image can sometimes hide the underlying reality. The Baghdad scene may have been very Western and cosmopolitan. In many ways it reminds people of how Beirut used to be before the Lebanese civil war destroyed the economy.

For non-Sunnis, however, the reality was much more grim. The Kurds were under constant threat of force, even with the American and British No-Fly Zones. The Shiites were perpetually oppressed and their opportunities were close to none. There's a reason predominantly Shiite communities have remained somewhat stagnant while Sunni communities like Baghdad prospered. Even those living in the cosmopolitan Baghdad scene lived in constant fear of a brutally oppressive and efficient police state. The mere notion of a member of the Secret Police overhearing your conversations is enough to make one shit their pants.

Western Baghdad may be conducive to Moore's film and opinion, but they hardly represent the reality of Saddam's Iraq.
 
Thats not the point. The point is that nobody got their panties in a bunch when those images I was talking about were shown. The administration and its cohorts didnt run around crying liar liar. These indignant conservatives are all of the sudden coming out of the woodwork because Moore had the temerity to show the other side of the coin?

Moore is maybe just reflecting on the lack of respect this administration and the media have had for the Iraqi people. Paint them as a middle class utopia at one point and as a subject people the next BUT never disagree with the Administration or you are just spouting wacko leftist talk eh?

Please.

The pictures were valid and we SHOULD have been seeing things like that ALL throughout the march to war not just when the Administration gave the green light.
 
Um. Boo hoo?

That still doesn't change the fact that Iraqis were living in a state of perpetual fear.

I honestly don't see what your point is. Moore's film blatantly gives the impression that nothing was wrong with Iraq. The only time he even mentions anything bad Saddam did was when America supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war.

Its a very biased view of the whole scenario, and that's precisely the problem. A lot of Moore's points lose their weight when you consider the whole picture, but gullible workers that spend all of their lives acquiring wealth and fucking like rabbits aren't going to have an objective viewpoint with which to take Moore's film with a grain of salt. That's the danger here.

I mean, honestly, what happened to Janeane Garofolo and Al Franken?
 
The President and his cronies didnt cry bloody murder when such imagery served his purpose but they are now when it evokes sympathy for the eleven thousand innocents we have slaughtered over there. Its called hypocrisy; look it up.

And what exactly are you saying? That young children didnt play in Iraq? That people didnt marry? Listen up, Moore put a human face on those people. Its pretty much common damned knowledge that bad shit went on there. That isnt in question. The question lies in how we have been dehumanizing these people in the media and how that allowed us to launch a military campaign that in no way resembles a humanitarian effort. Its not just O'Reilly calling them barbarians I am talking about. We excuse everything we do there by saying, "well, we arent as bad as Saddam who did xyz atrocities."

What I mean is, we have given ourselves a blank check (essentially desentisizing ourselves) and shut our eyes. We have made them into cartoons. Moore reminds us of more than just 'ya, theres people there;' he shows them to us. Yes, more went on - but we already know the other stuff; Moore is filling in the blanks. He shows us how they lived their day to day lives and, hell, whattayaknow, they are human and deserving our compassion. Maybe time saving measures like Shock and Awe instead of more conventional military tactics and okaying a corrupt torture.. uh..prison system that imprisons tons of innocents (up to 60-90 percent of people in those prisons have ZERO culpability depending on who you go with) isnt a-ok. Maybe the chant 'But Saddam was worse' is totally irrelevant.

The reason you boys are so shaky now ("What? Iraqis living their daily lives? TREASON!!!") is that "But Saddam was Worse" is all this Administration has left. Bush knows that people are realizing what a pathetic battlecry that is and he is sweating.
 
The President and his cronies didnt cry bloody murder when such imagery served his purpose but they are now when it evokes sympathy for the eleven thousand innocents we have slaughtered over there. Its called hypocrisy; look it up.

I didn't mention this before, but for us to have slaughtered 11,000 civilians we would have to have done it intentionally. Not to mention that slaughter contains the connotation of a pre-conceived malice.

And what exactly are you saying? That young children didnt play in Iraq? That people didnt marry? Listen up, Moore put a human face on those people. Its pretty much common damned knowledge that bad shit went on there. That isnt in question. The question lies in how we have been dehumanizing these people in the media and how that allowed us to launch a military campaign that in no way resembles a humanitarian effort. Its not just O'Reilly calling them barbarians I am talking about. We excuse everything we do there by saying, "well, we arent as bad as Saddam who did xyz atrocities."

PLAYING IN A PARK IS STILL PLAYING IN A PARK UNDER A POLICE STATE. MUST I TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS?

What I mean is, we have given ourselves a blank check (essentially desentisizing ourselves) and shut our eyes. We have made them into cartoons. Moore reminds us of more than just 'ya, theres people there;' he shows them to us. Yes, more went on - but we already know the other stuff; Moore is filling in the blanks. He shows us how they lived their day to day lives and, hell, whattayaknow, they are human and deserving our compassion. Maybe time saving measures like Shock and Awe instead of more conventional military tactics and okaying a corrupt torture.. uh..prison system that imprisons tons of innocents (up to 60-90 percent of people in those prisons have ZERO culpability depending on who you go with) isnt a-ok. Maybe the chant 'But Saddam was worse' is totally irrelevant.

I never said Saddam was worse, I said that Moore paints a misleading picture.

You never said anything about Moore trying to humanize the Iraqi people, either. But, I'm sorry to say, I already knew they were people beforehand, and I didn't care then.

The reason you boys are so shaky now ("What? Iraqis living their daily lives? TREASON!!!") is that "But Saddam was Worse" is all this Administration has left. Bush knows that people are realizing what a pathetic battlecry that is and he is sweating.

I'm not shaky. I'm not even voting Bush. I'm saying that Moore is a liar, that misleads the audience, and dupes the gullible into buying his bullshit. Are you denying that Moore lies in his films and has manipulated facts?
 
Please don't write in caps. I think Shevek is aware of your argument, but that you seem to be dancing around his. On that score Shevek's point is valid.

Moore's filming of "life in Iraq" is actually a pretty short bit of the film. And yes, it was depicted before the war with the argument "middle-class would welcome democracy" so where is the deception?

Americans were bombarded with messages about the misery in Iraq. I think Moore's point was more the basic idea that some of these people were still finding some happiness and that these are some of the people who were killed in that war. How bad Saddam's regime is, those are still innocent people who suffer.

While we might make the argument that (1) Saddam was a cruel despot, and (2) those people lived in a police state- valid points, we should also not ignore that those people are also suffering because of the war, launched on false pretenses by this president.

That might be upsetting to you, but I think there is something to be said that we are responsible (as Powell argued- if it's broke you are responsible for it).

Now about Moore lieing and deciving- about the financial connections between the Saudi's and the Bin Laden's and the Bush family? About ties between Osama and Iraq? About Jeb Bush denying many minorities the right to vote in Florida?

So if you are upset with Moore's deceptions, I imagine you must be really pissed with Bush's.
 
So if you are upset with Moore's deceptions, I imagine you must be really pissed with Bush's.

Well, you see, I expect this kind of thing from politicians. I don't really like it. however, when a self-proclaimed documentarian makes an afront to film.

Also, how would you feel if I made a short film about Kerry's ties to Halliburton?
 
You never said anything about Moore trying to humanize the Iraqi people, either. But, I'm sorry to say, I already knew they were people beforehand, and I didn't care then.

Thats the whole point of the clip. To make you care. Claiming the entire movie is debunked because Moore decides to show some people in Iraq living relatively normal lives for a minute is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. It wasnt doctored; it was real. Seeing people trying so damn hard to convince themselves otherwise is laughable and a little sad.

Remember kiddies, anything which challenges anything that the administration says in any way, shape or form is unpatriotic, unfair, unbalanced, untruthful and just plain wrong. Aint that right, Bradylama?
 
I think it would be enlightening.

The thing that conservatives seem to miss, is that this is the same kind of crap one sees with Bill O'Reilly, but no one is screaming at him calling him a lier or a deceiver.

That said, a lot of Moore's film has already been documented.
 
Speaking of which-

Here's a bit on the Republican - Saudi- Carlyle Group ties.

The New York Times | March 5, 2001, Monday

Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm

By LESLIE WAYNE

During the presidential campaign last year, former President George Bush took time off from his son's race to call on Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a luxurious desert compound outside Riyadh to talk about American-Saudi business affairs.

Mr. Bush went as an ambassador of sorts, but not for his government. In the same way, Mr. Bush's secretary of state, James A. Baker III, recently met with a group of wealthy people at the elegant Lanesborough Hotel in London to explain the Florida vote count.

Traveling with the fanfare of dignitaries, Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were using their extensive government contacts to further their business interests as representatives of the Carlyle Group, a $12 billion private equity firm based in Washington that has parlayed a roster of former top-level government officials, largely from the Bush and Reagan administrations, into a moneymaking machine.

In a new spin on Washington's revolving door between business and government, where lobbying by former officials is restricted but soliciting investments is not, Carlyle has upped the ante and taken the practice global. Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were accompanied on their trips by former Prime Minister John Major of Britain, another of Carlyle's political stars. With door-openers of this caliber, along with shrewd investment skills, Carlyle has gone from an unknown in the world of private equity to one of its biggest players. Private equity, which involves buying up companies in private deals and reselling them, is a high-end business open only to the very rich.

Over the last decade, the Carlyle empire has grown to span three continents and include investments in most corners of the world. It owns so many companies that it is now in effect one of the nation's biggest defense contractors and a force in global telecommunications. Its blue-chip investors include major banks and insurance companies, billion-dollar pension funds and wealthy investors from Abu Dhabi to Singapore.

In getting business for Carlyle, Mr. Bush has been impressive. His meeting with the crown prince was followed by a yacht cruise and private dinners with Saudi officials, including King Fahd, all on behalf of Carlyle, which has extensive interests in the Middle East.

And Mr. Bush led Carlyle's successful entry into South Korea, the fastest-growing economy in Asia. After his meetings with the prime minister and other government and business leaders, Carlyle won a tough competition for control of KorAm, one of Korea's few healthy banks.

The steady flow of politicians to lucrative private-sector jobs based on their government contacts is a familiar Washington tale. But in this case, it is being played out for more dollars, on a global stage, and in the world of private finance, where the minimal government rules prohibiting lobbying by former officials for a given period are not a factor. These rules say nothing about potential conflicts when former government officials use their connections and insights for financial gain, and they may attract more notice now that George W. Bush is president. Many of those involved with Carlyle, which invests largely in companies that do business with the government or are affected by government regulations, have ties to the Oval Office.

For instance, Frank C. Carlucci, a Reagan secretary of defense who as much as anyone is responsible for Carlyle's success, said he met in February with his old college classmate Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, and Vice President Dick Cheney, himself a defense secretary under former President Bush, to talk about military matters -- at a time when Carlyle has several billion-dollar defense projects under consideration.

Carlyle officials contend that the firm's activities do not present any potential conflicts since Mr. Bush, Mr. Baker and other former Republican officials now at Carlyle -- including Mr. Carlucci, who is Carlyle's chairman, and Richard G. Darman, Mr. Bush's former budget director -- do not lobby the federal government. Carlyle executives point out that many corporations have former government officials as board members.

''Mr. Bush gives us no advice on what do with with the federal government,'' said David Rubenstein, the firm's founder and a former aide in the Carter White House. ''We've gone over backwards to make sure that we do no lobbying.''

Others, however, see little difference between potential conflicts involving lobbying and those involving investments.

''Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be,'' said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit public interest group based in Washington. ''George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper.''

It is difficult to determine exactly how much money the senior Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker have made. Mr. Baker is a Carlyle partner, and Mr. Bush has the title senior adviser to its Asian activities. With a current market value of about $3.5 billion on Carlyle's equity and with the firm owned by 18 partners and one outside investor, Mr. Baker's Carlyle stake would be worth about $180 million if each partner held an equal stake. It is not known whether he has more or less than the other partners.

Unlike Mr. Baker, Mr. Bush has no ownership stake in Carlyle; he is an adviser and an investor and is compensated by obtaining stakes in Carlyle investments. Carlyle executives cited, for example, Mr. Bush's being allowed to put money he earns giving speeches for Carlyle into its investment funds. Mr. Bush generally receives $80,000 to $100,000 for a speech. He sits on no corporate boards other than Carlyle's.

Carlyle also gave the Bush family a hand in 1990 by putting George W. Bush, who was then struggling to find a career, on the board of a Carlyle subsidiary, Caterair, an airline-catering company.

From Carlyle's point of view, the involvement of Mr. Baker and the former president is invaluable.

''It punches up the brand awareness for us globally,'' said Daniel A. D'Aniello, a Carlyle managing director. ''We are greatly assisted by Baker and Bush. It shows that we are associated with people of the highest ethical standards.''

With $12 billion from investors, Carlyle claims to be the nation's largest private equity fund and makes money by investing in undervalued companies and reselling at a profit. These numbers put Carlyle in the same league as better-known private equity firms like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and Forstmann-Little & Company.

Two hundred forty Carlyle employees are stationed throughout the world either raising money or finding ways to spend it. Carlyle has ownership stakes in 164 companies, which last year employed more than 70,000 people and generated $16 billion in revenues. About 450 institutions -- mainly large pension funds and banks -- are Carlyle investors.

The California state pension fund invested $305 million with Carlyle, and the Texas teachers pension fund -- whose board was appointed when George W. Bush was governor -- gave Carlyle $100 million to invest in November. Carlyle also works as a financial adviser to the Saudi government.

''Let's say Carlyle is going fund-raising in the Middle East and they bring Bush along,'' said David Snow, editor of Private Equity Central, a trade publication. ''He led the U.S. Army into that region. That will catch the attention of very wealthy investors in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The fact that Bush is involved doesn't mean that Carlyle will make great investment decisions. But it will get them access to certain deals and certain countries that they might otherwise not have.''

One former Carlyle employee said, ''The firm understands that having Bush and Major around is like having movie stars around.''

Yet Carlyle's success is not just because of its high-powered connections. Carlyle has done well for its investors, returning an average of 34 percent a year over the last decade, in line with other private equity funds. It has done this by buying what it knows best -- companies that are regulated by the government. Nearly two-thirds of its investments are in defense and telecommunications companies, which are affected by shifts in government spending and policy.

Carlyle has become the nation's 11th largest defense contractor, owning companies that make tanks, aircraft wings and a broad array of other military equipment. It also owns health care companies, real estate, Internet companies, a bottling company and even Le Figaro, the French newspaper.

''Carlyle is one of the most successful fund-raising groups,'' said Mario L. Giannini, president of Hamilton Lane, a Philadelphia consultant to institutional investors. ''They have tremendous access and they have done very well with their money.''

And its access extends well beyond American shores. In Europe, Carlyle has assembled an advisory board that besides Mr. Major includes Karl Otto P? former president of German's Bundesbank, and the past or present chairmen of B.M.W., Hoffman-LaRoche, Nestl鬠LVMH-Mo봠Hennessy, Louis Vuitton and Aerospatiale, the French Airbus partner.

Carlyle's Asia advisory board, which helps raise money and finds and reviews deals, includes former President Fidel V. Ramos of the Philippines, the former prime minister of Thailand and the executive director of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. The former South Korean prime minister Park Tae Joon was also an adviser to Carlyle.

This star power is a source of great pride for Carlyle and part of an acknowledged long-term strategy to associate the firm with brand-name politicians and business executives in order to attract more of the same -- along with their money, insights and connections. That said, Carlyle partners bristle at any suggestion that the firm's success is based only on high-powered schmoozing.

''If our track record was not good, people would not invest with us,'' said Mr. Rubenstein, the founding partner. ''No one would gives us money just because Mr. Bush is one of our advisers.''

On that point, others agree. ''People took potshots at Carlyle early on and tried to denigrate their investment credentials because they had all these government officials over there,'' said Bernard Aronson, managing partner at ACON Investments, a private equity firm in Washington. ''But that's sort of a myth. The all-hat-and-no-cattle has disappeared because they performed consistently, delivered excellent returns and have become global players.''

One of the people who put Carlyle on the map -- developing its riches and its image -- is Mr. Carlucci, who joined the firm in 1989 when it had engaged in a string of ill-fated ventures. He is credited with steering Carlyle into successful defense industry acquisitions -- just when other investors were shunning them -- and with using his seat on more than a dozen corporate boards to bring Carlyle deals and investors.

In an office adorned with photographs of Mr. Carlucci and the politically mighty -- he sits beneath an Oval Office picture of himself and Mr. Reagan -- Mr. Carlucci makes it clear that his extensive government and global ties are as fresh as ever.

''I know Rumsfeld extremely well,'' Mr. Carlucci said in an interview. ''We've been close friends throughout the years. We were college classmates.''

Pointing to a picture of the Chinese president, he said, ''There's a photo of me and Jiang Zemin. And there's me and the president of Taiwan.''

Right now, Carlyle is hoping that financing is provided for the $13.7 billion Crusader program. The Crusader is a heavy-duty tank made by a Carlyle portfolio company and other contractors. And Carlyle just lodged a complaint with the government after another of its portfolio companies lost a $4 billion contract to build a lightweight combat vehicle.

While Mr. Carlucci is open about his discussions with Mr. Rumsfeld on Pentagon policies, he said he never lobbies. ''I've made it clear that I don't lobby the defense industry,'' Mr. Carlucci said. ''I will give our Carlyle bankers advice on what they might do and who they should talk to. But I do not pick up the phone and say you should fund X, Y or Z.''

If Washington's revolving door brought Republicans to Carlyle during the Clinton presidency, now the firm is preparing for an onslaught of Democrats. The day these interviews took place at Carlyle's Washington office, Gene Sperling, one of the Clinton administration's top economic advisers, was in for a job interview.





New ambassador to Saudi Arabia is another Bush/Carlyle Group crony.

October 9, 2001, Tuesday

By Jonathan Ashley, Eyes On American

Dallas attorney Robert Jordan was confirmed Wednesday by the United States Senate to serve as ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Jordan has no diplomatic experience. However, his connections leave no doubt as to why he was named to the post. He defended George W. Bush in a probe of insider trading allegations in 1990. The allegations involved the sale by Bush of 60% of his Harken Energy Corp. stocks two months before a 25% drop in the stock's price. According to a 7 Sep 2000 article by the Associated Press, "At the time of the investigation, Bush's father was president of the United States and the SEC was run by one of his biggest political supporters, Richard Breeden. The SEC's then-general counsel, James R. Doty, was another staunch presidential supporter who as a private attorney was George W. Bush's lawyer when he purchased his share of the Texas Rangers baseball team."

This is not Jordan's only connection to the Bush family. Jordan is a corporate lawyer in the Dallas office of Houston-based Baker Botts. Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The client list at Baker Botts includes "more than half of the Fortune 100 companies". The client list also includes The Carlyle Group. On the board of directors for Carlyle is former President George Herbert Walker Bush.

James A. Baker III is the current Baker in Baker Botts. Baker was Secretary of State under the first President Bush. He is currently senior counsel to The Carlyle Group. Baker was a classmate of Donald H. Rumsfeld at Yale University. Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense, was the roommate of Frank C. Carlucci at Yale.

Carlucci, who was head of the National Security Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, is currently chairman of The Carlyle Group.

The current President Bush was a director of Caterair during the years 1990-1994. Caterair is owned by The Carlyle Group.

The board of directors of The Carlyle Group also includes: former Phillipines President, Fidel V. Ramos; former director of the U.S. Office of Management & Budget, Richard Darman; former Assistant to the President (Bush I), Robert Grady; former Prime Minister of South Korea, Park Tae Joon; former SEC chairman, Arthur Levitt; former Prime Minister of Great Britain, John Major; former general director of the World Health Organization, Michael Orloff; retired U.S. Army General, J. H. Binford Peay; former president of Deutsche Bundesbank, Karl Otto Pohl; and former chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff, John Shalikashvili.

Two-thirds of Carlyle's holdings are in defense and telecommunications companies.

At lease $2 million of Carlyle funding has come from the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia.

Reprinted from Eyes On America : http://eyesonamerica.org/200110/10050102.html
 
Shevek said:
Its a sad fact that most, Ive heard numbers around 80%, of our so called Shock and Awe precision bombing missed the mark and that our collateral damage killed many.

This is blatantly incorrect. Most of the bombs hit their intended target. What killed and hurt most of the Iraqi civilians, just as during the 1991 war, was the Anti-Air Artillery shells fired at Coalition aircraft flying over Baghdad. What goes up must come down, and alot of those shells came down on people's houses and heads.
 
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3300883&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

I agree that 80% is definately the high end (I got it from a NY Times article I cant find) but the collateral damage during that campaign cant simply be pushed off on Iraq shells - that would be idiotic.

Also, notice this:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/military/2003/7/smart_weapons/print.phtml

According to the U.S. Air Force, 14,910 precision-guided weapons were dropped in the first month of the war. Of these, 2982 were expected to land off-target. But what really happened? The Pentagon calculates civilian casualties, but refuses to disclose that number.

So, at least 20% off target WERE EXPECTED and the casualties numbers bely a higher percentage.
 
You mean people DIE IN WAR!? I thought it was fought by robots.

Thats the whole point of the clip. To make you care. Claiming the entire movie is debunked because Moore decides to show some people in Iraq living relatively normal lives for a minute is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. It wasnt doctored; it was real. Seeing people trying so damn hard to convince themselves otherwise is laughable and a little sad.

I never said it was doctored, I said it gave a false impression.

Maybe if you actually read what I'm typing you'd understand what I'm telling you.

Remember kiddies, anything which challenges anything that the administration says in any way, shape or form is unpatriotic, unfair, unbalanced, untruthful and just plain wrong. Aint that right, Bradylama?

There's no way I could respond to this gracefully. So, go fuck yourself.
 
Bradylama said:
You mean people DIE IN WAR!? I thought it was fought by robots.

Umm, Im just saying carpet bombing a populated city then claiming to have done it for humanitarian reasons is fucking moronic.

There's no way I could respond to this gracefully. So, go fuck yourself.

Right back at ya, champ.
 
Back
Top