Movie News

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 Wins Palme D'Or at CANNES!!! OLDBOY Picks Up Prize Too!!!

Published at: May 22, 2004, 3:37 p.m. CST








Hey folks, Harry here... the word from Cannes has just come in... a jubilant ecstatic phone call from a geek in Cannes ran down the winners and it seems that Michael Moore just accepted the Palme D'Or for FAHRENHEIT 9/11!!! Perhaps a political no-brainer... but my inner and outer Liberal screams "YESSSSS!," while the cautionary side worries about a jury headed by Quentin bestowing the top prize to any film that Harvey Weinstein is a producer of... BUT - at the same time I have no doubt that FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is the sort of emotional film that brands its message into the sympathetic viewers' hearts and minds and makes them an advocate for not only the film, but the message as well, and by giving Michael's film the award... they've guaranteed that throughout history, the film will be noted as being important. I can not wait to see this one for myself.








In yet another reason for me to be happy, Chan Wook-Park's OLDBOY picked up the Grand Prix at Cannes! This tickles me greatly... it is my prayer, that by receiving the Grand Prix, that we now have a glimmer of hope that OLDBOY will be distributed in the United States, and that perhaps SYMPATHY FOR MR VENGEANCE and JSA will now also be seen in this country - which has to date, ignored Chan's brilliance, but I think we'll find it hard to ignore with a Grand Prix in his clutches!

The Best Actor went to Yagura Yuuyi - a 14 year old Japanese Actor for his performance in NOBODY KNOWS, which finds him as one of 4 children struggling to survive after they were abandoned by their parents in an apartment that systematically runs out of food, electricity, water and so on. Apparently the performance is absolutely riveting from what I hear.








Best Actress went to the goddess Maggie Cheung for a performance as a widow attempting to kick a drug habit in Oliver Assayas's CLEAN, a French film. Now - Quentin is a long time fan of Maggie Cheung... as would any big time movie geek should be considering her wondrous work in HEROIC TRIO or POLICE STORY 2 or HERO... But also on the Festival Jury was Tsui Hark, who directed Maggie in the wonderful film GREEN SNAKE. It is so great to see Maggie honored!

The Directing honor went to Tony Gatlif for his film EXILES, and the Screenplay award went to LOOK AT ME, which had picked up quite a bit of critical acclaim out of Cannes!

The Thai film, TROPICAL MALADY garnered a third prize for it's "Walkabout-like" journey of a man in the jungle alone with no dialogue.

Irma P. Hall garnered a jury prize for her role in the Coen's THE LADYKILLERS!

MOOLAADE picked up the top prize in the secondary CANNES competition called "Un Certain Regard"! At one point in Cannes, Ebert declared this the best movie he had seen in the festival, it tells a story concerning the examination of female circumcision... which sounds like it would make me pass out.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 22, 2004, 3:42 p.m. CST

    first?

    by bearkilla

  • May 22, 2004, 3:43 p.m. CST

    You must be kidding

    by Kingasaurus

    "and by giving Michael's film the award... they've guaranteed that throughout history, the film will be noted as being important. I can not wait to see this one for myself." Yeah, right. Harry, nobody is going to go loopy for this film unless they already hate Bush as much as Moore does. I don't consider preaching to the choir to be good filmmaking. I'm not only SHOCKED that there is gambling going on in the casino, but also that a bunch of leftist artistic Frenchies wanted to give that annoying toad an award.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Now, it will be impossible to stop the release of this film.

    by Batutta

    Georgey boy must be crappin' his pants. I bet you the Bush family starts a lawsuit to delay the release of it, claiming defamation of character.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:45 p.m. CST

    nice

    by luckylindy

    Thats cool to see him win...cant wait to see this hit theaters.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:47 p.m. CST

    I have no doubt that FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is the sort of emotional fi

    by Speilbrick

    Isn't that why it won? The only reason? The French are chiorboys sympathetic to Rev. Moore's sermon. He knew that, and stoked the fire with a predictable publicity effort. Game, set, match.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Um...

    by Kingasaurus

    George isn't even remotely soiling his drawers, because he knows what everyone else knows, too: that this film won't convince anyone to vote against Bush who isn't in that camp already.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Wowee...

    by Tenguman

    That is frickin amazing that an uber-liberal film by Micheal Moore, no less, could win TOP honors at a film festival attended by Hollywood elite and the French... in France! Absolutely remarkable! Kudos and Huzzah! I would never have guessed! Wow! Color me surprised! Congratulations Moore, you've pulled off the impossible!

  • May 22, 2004, 3:49 p.m. CST

    The end of cannes.

    by Setion_Pirate

    Cannes is now completely about politics instead of about good filmmaking. Cannes is dead to me. It reminds me of when the Nobel Peace Prize commitee decided to give the award to Yassir Arafat: The award means nothing now.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:50 p.m. CST

    This will be good, oh yes

    by Sybs

    To Kingasaurus, you are a twat. For a start, the jury is headed by Quentin Tarantino, and includes people from many countries as well as those "pussy frenchies" Secondly, this clearly is a great film, and hopefully will knock Bush off his bloody, oily pedestal.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Dope....

    by Kingasaurus

    "To Kingasaurus, you are a twat. For a start, the jury is headed by Quentin Tarantino, and includes people from many countries as well as those "pussy frenchies" " Whatever you say, genius. How many right-of-center people do you think were on that "jury"? Name one. There are "pussies" in many countries, though you used the word before I did. Being from France only helps. It's not the deciding factor.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:55 p.m. CST

    democracyyyyyy (great sound in english)

    by drjones

    i just wondered what was going on in cannes...visit aicn...and there is the solution. great job...whoever gave the call! your words harry just expressed the feeling i got while reading that fahrenheit 9/11 won. as i suppose after reading some reviews it seems to be just the film version of his latest book and maybe even a political no brainer but the victory of this film sends out an important message and it may also even contribute to the politicizing of the world`s voters. great thing that old boy won too. i hope to see it in germany. our critics didn`t have much to say about this piece...sadly.

  • May 22, 2004, 3:58 p.m. CST

    IFC had a live broadcast today

    by Darth Thoth

    Yes! Yes! Yes! Now hopefully MM's flick will get some burn out here in the States where it needs to be shown most importantly. And I echo Harry... hopefully Old Boy makes its way out here soon as well. Yo Harry, I finally got around to seeing Twilight Samurai. Good call. Great freakin' flick!! Definitely my third fav pic from last year following only ROTK and City of God. Peace.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Cannes is dead to you?

    by He Dislike Me

    Like anyone gives a shit. Maybe you should wait and actually see this movie before declaring that it only won due to politics. It may not be any good, but I won't judge it until I see it myself.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Michael Moore

    by Playhouse

    I like Michael Moore. Have since back in the days of Roger & Me and TV Nation. I like a number of the things he has to say, and I think he has the right intentions. My only problem with him is that a lot of times his methods to get across the points he wants to make are shady. And the more and more I hear about him, the more I tend to not like him. This win is only going to make him feel more justified to go about the methods he employs to try to do some "good".

  • May 22, 2004, 4:08 p.m. CST

    I agree...

    by Kingasaurus

    ..that asking that a film be seen before it is bashed is worthy criticism. But I find it instructive that the Moore-boosters who have posted so far are eager that the film be seen in the US quickly because it has an "important message" that "needs to be seen". Proving my point that those who are already having a circle-jerk over the film are already sympatico with the political message of the film. How many people who don't already agree with Moore's politics will find this film to be "great"? A few maybe, but let's stop kidding ourselves.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:09 p.m. CST

    here we go again with the rightwing stupidity...

    by monsieur_verdoux

    a couuple dozen xenophobic France-bashers, movie geeks suddenly bashing hollywood when it suits their purposes, at least five links to that discredited Hardy Law site, the phrase "hates america" used at lest 10 times, 'lib'rul' tossed around repeatedly by people who have no idea whatsoever as to what true liberalism is and only get their info from FOX and Limbaugh and paint everyone to the left of Bush with the same brush. Let's dig up Joe McCarthy and let the ignorance begin!

  • May 22, 2004, 4:11 p.m. CST

    cinematic sacrifice

    by drjones

    to "pirate" and others: i think there are always times when awards are used for purposes other than intended....just for social reasons. the fact that the jury chose michael moore`s film shows in my opinion the anger and thus the need for a public announcement like that. maybe this is a cinematic sacrifice or something like that....but it is obviously needed...

  • May 22, 2004, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Indiana Jones: I hate nazis

    by PlagaZombie

    I love AINTITCOOL but I hate the american nazi nerds that visit the site and dare to write fucking fascist messages on the board.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:15 p.m. CST

    No,

    by Kingasaurus

    Let's have more left-wing Moore toe-sucking instead. Anyone who thinks the French have showered Micheal Moore the way they have just because they like his movie for non-poilitcal reasons is delusional. Would a film of the same quality with a completely opposite political message have just won the Palme D'Or? You're dreaming.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:15 p.m. CST

    No News Here!

    by Jonesey1111

    Wow, great breaking news...strange that you put it up just after an article with the EXACT SAME INFORMATION appeared on cnn.com. Check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/22/cannes.finale.ap/index.html

  • Uh huh, riiiight. I challenge anyone here to name the last ten Palm d'Or winners.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:24 p.m. CST

    and i challenge you

    by monsieur_verdoux

    without looking it up, to name the last 10 best picture winners at the oscars. that's a straw man argument and you know it. if you think this is a meaningless award, then you're only fooling yourself. can't wait to see this open in the u.s.a. moore's gonna break his own documentary box office record again with this one.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:29 p.m. CST

    I certainly would never say the award is meaningless.

    by Kingasaurus

    But an award can lose some of its gusto if it is perceived to have been awarded for reason "x". When a recent Nobel Peace Prize was given in order to "send George Bush a message" (the awarding body said so), that drains the award of some luster because it is perceived as an overtly political award.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:29 p.m. CST

    So the fuck what?

    by RickP66

    I guess it will go well with the Rosy Palm award that Harry gave the film in private...

  • Nuff said!

  • May 22, 2004, 4:31 p.m. CST

    it's so easy to pretend to be above the fray

    by monsieur_verdoux

    and swear off political activism out of laziness and smugness. Your argument doesn't even make sense, considering that Moore was just as hard of a critic of Clinton for 'free' trade as he was of Bush for the war. it's easy to make random generalizations and accuse people og toeing the party line, but what's your solution? Just let the politicians run things into the ground? That's been working out well, hasn't it?

  • May 22, 2004, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Breaking news

    by Octaveaeon

    No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11. Not exactly 'breaking news', but shit, it should be. Either way, the official version of events has been leaking severely ever since it was 'manufactured'. This one you can't dismiss simply as a conspiracy theory, because the questions posed are relevant and justified, and the official telling of events just do not make sense. The pictures at the very least suggest the need for a full (independent) inquiry at what exactly happened. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm *********** http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/

  • May 22, 2004, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Moral and intellectual delusion on the right

    by Octaveaeon

    The first Gulf war was premised on equally bullshit excuses as the second Iraq war. Stolen incubators anyone? How about the 100,000 strong Iraqi army headed to the Saudi border which served as an excuse to base American troops in Saudi Arabia for the first time? And as far as the American position on territiorial (Kuwait made incursions into a 900 square mile area hosting the Rumalia oil field [2nd largest in the world] while Iraq was at war with Iran) and economic disputes (one day after the Cease Fire [Iran-Iraq war], Kuwait announced plans to increase oil exports in defiance of OPEC quotas. The price of crude began to slide. In June '89, they stepped up production again. Iraq was hard hit. For every fall of a dollar in the price of a barrel of oil, Iraq lost a billion dollars in income.), they made it quite clear to Saddam what their position was: Saddam Hussein summoned US Ambassador Glaspie and asked her to clarify the American position. "I have direct instructions from the President to seek better relations with Iraq. [

  • May 22, 2004, 4:32 p.m. CST

    The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Admini

    by Octaveaeon

    (written by David Ray Griffin)This book is essential reading for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of what really happened on that day. It doesn't provide ultimate answers, but it's goal is mainly to provide an analysis of the most troubling questions any fully independent and legitimate 9-11 commission would have to adress. Not this white-wash laundromat we're actually getting.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:33 p.m. CST

    First of all....

    by Kingasaurus

    I'm here because I love movies, and I like to give my opinion about, not least, the people who make them. Secondly, someone doesn't have to be a "threat" in order to end up famous and in the public eye. I feel like I am within my right to give an opinion about public figures if I so choose. David Koresh wasn't a threat to the Republic either, but when I saw him on TV, I felt completely justified in saying "that guy's a delusional idiot". That's the bottom line.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Very cool news!

    by Frank Black

    Michael Moore is great! Unseating a President who was set on invading Iraq before he was elected, ruining America's reputation as a reasonable nation, and ignoring the real domestic problems, should be everyone's mission. Right-wing zealots who still support this administration are getting lonelier by the day. Listen to a true American hero, John McCain. The Republican party has strayed from what set it apart from the Democrats. This country has never been so split. As an independent who votes for the most qualified, (yes, I'd vote for the right Republican,) I am amazed at how people stick by Bush's administration in the face of his blatant power abuse and failure as a true, balanced leader! Impeach Bush, vote Kerry/McCain in 2004! Bring the parties back together to solve America's problems! Michael Moore is at least contributing to the democratic process and working to push an agenda of change! The right-wing just wants the power!

  • May 22, 2004, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Old Boy was robbed!

    by Battousai

    If this was the WWE Harvey Weinstein would come out with THE "money" theme song blazing after "Special Guest Judge" Quentin Tarantino gave Park Chan Wook a chair shot. Meanwhile Jim Ross would shout "MY GOD!!!!!! NO!! LOOK AT THE CARNAGE!!! MY GOD!!!

  • May 22, 2004, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Hey, that was fun

    by chrth

    My comment caused an argument without me getting involved. Now if only I could use my powers for good, not evil...

  • May 22, 2004, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Angry conspirators

    by Jonesey1111

    Ok. To think that this link was posted only about an hour ago...some of you guys must have your political rumblings copied in Word, ready to paste into any talkback bordering on government issues. FIGHT ON CRUSADERS!!! YOUR OPINION HERE MATTERS...really...

  • May 22, 2004, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Huh?

    by Kingasaurus

    "Your argument doesn't even make sense, considering that Moore was just as hard of a critic of Clinton for 'free' trade as he was of Bush for the war." Please. Moore is a leftist first, and a Democrat second. He criticized Clinton for free trade because leftists hate the idea of free trade. Some Buchananite right-wingers do too, but that's a minority view. Clinton was criticized by his own left-wing because NAFTA was one of the few things he enacted that a majority of Republicans actually liked. To claim Moore is some type of independent thinker because he criticized Clinton the one time he agreed with Republicans is absurd and naive.

  • Sort of like how Mumia Abu-Jamal was just made an honorary citizen of France. There's nothing behind these decisions other than vanity.

  • Say nothing of Quentin's bias, Harry. If you're not willing to amdit the bestowment of a Palme D'Or upon Michael Moore is nothing but international prejudice then your righteous screeds have no more integrity in my book.

  • May 22, 2004, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Trans Fat Freedom Fries

    by flossygomez

    Too old to retreat, too young to accept. The mirrors gaze falls on minds of stone and the navel gazing looks like self-fellation. It's good to know that we have whipping boys in Iraq. The photos remind me of those old lynching photos of those good old days gone by, photographed by good old patriotic americans like yourself. I say we nuke the entire country of subhuman sand paddlers and outsource all of our scapegoating from now on. A bursting plate of Iranian Blood Saugage next? Soups on!

  • May 22, 2004, 5 p.m. CST

    9-11 questions

    by Octaveaeon

    Can someone explain to me how it is possible that the pictures taken right after the pentagon attack show no signs that validate the 757 theory? Why is that wall still standing? I'm not here to provoke people. I'm actually curious as to what explanations people come up with. My friends don't acknowledge that no Boeing hit the building, but also cannot explain the pictures. In the end, what i've noticed is that it comes down to belief. Belief that no matter how fucked Bush and co. and his allies are, they were not behind this coverup vs. the belief that there's more to this than meets the eye, and the official version leaves more questions than answers.

  • May 22, 2004, 5 p.m. CST

    Bias Cannes!

    by Frank Black

    I love how right-wingers point out bias when their source of news, (mostly Fox,) is the most obvious about slanting their perspective. Cannes, you fucking tools, is in France but attended and judged by an international community. When David Lynch won, was it a leftist conspiracy? Furthermore, Hollywood is left leaning because left leaning people are educated with a balance of life experience that allows them to examine things closely and evaluate issues based on a thoughtful examintaion! Left leaning individuals generally don't fly off the handle like Bill O`Reilly and Sean Hannity! Liberals need their Michael Moore's to push back to the bullying of the right-wing agenda. Liberals look out for people, and right-wingers tell everyone to "go get a job!" Liberals will happily work with the right-wing to make America better, while Right-wingers will stab Liberals in the back and manipulate the system, (Katherine fucking Harris in Fla,) to steal power. Liberals don't want the power as much as they don't want irrational, corrporate whores like the Bush administration to have it because they ruin everything they touch, and their programs don't work, (unless you're rich!)

  • May 22, 2004, 5:04 p.m. CST

    i need an extension

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    Jesus.....for the first time...I

  • May 22, 2004, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Chan-wook , Park rocks

    by jspkim

    Park Chan-wook is the Korean version of Michael Moore. He's politically out-spoken like Moore ( very progressive) . He has been very actively involved in anti-war, pro-labor, and social justice issues Congratulations to Park, and Moore, the courageous movie directors.

  • May 22, 2004, 5:13 p.m. CST

    More questions...

    by Octaveaeon

    And while we're at it, taking into consideration the pissing contest between Kerry-voters and Bush-voters, what's with this i hear about both being former members of Skull and Bones? Two members of an elite secretive club running for President? What the fuck? Nah, let's just go back to debating whether Moore is a liar or not (manipulative propagandist movies) and whether Bush is a liar or not (WMD + everything else he's ever said) whether Saddam was a liar or not (WMD) and whether Rumsfeld is a liar or not (sanctioned prisoner abuse program) or whether Colin Powell is a liar or not (UN evidence) or whether Achmed Chalabi is a liar or not (WMD's, cheering Iraqis, embezzlement, Iranian connection) or whether...

  • May 22, 2004, 5:20 p.m. CST

    by Kingasaurus

    Intentionally or unintentionally, Frank Black is hilarious. Gut-busting funny.

  • May 22, 2004, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Cannes

    by Ben Dobyns

    Is anyone here familiar with Cannes? I mean, really? The festival happens to be one of the largest gatherings of the WORLDWIDE film community to take place each year. It's a gigantic market with a glossy veneer of film screenings. Before slamming it as a "French" event, and therefore (ad hominem attack, anybody) invalid, do some research. Idiots.

  • May 22, 2004, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Dans ta face, Dabelyou!

    by macpowa

    Nuff said :D

  • May 22, 2004, 5:30 p.m. CST

    A measuring stick

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    ALRIGHT! FOR ALL OF YOU CRITICS OF OUR BELOVED LEADER AND KING AND GRAND POOBAH MR. PRESIDENT...EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT BUSH IS OUR COUNTRY'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT - LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY HE HAS MADE!!!! EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT A MAN'S SUCESS IS MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY HE MAKES...AND BUSH HAS BEEN MAKING A WHOLE LOT OF IT!!!!...And thus, Cheney too! - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • May 22, 2004, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Out the door in 2004

    by BatVomit

    Whether Farenheit 911 gets seen or not, Bush is through. His little invasion of Iraq has turned into a disaster. The "war on terror" is nothing but a thinly veiled excuse to turn America into a police state. The only thing up about the economy is the gas prices. His presidency has been a monument to the sheer stupidity, arrogance, and incompetence of the neo-con movement. Moore's film will most likely be distributed. Hopefully it will generate enough media buzz to drive one more nail into Bush's coffin.

  • May 22, 2004, 5:31 p.m. CST

    What a bunch of retards in here. See the movie THEN speak. OTHER

    by Clubber_Lang1859

    Some of you guys are pathetic. Bashing a film before you have even seen it is simply pathetic! I live in Denmark and My sister who's an interpreter attented the screening that had a 15 minute standing ovation. One of the things she found remarkable was the fact that this "documentary" is VERY patriotic and pro-american. Yet I bet 99% of the idiots in here who stands for all the groundless bashing does so because they have som obscure idea that this film is anti-american! It simply lays out the facts about Bush and his family connections. Hardly anything new since it has already been covered in both books and articles. This is simply the first cinematic presentation of known facts. It's not like Bowling For Columbine which was a big manipulative mess. If you have studied the articles and read the books, you'll realize that this movie is pretty spot on. At the screening maybe 5 percent were french, the rest were world press and media so stop whith the infantile attacks on France and the fact that the movie gets praise is because it is shown in france. Also the judge and Jury at this festival consist of people from all over the world! My sister said that this movie was the most disturbing and also touchinng movie she had ever seen.

  • May 22, 2004, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Pentagon stuff & Moore

    by Don Lockwood

    Okay, for those of you who have been going on about the 757 and the Pentagon, I point you to that bastion of mythbusting, snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm My other thoughts are about, of course, Moore and Cannes. It's clear to just about everyone that this film, while perhaps being an insightful and well-produced piece of work, won on the merits of its politics. You don't have to see it to know that. If it was even close, the politics surely put it over the top. Honestly, though, I don't really like Michael Moore. I'll admit I was surprised by most of the lack of bias in Bowling for Columbine when he was actually ON TOPIC, but the way he exploited those survivors from Columbine and the over-the-top narration when talking about the boy's mother (who was FORCED TO WORK to make money! GASP!) were too much and smacked of rabid sensationalism. I expect more of the same from Fahrenheit 9/11. Really, he may have the best of intentions, but he's kind of a crappy filmmaker.

  • Ahhh...the French!!! They'll surrender to anybody! They know art but rarely make good art unless they are 3 feet tall or cut off an ear. Actually I'm wrong, the French cars are WORKS OF ART and as they don't start after 2 weeks of owning one. The French do make a good film every decade (City Of Lost Children etc) but that's better than zero. As for them ass licking Moore ...it's an obvious politcal knee jerk move. They hate Bush like Moore does. Yep they sure do, thanks for pointing that out as I might have missed that important point. Damn the French and their thick fatty sauces!! In America we recognize and award only film for the true artistry it is. Like for example the OSCARS...NO politics there huh?! Ohh..it's ALL about art at the Oscars. <NOTE HEAVY FUCKING SARCASM HERE> Yes sir-rie Bobby. The nice Achdemy that run the Oscars only hand out the gold metal man to true works of art and NOT to their film buddies, film companies they are invested in and that hold their careers in the balance or because it's the safe choice to follow the mob in. Nope the Oscars leads the world in show casing film art and not politics. Moore would never win the Oscar for best documentary unless Hollywood had a pink-o under belly. Oh wait, they have and they do. Maybe it also has to do with the fact that Moore's films even if you hate his slanted view are ENTERTAINING and are not boring. I'd watch a Rush Limbaugh produced documentary even if he fudge the facts and ranted like an ass for 90 minutes. I'd watch IF AND ONLY IF Rush at least had the balls to have something interesting to show. Hasn't happened yet. Until then here's some French cheese to go with the whine I'm hearing.

  • May 22, 2004, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Here's the list of the Jurors:

    by Lazarus Long

    To set the record straight, let's look at the ACTUAL PEOPLE who voted for this prize: Beno

  • May 22, 2004, 5:48 p.m. CST

    "Democrat or Republican, you're all the same. "

    by Tracheotomy Man

    Not true, Rev. Ninjaman...the Republican party is Wilsonian, while the Democrats are..well, hell, they are too. They just do a better job of making it sound kid friendly...

  • May 22, 2004, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Right on!

    by gg

    http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/FCCSong.mp3

  • May 22, 2004, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Last 10 Cannes Winners

    by stanley2001

    The last 10 Cannes Winners (not in right order): Elephant The Pianist The sons room Rosetta Unagi/The eel Pulp Fiction Eternity and a day Secrets and lies Dancer in the dark Underground Some of them should sound familiar, even to the ones afraid of change and blind to reality.

  • May 22, 2004, 6:02 p.m. CST

    I don't remember who it was that said it...

    by Tracheotomy Man

    ...but I remember an interview with some jabronie from Hollywood who said the jurors at Cannes don't give the award to the best film, but rather to the film that can best use the exposure from having won to get out there and be seen my as many people as possible. Sounds like a reasonable explanation for the Moore win, eh?

  • May 22, 2004, 6:14 p.m. CST

    SOCK RAY BLUE!!!!!!

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    I say let

  • May 22, 2004, 6:16 p.m. CST

    This is why I vote for Mickey Mouse every 4 years.....

    by Aphex Twin

    Politics suck. Movies with political messages suck. Polititians suck. And every piece of propoganda that's put out by the govt sucks. I like to think for myself, I don't need no stupid donkey or elephant to tell me what's right and what's wrong. Sheez, if I tried to push an opinion on you guys you'd be flaming away, but you seem so gullible to someone called Senator or Mr President. You all saw what happened on 9/11, you all saw what our government has done in response. Form your own damn conclusion and stop funding political nutsos!

  • May 22, 2004, 6:31 p.m. CST

    What will Rush Limbaugh think?

    by Eternal Watcher

    I fully expect Rush to demand that no one in this country spend eight bucks to see "Fahrenheit 9/11", because doing so would be a victory for al-Qaeda and the terrorists. But I must admit I was pleasantly surprised to see him win th ebig prize, and that Irma P. Hall get a jury prize for "The Ladykillers." That's pretty unusual

  • May 22, 2004, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Harry Bang On Again

    by Still_Jackson

    Shame on all you talkbackers who are doing the predictably infantile thing: FORMING A NEGATIVE OPINION ABOUT A FILM YOU HAVE NOT SEEN! Deal with it, boys, Harry is bang on with this one again. Props to you, Harry, for dedicating time and space on this site to an important film like Moore's. A film - it would seem - that even virginal geeks can't seem to stop talking about.

  • May 22, 2004, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Aphex Twin

    by Octaveaeon

    Just as a side note, if you're a fan, then you should atleast know that they also contributed to the CD The Fire This Time (www.firethistime.org) about the Gulf War (aka Iraq War vol. 1). Check it out.

  • May 22, 2004, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Dear Mr. Neo-con

    by Octaveaeon

    Yes Mr. Neo-con, keep up the desperate attempt at finding a suitable justification for an ill-advised, ill-designed, and ultimately deceptive incursion into a country run by a former ally (at a time when human rights organizations were crying foul at the sordid relationship while ignoring the atrocities committed against Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqi civilians, which have somehow only recently become relevant - the hypocrisy!), yet one that held no relevance if the stated goals were to end terrorism. What have you gotten instead? More grounds for the recruitment of even more pissed-off terrorists, tens of thousands (if not more) civilians dead (and let's admit it, civilians who obviously don't count as much as their 'western' counterparts, or am I mistaken and missed the solemn cues lining up with flowers as demonstration of solidarity to those unfortunate enough to be caught in the 'crossfire', and disingenuously labeled euphemistically as

  • May 22, 2004, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Letsroll911.org is pure babble.

    by IAmJacksUserID

    They banned me for awhile because I made a few jokes at the webmaster's expense. Seems he can dish it out more than he can take. He's all about freedom of speech unless it involves him unfavorably.

  • May 22, 2004, 7:04 p.m. CST

    gg

    by Octaveaeon

    That python song is hilarious. Thanks for the link. (http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/FCCSong.mp3)

  • May 22, 2004, 7:12 p.m. CST

    why THIS conservative is so quick to condemn Moore

    by the G-man

    Because no one, including me, likes being lied about. And Moore is a proven liar, who quickly cries "only joking" whenever caught in one of those lies. And the only thing more galling than being lied about is when the guy doing the lying is treated with respect and even fondness by people--or, in this case, countries--that are supposed to be YOUR friends.

  • May 22, 2004, 7:18 p.m. CST

    "bashing a movie you haven't seen" nonsense..

    by Silver Shamrock

    To paraphrase a guitar pickin' socialist, do you have to be at ground zero when a nuke goes off to know that it's a bad thing? Of course not. Do I really have to pay money and see F911 to understand what Moore is spouting? Has he been that ineffective at getting his message out through any other medium up until now?

  • May 22, 2004, 7:18 p.m. CST

    DarthChainsaw

    by Octaveaeon

    Haven't checked out that website (I have looked at snopes.com and found their arguments lacking), but I suggest you check out "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin. It is a level-headed endeavour that avoids the pitfalls of 'conspiracy theories' by not suggesting an ultimate conclusion, but instead advocates an honest and non-biased look at the evidence at hand. It posits some likely scenarios, but in the end it foments the need for a truly independent inquiry. To those who have already made up their minds, this book will be very disturbing. The book just recently came out.

  • May 22, 2004, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Fuck Michael Moore up his stupid Fucking ASS!

    by Schmiggy JK

    This guy is a total fucking douchebag. Are you kidding me? Giving this award to one of his "fictomentaries" is one of the worst decisions I have ever heard out of hollywood. And I would bet motivation was purely political. Fuck Cannes... Give the award to someone who deserves it, not some prick who floods the media with his over liberal, rich being, cock sucking lifestyle.

  • May 22, 2004, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Thank you Moore bashers/Bush apologists..

    by Octaveaeon

    Thanks for the good times. Thanks for the laughs. Criticizing Moore about lying (don't let anything like proof get in your way) after the fabrications and awe-inspiring leaps of logic coming from the Bush administration? Not to mention the obvious brain-fart riddled schmuck you proudly call president! Don't stop your rants, please, I'm hooked. Come here all the time hoping to see the political trench warfare you people dig yourself into. Somebody oughta make a documentary about you idiots. Kind of like Trekkies, only more pathetic.

  • May 22, 2004, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Harry has his mouth wrapped so tight around Michael Moore's cock

    by Brian_De_Man

    Nobody gives a shit about Michael Moore Harry, and the more you keep making your stupid arse threads Red, the more people are going to consider you a Kiss Ass to Michael Moore. We don't give a shit about Michael Moore, or your political ideals. Keep them off the forum you cack sucker.

  • May 22, 2004, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Re: Brian_De_Man

    by Popmart

    hey man lay off, this is his fuckin' site so he can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants, though you guys do need new servers!

  • May 22, 2004, 7:58 p.m. CST

    "ruining America's reputation as a reasonable nation"

    by Snowed In

    Assuming that most of the posters in this TB are American, I'd say that ship would have sailed with or without Bush.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:09 p.m. CST

    "this film won't convince anyone to vote against Bush who isn't

    by Alatar_Blue

    You may be right about that Kingasaurus, but here's link to a "Frontline" documentary called "The Jesus Factor" that I think WILL convince people (except most Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, (and this thing is going to scare some of THEM even)) to "vote against" Bush: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/view/ Before I saw this documentary I was "sitting on the fence", not liking a lot of Bush's decisions and policies but scared of Kerry at the same time. Now I am utterly convinced that that we need to get this crusader out of the White House; that ANYONE would be a better choice. God help us all.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:18 p.m. CST

    I used to like this site...

    by EmPerfectCror

    until I realized that Harry is a fucking liberal left wing red diaper doper baby. (RDDB)

  • May 22, 2004, 8:20 p.m. CST

    Conservatives Want It Band (Not Just Disney)

    by ThaHater

    Some conservative sites hare requesting a ban of this film. You can view one of these petitions here: http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=248 Another site called PABAAH recently had a form mailing page where they were trying to get people to send letters to almost every theatre in America telling them they would boycott the theatre if they played the movie. Also, some conservatives are planning to boycott any film that is shown at Cannes in 2005. http://celiberal.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5359&sid=0d42dc601bc4a516e0184eb467304dbb

  • May 22, 2004, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Or Banned

    by ThaHater

    Bleh, I can't spell today.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Title of next Michael Moore movie: "Republicans are bad. BAD, I

    by KangarooGreg

    That's basically what happened this year.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Oldboy

    by SuperTooth

    I want the DVD now. I have to see this. JSA is awesome and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is in my top 3 of all time. I just need to see this film.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Nick Berg video might actually be a fraud. PROOF in here:

    by Clubber_Lang1859

    proof material 1: http://aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm 2: http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.divorce/messages/490277.html 3: http://www.breakfornews.com/NickBergEnemiesList.htm There is soo much evidence pointing to the fact that the video is fake. It was probably made to take away attention from the torture accusations at the prison.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Give it a break...

    by VanMan

    And a conservative enters the fray. Yep, I am a card carrying conservative, and a film lover. Am I disappointed that this film won the Palme D'or (even though I haven't seen it yet)? Yes. Do I think the politics had more with its win than the quality of the film? Yes. Am I a fan of Michael Moore? Surprisingly, yes. I have his books, I have seen all the films, and I am eager to see this one as well. Moore's approach to a subject is intriguing to me, even though his penchant for embellishment lowers my trust in him as a human, though not as a filmmaker. I have alway found him entertaining, whether I agreed with him or not, and at the end of the day, that's all you can judge a filmmaker on. Sure, I disagree strongly with the political ramblings of Moore, Knowles, even Ebert. I wish they saw things my way, but they don't, and that's okay. It doesn't make me respect them less, it just means that they aren't the same kind of person as I. Bring on Moore's film. Like Columbine, it has a lot of facts in it (disturbing facts), and a lot of bias (that I would argue is misinterpretation), and some flat out untruths. Am I going to sit here and bash liberals and their view? No. They deserve their viewpoint as much as I do mine. Peace, live and let live, and all that.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Can't wait for Bush to win AGAIN

    by 900LBGorilla

    It will be funny when all you silly loiberals have to crawl back into your holes for another 4 years and cry in your pillows. You are all so sure Kerry is going to win it just makes me laugh. And Asselency did you say :"The 1st Gulf war was also based on false excuses" !(paraphrasing- or close to that)? Yeah Kuwait was never REALLY invaded, the Iraquies were theer to teach them all how to play soccer and discuss French movies to call you a twit would be a compliment.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Can't wait for Bush to win AGAIN

    by 900LBGorilla

    It will be funny when all you silly loiberals have to crawl back into your holes for another 4 years and cry in your pillows. You are all so sure Kerry is going to win it just makes me laugh. And Asselency did you say :"The 1st Gulf war was also based on false excuses" !(paraphrasing- or close to that)? Yeah Kuwait was never REALLY invaded, the Iraquies were theer to teach them all how to play soccer and discuss French movies to call you a twit would be a compliment.

  • May 22, 2004, 8:52 p.m. CST

    Trying out the "popcorn trick"

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    Ooo...I just thought of the perfect date for this movie...JENNA AND BARBARA BUSH!!!!!! YEAHHHHH!!! FINALLY SOMETHING THAT DUBYA DID RIGHT!!!!! WOOO HOOO THEY

  • May 22, 2004, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Harry Where's the IMPORTANT stuff

    by 900LBGorilla

    Like your review of Troy. - And 7th chicken- unfortunatley for you, George wouldn't sell his wife and daughter- but the GOOD news is Clinton most likely would (especially his wife who he avoids like the wicked witch of the west-not that I can say I blame him), Yeah they're kinda ugly, but at least they share your politcal viewpoints- Just grtab some paper bags 1st, and you should be OK. Thus I have given you good solid advice!

  • If people are already debating the movie -- then Moore has acheived a MONUMENTAL success..... as evidenced by the GARGANTUAN amount of arguing going on here. These Talk Backs are an explosion of, well, TALKING. Everyone, and I mean everyone, around the country will share their views -- debate -- even argue -- about the subject matter. That's what counts. If any documentary filmmaker can acheive that much, then all the awards and big box-office are just icing on the cake. -------------------------------- but the real issue here is the QUALITY of our talk. Mostly we have just emotional demagoguery thrown around from extreme Right and Left points of view. HOW THE HELL ARE WE GONNA FIGURE THIS STUFF OUT IF WE DON'T RAISE THE LEVEL OF DISCOURSE? We hear enough crap from voices in the media who are polarizing the issues do badly we can't even debate and figure things out. O'Reilly versus Franken. Moore versus Limbaugh. Ann Coulter versus anyone with basic human common sense. How do we raise the level of discourse? Sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. I think you kids should consider what this guy H. L. Mencken wrote back in 1919 about THE AMERICAN CHARACTER: "What lies behind it is the besetting intellectual sin of the United States--the habit of turning intellectual concepts into emotional concepts, the vice of orgiastic and inflammatory thinking. There is, in America, no orderly and thorough working out of the fundamental problems of our society; there is only, as one Englishman has said, an eternal combat of crazes. The things of capital iportance are habitually discussed, not by men soberly trying to get at the truth about them, but by brummagem Great Thinkers trying only to get kudos out of them. We are beset endlessly by quacks--and they are not the less quacks because they happen to be quite honest. In all fields, from politics to pedagogics and from theology to public hygiene, there is a constant emotional obscuration of the true issues, a violent combat of credulities, and inane debasement of scientific curiosity to the level of mob gaping." And after 85 years this "American Character" is getting the better of us.

  • May 22, 2004, 9:14 p.m. CST

    re: Stanley2001

    by Ribbons

    "Even those blind and afraid of change." What does that even mean, besides that you like packing your posts with socio-political cliches? So people are both "blind" and "afraid of change," hmmm? Seems to me that they wouldn't understand what all the fuss was about if they were blind. In any case, I also think the sheer volume of people on this site who think that their support of minority politics imbues them with intelligence is quite overwhelming, although not altogether surprising. You're no more superior than those that dislike Michael Moore; in fact, you may just happen to be more ignorant for thinking that your "elevated" position gives you the power to dismiss them. I'd be willing to bet money that someone out there misinterpreted my last couple of posts as indications that I align myself with George W. Bush, or that I find Michael Moore "un-American." Ummm, no, I don't, I just know that armchair politicians in Europe are more familiar with Michael Moore's movies than The Washington Post or The New York Times. I met a man in Germany who asked me whether or not Bush really cheated during Election 2000, because Michael Moore referred to the event as "stolen" during The Oscars. Forgive me if I'm more than skeptical about how relevant their view of the States is.

  • May 22, 2004, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Shoddy Foreign Policy? Blame BUSH!!!

    by Junior Frenger

    This film seems to basically points to Bush as being the culprit to all the wrongs of the world. Basically putting the blame of our foreign policy on his shoulders. He's a schmuck but really this shit has been around since long before his administration. Bush is nothing more than a puppet for the right but no more than Kerry is for the left.We all remember how Dean was supposed to be the democratic front runner? He got left in the dust, hell he was just as much a puppet as anyone else. Special interest groups control Kerry as much as other special interest groups control Bush. Let's do something worthwhile and move away from bi-partisan politics.

  • May 22, 2004, 9:20 p.m. CST

    In fact...

    by Ribbons

    ...I don't dislike Michael Moore. I plan on seeing 'Farenheit 911' as soon as I get the chance to. However, I suspect that this movie had a leg up on the competition before the judges even reviewed each film.

  • May 22, 2004, 9:22 p.m. CST

    VanMan

    by Octaveaeon

    Respect your post man, and I agree, so let me be clear that my posts are not meant for people like you, with whom I could probably have a decent discussion (I got several friends with whom I completely disagree with on political matters, some I proudly consider best friends) despite our opposing views. 900LBSOFPURESTUPIDITY on the other hand, is simply annoying. He's now going to apply his AMAZING powers of LOGIC and savvy TYPING, coupled with a good ol' touch of the SOCRATIC method to point OUT the basic FALLACIES in our reasoning. Well genius, how about applying that on your president and then get back to us on how well he scored. Mmkay? And before you start crying on how I run away from your stupid points, let me remind you that I did not once say that Iraq did not invade Kuwait. If you would have instead have payed attention to the crux of my post before sniffing out the holes in my arguments you would have realized that I'm pointing out to the fact that the U.S. did not make it clear to Saddam that they would not tolerate an aggressive resolution to the serious disagreements between Iraq and Kuwait. Hence the April Glaspie quote. And the mention of the 100.000 Iraqi troops. And the stolen incubators. Both prevalent mentions during Bush's drive to war. Or are you also going to deny the role of Hill and Knowlton Inc. (America

  • May 22, 2004, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Ancient Lights..... this goes way beyond the posts at AICN.

    by Bregalad_

    I'm talking about the entire COUNTRY and the way we discuss issues. In the media, in the Op-Ed column of the paper, at our City Council meetings, with our friends at social events. People in America way too easily polarize themselves and speak through emotions, not intellect. And that guy 85 years ago knew it. Isn't that telling?

  • May 22, 2004, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Conservatives want it banned

    by avs2325

    You can't be serious, are you? I'm quite looking forward to this sort of fanatical film making all sorts of news so even my grandma knows what you all believe. If you think your "black helicopter" conspiracies are going to resonate with middle Amererica (notice I didn't spell that with a "k") and convince them that Bush is evil and that you can run the country and WW3- you're more delusional than even I ever believed possible. You really need to get a handle on your hatred for this guy. I mean who is the spokesman for the left lately? Al Franken and his soon to be history radio show and now Michael Moore, sorry. You all are in for another dissapointment come November and run the risk of becoming an irrelevant party (which you may not believe but I really don't want to see).

  • May 22, 2004, 9:34 p.m. CST

    also

    by avs2325

    since when was this film going to be banned by Disney. Moore admitted 2 weeks ago that Eisner told him personally last year that he saw no possible way he would be able to release it under the Disney name. Give me a break, talk about publicity stunt.

  • May 22, 2004, 9:56 p.m. CST

    you still don't get it...

    by speed

    You americans still don't get it, do you. This award wasn't just about Michael Moore. It was about the world showing that they are sick of the contempt that the american government treats the rest of the world with. And this is all because of your leader and his bunch of cronies. I have been in 5 different countries over the past year and all people have the same opinion. BUSH is dangerous and psychotic. and those words just aren't said without conviction. people really believe this to be true.

  • May 22, 2004, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Bush Re-Elected *YAWN*...what a surprise.

    by flossygomez

    Pathetic Sheep, Watch for another National Crisis to conveniently usher George the Dork into the White House again. Why? Fear. Fear. Fear. Sperm Burping Morons....I guess I'm voting Libertarian again. Save us Super President! Save us!

  • May 22, 2004, 10:19 p.m. CST

    NEW RULE: Any American citizen who bashes the French is an assho

    by Bill Maher

    Were it not for the frogs, we'd still be owned by the goddamned British. That's right! Warm, flat beer. Driving on the wrong side of the goddamned road. The most revolting food on Earth. Bad teeth. Robbie fucking Williams and shitty bands like Oasis. Next time you see a Frenchman, kiss his ring, show some gratitude and some fucking respect for your betters. For over 1500 years, the frogs have been one of the hubs of western civilization -1250 years longer than our Jackie Gleason culture has even existed. So get a day-old loaf of French bread and shove it FAR up your asses, francophobes! =-=-=-=-= Ancient Lights, you are bullshitting as usual. True, people who have attended 1-4 years of college vote Republican more than those who haven't. But people with more than 4 years of college education vote OVERWHELMINGLY for Democrats, which shows that the GOP is for the half-educated. =-=-=-=-=-=- 900pound Gorilla, in order for Bush to be elected again, he would have to have been elected the first time. Bush and his stooges stole the 2000 election. Dubya belongs in the White House like Mohammed Atta belonged in the cockpit.

  • May 22, 2004, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Avs - No You Didn't Spell America With A K...

    by Rebeck

    But you spelled it wrong!! Ha ha. What an appropriate metaphor. Dream on, your guy is toast.

  • May 22, 2004, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Is This ALL you guys could talk about??!!! Can't we talk about M

    by Holly Golightly

    There were lotz of Asian winners this year, compared to last year, and the first win AND nomination for Thailand. Major Props for that. Kevin Kline was pretty funny :D (during the closing ceremonies) And btw, Cannes is NOT the (international) People's Choice Award. Many ppl didn't like Elephant but it still won last year~ Just DEAL!! Give the other award winners some attention! Like the 14 year old boy, Yagira Yuuya, who was taking exams so he couldn't make it, and who couldn't believe he got the award :D cuz in his words, he wasn't sure if he should really accept this award becuz itz the type of award actors like Brad Pitt gets...hahaha :D he doesn't know much about Cannes awards~ such a awesome clueless yet stunned reaction tho :D ~and about the Mickey Mouse one.....I would just keep it at animation :D I dislike Disney now (classic Disney is ok) but sadly Pixar (thanx to technology) now RoXorzZ

  • May 22, 2004, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Nick Berg video wasn't faked. Al Qaeda would come and say the US

    by SexyBeast

    Al Qaeda is taking credit for killing Nick Berg. If the US faked the tape, AL Qaeda would not be claiming credit. They would be out there saying it wasn't us, the US faked it to make us look bad. Come on people, use your head.

  • May 22, 2004, 10:58 p.m. CST

    whores are supposed to make money

    by Arglebarg

    Harry, when you get done sucking off Michael Moore, ask him for some money to buy a better server.

  • May 22, 2004, 10:59 p.m. CST

    French Filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard Thinks Michael Moore Sucks....

    by supreme nothing

    cut n' paste gang....... http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/news/2004/05/21/Arts/moore20040521.html ...... And keep in mind Goddard is not a fan of Bush, but he's smart enough to see this movie for what it is. He also pointed out that this film is going to actually help Bush when the public rejects it. Anybody who's over-eager to to embrace this flick *cough, this website, cough* is as big a sheep as the flag wavers who roll their eyes at the over-zealous flag-wavers...

  • May 22, 2004, 11:03 p.m. CST

    9 out of 10 upper-class Europeans agree...

    by Blacklist

    ...F911 is jacktacular! Oui! Oui! Sorry, but I'm not contributing anything worthwhile to the talkback. I'd have better success opening up a discussion between pandas and snow leopards about James Joyce's fond portrayal of Dublin than I would trying to wade through a political shoutmatch of this sort.

  • May 22, 2004, 11:04 p.m. CST

    The Intellectual Argument

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    AHHHHHH!!!!! FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU!!!!! I

  • May 22, 2004, 11:05 p.m. CST

    and Goddard is certainly a better filmmaker too....

    by supreme nothing

    But will this prevent Harry from suggesting Amazon-linked DVD re-releases of his acclaimed catalog? I'm partial to "My Life To Live" myself, but I'll be honest enough to say I've only see the American version of "Breathless" ....I'm sure the original is far better...

  • May 22, 2004, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Fat guys are the new cool...

    by BurnHollywood

    Ladies, latching on to old guys is out...Fat guys are the way to go today. Harry Knowles, Michael Moore, Guillermo Del Toro, Tenacious D (do you think it was Will Smith who talked Angelina Jolie onto that stupid shark? No! It was rotund sexmonster Jack Black). You see that look on Ashley Judd's face? Man, she's checking Moore out! Those two Chinese dudes are scoping her in vain...Chinese guys won't be hot until 2006 at the earliest...Until then, SUPERSIZE YO LUVVAH.

  • May 22, 2004, 11:29 p.m. CST

    What do you call 100,000 men running away?

    by hastros5

    The French army. And by the way.. this is the choir(society) Moore is preaching to. Of course he gets an award and of course it will not be released until after the election. After watching more and more of Bowling for Columbine I have noticed that the movie is not very honest and by "honest" I mean showing the total story. As some would call it.. "Lying by Omission". A voice of truth is soorly needed right now in America and if Moore wants his movies to be that voice he MUST be truthful.

  • May 22, 2004, 11:37 p.m. CST

    thanks for the link supreme nothing

    by Blacklist

    facinating. Although my first response was how I always react to statements made from prominent European filmmakers: "He's still alive?" His comments help make Weekend go down a bit easier, not too much (lost me at the pig-crushing scene), but now I'm learning to get over my old assumption that all left-leaning filmmakers lean left all the time and with no regard for consistancy. It's good to see that even though Godard is a leftist, that he's not willing to compromise his principles and put his political credibility on the line by joining the Bush-must-go-at-all-costs bandwagon. So he's putting film before politics, which is... really cool, but unfortunately I think we'll see countless more "F911 is good because of its politics" arguements shortly. Godard is likely a rare exception, even if the film is probably advancing an adgenda he himself supports.

  • May 22, 2004, 11:41 p.m. CST

    REPLY TO SEXY BEAST

    by hastros5

    Beast, You have to understand that a very few people control the American media and you are fed (told and informed) what you are wanted to believe. If the people that run our great and powerful REPUBLIC want you to be fearful of terrorists who are "gasp"decapitators then that is what you will see on your news ( 24 hours a day / 7 days a week until you get the point). If Al Queda denies this you will be given a news corrispondent who is a smart ellic. This news persons job is to basically make to feel like an idiot if you would dare believe anything other than what they are force feeding you.

  • May 22, 2004, 11:43 p.m. CST

    wtc 1st plane fired missle, 2nd plane had pod

    by mikep

    and as for the pentagon, if a so-called plane hit it, the fuselage went where? wake up sheeple.

  • May 22, 2004, 11:48 p.m. CST

    Harry, you BASTARD!

    by MrBadd

    TWICE I have sent you articles pointing out how Moore intentionally LIED to draw attention to a film he KNEW would never be released by Disney. And TWICE you chose to ignore it. Now the French and Hollywood leftists are going gaga all over a mere continuation of those lies (as indicated by the Hollywood Reporter) and you cannot eat that shit fast enough. As for those who say slamming Moore is simply a Republican thing to do, allow me to point out he is a PROVEN, bald-faced liar, as shown at http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html . To say the man is not an anti-American asshole when this is clearly in evidence via his behavior is quite frankly absurd. Hey, Harry, how about you and/or your cronies talk about Mike Wilson's "Michael Moore Hates America," and do so without your leftist bullshit bias? Of course, I know hell will freeze over first, so I will. Mike Wilson is doing a film that serves as a counterpoint to Michael Moore's hateful spiels against America, its rights and traditions. He intends to get it out there this summer. I think he deserves as much attention as Morgan Spurlock, the other leftist liar who produced the anti-common sense, anti-personal responsibility drivel, "Super Size Me." Take a look at his website at: http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com .

  • May 22, 2004, 11:49 p.m. CST

    does more mention willie brown being warned not to fly?

    by mikep

    that day ? a call from Condi?

  • May 22, 2004, 11:49 p.m. CST

    how bout firemen mentioning hearing bombs going off?

    by mikep

  • May 22, 2004, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Obsess

    by WolfmanNards

    People, especially those on movies sites, love to create fads on why they don't like certain things. Example- Running Zombies in the recent Dawn of the dead. And now, it's "Moore is Preaching to the choir" with fahrenheit. Come up with something original if you're going to complain. Elsewise, shut the fuck up, sheep.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:03 a.m. CST

    michael moore

    by the_frog

    The French, who hate Bush, gave their overrated little award to Moore, who also hates Bush. Who is surprised ? My problem is not with Moore so much but with the fact that some people accept his "documentaries" as absolute truth. I know scores of people who consider themselves fairly intelligent who accept *WITHOUT QUESTION* every word that he says.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:03 a.m. CST

    its called disinegrating asshat...

    by Schmiggy JK

    Of course the plane hit. THere are photos of plane parts in numerous pictures if you look around a bit better. So continue to buy into those extremist views fucknut. A plane traveling that fast, that much fuel, hitting the reinforced walls, duh... there isnt going to be hardly anything left.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Michael Moore discredits the whacko attackos

    by CaptDanielRoe

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/ Nope, this information doesn't suddenly turn Columbine into a movie for Republicans. The movie does still contain some of the dastardly "editing tricks." which are indeed not tricks but the standards of the medium seen on every news program. Yes, Virginia, they do shoot movies, collect footage and then... Edit them!!!!!!! That's why it's a movie. You should be more concerned about the white house deleting embarassments from its searchable Bush speeches. The following link includes: "...the White House has thereby made it extremely difficult for those who value truth and integrity to determine the extent to which this administration, that has shown reckless disregard for truth and integrity, has been changing its own written record as it goes along." http://home.pacbell.net/dsfinley/politics/wh_net_access.html

  • May 23, 2004, 12:09 a.m. CST

    much Godard will be rented this next week

    by Blacklist

    I really hate to say that I've only seen two of his movies, Breathless and Weekend. I'll be correcting that as soon as I can. Breathless is every bit the influential movie you've heard it was, and gets better every time you see it. Skip Weekend, unless you're a completist, or have some weird point you're trying to prove. Alphaville is his sci-fi film (!) and one I really want to see, but can't find anywhere. Contempt, I've heard, is one of his masterpieces and highly critical of Hollywood and America in general apparently. I wouldn't let that dissuade you from seeing it though. 60's to 70's-era leftism is generally easier to swallow, and driven more by vision than by opportunism or spite. You do get your usual European self-loathing, but that's never been anything new.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:16 a.m. CST

    Cannes is all about...

    by Dlhstar

    Troma. Troma's stunts of giant toxic men, nympho demon girls, bouncy flesh, and bloody messes are the be-all, end-all of what Cannes stands for in the next millinium. With all this Moore/Bush, Liberal/Conservative, Peace/War, Blood/Oil rhetoric that we talkbackers feel the need to drone on about, we are missing and ignoring one very important fact: Maggie Cheung is still cute. Shouldn't THAT unite us all more than anything else? (BTW: Any bets on how long before the TB order gets royally farked?)

  • May 23, 2004, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Hey, Blacklist...

    by Dlhstar

    If you're looking for Alphaville and you can't find it anywhere, might I suggest the last place most folks look for films (if you haven't already): Your local library. Ours got a copy of Alphaville about a year ago on DVD (along with the original Solaris, Phantom of the Paradise, Stop Making Sense, The Prisoner, and so on.) It seems like the local library has a better selection of 'oddball' titles than any video store in our region.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Eugene Dinsmore for President.........

    by proper

    All politicians are as bad as each other and they are all self serving to an extent as are ALL people with a agenda(whatever walk of life)artists included.As far as conspiracies and family connections go,if the truth is out there it's probably far worse than any of us think.Besides if there are Lizard people or demon masons or whatever who do you think they are going for first you or him(moore).So look after you and yours because none of them care about you........that geraldo's funny though isn't he...oh and those other films sound boring.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:33 a.m. CST

    hastros5

    by Ribbons

    I don't see what "running away," as you put it, has to do with anything that's going on right now. First of all, certain historical matters have no business being called forth out of context, and second of all, that would have nothing to do with the accusations of a bad government in the United States in the first place. Also, I didn't realize that only one member of the Grand Jury was French. At the same time, "moron" seems like an awfully harsh word. I'm not searching for reasons to lambast Moore, who is fast becoming a new generation of college kids' Ayn Rand; any slight provocation that unsettles the faith they have in their porcelain idol makes them unleash a string of aggressive verbiage. I still don't trust the integrity of this award, and to me, anyone that receives a 15-minute ovation has a following that is trying way too hard. I can't imagine the movie was so good that people didn't notice they were bored of clapping.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:43 a.m. CST

    An anti-bush film wins an award in France?

    by Wydok

    I'm shocked. And awed. How unexpected!

  • May 23, 2004, 12:48 a.m. CST

    mikep?

    by Wydok

    I've seen you posted on a couple of Moore Talkbacks, and now I have to ask: Do you make this stuff up on your own, or is there a website? Which planes did the aliens fly, and which plane did Kennedy fly? Andy Kaufman and Jimmy Hoffa were flying the jets that shot down the PA plane, right? Hope your tinfoil hat isn't on to tight.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Pearl of the Orient

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Maggie Cheung is pretty damn cute. Looked her up on IMDB and it says she's 38. That ancient secret of the orient pearl cream sure works wonders. And where can you find some? Depends who's asking. ......................... The next big development will be Bush' speech Monday laying out a "clear plan for Iraq." Let me guess...Pull an Afghanistan so you just withdraw to a few isolated spots, let the country fester, and hope everyone forgets about it by election day? And then of course onto any or all of a half-dozen wars that will be worse than this.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:57 a.m. CST

    reply to RIBBONS

    by hastros5

    You are correct on the "running away" statement and its validity in this talkback. I was making a poor attempt at humor with that statement and am in no position to joke when in fact I am sitting here on the computer and am not in the military with a m16 in my hand. I also don't want you to think I used the word "moron" toward you.. I never put that term in any of my post's. I participate in some of these talkbacks due to the lack of any type of formal discussion at the school I attend and I would never want to degrade any person who's opinion might make me think more on a subject. Politics is one of these sunjects that I find fascinating and this talkback has turned into a perfect place for a political discussion.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:06 a.m. CST

    Right on, Michael

    by Mafu

    I just love the fact that the right-wingers are throwing every bit of vitriol they can muster at this film. This is a good sign, in my opinion. It means Moore struck a raw political nerve and they can't quite deal with it. Democracy requires dissent in order to function. Good job, Michael. Mission accomplished.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:14 a.m. CST

    hastros5

    by Ribbons

    My bad...only the first part of my last post was directed towards you. There was a post from someone named SqueezyMcTitty about the Cannes judges that I was referencing when I made the "moron" comment.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:23 a.m. CST

    Fahrenheit911

    by Rb26dett

    Moore is just playing into the sentiment that follows a trajic event Like 911 and is using it to create movies to spread his ideas to the masses. He uses this ploy to make people feel stupid or wrong if their opinion differs from his on any subject. He uses such events like Columbine or 911 to subject you to his ideas and if you do not agree then you are an ass because innocent people died and you must be a jerk if you dont agree with Moore.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:35 a.m. CST

    A ultra liberal Bush bashing film wins an award at a festival in

    by Lezbo Milk

    What a shocker. Personally I don't care for MM I think he's way out in Liberal left field. So far afield I could never look at any of his films without thinking what kind of bullshit he is trying to pull over my sensabilities. I don't care for ultra conservative right wingers either, if it were up to them we'd all be virgins till the age of 30. Somewhere in the middle ground resides common sense and the correct path. Get a grip you extremist nutjobs!

  • May 23, 2004, 1:45 a.m. CST

    I love how lefists describe themselves as "progressive", as if t

    by Darth_Inedible

    Of course trying to debate above the soundbite level here is pointless.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Ah politics once again

    by ThingsThatTimDog

    I am skeptical about Moore's film for the simple reason that his previous "documentaries" have been proven to be full of false hoods, gross exaggerations, and set up situations.*** One thing I will never understand though is the complete and abject hatred the left seems to hold for our current President. I might not have particularly liked President Clinton, but I respected the man because he was the President of the United States. Kerry might be another double talking Massachusetts wannabe aristocrat but if he does manage to beat Bush in November I somehow think I will survive with my sanity intact.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:39 a.m. CST

    fuck you harry

    by inthetrenches

    you just gave me reason to never visit this site anymore.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:51 a.m. CST

    Politics up, art down

    by Loup LeBeau

    Oh, Harry, get a grip. Anyone who thinks it's great news that a film has won the top prize in a major festival FOR POLITICAL REASONS is wildly delusional. Extremist politics don't belong in any form of art. If you try to mix those two together, all you get is a political pamphlet made with technical expertise. What does this have to do with good filmmaking? Absolutely nothing.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:46 a.m. CST

    And the "NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!" award of the year goes to...

    by ChrisPC24

  • May 23, 2004, 3:49 a.m. CST

    Fat guys are the new cool, part 2

    by BurnHollywood

    You want more evidence? Look at that expression on Kevin Kline's face, man. He KNOWS he needs to shave off that porno moustache and gain fifty pounds before he can even get in on the ground floor of the new Flabby Freak Fest. Bad enough his agent's talked him into playing a gay dude in two movies...he's having to think of a polite way to turn down all those steamed up Euro man-huggers who've left him their phone number, starting with Pedro Almodovar... *** BTW, I'm a hardcore leftist Moore fan, but I refuse to say anything political on this movie site from now on, except CONGRATULATIONS MIKE, and THANK YOU QT. I take back 40% of all the bad things I said about Kill Bill.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:36 a.m. CST

    Maggie!

    by rxa

    Maggie is awesome. She was amazing in Dragon Inn. It's gratifying to see her get this recognition.

  • May 23, 2004, 5:11 a.m. CST

    I agree Darth Scarface

    by SilentType

    This talkback is getting way too serious for a movie site. Besides, NO ONE else has SEEN the film unless you were in Cannes (save for a couple of industry screenings). Can't we all just get along? Besides, shouldn't y'all lucky Americans be out watching SHREK 2 this weekend?

  • May 23, 2004, 5:28 a.m. CST

    FU You!

    by Yojimbobo!

    Whaa..! What about

  • May 23, 2004, 6 a.m. CST

    by Purple Fury

    To everyone who is now claiming vindication of their anti-war position now that all of you apparently smell blood in the water, I just want to ask a couple of questions, as all of you seem to have an extremely short memory. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of the hapless Ms. Glaspie, recall that Iraqi forces were ejected from Kuwait during Gulf War I, and the Iraqi regime agreed to various terms of surrender in order to avoid complete destruction of its forces, and the removal of those in power. Unfortunately, Iraq never complied with those terms of surrender. In fact, it never even came close to complying. So for all you anti-war mouth-foamers out there, and those of you from countries who are just furious that the US has the guts to endeavour to make its pronouncements and decisions meaningful (and, heaven forbid, do what other countries lacked either the moral courage, willpower, or military force to accomplish), what exactly was your answer to the status quo with respect to Iraq, ca. 2002? Since you all have such a short memory, let's review what that status quo looked like. You have a regime with: a proven track record of ethnic cleansing and near-genocidal destruction of various domestic cultures (the Kurds and Marsh Arabs come to mind); an appetite for nuclear weapons and past nuclear weapons development programs that were uncovered only by the happy coincidence of an Iraqi defector (and not, famously, by Hans Blix); a history of military aggression against three sovereign states in the region; and a reputation with the international human rights organizations as being the most brutally violent and repressive regime on the planet. Despite having defeated this regime in an earlier war and having extracted terms of surrender from this regime, it regularly flouts the terms of that surrender, fires on your armed forces whose mission is to protect various ethnic groups from extermination by the regime, and attempts to assasinate a former President. In an attempt to avoid another hot conflict (with the commensurate loss of life on both sides), a sanctions regime is put in place that is intended to pressure the regime into compliance. The sanctions regime turns out to be largely ineffective, however, as the regime is able to continue efforts to rebuild its military after the Gulf War losses at the same time the civilian population undergoes enormous hardship and suffering. Furthermore, you have an avowed enemy in Al Qaeda who, after declaring war on you in 1998, begins a campaign of attacks on your interests in the region. This organization, by its own admission, is emboldened by perceived weakness on your part (e.g., withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983, withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, failure to respond substantively to attacks on US embassies in Kenya, Tanzania, Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole). Interestingly enough, the Iraqi regime has circumstantial -- if not concretely provable -- ties to Al Qaeda, both through the Czech intelligence reports of the meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in the summer of 2001 (note that this story has retained its "legs" THREE YEARS later, and despite numerous efforts at refutation, remains credible to this day), and through the regime's tacit support of Ansar al-Islam and Zarqawi. This regime ALSO decides, for its own internal and external geopolitical reasons, to align itself with radical Islamists, and provides monetary support to insurgents opposed to a strong ally of yours in the region. At the same time, as impossible to believe as it may be, there is pressure among many in the international community to lift the sanctions regime. (Ironically, it turns out, many of these same countries who press for a lifting of sanctions are later found to have received kickbacks from the Iraqi regime for their obstructionist tactics against the US in the UN. And it is later revealed that the so-called "oil-for-food" program is rife with corruption, and is not only failing to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Iraqis, it is simply serving to line the pockets of the UN bureaucrat in charge and various others who have curried favor with the regime). So, I challenge all of you anti-war, foaming-at-the-mouth haters of the zionist neo-con imperialist capitalist aggressor, riddle me this: You are the world's lone superpower. You have a MAJOR piece of unfinished business with this Saddam character, who is acknowledged by EVERYONE to head one of the most horrific and brutal regimes of modern times. His defiant tactics not only decimate your credibility in the region, they serve to increase the suffering of his own people. He defies SEVENTEEN Security Council resolutions, every single one of which threatens "serious consequences". He plays a shell game with his weapons programs for 12 years, and whether or not you're able to determine whether or not he maintains active stockpiles, he certainly has the intent to reconsitute whatever he can, as soon as he can acquire the means. You, as the lone superpower, have been challenged by a band of religious fanatics who view you as the chief obstacle to the institution of a world-spanning theocracy based on Islamic sharia law, who look at the situation with respect to Iraq and see their views validated and confirmed: here is the infidel United States! Defied by a two-bit thug like Saddam! The US is the "weak horse"! We can strike at this weak horse with impunity, and gain converts to our cause, because people would rather side with the strong horse than the weak horse. (If you are confused by all of this talk about horses, Google around a bit for "Osama Bin Laden 'strong horse' 'weak horse'", and see what turns up) One bright sunny September morning, some of these people who really believe the US is the weak horse, decide to prove it to the rest of the world. Using the cultual freedoms granted by the US against it, 19 extremists manage to carry out an attack on American soil that by the grace of God does not kill 30,000 or more and decapitate the American government. Obviously you must attack the enemy's headquarters -- this is the minimum acceptable defensive response. But what else do you do? Given the shadowy nature of the enemy, how can you take the fight to him and regain the initiative? How do you impress upon your enemy (and supporters of your enemy, and observers of the conflict) that actions such as the 9/11 attacks have undesirable consequences? How do you impress upon your enemy that declaring war on the US is an exceptionally bad idea, particularly if the one thing you want the LEAST is for the very infidel ideas the US embodies to take root in your own backyard? And, what on earth do you do about Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

  • May 23, 2004, 6:01 a.m. CST

    To the anti-war voices out there

    by Purple Fury

    To everyone who is now claiming vindication of their anti-war position now that all of you apparently smell blood in the water, I just want to ask a couple of questions, as all of you seem to have an extremely short memory. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of the hapless Ms. Glaspie, recall that Iraqi forces were ejected from Kuwait during Gulf War I, and the Iraqi regime agreed to various terms of surrender in order to avoid complete destruction of its forces, and the removal of those in power. Unfortunately, Iraq never complied with those terms of surrender. In fact, it never even came close to complying. So for all you anti-war mouth-foamers out there, and those of you from countries who are just furious that the US has the guts to endeavour to make its pronouncements and decisions meaningful (and, heaven forbid, do what other countries lacked either the moral courage, willpower, or military force to accomplish), what exactly was your answer to the status quo with respect to Iraq, ca. 2002? Since you all have such a short memory, let's review what that status quo looked like. You have a regime with: a proven track record of ethnic cleansing and near-genocidal destruction of various domestic cultures (the Kurds and Marsh Arabs come to mind); an appetite for nuclear weapons and past nuclear weapons development programs that were uncovered only by the happy coincidence of an Iraqi defector (and not, famously, by Hans Blix); a history of military aggression against three sovereign states in the region; and a reputation with the international human rights organizations as being the most brutally violent and repressive regime on the planet. Despite having defeated this regime in an earlier war and having extracted terms of surrender from this regime, it regularly flouts the terms of that surrender, fires on your armed forces whose mission is to protect various ethnic groups from extermination by the regime, and attempts to assasinate a former President. In an attempt to avoid another hot conflict (with the commensurate loss of life on both sides), a sanctions regime is put in place that is intended to pressure the regime into compliance. The sanctions regime turns out to be largely ineffective, however, as the regime is able to continue efforts to rebuild its military after the Gulf War losses at the same time the civilian population undergoes enormous hardship and suffering. Furthermore, you have an avowed enemy in Al Qaeda who, after declaring war on you in 1998, begins a campaign of attacks on your interests in the region. This organization, by its own admission, is emboldened by perceived weakness on your part (e.g., withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983, withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, failure to respond substantively to attacks on US embassies in Kenya, Tanzania, Marine barracks in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole). Interestingly enough, the Iraqi regime has circumstantial -- if not concretely provable -- ties to Al Qaeda, both through the Czech intelligence reports of the meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in the summer of 2001 (note that this story has retained its "legs" THREE YEARS later, and despite numerous efforts at refutation, remains credible to this day), and through the regime's tacit support of Ansar al-Islam and Zarqawi. This regime ALSO decides, for its own internal and external geopolitical reasons, to align itself with radical Islamists, and provides monetary support to insurgents opposed to a strong ally of yours in the region. At the same time, as impossible to believe as it may be, there is pressure among many in the international community to lift the sanctions regime. (Ironically, it turns out, many of these same countries who press for a lifting of sanctions are later found to have received kickbacks from the Iraqi regime for their obstructionist tactics against the US in the UN. And it is later revealed that the so-called "oil-for-food" program is rife with corruption, and is not only failing to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Iraqis, it is simply serving to line the pockets of the UN bureaucrat in charge and various others who have curried favor with the regime). So, I challenge all of you anti-war, foaming-at-the-mouth haters of the zionist neo-con imperialist capitalist aggressor, riddle me this: You are the world's lone superpower. You have a MAJOR piece of unfinished business with this Saddam character, who is acknowledged by EVERYONE to head one of the most horrific and brutal regimes of modern times. His defiant tactics not only decimate your credibility in the region, they serve to increase the suffering of his own people. He defies SEVENTEEN Security Council resolutions, every single one of which threatens "serious consequences". He plays a shell game with his weapons programs for 12 years, and whether or not you're able to determine whether or not he maintains active stockpiles, he certainly has the intent to reconsitute whatever he can, as soon as he can acquire the means. You, as the lone superpower, have been challenged by a band of religious fanatics who view you as the chief obstacle to the institution of a world-spanning theocracy based on Islamic sharia law, who look at the situation with respect to Iraq and see their views validated and confirmed: here is the infidel United States! Defied by a two-bit thug like Saddam! The US is the "weak horse"! We can strike at this weak horse with impunity, and gain converts to our cause, because people would rather side with the strong horse than the weak horse. (If you are confused by all of this talk about horses, Google around a bit for "Osama Bin Laden 'strong horse' 'weak horse'", and see what turns up) One bright sunny September morning, some of these people who really believe the US is the weak horse, decide to prove it to the rest of the world. Using the cultual freedoms granted by the US against it, 19 extremists manage to carry out an attack on American soil that by the grace of God does not kill 30,000 or more and decapitate the American government. Obviously you must attack the enemy's headquarters -- this is the minimum acceptable defensive response. But what else do you do? Given the shadowy nature of the enemy, how can you take the fight to him and regain the initiative? How do you impress upon your enemy (and supporters of your enemy, and observers of the conflict) that actions such as the 9/11 attacks have undesirable consequences? How do you impress upon your enemy that declaring war on the US is an exceptionally bad idea, particularly if the one thing you want the LEAST is for the very infidel ideas the US embodies to take root in your own backyard? And, what on earth do you do about Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

  • May 23, 2004, 6:31 a.m. CST

    by alberace

    1. war is murder 2. usa has short memory (vietnam) 3. moore is great 4. kuwait is not a real country but is has been CREATED by the english government for OIL in the late '50s 5. bush is a an ignorant cowboy

  • May 23, 2004, 6:32 a.m. CST

    War

    by alberace

    1. war is murder 2. usa has short memory (vietnam) 3. moore is great 4. kuwait is not a real country but is has been CREATED by the english government for OIL in the late '50s 5. bush is a an ignorant cowboy

  • May 23, 2004, 6:34 a.m. CST

    fachas

    by CuervoJones

  • May 23, 2004, 6:47 a.m. CST

    Oh no, he won, Bush is going to lose!!

    by fevriul

    What complete crap, First moore arranges a publicity stunt about how the Bush administration tries to an his film, and then the french give him the top prize!! All this has shown is you can fool some people all the time, even when they know their being screwed. As a poster said above, if this documentary, and thats stretching the definition of documentary to the limits do you think it would have won???? Go up people.

  • May 23, 2004, 6:54 a.m. CST

    Whats funny is that

    by spike fan

    Those that call Moore a liar have not seen the film. And blithly ignore what George Bush has done and the lies he still practices Its well known the Bush has had dodgy dealings with the Saud's for awhile. Seriously Bush is a disgrace he has done more harm to the US and its reputation than anyone else. The whole Iraq war is a huge mess which is largely down to Bush/Rumsfeld and Cheney. You will notice before the war they completely ignored Colin Powells advice on what to do. Cause the guy who actually knows what war is and what do about it might not have agreed with them.I feel sorry for that guy. He has the thankless task of having too defend and apolgise for dangerous fools like Bush and Co. And I promise you that if Bush gets chucked out at the election the world will get on its knees and thank God for the American people.Cause at the moment Bush is doing a fine job of turning the US into the worlds bully.A kind of countrywide Mafia Don where you have to show respect or face the consequences.############## Stoopid I would not worry about DC. Those mad statements obviously show he is simply a conservative pretending to be a liberal to discredit other liberals by sounding mad. Old trick and it never really works.######### As for those blwoing on about war and how the french are pussies. How many of you are going to join up to fight in Iraq today ???????????

  • May 23, 2004, 6:56 a.m. CST

    The "political debates" raging here are far more entertaining th

    by Mundharmonika

    could ever hope to be. Only Bush and Cheney outing themselves as the first butt-buddy P/VP team will top this later in the year. God bless you all.

  • May 23, 2004, 7:15 a.m. CST

    Are you guys for real?

    by macpowa

    Sorry if this sound rude but I can't believe you aren't kidding... Some Americans still love Bush after what he have done to USA ??????? Just curious...

  • May 23, 2004, 7:28 a.m. CST

    Is it just me?

    by NoLaw4000

    I'm gonna wait until I've actually seen the film before I call it trash/kiss Moore's feet. Until then: Congratulations Mr. Moore!

  • May 23, 2004, 7:32 a.m. CST

    " have no doubt that FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is the sort of emotional fi

    by BoyNamedSue

    Why doesn't Moore make a documentary about Bill Clinton, who had three opportunities to capture Bin Laden, including an offer from the Sudanese, and turned down each one?......Why doesn't Moore make a documentary about Clinton's doing ZILCH about terrorism throughout the 1990s, other than blocking off the portion of Pennsylvania Avenu in front of the White House (depite numerous warning signs, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing)?........... Why doesn't Moore make a documentary about Jamie Gorelick, a member of Clinton's cabinet, who now sits on the 9/11 Commission, who wrote the politically correct guidelines that enabled the terrorists to carry out their plan?...........Make no mistake, THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WOULD STILL BE STANDING IF BILL CLINTON HAD BEVER BEEN PRESIDENT.......That's his real legacy (as if the Marc Rich pardon weren't bad enough....come to think of it, why doesn't Moore make a documentary about that?), not a hummer in Oval Office.

  • May 23, 2004, 7:34 a.m. CST

    ooops

    by lilica

    Well, the breaking news made george fall off his bike!

  • May 23, 2004, 8:12 a.m. CST

    A liberal Irish view- take it as you will.

    by Loppo

    Being Irish, I've gotta say I feel people in Ireland have a certain perspective on this matter that is unique to this country- we've long been supporters of the US, and also throughly indebted to the EU, therefore France and Germany, and a member thereof, and has had plenty of experience with terrorism- albeit on a petty scale. Ireland is also politcally neutral on the world stage and is thusly immediately technically a Bad Guy in George Bush's eyes due to his once saying soon after the so-called War on Terror, that those not with America stood against it- though thankfully this comment has been forgotten as it's a simplistic comment even by america's current administration's standards. Now, to point of this post- the award of the Palm d'Or to Moore seems to have sparked a large amount of anti-french spieling from certain readers of aicn... as an outsider looking in at the US, it shocks me how easily many of you have been taken in by your current administration's propaganda! France stood against the war on Iraq, yes for a variety of reasons including monetary(oil from iraq had just started being traded in euro for one)- but, atleast when speaking to the outside world(and remember there is a large world outside of the US and the Middle East) Bush and his government never made a huge effort to cover up the fact that a large part of their reasoning to invade Iraq was control of oil. It was France's right to stand against the invasion of Iraq- Cannes may be in France but it is a thoroughly international event of the sort that at the moment could not occur within the US and France's government's views would not have influences the award any more than the views of the American admistration should influence an award ceremony within the US. How dare anyone think otherwise? How dare you shout down, insult, hate, be racist against, the French for a legitimite stance? There would be no US without the French- France almost bankrupted itself during your fight for independence against the British Empire. Yes, times do change, allegiances shift- but it is the fluidity of history that is starkly ignored by Bush in his disregard for the milliion shades of grey between Good and Evil. And now for the reality that should not be neglected by any American sympathetic to their administration: the vast majority of governments in the West who have actively supported the US in Iraq, have done so without the support of their people. This is true of Britian, Italy, was obviously true of Spain... Even Ireland, historically a staunch American supporter, the majority protested against Bush's ignoring the UN (perhaps his biggest crime), and simple views, yet our govenrment allowed the US administration to consider ireland a supporter... Sorry for this long winded post

  • May 23, 2004, 8:28 a.m. CST

    re:fennick

    by lilica

    sorry... which PM? where does that come from??? as true as France's interests in oil are, you sound like "misinforming". Of course if you have any evidence i'll ust swallow my comment...

  • May 23, 2004, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Off Course He Won

    by RightSaidScott

    This just goes to show that a fat liberal more interested in fantasy than reality can win an award. Harry, maybe you can win this thing next year! Michael Moore has become nothing more than a jiggley propaganda tool for the extreme left. It is truley sad that this "film" will get a wide release and millions of impressionable little college students whose only source of information is The Daily Show, will accept it as gospel. Moore's last film had more holes punched through it than the seat of Harry's boxers after a burrito binge! With as much substance too!

  • May 23, 2004, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Of Course He Won!

    by RightSaidScott

    This just goes to show that a fat liberal more interested in fantasy than reality can win an award. Harry, maybe you can win this thing next year! Michael Moore has become nothing more than a jiggley propaganda tool for the extreme left. It is truley sad that this "film" will get a wide release and millions of impressionable little college students whose only source of information is The Daily Show, will accept it as gospel. Moore's last film had more holes punched through it than the seat of Harry's boxers after a burrito binge! With as much substance too!

  • May 23, 2004, 9:10 a.m. CST

    Right on, Moore.

    by JimboLo

    Congrats to The Big Man. Whether or not, he has exagerrated facts and edited situations to make his point, let's face it, he cannot be a bigger liar than Bush. Of course Bush is a liar, ALL politicians are liars. doesn't matter if it's Bush, clinton, Blair, Thatcher, Hussein or fucking Hitler. Same shit, different haircut. If Bush/Blair spoke the truth they wouldn't need a herd of advisors and spin doctors feeding them the appropriate words to vomit out to the media. To the pro-Bush folks, let us have Moore. I mean, what's it to ya? Your boy controls... well, the media. We got a guy with a movie camera. The odds are in your favour that your viewpoint will drown out his, so I'm pretty sure you don't need to get your knickers in a twist over one (so far unseen movie) and one award.

  • May 23, 2004, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Liberals are ignorant

    by KangarooGreg

    I just thought I'd toss that around as carelessly as they do.

  • May 23, 2004, 9:26 a.m. CST

    "liberal" Frenchies

    by Fudgemonkey

    i know its hard for you guys in the us to have an informed opinion about other country's political stances because fox would rather report a two headed cow in iowa than give sixty seconds to another country's events but a few years ago the french were very close to voting in a man called "le pen" a man who makes rush limbaugh look like karl marx. this right wing fuckwit got a substantial portion of the vote proving that like all countries france has a massive right wing movement. so please before you start bashing all frenchies as "liberal" remember: a lot of them are crazy right wing fuckwads like you!

  • May 23, 2004, 9:35 a.m. CST

    avs2325, Pay Attention Next Time

    by ThaHater

    I provided links to Conservative boycott groups such as PABAAH and Celiberal that want the film banned. It's on those forums in black and white. I wasn't talking about the Disney thing. Next time do your research.

  • May 23, 2004, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Proof that Liberals are as "ignorant" and "intolerant" as Conser

    by KangarooGreg

    Just insert the word "Christianity" instead of "homosexuality" into this (or any anti-right wing polemic) sentence, "As a true sign of intolerance and repression, they try to ban homosexuality in the public arena." If Liberals were as inclusive as they say they are, then why do they persecute Christians so much? In the eyes of the all-knowing inclusive Liberal, all beliefs are equal, right? Nope, nope, all beliefs are equal except the ones that are convsevative. Sorry to expose you.

  • May 23, 2004, 9:41 a.m. CST

    I can't wait for the part when...

    by Jimmy Shanks

    When he breaks into the Reagan compound and tries to badger and take advantage of an old and feeble Ronald Reagan. Shades of what he did to an old and feeble Charlton Heston. Now that takes a real man.

  • May 23, 2004, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Rightsaid (on Moore being fat),

    by The Tao of Joe

    I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Moore actually lost a considerable ammount of weight since his bowling for columbine days. I would argue that he has dropped down at least by 70 lbs. But why do we discount what someone says using the fact that they are fat as the main or sole reason to discredit them. It happens time and time again on this website (which is one of the reasons I think Harry is moving on, and letting it fall by the wayside). Harry gives a negative review for the second matrix before any of us saw it (and when we did, anyone with sanity would agree it wasnt great), and suddenly hundreds of posters were like 'HARRY JUST DOESN'T LIKE THIS MOVIE BECAUSE IT WAS LONG, AND CRAMPED DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF TWINKIES HE COULD EAT IN A DAY!' I remember when a fat kid ran for president of my college's student government. He came on the tv announcements and everyone is like WHO WOULD WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS FATSO! They didn't listen to what he had to say, and who knows, maybe his ideas for his presidency would have done things to actually make our school better. Michael Moore, and heck, his conservative counter part Rush Limbaugh, are both lightning rods for partisan dislike, and I wonder if its because of their messages that we hate them and call them fat, or do we hate the fact that they are fat as a reason to ignore their messages? I don't like Rush, because while he is a pro-lifer, as am I, he is against other programs like welfare and free school lunches provided to help kids born out of unplanned pregnancies (the man who demonizes the 'welfare mother' has done more for the abortionist cause than Roe v. Wade in my opinion). Moore likes to grandstand. His Oscar speach was kind of an embarrassing time for me as a reader and buyer of his books and movies. Errol Morris made similar comments though when he accepted his oscar for The Fog of War (he compaired the Iraq War to Nam), and I wonder if no one embarrassed him because he wasn't fat like Moore was. Ask anyone, especially a history buff in america what kind of President Taft was, and if they even know who he is, 9/10 times they will say 'a fat one.' I myself don't know what taft has done as a president besides get stuck in his own bathtub.

  • May 23, 2004, 10:05 a.m. CST

    "Christian Eh?"

    by Fudgemonkey

    I love the way you conservative christians bandy around the homosexuality thing as a central tenet of your belief structure and anyone who questions this i opressing your religion. the point in the bible that you so readily quote from (leviticus ch15) to gay bash is immediately followed by saying that a woman who cuts her hair in an abomination, a woman on her period should be placed in solitary confinement (not a bad idea i might say) you pick and choose your beliefs from this book just as extremist muslims do with the koran the beliefs are yours not that of the entire christian culture.

  • May 23, 2004, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Hey, Shanks. Explain something to me:

    by JimboLo

    If Heston really is such a feeble old man how the fuck is he able to drag his bony arse all over the US preaching about fucking guns? I mean, this guy is so weak that he can barely remember his name which means Moore superimposed the old codger's face onto SOMEONE ELSE that was waving a rifle above his head and saying they'd get it from his cold, dead hand. Yeah? Or was it just a deleted scene from Planet Of The Apes? IF you want to be spokesman for the gun industry you have to accept the fact that someone might want to discuss the issues YOU have raised.

  • May 23, 2004, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Michael Moore reminds me of Baxter from The Great Space Coaster

    by NFLRefugee

    Fat and annoying. I am not voting for Bush, btw. I just hate blowhards like Moore. His movies are pure propaganda no different than the Rush Limbaugh show. I like legitimate debate on subjects not one-sided tirades.

  • May 23, 2004, 10:36 a.m. CST

    Re: lambblion

    by Purple Fury

    I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, as you haven't addressed any of the questions I raised in my post, but instead insist on repeating a tired bit of misinformation regarding the UN weapons inspectors and US "spies". I'm well aware of the circumstances surrounding the expulsion of the UN weapons inspectors, but with all due respect, I suggest it is *you* who need to read some history. Have you never asked yourself why it was necessary for US "spies" to be on the weapons inspection teams in the first place? Or did you uncritically accept that charge as further evidence that the US governmnet is evil and corrupt, prima facie? If you do a little reading you will learn the reason is that Hussein was completely instransigent, and was willfully deceiving the inspectors at every turn. Google "Iraq calutron nuclear" and see what turns up. You can actually find out quite a lot about the expulsion of inspectors at the website for that mouthpiece of right-wing propaganda, PBS' Frontline news program. There are several excellent documentaries available there that would present the facts to you. Try this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/ I find it strange you mentioned the expulsion of inspectors in your reply. I didn't bring this subject up in my post. Did you read it?

  • May 23, 2004, 10:40 a.m. CST

    "jiggley propaganda tool for the extreme left"

    by Loppo

    Putting fat jokes aside, Moore a tool for the extreme left? Here's another outside-america viewpoint: there is no real extreme liberal, extreme left wing in the US as a major political force: (the democrats are *not* left wing- they're at best centre-right) Bush would be placed far right- with all that entails. Something that gives me unpleasant chills is the new name that's been fashioned by your administration and far-right media for the US- the fathe...oh sorry, I mean the "homeland". I sincerely hope no reasoned american falls into such nationalism

  • May 23, 2004, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Batutta

    by RenoNevada2000

    You can only sue for defamation of character if you have any character to begin with...

  • May 23, 2004, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Re: loppo

    by Purple Fury

    You say: "Bush and his government never made a huge effort to cover up the fact that a large part of their reasoning to invade Iraq was control of oil". Is that so? Care to back up that assertion with a fact or two? If that's so, do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions? If the US was interested in Iraq only for its oil, why didn't it invade Venezuela instead? It's much closer, and would have been considerably less trouble. If the US was interested in Iraq only for its oil, why are oil futures trading at record high levels? If the US was interested in Iraq only for its oil, why didn't the US invade in 1991, when it was already there, and had the forces and justification to remove the regime? If the US was interested in Iraq only for its oil, don't you think we could've gone over and just taken over the entire region a long time ago? If the US was interested in controlling Iraq's oil, why is the UN preparing to recognize the transitional government set to take over on June 30, and the full government, which will be elected in January 2005? Don't you think that you would be hearing HOWLS of protest from the UN if it was not absolutely certain that those oil fields had been retained by Iraq? I'm sorry, this "all about oil" charge is just patently ridiculous. If you're going to make a claim like that, you better be prepared to back it up with facts. Re: France. It can be argued that France single-handedly prevented any possibility of a peaceful resolution when it ruled out of hand that it would NEVER support the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi regime. It made this declaration at EXACTLY the time that such pressure on Saddam Hussein might have forced him to capitulate. Further, the reason many Americans are pissed off at the French is because of the smarmy hypocrisy best exemplified by their foreign minister, DeVillepin, who, while his own country stood there with billions of euros at stake, and while his own government was receiving kickbacks from the Iraqi regime for its obstructionist tactics on the UNSC, claimed to occupy some sort of humanitarian, anti-war moral high ground. All of this while the sanctions regime was doing terrible harm to the average citizen of Iraq. Re: the fact that the war is unpopular in many places, including those where the government supports the US position. Yes, we're well aware of that, thank you. I would further add that doing the right thing is not always the same as doing the popular thing.

  • May 23, 2004, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Civilian Versus Fighter Deaths in Iraq

    by CaptDanielRoe

    I posted this on the old talkback, but its just a snippet of a big post. Don't want it missed. On the old talkback, in a typically misinformed attempt to justify this garbage, somebody said to me: .............. "But you malign the facts, ignoring the fact that the vast majority who die are those who willingly take part in the battle." ..........................................................WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. About twice as many, not a vast minority, are innocents...... Here are the statistics: .............. Military: 4,895 to 6,370. versus Civilians: 9,148 to 11,005. ................................. ............................................ ......................................So your stated facts are totally bogus assmptions, indicating that you haven't been following this any more closely than Wolfowitz (That's Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense), who recently got a guess of US deaths there wildly lower than the count. But he's knows what's up in some areas, like when he said WMDs were a "bureacratic" excuse for the war, and that the reason for going in is that Iraq is "swimming" in oil...... Here's a link to one source of those 2003 quotes: http://truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml .................................................................................................................................................................... And to the bodycount tabulators: ... http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm ... http://www.antiwar.com/casualties

  • May 23, 2004, 11:10 a.m. CST

    It's Crazy the Way War Promoters Quote the UN Out Of One Side of

    by CaptDanielRoe

    Do you have any idea that the US has been brough up repeatedly on War Crimes charges by the UN, and only been able to weasle out of it thanks to Security Council veto power?

  • May 23, 2004, 11:11 a.m. CST

    DarthChainsaw...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...you and all the other miserable scumsuckers who believe the Nick Berg video is fake and talk about "missiles" and "pods" and whatever else in connection with 9/11 are reprehensible morons. You conspiracy goons are truly what's wrong with the internet today. People like you are as disgusting as Holocaust deniers and Big Tobacco "scientists."

  • May 23, 2004, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Jackson is fat...

    by Octaveaeon

    So I've been seriously enjoying movies made by a fat man. And that is wrong and stupid. The wool has been pulled over my eyes. Peter is just another no-talent fat man. And his movies are crap because of it. So I hereby renounce the Lord of the Rings trilogy as containing even a fraction of quality. In fact, they're just propaganda on the stupidity of war and the need to form alliances and to respect nature instead of raping it. Which makes Jackson a tree-hugging hippie. Sorry, a tree-hugging weed-smoking fat hippie. Thank you oh Knights of the Far Right for putting me back on the path of righteousness. Fat is bad. Got it.

  • May 23, 2004, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Revealed: Michael Moore supresses video showing Saddam and that

    by Mundharmonika

    teaming up to kill our sweet Lord Jesus. If that ain

  • May 23, 2004, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Re: CaptDanielRoe

    by Purple Fury

    Re: Wolfowitz misstating the casualty figure. If you read the accounts of this in the media (the mainstream media, not IndyMedia, DU, or CounterPunch), you will see that Wolfowitz gave an estimated figure of 500, which is close to the combat casualty figure which at the time was 521. He clearly misspoke, getting the ratio of combat to non-combat deaths correct, but confusing the total casualty figure (approx. 700) with combat-related casualties. This is hardly "wildly" inaccurate. Besides which, this is relevant to your point...how, exactly? As to the remark about Iraq "swimming" in oil...well, isn't that a little bit like claiming the sky is blue? Of course Iraq is swimming in oil. So is Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Bahrain, the UAE, Iran, and for that matter --as I said in another post -- Venezuela, yet the US didn't invade any of those places. Can you provide a single factual, objective source that supports your claim that the US invaded Iraq to gain control of its oil fields? Btw, loved your supporting links -- www.antiwar.com, www.iraqbodycount.com...I'm sure you'll get a very objective view of events at those sites. Can any of the figures promoted by these websites be corroborated by organizations who don't share their political agenda (e.g., UN Committee on Human Rights, ICRC, Doctors Without Borders, etc.)?

  • May 23, 2004, 11:26 a.m. CST

    BUSH BEHEADED NICK BERG!!

    by trite

    I can't wait to see this part of the movie. All about how Bush and all his White House cronies were really the ones behind the masks in that video which was really shot in a holding pen in West Virginia. And ALL of it to pull the public away from those horrible, painful, life-threatening photos of our boys and girls in blue posing with naked prisoners... At least, I'm sure that's the way Moore will tell it.---------- I used to be liberal, then I stopped daydreaming.

  • May 23, 2004, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Re: CaptDanielRoe

    by Purple Fury

    Re: the UN bringing charges of war crimes against the US, and the US getting out of it due to security council veto. Examples and facts, please.

  • May 23, 2004, 11:40 a.m. CST

    No, it wasn't about oil, it was about democracy...

    by Octaveaeon

    It always is.**** "If the public knew the truth, the war would end tomorrow. But they don't know and they can't know."**** - Former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, to Manchester Guardian editor C.P. Scott, 1914 As quoted by Philip Knightly in his book 'The First Casualty: From the Crimea to Vietnam - Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth-maker.'**** We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the oil which we require." - British Royal Commission, agreeing with Winston Churchill's policy towards Iraq, 1913**** "To maintain this position of disparity (U.S. economic-military supremacy)... we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standard and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." -George Kennan [Director of Policy Planning U.S. State Department 1948]**** "If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs (surface-to-air missiles). They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." -U.S. Brig. General William Looney (Interview Washington Post, August 30, 1999) [Referring, in reality, to the brutal mass-murder of hundreds of civilian Iraqi men, women and children during 10,000 sorties by American/British war criminals in the first eight months of 1999]**** "What we want to have in existence, what we ought to have been creating in this time is some administration with Arab institutions which we can safely leave while pulling the strings ourselves; something that won't cost very much, which the Labour government can swallow consistent with its' principles, but under which our economic and political interests will be secure. [.....] If the French remain in Syria we shall have to avoid giving them the excuse of setting up a protectorate. If they go, or if we appear to be reactionary in Mesopotamia, there is always the risk that [King] Faisal will encourage the Americans to take over both, and it should be borne in mind that the Standard Oil company is very anxious to take over Iraq." - Sir Arthur Hirtzel, Head of the British government's 'India Office Political Department.' 1919**** "If war aims are stated which seem to be solely concerned with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world. The interests of other peoples should be stressed. This would have a better propaganda effect." - Private memo from The Council of Foreign Relations to the U.S. State Department, 1941**** "Our strategic and security interests throughout the world will be best safeguarded by the establishment in suitable spots of 'Police Stations', fully equipped to deal with emergencies within a large radius. Kuwait is one such spot from which Iraq, South Persia, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf could be controlled. It will be worthwhile to go to considerable trouble and expense to establish and man a 'Police Station' there." - British Foreign Office, policy memo, 1947**** "The target suffered a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad." - CIA officer testifying to U.S. Senate hearing, after bloody CIA aided Ba'th Party coup overthrew Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Kassem, 1963**** "Strikes at population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China and the Soviet Union. Destruction of locks and dams, however - if handled right - might offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to widespread starvation (more than a million) unless food is provided - which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'." - John McNaughton, U.S. State Department Vietnam policy, as quoted in 'The Mentality of the Backroom Boys.' Article by Noam Chomsky, 1973**** "The U.S. must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power." - Henry Kissinger, post-Vietnam blues, as quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975**** "One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them, where we're involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast at all." - Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President, basking in the triumph that was the U.S. invasion of Grenada, 1983**** Q. "Mr. President, have you approved of covert activity to destablise the present government of Nicaragua?" A. "Well, no, we're supporting them, the - oh, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm sorry, I was thinking of El Salvador, because of the previous, when you said Nicaragua. Here again, this is something upon which the national security interests, I just - I will not comment." - Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President, Washington press conference, February 13th, 1983, as quoted by John Pilger in 'Heroes'**** "After seeing 'RAMBO' last night, I know what to do the next time this happens." - Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President, as reported by Daily Express, July 2nd, 1985**** "Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications." - Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appenix D - U.S. Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990' These documents state clearly and equivocally that the U.S. army was well aware of the radioactive and toxic dangers of Depleted Uranium ammunition long before the first shots of the war were fired.**** "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." - Margaret Tutweiller, U.S. State Department spokeswoman, 24th July 1990, nine days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait References **** "I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime." -Albert Einstein, 1947**** "We have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. Our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and maintain social stability for our investments. This tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and Peru. Increasingly the role our nation has taken is the role of those who refuse to give up the privileges and pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment." -Martin Luther King, Jr. ["A Time to Break the Silence" speech given at Riverside Church New York City April 4, 1967]**** "Death squads have been created and used by the CIA around the world - particularly the Third World - since the late 1940s, a fact ignored by the elite-owned media." -Ralph McGehee [Former CIA analyst & Author] CIABASE; The Crisis of Democracy Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA**** "The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world." -Amnesty International ["United States of America - Rights for All" October 1998]**** "We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson [U.S. President during World War I]**** "The Pentagon recently justified its

  • May 23, 2004, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Re: Loppo

    by Purple Fury

    You say: "there is no real extreme liberal, extreme left wing in the US as a major political force:". No, there's not, nor should there be. A "real extreme liberal, extreme left wing" political element would be marginalized in any system of popular government, by definition. There is no "real extreme reactionary, extreme right wing political element as a major political force" either, your rhetoric notwithstanding. You further say, "(the democrats are *not* left wing- they're at best centre-right)". Well, the democrats are certainly a diverse group, and a few of them (especially a few in the south such as Zell Miller) are more Republican than some Republicans. That said, this remark is just spectacularly misinformed. Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Howard Dean (among others) sought the democratic presidential nomination this year. How can you POSSIBLY consider these people "centre-right"? How about the democratic party leadership: Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden, Barbara Pelosi, and the 2000 democratic nominee, Al Gore? Are these people also "centre-right"? You are betraying a colossal ignorance of American politics with these remarks. More: "Bush would be placed far right- with all that entails." Far right, you say? I guess that explains his AIDS initiative in Africa, his liberalization of immigration policy in the American Southwest, and the fact that his administration has spent record-breaking sums on domestic programs, and in the course of 4 years, turned a budget surplus into a budget deficit? You go on, "Something that gives me unpleasant chills is the new name that's been fashioned by your administration and far-right media for the US- the fathe...oh sorry, I mean the "homeland". I sincerely hope no reasoned american falls into such nationalism". Ah, no good euro-lib tirade would be complete without yet another not-so-veiled reference to the "Bush = Hitler" meme. Do you really think you can score rhetorical points with this sort of baseless bullshit? Or is this merely an excuse to deflect attention from the very real rise of virulent anti-semitism in Europe?

  • May 23, 2004, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Venezuela???

    by Octaveaeon

    Are you serious (why am I responding??)?! Did you forget the U.S. blessed quasi-coup of 2002? Does the name Otto Reich ring any bells? He was even around during the Reagan eighties. Dude, get a clue, put it in a glass jar and cherish it.

  • May 23, 2004, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Future Reference Bush has already won!!!

    by 900LBGorilla

    What am I basing this on- well that the polls have been pretty neck and neck most of the time. And all this at a time when all we have is the negatives on Bush- as we get closer to the actual election the negatives on Kerry will also come more to the fore, and the middle grounders who are now just against Bush will start to get split more evenly (as is usual in elections- especially this one where the lefties are crying so loud so early). ==== So yeah Bush probnably will win. REALLY what cracks me up though is all I see are you liberal twits get blinded so badly by your ideology that you act like Bush's loss is a foregone coclusion (which is a moronic view at best)- not due to any logic or historical perspective on how the polls ebb and sway, but really just because YOU HATE him- too bad YOU don't represent the whole country (and usually you indeed arepresent less than 1/2 of it- you're just louder). ================ My post was mainly meant to provoke you funny liberals who REALLY think Bush is destined TO LOSE- I find you funny, because I KEEP hearing this mionndelss drivel, which like your political opinions- is mainly based in fantasy. If I was to put odds to it now, I'd say Bush has about a 55% chance to win- maybe a little better (based on the 1st part of my commentary). And I REALLY WILL find it funny when he likely does win- cause you lefties are SOOOO SURE and SOOO invested in this, that the reaction will be a source of humor for years to me. Cheers.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Asseslencey6- as funny funny ass

    by 900LBGorilla

    <<<"I got several friends with whom I completely disagree with on political matters, some I proudly consider best friends) despite our opposing views">>>>>. ---Yeah SUUUURE you do- as ling as they doin't know much and lose arguments to you I';m sure you LOVE them. ============ <<<<"900LBSOFPURESTUPIDITY on the other hand, is simply annoying. He's now going to apply his AMAZING powers of LOGIC and savvy TYPING, coupled with a good ol' touch of the SOCRATIC method to point OUT the basic FALLACIES in our reasoning">>> - Im sure I am VERY VERY annoying to you - you hate repeatedly losing debates- You however don't annoy me AT ALL- I just find you funny (and a bit of a simpleton). --- Ohha and you "GENIOUS" of a college twit I do not use the "SOCRATIC Method". Why don't you Misapply some more small college words for our edification so the high schoolers among us may actually think your smart! You make me laugh--- And I love you for it.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    Well Excellency, I stand in awe of your copy and paste skill. I look forward someday to reading what conclusions *you* have come to (instead of the regurgitated opinions of others lifted from a politically sympathetic website), and the path of reasoning that led you to those conclusions. You write: "Yeah Purple, ask why people don't answer your points and go on and ignore the points of others. Standard MO from the right. What, that Glaspie quote a tad inconvenient?" Not at all. The Glaspie story has been covered (and debunked) at length. You can educate yourself on the issue using that right-wing extremist website Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie. If you have any specific points you feel I have failed to rebut, please point them out and I will be happy to give you my perspective. "And how about making one or a couple of (very bad and not too well researched) points" Such as? "so people can shoot them down without having to write a whole dissertation..." I'm sorry that current geopolitical realities aren't sufficiently simple for you to digest in a sentence or two. That must be very inconvenient for you, and I understand your frustration. However, I stand by what I wrote. "But, yes, it has absolutely nothing to do about oil. Really." Well, as often as this claim has been repeated, it ought to be pretty easy to prove, right? So, prove it.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Re: Purple Fury

    by Loppo

    Oil thing: if oil was not important why is it being treated for a spoils of war and given to american companies? Here are some historical facts: in the mid 70s, iraq forced out US oil companies and nationalised their oil companies, realising rather unsuprisingly that they'd receive fuller economic benefits that way. In 1979 Saddam, with rather a lot of helpful support from the US, especially that side of the US political divide with a lot of...connections to the soutern based Oil companies who had recently been removed from Iraq, engineered his rise to power, and became president of Iraq. Thankfully, America *is* a democracy albeit a slightly crazy divorced-from-the-physical-number-of-votes one- and so republicans aren't in power all the time. Also, a president is only in power for 4 years before facing election- just about allowing time for a nice little war to be set up, and thus lose them their popularity as it all Goes Horribly Wrong. So, iraq in Saddam's hands, a puppet of the US, ensured that though the nationalisation of oil companies remanined in place, the american oil was out of reach of the iraqi oil. But then Saddam turned out to be quite a horrible person... And your question as to why his regime wasn't removed from power in 1991 is a good one. I've never said I didn't think international pressure needed to applied to force iraq, back, into the road toward democracy which it had been turned from by Saddam's somewhat miraculous rise to power. But it wasn't. And then control of Iraqi Oil fell into the hands of the UN was international sanctions were placed upon the country. And then Clinton entered the White House and everything was a tiny bit calmer. Clinton made a lot of mistakes. Then made the somewhat trivial mistake of lying about who he slept with.(Bertie Ahern the irish taoiseach had a wife and a mistress for years and years). And suddenly there was uproar. This all a bit irrelevent but it's just kinda funny. Anyway, the republicans gained a little but from this- enough so that after very strange elections from the viewpoint of everywhere else, Bush just got in after some hey-jiggery magic involving his brother and an odd extra..layer...in your democracy. And we pretty much get to present day. To answer your questions- I reply- timing timing timing. There was of course a valid humanitarian reason for entering iraq- but an aggressive war without real UN permission, threatening stability- I just don't think that was the way to go. And since the US and UK now need UN backing to disentanghle themselves from the incredible mess they've gotten themselves into really shows it. But why should Bush's two-faced stance be any more legitimate than France's *government's* two-faced stance? After all, apparently, watching Fox News, the iraqi abuse by americans wasn't as bad as that of Saddam's torture and thusly shouldn't be such a conroversial piece of news(amazing how shades between right and wrong crop up when needed) Overall, really we're interpreting events differently- timing as the backdrop, oil as a reason, and humanity as an excuse, is a part of how I view bush's war on iraq.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Assdelency OH MY FGOOD NESS!!

    by 900LBGorilla

    Did you ACTUALLY SAY: "that the U.S. did not make it clear to Saddam that they would not tolerate an aggressive resolution to the serious disagreements between Iraq and Kuwait" ---------- Apparently you were living on the moon during all the public bombast from Bush 1 on deadlines, teh arguing in the UN, the building of a coalition, and the year of military buildup. NAAAAH- We told Saddam it was FINE- Go ahead- TAKE KUWAIT- then changed our minds at the last second. and said FINGERS CROSSED -WAR IT IS! Debating you is like arguing with a blind man about the color red.

  • May 23, 2004, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Are you serious (why am I responding??)?! Did you forget the U.S. blessed quasi-coup of 2002? Does the name Otto Reich ring any bells? He was even around during the Reagan eighties. Dude, get a clue, put it in a glass jar and cherish it." How does this support your opinion that the US invaded Iraq to gain control of its oil fields?

  • May 23, 2004, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Re: loppo [all about oil]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "if oil was not important why is it being treated for a spoils of war and given to american companies?" Again, I'm going to have to ask you to back this claim up with facts. "Treated for a spoils of war"? How? "Given to American companies"? GIVEN TO AMERICAN COMPANIES? US companies may receive contracts to help rebuild the oil production infrastructure, but the oil itself -- being GIVEN away? What are your sources for this? If something is being given away, wouldn't that tend to increase the supply, and lower the cost to the supplier? If all this oil is being given away (or will be given away in the future), why is oil trading at record high prices on the futures market? Explain to me how could it possibly be in the US' best interest to "take" that oil? The US has its own untapped oil reserves, and its economy is robust enough to buy all the oil it needs on the open market. Why would the US risk validating assertions of its hostile intent by "taking" Iraqi oil and "giving" it to American companies?

  • May 23, 2004, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Re: loppo [American politics]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Thankfully, America *is* a democracy albeit a slightly crazy divorced-from-the-physical-number-of-votes one- and so republicans aren't in power all the time.", and: "enough so that after very strange elections from the viewpoint of everywhere else, Bush just got in after some hey-jiggery magic involving his brother and an odd extra..layer...in your democracy" The American electoral system has been in place for over 200 years. It is considered the oldest and most persistent representative democracy in the world. It has weathered a revolution, a massive immigrant influx, a civil war, two world wars, divisive foreign conflicts and social strife, and the most ethnically and culturally diverse population on the planet. I really don't think your condescension about our "slightly crazy" democracy with its "odd extra layers" has much of a leg to stand on, to be quite frank. And while we're here, let's put a stop to this "strange election" nonsense. The US is a country of 300 million people. In any election concerning that large a population, you will have a certain margin of error. The 2000 election results fell within the margin of error. It was effectively a statistical tie. Because of this, an enormous dispute arose concerning the small number of votes that would cause the electoral vote to swing one way or another. After the Supreme Court settled the issue (in accord with US law), the US media did a recount of those ballots that were influential. There were numerous ways that those ballots could be recounted, with the results depending on how mismarked ballots were interepreted. There were many of these scenarios, on the order of 10-15. IN EVERY SCENARIO SAVE ONE, the recount showed Bush to be the winner. You further write: "Also, a president is only in power for 4 years before facing election- just about allowing time for a nice little war to be set up, and thus lose them their popularity as it all Goes Horribly Wrong." Yes, It All Goes Horribly Wrong is the meme you subscribe to, isn't it? Color me not surprised. So tell me something, please. If 4 years is enough time to set up a nice little war that can go horribly wrong, WHY, OH WHY, did Bush stake the credibility of the country and his administration on that course of action? WHY? Can you admit for even a nanosecond, that perhaps the man thought it was the right thing to do? Please be sure to address in your answer the fact that overthrow of the Iraqi regime was made formal US policy by an act of Congress in 1998, under the Clinton administration, and that the US Congress voted overwhelmingly in 2002 to authorize the administration to use all means necessary to remove Saddam Hussein's regime.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:20 p.m. CST

    "End" of Cannes?

    by SalvatoreGravano

    There was a beginning? The Cannes "ceremony" has always been a ninth-rate non-event that serves as just one more occasion for various screen hookers to show off their new dresses, and the whole "award" itself was devised by the French for one simple reason: the Oscars are American. How many "Cannes winners" can you remember, as opposed to Oscar winners? The whole "Cannes ceremony" is about as important as the National Zagabundi Film Festival Award held annually in Nagadishu, Zagabundi.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Darthanus

    by avs2325

    You are going to be a very angry boy come November. Please prepare yourself now I would hate to read about some poor sap going on a shooting spree spouting,"Bush stole the election again". Do you guys ever read? All your buddies in the liberal press have done their own investigations into the Florida 2000 election "scandal". LA Times, Boston Globe, the Times, Miami Herald all have come to the same conclusion- choose any recount you want whether it be Bush- count the entire state over or Gore- just recount the Democrat heavy counties. Bush wins in every case. Give it a rest you all sound pathetic. If you want links to sources let me know, I'd be more than happy to find some liberal sources that would make you happy.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Attention Right/Left Idiots

    by flossygomez

    Michael Moore is an ENTERTAINER. Nothing more. Rush Limbaugh is an ENTERTAINER, nothing more. I would go to a Michael Moore movie to be entertained, but if it wasn't amusing, then I'd stay home. Much like Rush's rating boosting "drug problem". Now that was good cinema! All these demagogues are nothing but trivial attention cravers and cash suckers. Keep your eyes on the prize...George the monkey is in your pants.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Purple Fury

    by Octaveaeon

    On July 24th 1990 US State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutweiler told reporter:

  • May 23, 2004, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Venezuelan Fury

    by Octaveaeon

    Did I say that? You mentioned why they didn't invade Venezuela for their oil. I'm making the point that if they could've, they would've. Only that kind of intervention doesn't work that easily in South America as the Golden Reagan years of the 80's. Still, there's no coup too dirty for them to get involved with, specially if it serves their interests. And getting that populist commie hothead Chavez out of Venezuela is definately high on their wish list. So get that clue already.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [April Glaspie]

    by Purple Fury

    "the whole issue is not resolved (that is, what exactly Glaspie said), but we need not just focus on this point". Ah, I see, we've gone from it being an inconvenient point I failed to address to something that we need to set aside for the moment. You may remember that's what I said in my original post. Thank you for wasting my time.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Farenheit 911 did NOT win because the French are anti-war

    by TS Thomas

    Honestly, some people here are muppets. Have you even looked at the Cannes Jury; President of the Jury - Quentin TARANTINO - USA Jury Beno

  • May 23, 2004, 1:34 p.m. CST

    900LBSTROGLODITE

    by Octaveaeon

    Shoo. Go annoy somebody else about the lessons of WWII and how you're so much like Churchill. Closet Neville.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [Venezuela]

    by Purple Fury

    "You mentioned why they didn't invade Venezuela for their oil. I'm making the point that if they could've, they would've" Why couldn't they? Is Venezuela some type of military powerhouse? I asked the question: why Iraq and not Venezuela? Answer it, please.

  • May 23, 2004, 1:58 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [rambling inanity]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "And what about the Iran-Iraq war? You got another website proving that the U.S. were not involved in selling weapons to both sides? Iran-contra?" And your point is....what, exactly? How is this relevant to the point you're trying to make? By the way, what is the point you're trying to make? You then write: "And not about oil? What, oil never crossed U.S. planners minds, even to safeguard access to it? Let me remind you of the Rapid Deployment Task Force formed under the

  • May 23, 2004, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Purple Gori... er Fury

    by Octaveaeon

    Why Iraq and not Venezuela? How about: why Iraq AND Venezuela. What interests does the US have in getting Saddam and Chavez out? Answer that, please. And answer also the relation between the US and Saddam, the coup that ousted Kassem, Iran-contra, the weopons sold to Iraq after UN General Assembly condemnations (but no UN Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq), the US invasion of Panama ("On December 22, 1989 the OAS voted a harsh condemnation of the U.S. invasion by a vote of 20 to 1. The one country voting against the condemnation was, of course, the United States. On December 29, the U.N. General Assembly voted a harsh condemnation of the U.S. invasion by a vote of 75 to 20. The U.S. and some of her allies comprised all 20 of the votes against condemnation."). Here, another link: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm. Clue. Find it.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Re: FutureReference

    by Purple Fury

    You're invited to prove to me, and everyone else here, that the reason the US invaded Iraq was to seize control of its oil assets. I mean, with all the evidence you've compiled, it ought to be pretty easy to do, right? I stand by my original point: if the US was motivated by a desire to control foreign oil fields, why did it do so in Iraq, and not elsewhere?

  • May 23, 2004, 2:09 p.m. CST

    900LBPurpleFury

    by Octaveaeon

    I provide you the dots, you put them together. I'm not doing all the homework for you. The clue is out there..

  • May 23, 2004, 2:12 p.m. CST

    900LBTHESEARCHFORTHECLUECONTINUES

    by Octaveaeon

    "You're invited to prove to me, and everyone else here, that the reason the US invaded Iraq was to [establish a democracy]. I mean, with all the evidence you've compiled, it ought to be pretty easy to do, right? I stand by my original point: if the US was motivated by a desire to [establish democracy], why did it do so in Iraq, and not elsewhere?"

  • May 23, 2004, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    "Why Iraq and not Venezuela? How about: why Iraq AND Venezuela. What interests does the US have in getting Saddam and Chavez out? Answer that, please." Um, ok. The interest the US had in getting Saddam out is that the status quo was an intolerable situation. The situation with Chavez, less so. Last time I checked, there were no US military forces committed to operations in Venezuela, and Chavez was still in power. But maybe I missed something. I might add there are plenty of Venezuelans who'd like to see Chavez go, and I don't think they're rightwing neocon zionist imperialists. "And answer also the relation between the US and Saddam, the coup that ousted Kassem, Iran-contra, the weopons sold to Iraq after UN General Assembly condemnations (but no UN Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq)". I'll answer all of that with just a few words, as I know you dislike lengthy debate: "American citizens held hostage in the US embassy in Tehran by Islamic radicals loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini". "the US invasion of Panama ("On December 22, 1989 the OAS voted a harsh condemnation of the U.S. invasion by a vote of 20 to 1. The one country voting against the condemnation was, of course, the United States. On December 29, the U.N. General Assembly voted a harsh condemnation of the U.S. invasion by a vote of 75 to 20. The U.S. and some of her allies comprised all 20 of the votes against condemnation.")." This is your evidence of war crimes against the US? The OAS vote to condemn the invasion of Panama? I thought you said a UNSC veto was needed, but you're citing here a vote by the UN GA.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:15 p.m. CST

    900LBRETARD

    by Octaveaeon

    Nah, skip it. We don't care what you think. Your selective use of what should be considered relevant is not surprising. You just keep going and going and going...

  • May 23, 2004, 2:19 p.m. CST

    900LBDELUSIONALBABOON

    by Octaveaeon

    The UN Security Council vetoes, like many before and after, was provided by the US. Duh.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:28 p.m. CST

    "answer the relation between US and Saddam?" That makes no sense

    by Jon L. Ander

    Didn't you pay attention in English when you were at school? Your still avoiding the man's question. Prove the US is ripping off Iraqi oil. Stop veering off into the shady past of US foreign policies of previous administrations. Thats a seperate talkback all by itself!

  • May 23, 2004, 2:39 p.m. CST

    veering off?

    by Octaveaeon

    "Stop veering off into the shady past of US foreign policies of previous administrations." Huh? Even when we're talking about administrations with direct ties to the current one? (George Bush numero uno, Rumsfeld meeting Saddam, hence the "relation between the US and Saddam" remark...). What, your shady pasts not relevant? Give me a break, and the world an apology.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:45 p.m. CST

    The US has become one large disgusting ad

    by Octaveaeon

    Which is making it very easy for people like Osama to find new recruits. But the Bush ass-kissers keep on with the charade. The whole planet thinks you people are crazy (the Bush ass-kissers), but you stick with your stupid excuses. When does the realization of mass delusion kick in? But nah, they've got God on their side, so the the rest of the world has it wrong. Shit happens.

  • May 23, 2004, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Nicole21

    by DocPazuzu

    Although I share very few of your political values, you always strike me as being relatively intelligent. However, you also typify the problem with most conservative republicans -- severe myopia. Your most recent post underscores this deficiency quite nicely. It escapes you entirely that the image of a hooded Lady Liberty is a symbol of the marring it's suffered as a result of the torture scandal. There is nothing unpatriotic about it at all. In fact, it's an expression of outrage from true patriots who feel that the current administration has betrayed America's ideals. As a patriot and a political moderate I find the image quite fitting for the dismay and outrage I feel as an American. Like someone recently posted, if that image disturbs you more than the pics of real hooded torture victims, then you really need to reorganize your priorities.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:16 p.m. CST

    You Asked for Data and Links. Have Fun.

    by CaptDanielRoe

    I don't know if I totally satisfy the call for verification but this will certainly help you get the gist. There is also some important info here. The point is America does some strongarm stuff to stay on top. We all know that. Some of us are more knowledgeable than others, and you just live with yourself and understand that this is not Utopia. If you are like the Rockefellers and the Kennedys and John Kerry and (hypocrite) Al Gore, you try to offset it with good deeds. If you are like Ralph Nader, you try to change it. But if you are George Bush and Company, you try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes while revving up the process for the highest yield short-term returns while you and your circle are in the maximal position to benefit, with the likely effect of totally blowing out the engine. You do this while crushing social programs that cost nickels compared to military expenses, and defaming the progress and artistic parts of you culture simply for political gain on the radical undereducated section of the right. Basically taking everyone for a ride. Enron style: They have golden parachutes, you don't, so only fools go along or "put up and shut up." Trust me, if you were in the very small inner circle standing to truly benefit from this, you wouldn't just have a vain aspiration to that. .................................................................. Here is a site with a mound of info and links for you. You may be uinterested to note that it flat out bashes John Kerry on its front page. It's true, Kerry with or without Bonesman theories, is totally in line with the same general thrust as Bush. He is not a liberal or a progressive, and that's why conservatives who are not part of the Neocon putsch happily defend him and back him. He'll be a President for conservatives too. Nobody ought to be pressing a radical agenda in these trying times.: .................................................................. http://prorev.com/ ................................. This site makes that point about no difference between Bush and Kerry in pressing US imperialist interests: ....... http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=16835 . ................ Why state this if I'm backing Kerry and not, for instance, Nader? Because I'm an American Imperialist. I'm just not an American Imperialist Dupe. In other words I go to lengths to know what is really going on. I am definitely in favor of sane humanitarian, democratic, and environmental policies though. If the US wants to be the Roman Empire they have to treat their empire well once conquered and while being subdued. Otherwise you are just Genghis Khan (there are more insulting 20th century examples): You can grab a lot fast but it dissipates rapidly. .................................................................. Remember the Napoleanic Code. Napolean knew this principal, and that's why he's not remembered in as poor a light as he could be. His empire did not crumble, it was victim to his own hubris, but it still mananged to leave behind better circumstances in a number of his conquests, and a spotty (Toussaint L'Overture) but bright legacy. .................................................................. As a freethinking and to some extent still unified nation, we citizens should know what our right hand is doing. Unfortunately we are not trusted with much information and have to look to the extremes to find it, or (as I generally do when not pressed to find a big picture broadly constructed in large type, simply mine the mainstream media for the bits of truth they float to keep the intelligensia feeling served. .................................................................. Sorry if FoxNews.com doesn't have pieces on this that spell it out in a "fair and balanced"TM light, but that's part of the problem. So you may contest this data, you may hate this data, but don't dismiss it as unimportant because most of the world believes it whether you or I do. .................................................................. Here's a good one about Kissinger's travalis. You can find tons of this in reputable media, but this link is totally on topic for F9/11: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074678 .................................................................. BTW, I don't disagree with all of these things, it's not a black and white world, I'm not strictly anti-war. I wouldn't endorse a strictly anti-war candidate for President. I was for Afghanistan, although the excessive and outsized bombing was obnoxious and the Taliban not properly finished off. But, I'm not a military genius either, and I do think we have on the whole very smart people in the Pentagon, if not the Executive Branch at the moment. I'm pro CIA too. I'm really mad that the White House outed an undercover CIA operative for political revenge against her husband because he corroborated that reasons for going into Iraq were "misstated." I'm not against finishing up properly in Iraq. I hope Bush gets it together and it goes well for the US froces and the Iraqis. Nevertheless these things should be known. .................................................................. Here is some data, free of slant, on a war crimes trial against the US which the US got out of using it's Security Council veto, along with twisting Britain's arm to go along with them. El Salvador did to. No other countries in the world did: .................................................................. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Nicaragua%20v.%20United%20States .................................................................. ( If you WANT to view a more opinionated slant on this, you can find plenty on your own, but I direct you to this Noam Chomsky piece because it is precisely on topic: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/9-11_Chomsky.html ) .................................................................. This chronology that follows is from a socialist website. ( http://www.iso.org.nz/sr/9/washingtons_war_crimes.htm ). As you can imagine, this stuff appears in the better newspapers, 60 minutes, etc., but there aren't many middle of the road news sources looking to advertise this kind of data in this political climate. I do recognize most of the sources quoted for this chronology as reliable authors. You might not like them, but people like Noam Chomsky have integrity. Even though southern talk radio hosts get away with calling for their assassination (without the FCC complaining, I might add). Which is one climate that needs change.... I'm not vouching for any slant, but as far as I know these facts are essentially correct: .................................................................. 1973 The CIA helped to engineer the overthrow of socialist Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile. "I don't see why we should let a country go Marxist because its people are irresponsible," then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained. The coup against Allende brought to power the dictator Augusto Pinochet, who ruled Chile with an iron fist until 1990. Thousands of Chilean dissidents were murdered and "disappeared" under Pinochet. ................................. 1979-90 The US backed a proxy army in Nicaragua against the Sandinista government that came to power after toppling the Somoza dynasty. The contras were instructed by the CIA to "kill, kidnap, rob and torture," admitted former contra leader Edgar Chamorro. "Many civilians were killed in cold blood. Many others were tortured, mutilated, raped, robbed and otherwise abused." When the US Senate forbade funding for the contra army, the Reagan administration organised an illegal scheme to sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds for its dirty war in Central America. The US government's war reduced Nicaragua to one of the poorest countries in the world. ................................. 1983 Claiming that it was a threat to the US, US Marines invaded the tiny island nation of Grenada in Operation Urgent Fury. The invasion overturned Grenada's government and helped to make the country a "haven for offshore banks," as the Wall Street Journal put it. ................................. 1989 When the US decided that its long-term friend General Manuel Noriega had outlived his usefulness, George Bush Senior sent 26,000 troops into Panama in December 1989. Thousands of Panamanians were killed before Noriega was seized and brought to Florida to stand trial on drug charges. The US claimed that it brought democracy to Panama. "[B]ut they left all the little Noriegas in place," said Miguel Bernal, a professor of international law at the University of Panama. ................................. 1991-2001 In January 1991, the US launched the most intensive bombing campaign in world history against Iraq. The country's dictator Saddam Hussein had been a US ally - until he stepped out of line with the invasion of Kuwait. US warplanes deliberately targeted Iraq's civilian infrastructure, reducing the country to "a pre-industrial state," according to the UN. Strict economic sanctions continued after the Gulf War - and are responsible for the deaths of more than 500,000 children under the age of five over the past decade, according to UNICEF.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Re: lambblion

    by Purple Fury

    Um, just to clear things up here, as you seem to be confused. I assume you are referring to my use of the word "hapless". The word means "deserving or inciting pity". How does this contradict anything I later wrote? Regarding the rest of your post. Thanks for clearing up your position on the issues. I know better now than to attempt to engage you in reasoned debate.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Re: stoopid

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "things that US television refuses, or indeed is not allowed, to show". You mean, like, the beheading of Nick Berg?

  • May 23, 2004, 3:29 p.m. CST

    NICE TRY Purple Fury, Sorry Man, You Are Way Off With Wolfowitz

    by CaptDanielRoe

    This is the quote: WOLFOWITZ: "It's approximately 500, of which -- I can get the exact numbers -- approximately 350 are combat deaths," said Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the war."............................................................ According to the Pentagon, 724 U.S. troops had died in Iraq as of Thursday morning. Of those, 522 were combat deaths. That figure does not include U.S. civilian casualties. .................................................................. So the difference between reality and Chickenhawk fantasy is +172 Combat Deaths. .................................................................. When you tried to correct me, you said this: "Re: Wolfowitz misstating the casualty figure. If you read the accounts of this in the media (the mainstream media, not IndyMedia, DU, or CounterPunch), you will see that Wolfowitz gave an estimated figure of 500, which is close to the combat casualty figure which at the time was 521. He clearly misspoke, getting the ratio of combat to non-combat deaths correct, but confusing the total casualty figure (approx. 700) with combat-related casualties." .................................................................. Your statement, omitting Wolfowitz saying 350 for combat deaths, and specifying that 500 were total casualties. Thus you imply he meant 500 combat related deaths. Classic. I hope it was an accident(?) or brainwashing of which you are an innocent victim. (Turn off that damn talk radio.) Instead of the whopping +172 discrepancy, you have implied that it was a mere +22. BIG DIFFERENCE, on Wolfowitz's account, and your account. .................................................................. Here's a non-sketchy link with the quote (Houston Chronicle): http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2540530

  • May 23, 2004, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [search for clue]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "You're invited to prove to me, and everyone else here, that the reason the US invaded Iraq was to [establish a democracy]. I mean, with all the evidence you've compiled, it ought to be pretty easy to do, right? I stand by my original point: if the US was motivated by a desire to [establish democracy], why did it do so in Iraq, and not elsewhere?" Well, I admire your cleverness in turning my own words against me, but unfortunately that isn't what I said in my original post, which you can read here: http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/tb_display.cgi?id=17624#768203 Did you happen to read it, or did you just dismiss it out of hand once you had pigeon-holed my politics? That said, it's easy enough to answer your question. Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs for the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service, has prepared a white paper on this subject, which you can read here: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31339.pdf (on the website for that Fox News affiliate called the Federation of American Scientists). The relevant quote: "The Bush Administration

  • May 23, 2004, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Re: CaptDanielRoe

    by Purple Fury

    Re: Wolfowitz quote. No need for me to rebut this -- you posted the same information I read, and I stand by what I said. I won't claim to know what was in the guy's mind, but the figure 500 appears in both estimates, and it's not really a stretch to assume the guy misspoke. Either way, someone claimed Wolfowitz gave a "wildly inaccurate" estimate, and, given what you just posted, I don't think that charge holds up very well.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Re: CaptDanielRoe [data and links]

    by Purple Fury

    I'm familiar with most of the material you posted. I don't see how any of that makes a compelling case that leaving Saddam in power was the right thing to do (it makes plenty of other compelling cases, though). Nor do I think it proves that the Bush administration invaded Iraq so that it could seize its oil fields. Unfortunately, I disagee with you about Chomsky.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Apology? Nah. There's nothing like a moral high horse for raisin

    by Jon L. Ander

    And i'm sorry but the invasion of Panama and the U.S ecominc/stragetic interest in Venezuela qualifies as off topic in my book if the topic is the rape, or lack thereof, of Iraq's oil resources. I'm pointing out that as of yet you have not shown me evidence that one drop of oil is currently slushing Bush's fund and kicking Cheney's back. And it isn't "my" administration, i'm not American. I'm trying to assess both your arguments from an objective standpoint.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Iraq is not Vietnam Because....

    by CaptDanielRoe

    When the Vietnam Vets returned they were famously spit on by Vietnam War protesters. But when the Iraq Vets return home, they may well spit on Iraq War promoters. .................................................................. I'm all for the troops. I'm unhappy that Bush cut their combat pay. That he cut veterans benefits just as the war was underway. That he let so many go without body armor, and that he would not fly them home on leave. It was more important to Bush to give the optimal tax break to the wealthiest than take care of these comparitively small expenses. It's fine for Bush to spread costly "pork" projects to swing voter states to try to sway them, and to travel around with an ungodly expensive hollywood lighting system to keep him looking peachy on camera even at outdoor events, and to pull that costly aircraft carrier stunt, all at public expense. But he slices taxes to his richest buddies while hanging the soldiers out to dry. ..................... And then he lets them be scapegoated for sicko booty-games. Scapegoated, according to them and their families and logical analysis of how difficult it is to stage elaborate forced orgies routinely without alterting or higher command pretty darn quick, unless they directed it. ................................. That the Iraq prison abuses mirror similar (and internationally condemned, federally investigated) events in the Texas prison system on George Bush's watch, is worth note. ................................. Why doesn't Bush want to pay to fly the troops home for leave? And is there any added reason to extend their tours on them? On both counts, he may be worried that they will express the same sentiments here that they expressed to Michael Moore's film crews in Iraq. And on the second count, guess what happens if vast numbers of Guardsmen have to stay overseas beyond their initial commitment? Employers have to hire people to fill their jobs. The job crises appears to shrink. But, after having there finances broken thanks in part to the lower combat pay (and the expense of their families having to buy them body armor), how many of these troops will return home and be jobless despite agreements, or force those new hires back out of work? .................................................................. If you support veterans, tell Cheney to questioning whether Kerry bled enough for his taste, when he earned his first of three purple hearts.

  • May 23, 2004, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Re: DocPazuzu

    by Purple Fury

    I'd like to respond to something you said in your reply to Nicole21. Forgive me for butting in. You know, there isn't an American alive who isn't ashamed and disgusted by the prison abuse scandal. Let me point out a couple of things that may have escaped your attention. 1. The scandal was uncovered by the US military (specifically by a soldier who had a crisis of conscience over it). 2. The military moved rapidly to correct the problem. Investigations are underway and one soldier has already been tried and convicted. 3. The entire US government apparatus has engaged in an embarassing orgy of masochistic self-flaggelation over this, at the same time one of its citizens was beheaded alive in front of a live video camera. 4. In the prisons of the Middle Eastern governments the US apologized to, this sort of thing (and much, much worse) is an EVERYDAY occurrence. Name another country on the face of the planet that has EVER, in recorded history, engaged in this sort of apologetics and reparation DURING WARTIME. And don't give me any crap about how the US is the only country that commits atrocities. Atrocities are a fact of warfare. They are committed by all sides, in all conflicts. That's not to say they are ok. I am only pointing out that what distinguishes combatants is not whether they commit atrocities or not, as they all plainly do. The issue is how one deals with them. Now, if (and I stress, the word "if"), after this brief exercise in critical thinking, you don't understand the difference between the the US and Saddam Hussein, or between the US and Al Qaeda, then I very respectfully submit it is *you* who have your priorities in need of adjustment.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Re: CaptDanielRoe

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "That the Iraq prison abuses mirror similar (and internationally condemned, federally investigated) events in the Texas prison system on George Bush's watch, is worth note". Careful here. You can make the same charge about nearly every prison system in the world, including some in France, and some in the states of Democratic senators on the Armed Services Committee. Mud like that will stick to EVERYBODY, my friend.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Which is making it very easy for people like Osama to find new recruits. But the Bush ass-kissers keep on with the charade. The whole planet thinks you people are crazy (the Bush ass-kissers), but you stick with your stupid excuses. When does the realization of mass delusion kick in? But nah, they've got God on their side, so the the rest of the world has it wrong. Shit happens." While we're on the subject of mass delusions, let's clear something up as I have a suspicion you suspect me of being in this category. First, I'm inclined to vote for Kerry in the fall, and while I support Bush's decision re: Iraq, I don't support his domestic agenda. Second, I'm an atheist. Just thought that needed to be said.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Purple Fury

    by DocPazuzu

    You, too, are displaying the myopia I spoke of. Just because I took Nicole21 to task, you automatically assume that 1) I draw no distinction between Saddam and America -- which is insulting in the extreme,2) That I don't recognize that the atrocities are carried by other countries than the U.S. 3) That I don't recognize that it is indeed the U.S. itself that uncovered and is dealing with the problem 4) That I can't tell the difference between truly evil, murderous regimes in the middle east and America. Please feel free to explain how you arrived at these totally erroneous notions about my character. For the record, I believe America is the greatest nation on Earth and that it is a tribute to our system that atrocities like the ones that occurred are creating the outrage and public self-scrutiny which America is putting itself through at the moment. The very fact that we're so different from the totalitarian regimes and ideologies we fight is the reason we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. America is better than this.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    "The UN Security Council vetoes, like many before and after, was provided by the US. Duh." What are you talking about? The UNSC can't veto a vote taken by the General Assembly. I think if you'll check your history you'll also see that there have been plenty of UNSC vetoes wielded by countries other than the US. Maybe you are confusing this with the proposed UNSC resolution regarding the ransacking of the Nicaraguan ambassador's residence by US troops during the Panama invasion? I think the US did veto that one. Not surprising, really, but hardly evidence of "war crimes".

  • May 23, 2004, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Re: DocPazuzu

    by Purple Fury

    I made no such assumptions about your views. Please re-read my original post to you, esp. the part that begins "Now, if (and I stress, the word "if")..." It sounds like you've already done your critical thinking (which I fully admitted was possible), and I commend you for that.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Pruple Fury, No Country Has a Prison System Comparable to the US

    by CaptDanielRoe

    You Wrote: "Careful here. You can make the same charge about nearly every prison system in the world, including some in France, and some in the states of Democratic senators on the Armed Services Committee. Mud like that will stick to EVERYBODY, my friend." .................................................................. I'm not a partisan hack, Purple Fury. I frankly don't give a damn about the Democratic Party as a whole, and that includes a number of Senators. Yes, the prison system is not owned by one party. It's a probablem that should stick to everybody, because they've all contributed to the problem and need to work together to clean it up. .................................................................. But the fact is, the US prison system more per capita of its poulation than any other nation on earth. And unlike most, kills them, and unlike most, has abandoned notions of rehabilitation. .................................................................. I'd love to chat more, there is plenty more to be said on this subject, but it's time for a sunlit picnic in the park. I advise researching these matters yourself; really I can try to get you up to speed but you will believe it more if you find it yourself. Teach a man to fish and all that. Peace.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Purple Rage

    by DocPazuzu

    "Now, if (and I stress, the word "if"), after this brief exercise in critical thinking, you don't understand the difference between the the US and Saddam Hussein, or between the US and Al Qaeda, then I very respectfully submit it is *you* who have your priorities in need of adjustment.".... I don't know about you, but this certainly sounds like I could (and I stress the word "could") only have begun thinking critically about the issue after you so kindly "set me straight" by posting a series of statements you clearly assumed I wasn't an adherent of.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Re: DocPazuzu

    by Purple Fury

    Didn't mean for it to come across that way, but I see how it might've sorry. What I said at the outset was, "Let me point out a couple of things that may have escaped your attention". Note I said, "may". It's clear now (but wasn't then) that they didn't escape your attention, so I'm not sure why you felt what followed had to necessarily apply to you. Sorry if I offended you.

  • May 23, 2004, 4:42 p.m. CST

    IT'S TIME I STEPPED IN AND ENDED THIS FUCKER!!!!!

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    Here

  • May 23, 2004, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Purple Fury

    by DocPazuzu

    That's good enough for me, thanks.

  • May 23, 2004, 5:07 p.m. CST

    HE IS HOLDING THE MISSING BRAKE CALIPERS FROM BUSH'S BIKE

    by silent_light

  • May 23, 2004, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Seriously, people, what are we going to do when there's no more

    by Salem Hanna

    Probably go back to discussing movies like we used to :) Mind you, these debates are so much fun i can't imagine the talkbacks without them anymore. "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"...maybe Moore is a jackass. But he's an entertaining jackass, who often raises valid points in humourous and memorable ways. Since so many people have died over the centuries giving us our right to free speech, let him say what he has to say. If it ain't true, it'll be easily dismissed by those with valid arguments against it. If it is true, then it's a message worth hearing. What do we, the film-going public, have to lose either way? Just a handful of dollars and a couple of hours of our life. I say give the dude a chance.

  • May 23, 2004, 5:38 p.m. CST

    UNdercover chimp

    by Octaveaeon

    And I'm a baptized used-to-be-Christian turned agnostic and hope that Bush wins the next election. And? Concerning the UNSC vetoes, stop stonewalling. The veto condemning the ransacking of the residence of the nicaraguan embassador to Panama by US troops? Sure. And how about the resolutions condemning the US invasion of Panama in the first place? Vetoed. And the resolution condemning US support of the Contras in Nicaragua? Vetoed. And the resolution condemning the illegal US embargo of Nicaragua? Vetoed. Go through the list yourself.

  • May 23, 2004, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "And I'm a baptized used-to-be-Christian turned agnostic and hope that Bush wins the next election. And?" Funny. Didn't have you pegged as a Bush supporter. Care to tell me why I should vote for him instead of Kerry? Honestly, I haven't made up my mind yet. You then wrote: "Concerning the UNSC vetoes, stop stonewalling. The veto condemning the ransacking of the residence of the nicaraguan embassador to Panama by US troops? Sure. And how about the resolutions condemning the US invasion of Panama in the first place? Vetoed. And the resolution condemning US support of the Contras in Nicaragua? Vetoed. And the resolution condemning the illegal US embargo of Nicaragua? Vetoed. Go through the list yourself." Stonewalling? You made an assertion that the US had avoided war crimes charges by exercising its veto power in the UN Security Council. When I asked you to back up that assertion, you responded with a charge that the Organization of American States had brought the issue of the US invasion of Panama before the UN General Assembly -- nothing to do with either war crimes OR a UNSC veto. Now you're talking about US vetoes of UNSC resolutions relating to its Nicaragua policy in the 70s and 80s. What does any this have to do with war crimes? I can't debate you if you're going to keep moving the goalposts.

  • May 23, 2004, 6 p.m. CST

    FANTASTIC NEWS FOR OLD

    by 81666

    WATCH IT, NOT JUST FOR ME. BUT BECAUSE JESUS AND ALLAH WANTS YOU TO.

  • May 23, 2004, 6:01 p.m. CST

    OLD BOY . . .

    by 81666

    . . . THAT IS.

  • May 23, 2004, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Re: Salem Hannah

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "...maybe Moore is a jackass. But he's an entertaining jackass, who often raises valid points in humourous and memorable ways." He also raises invalid points in humorous and memorable ways. The problem is distinguishing them, something Moore doesn't seem obligated to do. Further: "Since so many people have died over the centuries giving us our right to free speech, let him say what he has to say." I don't think anyone here has said that Moore shouldn't be allowed to make films or that he shouldn't be allowed to show them here. The problems is with this statement right here: "If it ain't true, it'll be easily dismissed by those with valid arguments against it." History has shown this statement to be false. Despite some egregious factual errors, disingenuous editing, and blatant omission of proper context, Bowling for Columbine won the Oscar for Best Documentary last year! You can spend time on political message boards (of both camps) and see the same phenomenon. Once a certain idea is repeated incessantly enough, it becomes gospel truth, whether it's based in fact or not. That's basically my problem with Moore -- not his freedom of speech, but his irresponsibility. Moore's work is not entertainment (IMO), and it is not enlightenment (again, IMO). Moore's work (IMO) is nothing but polarizing polemics built on a dubious factual foundation, and does NOTHING to contribute toward constructive resolution of the complex issues he raises.

  • May 23, 2004, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Purple Gorilla Ding Dong

    by Octaveaeon

    War crimes? Where did I specifially say that? Please, tell me. I must be confused. On the other hand, you are right. These prove nothing against the US. It in fact proves the moral standing of the US and the fact that the entire planet considers US actions to be above criticisms or condemnations. But seriously, explain why the US voted against the following statement concerning Saddam's use of chemical weapons, as spoken by the Security Council President "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," on the 21st of March, 1986: he stated that the Council members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986). As to why I want Bush to win and why i think you should vote for him too? Shit man, that's obvious. I can't think of a better way to spend the next 4 years debating with people like you on why his new onslaught of global blunders are somehow justified. And also because I can't think of a better advertisement and eye-opener to the hypocrisy of US foreign policy. If Kerry wins people will go back to their complacent lives and forget about political issues. Bush is the poster child for special interests, religious fundamentalism, and unilateralist imperialism masquerading as human rights. With Kerry we get the illusion. With Bush we get the full monty. AND, with those extra 4 years and the shitload of money Moore will make from F911, he can make atleast 4 more movies. Which means more Moore talkbacks. To which I say: BRING IT ON!

  • May 23, 2004, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Wow! Michael Moore, uber liberal, partying with OTHER uber libs

    by Big Dumb Ape

    In the immortal words of Claude Raines in CASABLANCA: "Why I'm shocked!" Give me a fucking break. Even a leftist like Harry started to allude to what an utter crock this is, but he still didn't have the guts to actually SAY it outright. Here we have Harvey Weinstein, who practically owes the existence of Miramax to Quentin Tarantino, receiving the grand prize FROM Tarantino -- who just "happened" to be picked as the head of the judging panel this year -- an ELECTION year -- where he could serve as a driving force behind the scenes AS acting head to judge over a purely political propaganda movie like FAHRENHEIT 9/11 which is in turn made my uber liberal Michael Moore and pal of Weinstein...and, of course, as the icing on the cake, it's all taking place at an overrated film festival (that frankly, the average movie goer doesn't give 2 shits about) hosted in France, a country filled with uber liberals. Gee, a movie that has no point OTHER than to bash Bush wins the top prize in a country that makes bashing Bush a national pastime. Again, in the worlds of Claude Raines "I'm shocked!" Someone at the top of this talkback said it best. This utterly pre-arranged, staged crock makes the award meaningless AND ranks right up there with the time the Nobel Peace Prize Committee gave the award to Yassar Arafat, a piece of human shit who should have been executed death years ago for his terrorist-sponsoring, murderous ways. What a shock that Cannes gives FAHRENHEIT the Palm and thus the stage of the world press for Moore to spew his crap. This is such bullshit its mind-blowing. The left wing political movers and shakers that be WANTED this to win, the art of filmmaking be damned. Cannes and the French -- phewfft! What a bunch of fucking weasels. Too bad we don't have a time machine, to go back and just LET Hitler and his troops run amuck over their worthless hides instead of the U.S saving their cowardly, bullshit-filled asses. Is it possible there's a nation more utterly 2-faced and useless to the world? I think not...

  • May 23, 2004, 7:42 p.m. CST

    morewatch

    by inthetrenches

    http://www.moorewatch.com/~ryanm/index.html http://www.moorewatch.com

  • May 23, 2004, 7:43 p.m. CST

    http://www.moorewatch.com/~ryanm/index.html

    by inthetrenches

  • May 23, 2004, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Bush can't get re-elected...

    by Slim_Goodbody

    In order to be re-elected you have to be elected in the first place.

  • May 23, 2004, 9:17 p.m. CST

    Ozymandias, why should talkbacks about Moore be any different th

    by Commando Cody

    "Episode 3 will suck! Lucas raped my childhood and baby ass!" "Fuck you back! Lucas is just doing his thing and the movies STILL are better than most things out there!" "LOTR isn't nearly as good as geeks who live in their parents' basement make it out to be! Jackson sucks and Sam and Frodo are gay bitches!" "Fuck you back! Jackson rules! It's based on a literary masterpiece!" "The Matrix sequels blow! Only brain dead asswipes think they're good or deep" "Fuck you back! These movies aren't too complicated -- they're just too smart for simpletons like you!" I mean, do I have to go on? That's been the spirit around here for some time -- in some cases its simply all in good fun, in some cases it's a bit over the top. But that's the fun and spice and variety of views you get when you bring people of different styles and tastes together in an Internet forum. So why do you feel that any talkback about Moore should be LESS heated or LESS opinionated than the bitchfests you'll find in just about ANY other talkback thread around this place? Why are you expecting people to talk about Moore -- someone who clearly brings up heated emotions in people, in fact the man himself goes out of his way to PROVOKE emotions -- with the boxing gloves off?

  • May 23, 2004, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Don't Worry ...

    by JamieCOTC

    ... Bush will win in November. No prob. Of course this will just give Michael Moore four more years of Neo-Con Fodder to win another few prizes with. :D

  • May 23, 2004, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Boy, Slim Goodbody, a liberal still out pushing that same old ti

    by Commando Cody

    No wonder the left is in so much trouble. They're STILL sore losers 3 years after the fact and 3 years after they were proven wrong. What a bunch of gripers. Here, read it and wake up to reality. Your life will be better for just accepting the truth once and for all. And burn into memory the sentence: "Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have TRIPLED to if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore." (For the web link remove the spaces I added so it works. I didn't want to screw up the talkback and widen it, though apparently some numbnut already did above) ********* http: //www.cnn.com /2001 /ALLPOLITICS/ 04/04 /florida.recount.01/

  • May 23, 2004, 10:34 p.m. CST

    yeah fuck over moderated internet forums. Let people say whateve

    by Jon L. Ander

    where else can you find topics as diverse as the toilet facilities onboard the Milenium Falcon, or the complex issue of whether Neo taking a shit in the matrix results in a mess on the seat in the real world? If theres one thing i hates its admins on talkbacks with delusions of granduer. Let people wander off topic. Let rant and rave. If i have to wade through a river of inane bollocks in a talkback in order to find a single insightful piece of writing then its time and effort well spent. And its usually funny too.

  • May 23, 2004, 11:34 p.m. CST

    NEW RULE: Capt. Daniel Rowe is a lying twat. No veterans were sp

    by Bill Maher

    You right-wing assholes should at least try to make up new bullshit instead of using hand-me-downs from Goebbels.

  • May 24, 2004, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Everybody vote for Bush!

    by Octaveaeon

    Lefties, Righties, Hippies, Druggies, Hillbillies, whatever, vote for Bush come November! I'm sure we can handle a few more dead civilians and anally probed prisoners, a few more hundreds of billions of dollars wasted (in white house ads, corporate kickbacks, personal savings gone down the drain thanks to Bush's unscrupulous corporate friends, financial and military aid to the new crop of friendly despotic regimes, bribes to convince our 'allies' to do as we say and supply the thin veneer of 'international consensus' in the form of a 'coalition of the willing'), a few more millions of tons of CO2 dumped on our atmosphere, a few more stupid remarks by a very stupid president, before the world (specially dumb Bush-loving morons living in the US wasting our precious air by refusing to crawl under a rock and die) has to wake up from its moral amnesia. Vote Bush and see a REAL global revolution come 2008. That's on the very flimsy expectation that Bush won't nuke us all before then. Hmmmm. Alright then, don't vote for Bush. Weenies.

  • May 24, 2004, 2:42 a.m. CST

    The Difference Between a Left-Winger and a Right-Winger

    by Octaveaeon

    The Right omits too many facts. The Left states too many.

  • May 24, 2004, 5:02 a.m. CST

    Cannes Jury = 4 Americans and 1 Frenchie!

    by JUDAS'S PRIEST

    Not only do many of you so-called "compassionate conervatives" lack the intelligence to appreciate a good film on its own merits, you are also incapable of searching for the FACTS when it comes to this story. Of the jury that awared Fahrenheit 911 the Palm d'Or, four of the judges are American and only one is French. So there... Maybe right-wing war nuts are a minority in your own country. I genuinely hope so. And another thing you mean spirited and ignorant Fascist apologists, Star Wars is a shit trilogy, The Lord of the rings kicks its arse. Ha ha!

  • May 25, 2004, 12:29 a.m. CST

    Bush Supporters - You're Beyond Hope

    by WoodyStiffer

    Bush's presidency has been a big fucking OOOPS! for America. This is the comeuppance. For all of you calling this a French vote - recognize that there was ONE French judge out of NINE judges on the panel. You retarded neo-cons are going to have to admit that Bush is bad for the country. His administration is so completely shitty that even knucklehead Republicans have come to admit that he's a retard. Even Republicans like John McCain have started questioning his leadership - only to have Bush's attack dogs attack him!? How funny is that? The Republican with the most credibility in the Senate is attacked by Bush's cronies. That's too funny and it only points towards Bush's bitchslap in November. The American populace are sheep - but even sheep can only watch so much abuse before they wake up and vote against it!!!

  • May 25, 2004, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Bill Maher! You Host the One Lefty Comedy Show I Hate

    by CaptDanielRoe

    I know that the spitting is a myth. Its a golly gosh darn DYSPHEMISM. ......In other words, I predict that a considerable number of servicepeople, when they return home, will take umbrage, often polite but no less pithy, with the promoters of the vainglorous crusade that to them was experienced as a meat-grinding ordeal. ...But time will tell. ...NOTE: Jessica Lynch is steamed that the chickenhawks milked, and largely manufactured, her story.

  • May 25, 2004, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Re: Future Reference

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "No, it was uncovered by the International Red Cross and Amnesty Internationall, who had been reporting on it for months with little media interest." You have a point. Amnesty International documented its concerns in July 2003. However, the ICRC reports were confidential and were not made public (which might explain why there was little media interest), although portions of one report were leaked to the WSJ earlier this month. The confidentiality of the ICRC reports is apparently mandated by the Geneva Conventions. With regard to the US military's investigation, my understanding is Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP with the 800th at Abu Ghraib, first reported cases of abuse at the prison on Jan. 13. On Jan. 16. Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez ordered an investigation into the charges of abuse. Also on Jan. 16, the investigation was announced publically, and this announcement was covered in the US media. On Jan. 19, Gen. Sanchez ordered a separate investigation into the administration of the 800 MP Brigade (the findings of this investigation became known as the Taguba report). On Feb. 23, 17 US soldiers were relieved of duty pending the outcome of the investigation. On Feb. 24, the ICRC provided the US military with a confidential report on detention in Iraq. (source: http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?id=/d/ip/iraq_prisoner_abuse_tl/data.js&navid=3032506&fmt=full&cp1=1). Should the US have responded to the Amnesty International report sooner? Probably. Is all of this happening as fast as it should in an ideal world? No. Is it happening reasonably fast given the circumstances? I think so. **** "Abuses at Guantanamo Bay have been dismissed since soon after it opened, and again, there was no US media coverage." This is just flat wrong. There have been numerous stories about allegations regarding Guantanamo in the US media. Whether or not the GC even *applies* to the people held at Guantanamo Bay is hotly debated. It's obvious where you come down on the issue, so I won't bother trying to educate you on the other side of the argument. **** "You *should* be ashamed. And i thought you said that you were. Make your mind up." I stand by what I said. It is morally consistent to denounce the abuse at the same time one is pointing out that the the situation is being remedied. And I will keep my own council on when I should and should not feel ashamed. As you apparently felt it was better to leave Saddam Hussein's regime in power, I'm not sure you're in any position to lecture anyone about shame. **** "Since it's inception, the Geneva Convention has been observed by any country that doesn't want to face trial for War Crimes. If, as seems to be the case, that the US Government has deliberately contravened them (while being careful not to leave a paper trail, natch) this is serious." You're missing the point. Yes, if true, it is serious. It is also the case that the US -- like other democratic countries -- have institutions to detect and remedy abuses of power. As near as I can tell, this system is working, lunatic ravings from the left notwithstanding. **** "Do not suggest that all sides commit sytemic torture and that it is somehow acceptable." So it appears you're having trouble with reading comprehension too. "That's not to say it's ok", is what I said, I believe. I said all sides commit atrocities. That is a fact. It does not make it acceptable. Don't attribute things to me that I didn't say. **** "And as for your previous post addressed to me, I set out to expose your falacious argument, and I did." Except that, well, you didn't. You drew an analogy that was flawed and then failed to defend its premise. **** "If you haven't accepted by now that oil and its attendant industries are a factor in the decision to invade Iraq, you probably never will." Now wait just a goddamned minute. What I said was, show me proof that the US invaded Iraq in order to seize its oil fields and steal its oil. I am still waiting on that proof, btw. Now, you have carefully reworded your position to read "oil and its attendant industries are a factor in the decision to invade" -- well, that statement is also a little bit like claiming the sky is blue. You can use just about anything as support for that argument. Of course oil and its attendant industries were "a factor", just like a million other things were "factors". But having said that, it is not by any stretch the same as claiming that the US invaded Iraq to seize its oil assets and steal its oil, or even that THE PRINCIPAL MOTIVE behind the invasion was oil. If you can prove that assertion, I will gladly admit I was wrong.

  • May 25, 2004, 2:33 a.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "War crimes? Where did I specifially say that? Please, tell me. I must be confused." Sorry, had you confused with CaptDanielRoe. See this post: http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=17624#768277. My mistake.

  • May 25, 2004, 2:37 a.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "But seriously, explain why the US voted against the following statement concerning Saddam's use of chemical weapons..." **** I don't know offhand. I'll look into it. What's your explanation?

  • May 25, 2004, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Kudos michael.

    by logansden

    Michael moore deserves all the credit he gets. Bowling for columbine was one of the scariest films i'd ever seen and i dont even live in the U.S. the footage of the schools cctv was just eerie. Go forth michael.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Purple Gorilla

    by Octaveaeon

    (Laying weapons down for the moment) Don't worry about confusing me for another, worry more about how you like to corner people you don't agree with by forcing them to justify every single little point they make, under the illusion that if you undo one strand in one's argument the whole edifice will crumble, while conveniently ignoring all the other points made as well. That's all you do man, and it's frustrating as hell because it's not so much that you don't know the material (which you don't, atleast not very well, it seems you surf around to see if you can debunk what was stated while missing the underlying strand) but you take this stance whenever any critical points about Bush, US foreign policy, White House officials, the Iraq war, or whatever is brought up. No objectivity whatsoever. But in the spirit of brotherly love, let me bring back that "right-wing extremist website" Wikipedia, as you so cleverly put it, which I've been perusing since you brought it to my attention. I knew it existed, and used it myself a couple of times, but I hadn't realized how well put together it is. Genius. And if i can refer to it without people like you jumping on the "that's just a commie website, feh!" bandwagon, then Bring It On! So go check these, for starters, and don't be ashamed to click on the links, courtesy of Wikipedia ofcourse: On the Gulf War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War **** On Elliott Abrams "member of the administration of President George W. Bush, holding the post of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. A leading neoconservative, Abram's appointment by the White House on December 2, 2002 was considered highly controversial owing to his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, over which he later pleaded guilty to lying to Congress." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams **** On John Negroponte "United States ambassador to the United Nations since September of 2001. ... On April 19, 2004, Negroponte was nominated by US President George W. Bush to be US ambassador to Iraq after the June 30 handover... He was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 95 to 3. He will replace L. Paul Bremer as the country's head American civilian official and oversee one of the largest American diplomatic facilities in the world. His appointment to the UN post was a controversial one because of his involvement in covert funding of the Contras and his covering up of human rights abuses in Honduras in the 1980s. He is accused of sponsoring terrorism for supporting the Contra insurgency against the left wing Sandinistas, the first ever democratically elected government of Nicaragua. He is also accused of inciting Contra attacks on civilians." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte **** That's just a start, but I'm sure you'll be able to find your way from there. Take your time, and come back when you think you're ready for a real discussion instead of this pissing contest which in all seriousness I'm also getting tired of. Like WHY US foreign policy is wrong and destined to fail, as opposed to going on with the charade that it's about democracy and has nothing to do about oil (or water, a very important consideration in a region with very little of it, and which is largely ignored in most discussions) or isn't driven by a imperialistic and religious world-view (aka ideology) adopted by many in the administration. Hence the PNAC and AEI, which atleast are upfront about their goals. Take your time buddy. And oh yeah, I was meaning to ask, what's with the change in name? Oh, and check this out too: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

  • May 25, 2004, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [confusion, debate]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Don't worry about confusing me for another, worry more about how you like to corner people you don't agree with by forcing them to justify every single little point they make, under the illusion that if you undo one strand in one's argument the whole edifice will crumble, while conveniently ignoring all the other points made as well." Well, friend, with all due respect, there's a name for "forcing them to justify every single little point they make". It's called debate. In regard to the rest of it, I haven't ignored anything; it's just that every time I refute something, or ask you to prove the factuality of something, you have a habit of expanding the scope of the argument. It got to the point where I just had to ask, "what has this got to do with the original point?" I mean, if you want to argue that accusations that John Negroponte incited Nicaraguan Contra attacks on civilians somehow proves that the US invaded Iraq to seize its oil fields, be my guest. I'm curious to see your line of reasoning there.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [frustration]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "That's all you do man, and it's frustrating as hell because it's not so much that you don't know the material (which you don't, atleast not very well, it seems you surf around to see if you can debunk what was stated while missing the underlying strand) but you take this stance whenever any critical points about Bush, US foreign policy, White House officials, the Iraq war, or whatever is brought up. No objectivity whatsoever." Again, with all due respect, I think you are frustrated because, like me, you are finding that a lot of your arguments are rather difficult to prove with facts. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Bush, the US, its foreign policy, etc. We could start with the fact that it appears post-war planning was botched, to put it mildly. We could continue with the fact that US policy towards North Korea in the 90s was hopelessly naive. There seems to be a lot of evidence for that, as well as a lot of other things. There *doesn't* seem to be a lot of evidence that leaving Saddam in power served the greater good, or that the US invaded Iraq to seize its oil infrastructure, steal its oil, and give that oil away to American companies.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [brotherly love, commie websites]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "But in the spirit of brotherly love, let me bring back that "right-wing extremist website" Wikipedia, as you so cleverly put it, which I've been perusing since you brought it to my attention. I knew it existed, and used it myself a couple of times, but I hadn't realized how well put together it is. Genius. And if i can refer to it without people like you jumping on the "that's just a commie website, feh!" bandwagon, then Bring It On!" I have found over the last few years that, almost without exception, every media outlet has some sort of agenda. It is true of Fox News, it is true of the New York Times. I simply don't think it's a convincing debating technique to recycle arguments from websites whose politics are similar to yours. And I think it's fair to acknowledge the bias of a source when quoting material from it. And FTR, I never said anything you quoted was from a "commie website". Those are your words.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:12 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [links]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "So go check these, for starters, [lots of links, having to do with Elliot Abrams, Gulf War I, John Negroponte, etc.]" Thank you for these informative links.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Re: Your Excellency [pissing contest]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Take your time, and come back when you think you're ready for a real discussion instead of this pissing contest which in all seriousness I'm also getting tired of." Excuse me, just who is pissing on who here? You are the one who has addressed every reply to me with condescension and derision (Purple Gorilla, 900LBRETARD, 900LBDELUSIONALBABOON, etc.), and littered your arguments with ad homs.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Re: Your Excellency [charades, ideology, oil, imperialism]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Like WHY US foreign policy is wrong and destined to fail, as opposed to going on with the charade that it's about democracy and has nothing to do about oil (or water, a very important consideration in a region with very little of it, and which is largely ignored in most discussions) or isn't driven by a imperialistic and religious world-view (aka ideology) adopted by many in the administration. Hence the PNAC and AEI, which atleast are upfront about their goals." Wait a minute here. In one breath you say it's a charade that it's about democracy, but in the next you accuse the administration of having ideological motives, and mention PNAC and AEI. What's it going to be? In one breath you imply that oil is the motive, but in the next bring up water. What's it going to be? With regard to the charge of imperialism, how can you support that claim? Since when do imperial powers invade, reconstruct the civilian infrastructure, establish security, assist in the formation of representative government, and then LEAVE? Is our involvement and continued presence in Bosnia/Kosovo then, also imperialistic?

  • May 25, 2004, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [time]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Take your time buddy." I've got plenty of time.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:16 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [name change]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "And oh yeah, I was meaning to ask, what's with the change in name?" I'm not sure what you mean there. I haven't changed my name. I just registered on TalkBack a couple days ago to respond to this thread. I've never posted here before. Maybe someone jacked my ID, I don't know.

  • May 25, 2004, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [Ramsey Clark's International War Crimes Trib

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Oh, and check this out too: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm" Oh, please. Ramsey Clark's "International War Crimes Tribunal"? Do you really want to debate this? Ok, LET'S. Want to start with the "Recommendations"? Here they are: "The Members urge the immediate revocation of all embargoes, sanctions and penalties against Iraq because they constitute a continuing crime against humanity." Instead, the Members urge that Saddam Hussein be allowed to continue his ongoing campaign of political repression, ethnic cleansing, and pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Members are especially looking forward to an appearance of the Iraqi Olympic soccer team, assuming any of them survive their coaching sessions with Uday. "The Members urge public action to prevent new aggressions by the United States threatened against Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, North Korea, Pakistan and other countries and the Palestine people; fullest condemnation of any threat or use of military technology against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the United States against the people of Iraq." Oh yes, by all means, let's put a stop to any imminent action against North Korea, where the government there has made it possible for the population to begin eating moss of of rocks, instead of each other. "The Members urge that the power of the United Nations Security Council, which was blatantly manipulated by the U.S. to authorize illegal military action and sanctions, be vested in the General Assembly; that all permanent members be removed and that the right of veto be eliminated as undemocratic and contrary to the basic principles of the U.N. Charter." Oh yes, please. Let's abolish the security council, and move to a fully democratic system where Charles Johnson's Liberia has the same moral voice and same influence on policy as the Western democracies. "The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent preservation of the reports, evidence, and materials gathered to make them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest possible distribution of the truth about the U.S. assault on Iraq." Yes, because as we all know, the US was out to eject Iraq from Kuwait in order to seize Iraqi oil assets. That's why the US military withdrew completely, and stopped short of overthrowing the Iraqi government, despite being within range, and having more than enough capability to do so, after Iraqi forces had been defeated.

  • May 26, 2004, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Chuckle

    by Octaveaeon

    Predictable. Bingo, straight for the banana. And like was to be expected... slipped. Well done Sherlock, it IS Ramsey Clark. And i sneaked him in there at the end to see whether you would prove my point, and KAZAAAM! you gone done it again. You disregard my points YET again by saying "Thank you for these informative links", after having the balls to chastise me about using like-minded websites to back up my points, when in fact I'm now using the SAME website you yourself used not so many posts ago, though now you completely ignore! No, you take the easy way out. But there's a reason why I still posted it, and that's because he still has a point, and you did me a favour by quoting it. Now, if you would have bothered to read the three previous links, you would have realized the CONTEXT within which this war has been created, and the PEOPLE who are running it. Then, read "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ), keeping in mind that it comes frome the PNAC, where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby have all been involved in its inception, and held tight contacts throughout the years. They share an ideology. Here is one passage: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" And guess what, this was written BEFORE 9/11, which has been engraved in the peoples brain as the primary justification for going to war in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, in the first place. And before you go on about where the 'link' is or whatever cluster of dots you can't seem to find, this same aim was included in a statement sent to President Clinton back in January 1998, urging him to adopt a strategy aimed ad "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." It also asked "to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf," adding that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." This letter was co-signed by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, among others. So, as you can see (or fail to see), this plan was going to happen one way or another. WMD's were the main excuse. FreedomTM for the Iraqis and DemocracyTM became the second. While 9-11 provided the glue that held it all together. And don't forget this is an 'Open letter', which means that it's not meant to convince the President, it's meant to convince the public. THEN the President. Now, if you read all the other links and quotes and my posts again and put them all together and start reading them, you'll understand why. Keep in mind that the first thing that the US Army secured as soon as forces marched into Baghdad were the oil fields in southern Iraq. And while looters and arsonists run amok through the Ministries of Planning, Education, Irrigation, Trade, Industry, Foreign Affairs, Culture, and Information, the Ministry of Oil was guarded by US Forces. That's priority for ya. Oh, and I'm sorry about the confusion PF, just thought that you were acting a bit, well, how shall i put it? Baboonish, i guess. Yeah, that's it. My bad. P.S. Still not enough evidence?... Then Read! For chrissakes! If you've got the time, then use it and stop wasting other's.

  • May 26, 2004, 5:36 a.m. CST

    the thing about oil

    by sal120

    Hi all, i've just quickly glanced over the talkback, and have not read all the posts in detail, so forgive me if I repeat some stuff or make wrong assumptions about the posts. ******Regarding the oil thing; I dont thing anyone is saying that America is literally going to

  • May 27, 2004, 12:29 a.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [Ramsey Clark, Sherlock Holmes, and bananas]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Predictable. Bingo, straight for the banana. And like was to be expected... slipped. Well done Sherlock, it IS Ramsey Clark. And i sneaked him in there at the end to see whether you would prove my point, and KAZAAAM! you gone done it again." And what point was that? The point that I don't read any of the links you post? Then how do you explain my challenge to Clark's tribunal? Where did I get those quotes then, out of thin air? And why haven't you chosen to address any of my objections to its conclusions?

  • May 27, 2004, 12:45 a.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [ignoring points]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "You disregard my points YET again by saying "Thank you for these informative links", after having the balls to chastise me about using like-minded websites to back up my points, when in fact I'm now using the SAME website you yourself used not so many posts ago, though now you completely ignore!" Look, if you'd actually stated a cohesive argument, and then cited something from those articles as a defense of your position, I wouldn't have been able to ignore it, would I? But you didn't do that. You just threw them out there, as if their existence was prima facie evidence that you were correct. Let me explain something about debating technique and the application of logic. You make an assertion, and then you cite evidence to prove the assertion. You don't prove anything by screaming "PURPLE GORILLA RETARD!" and "HERE! READ THIS! www....." If you want to make a fucking point, make it, and then defend it. I asked you to prove to me that the US invaded Iraq to steal its oil, and you replied with a link asserting something about John Negroponte and his support for the Nicaraguan contras, among other things. So far, I haven't seen ANYTHING, in any of the source material you've cited (and I have read it all, your raving not withstanding), that is convincing evidence that the US is in Iraq solely, or even principally, because of its oil. Is it a factor? Yes, it's a factor. It's Iraq's principal export, and the US is a major consumer. How can it not be a factor? But do I have to remind you that Perle and Wolfowitz were in favor of overthrowing Saddam Hussein since shortly after SH began his defiance of the UNSC in 91-92, for many reasons, apart from Iraq's oil supplies (these reasons are clearly and forcefully articulated in the PNAC paper you cited). So what? So was I, and so were a lot of other people. When this issue heated up in the summer of 2002, I reviewed all of the PBS Frontline documentaries on the Gulf War and Saddam Hussein's rise to power (please spare me the argument that we sold him all his arms -- France, Russia, Germany and former Soviet client states provided the vast majority of his arsenal, including his chem/bio stuff, and this is easily proven). I read about Saddam's flaunting of the terms of his own surrender. I read about Halabja. I read about the Marsh Arabs. I read about the massacres of the Kurds and the Shiites. I read about Abu Nidal. I read about the UN inspectors chasing the fleeing Iraqi military pick up trucks with the calutrons in the back, and the rest of the keystone cops routine he had turned the inspections into. I read about the nuclear program that Blix failed to uncover, but which was revealed by Saddam's son-in-law, who defected, returned, and was then executed by the regime. I read about the devastating effect the sanctions regime was having on the Iraqi people, and how it was suspected Saddam was manipulating them for his own benefit, while keeping his people in misery. Man, if there was nothing under the soil of Iraq but dog shit, and 9/11 had never come to pass, the case for overthrowing this guy was a slam fucking dunk.

  • May 27, 2004, 12:46 a.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [easy way out]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "No, you take the easy way out." HOW? I have debated you POINT by POINT, while you have YET to address a single issue or answer a single question I raised in my initial post on this subject. Just who is taking the easy way out here?

  • May 27, 2004, 12:49 a.m. CST

    Re: YourExcellency [finally, a cohesive argument]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "[long rant about PNAC, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, oil, etc.]". I will grudgingly give you credit here, because at long last you have actually written something that comes close to making a convincing argument. I disagree with the conclusions you've drawn, however, and I could go on and on about why, but I don't want to write another dissertation. Instead let me ask you a question, that I hope you will seriously consider, and I would be interested in your answer to it. You say that 9/11 is the glue that brought it all together. Explain to me WHY you think 9/11 brought this all together. MY answer to that (yours may be different) is why I can never accept that this action was about oil. Tom Friedman of the NYT put it better than anyone. He wrote: "The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there

  • May 27, 2004, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Re: sal120 [stealing the oil]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Hi all, i've just quickly glanced over the talkback, and have not read all the posts in detail, so forgive me if I repeat some stuff or make wrong assumptions about the posts. ******Regarding the oil thing; I dont thing anyone is saying that America is literally going to

  • May 27, 2004, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Re: sal120 ["control" of the oil]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "I think the point to be made is that they will have, or aim to have

  • May 27, 2004, 1:05 a.m. CST

    Re: sal120 [Saudi]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "If you look through history, you will see that whenever there is an oil shortage, or crisis, more often then not, Saudi Arabia is the first OPEC member to suggest increasing production to OPEC (it happened again two days ago). Now its very hard to prove that Saudi is doing this just for American benefit, but its not too hard to join the dots. In fact, I cant 100% recall, but Saudi Govt. have been on record saying that they will ensure an uninterrupted supply of oil." **** The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's not only the US that depends on that oil. Other countries in the world are far, far more dependent on Saudi oil than the US. If I'm not mistaken I think the US could actually do without Saudi oil completely, if it had to. The percentage of our oil supply we receive from the ME is much less than it used to be. Sorry no links, but it's very easy to find this out, too.

  • May 27, 2004, 1:07 a.m. CST

    Re: sal120 [Iraq's oil]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Examine what is happening in Iraq now, The new Iraqi govt will have control of the oil, and then no doubt they will be targets by insurgents/al-qaeda/whoever, therefore requiring American troops for their safety

  • May 27, 2004, 1:09 a.m. CST

    Re: sal120 [economics]

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "Also, don

  • May 27, 2004, 7:27 a.m. CST

    re: Purple fury - control of oil

    by sal120

  • May 27, 2004, 7:29 a.m. CST

    re: purple fury 270504

    by sal120

    (Sorry about long post - talkback order is screwed)

  • May 27, 2004, 1:40 p.m. CST

    PF: Pretty Foolish

    by Octaveaeon

    Blabla debating technique and logic. Ha, you sound just like 900LBGorilla. Funny, eh? Isn

  • May 27, 2004, 1:58 p.m. CST

    PF: Pretty Foolish

    by Octaveaeon

    Blabla debating technique and logic. Ha, you sound just like 900LBGorilla. Funny, eh? Isn

  • May 29, 2004, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Re: the_ram

    by Purple Fury

    You wrote: "When the biggest tragedy in recent American history is perpetrated by a group of people fighting against American involvement in the Middle East". **** It's a little hard to take your post seriously when you get so much wrong right at the outset. First of all, I am sick of hearing people of your political leaning refer to 9/11 as a "tragedy", as if it were some kind of national disaster. It was no such thing -- it was a calculated, intentional act of war perpetrated by extremists against civilian target and military targets in the US. Language is important, and use of words like "tragedy" diminish the outrage that one rightly ought to feel about this act. Secondly, as is widely known, Al Qaeda's gripe with the US presence in the Middle East is just the tip of the iceberg of their grievances with the west, and if you feel these attacks were solely due to the US presence there, you are woefully misinformed. As to the rest of it, as far as I'm concerned, you haven't really argued convincingly against any of the points I've made, and it seems pretty clear that you haven't really read what I've said very carefully. I'm very impressed with your smug sense of moral superiority and condescension towards and stereotyping of Americans, though. Goody for you on that.

  • May 29, 2004, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Re: the_ram

    by Purple Fury

    Typo: in my initial reply to you "national disaster" s/b: "natural disaster".

Top Talkbacks