Flex

Sorry if this is a repeat post. i havent been around in a long while, and i just saw it last night.

Before going in, i hated Bush. i thought we entered/remain in Iraq for the wrong reason, and soldiers are being needlessly killed.

anyhow, i basically walked out of the theater despisng Bush even more. It was absolutely amazing the information that Michael Moore acquired for the docum.

I realize it was filmed from a completely anti-Bush perspective, but geez, i didnt know he was that bad/corrupt/clueless/greedy/arrogant and stupid.

what u guys think?

You're a funny guy, Sully, I like you. Dat's why I'm going to kill you lahst.


* Got juice?*Need Motivation?*How to Train*
*Arnold vs. Ronnie vs. Haney vs. Sergio*
*YEAH BUDDY...LIGHT WEIGHT!*Ahhnold*

gr81

I think that even after seeing this movie, none of us will still really truly realize how fuccin corrupt that piece of shit Bush is. Is it worth seeing thou Flex, I was thinking of going but I wasn't sure. I guess if its anti Buch thou I will most definately enjoy! ha ha

Testosterone Site/Elite Fitness-Dave Tate/West Side Barbell/Berardi Nutrition & Sports Performance/Steroid Laws- Rick Collins/John Defendis Intensity or Insanity articles/Save the Supersonics

Var

I think calling this movie a documentary is a bit of a stretch. Here's the original thread...

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/sh...ad.php?t=33238 (Fahrenheit 911...)

But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you.

-N. Machiavelli

Flex

OHHHH Gr81, what up homeboy???

it is DEF worth seeing. it was great. it starts by showing how he shouldnt even have been president (cuz of hte FLA thing....but luckily his brother is Gov. and the head of the vote counting had some sort of relation with him). Then, how he ignored terrorist threats, and even had Al-Quiada over to the white house a few months before 9-11. How they all said Saddam/Iraq posed no threat, then, when needing a scapegoat to get the country behind them in a war (they couldnt go after the bin Ladins who were Saudis cuz they own $800billion/7% of our total economy), they invade Iraq for no reason, and now our soldiers are dying.

sorry to ruin some parts, but bro, its def worth seeing. if you hate Bush now, wait till you leave the theater.

of course Var, things could be a little far fetched. but it seemed to me anyhow that he had documents/interviews/pictures/voice recordings etc. to back up EVERY point he made.

You're a funny guy, Sully, I like you. Dat's why I'm going to kill you lahst.


* Got juice?*Need Motivation?*How to Train*
*Arnold vs. Ronnie vs. Haney vs. Sergio*
*YEAH BUDDY...LIGHT WEIGHT!*Ahhnold*

maniclion

C.R.E.A.M or Us how ever you see it, it is the root of all evil. It's a good thing in moderation, but too much causes problems just like everything else.

Var

Mike M himself went from calling this a documentary, to a docu-drama, to "his take on the current admin". He doesnt have a whole lot to back up his claims. But hey...I'm all for freedom of speech.

But when you disarm them, you at once offend them by showing that you distrust them, either for cowardice or for want of loyalty, and either of these opinions breeds hatred against you.

-N. Machiavelli

Monolith

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/dexamyl.jpg

Rich46yo

This review says it better then I could. Yaknow its one thing if an American citizen allows himself to be mindscrewed into believeing this fat slob but the rest of the world is actually stupid enough to base their opinions of America almost entirely on what they see thats produced by our Leftist self obsessed entertainment industry and media. BTW MM made this movie to promote his own extremest views and make money. He has no legal obligation to stick to facts.

""""""""Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT



Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.


Recruiters in Michigan

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.


Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.)


Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.

"Death to Tyrants"!

MTN WARRIOR

Well, let me give you a soldiers point of view on this movie, this sentiment and this mentality. I do not believe that is right to propogate anyone who will attempt to destroyothers through self-servitude and destroy the patriotage of our people by destroying the two parties made to legislate it. This being said, there is no difference between Michael Moore and that fat bastard Rush Limbaugh and his Conservatory for un-informed studies. He is doing the same thing a MM but because he is republican, he is allowed to continue. His drug doing, infidelic fat ass should be banned from radio as contratdictory to the good order of the nation. He should be killed. That being being done, let me say this. There are no WMD in Iraq, there are none in Afghan. Why did we go there again? To rid the world of WMDs. So, now the Bush blames the CIA. YEah right, its all their fault. Ever notice how REpublican presidents let one of their directors take the fall (Iran-contra). Coward bastards. So, now, almost 900 of my brothers and sisters have been killed senselessly and I will soon be going no doubt and may fall amongst them. Remember that, you will or you probably already do, know someone who was killed because the president wanted to finish something his daddy couldnt do. How does that feel? Well, let me tell you, it makes me sick every f***ing day. I am heartbroken every day that my brothers in arms are being slaughtered without appropriate reason. Yes Bin laden and Hussein are bad people. But so were Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Lenin, and Khomeni and the leader of N. Korea and China and Saudi. Are we going there? Iran and N.Korea and China admit to having WMDs, are they next. No, because they are financial partners. I am not a Democrat, I am obviously not a Repub either though. I am capable of independant thought. Do you want your brothers, sisters, moms and dads to continue to be sent to war because you voted for Bush AGAIN. Please don't, I implore you. My wife and 20 year old daughter implore you, don't send my brothers and sisters in harms way so much. We raised our right hand to defend the constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those guys are enemies, but lets do it the right way, with a coalition based, world based police force. Not a cowboys and indians, grammer school mentality. Please. Make our borders strong, our economy capable and work with the rest of the world to rid the earth of tyranny. IT took 70 years to get rid of Communism, we can get rid of terrorism as well, But there are other ways.

THAT WHICH DOES NOT KILL ME, CERTAINLY MUST MAKE ME STRONGER

Dale Mabry

Independant thought must only be a Vermont thing. Did you know either of the 2 guys killed from VT 2 months ago?

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

Stickboy

Well, I am not a fan of MM. Anyone misguided enough to believe most of his "ramblings" or whatever he's calling them now, has enough problems of their own. If you believe in stupidity, then these quotes should be right up your alley.


Here's what MM thinks of you:

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper.

"We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

topolo

Very well said.........Moore is an idiot who fakes things (Like the bank scene in Bowling for Columbine) and tries to pass them on as fact. There is much more fiction in this new movie than fact!

MTN WARRIOR

Hey Dale. Thanks for the response. Yes, I knew both of them as well as some of the others who were hurt in the same battle. One had his leg amputated the other day. The other will probably lose his as well. Maybe not. One of the guys killed was from Milton, your hometown. Sorry for the rant earlier, but the President and Secretary Dumsfield have got to stop. Anyway, things are good back here. Just got back from the WOKO country club festival. 80 degrees, about time. Peace, out.

THAT WHICH DOES NOT KILL ME, CERTAINLY MUST MAKE ME STRONGER

Rich46yo

""""""""Well, let me give you a soldiers point of view on this movie, this sentiment and this mentality. I do not believe that is right to propogate anyone who will attempt to destroyothers through self-servitude and destroy the patriotage of our people by destroying the two parties made to legislate it. This being said, there is no difference between Michael Moore and that fat bastard Rush Limbaugh and his Conservatory for un-informed studies. He is doing the same thing a MM but because he is republican, he is allowed to continue. His drug doing, infidelic fat ass should be banned from radio as contratdictory to the good order of the nation. He should be killed. That being being done, let me say this. There are no WMD in Iraq, there are none in Afghan. Why did we go there again? To rid the world of WMDs. So, now the Bush blames the CIA. YEah right, its all their fault. Ever notice how REpublican presidents let one of their directors take the fall (Iran-contra). Coward bastards. So, now, almost 900 of my brothers and sisters have been killed senselessly and I will soon be going no doubt and may fall amongst them. Remember that, you will or you probably already do, know someone who was killed because the president wanted to finish something his daddy couldnt do. How does that feel? Well, let me tell you, it makes me sick every f***ing day. I am heartbroken every day that my brothers in arms are being slaughtered without appropriate reason. Yes Bin laden and Hussein are bad people. But so were Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Lenin, and Khomeni and the leader of N. Korea and China and Saudi. Are we going there? Iran and N.Korea and China admit to having WMDs, are they next. No, because they are financial partners. I am not a Democrat, I am obviously not a Repub either though. I am capable of independant thought. Do you want your brothers, sisters, moms and dads to continue to be sent to war because you voted for Bush AGAIN. Please don't, I implore you. My wife and 20 year old daughter implore you, don't send my brothers and sisters in harms way so much. We raised our right hand to defend the constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those guys are enemies, but lets do it the right way, with a coalition based, world based police force. Not a cowboys and indians, grammer school mentality. Please. Make our borders strong, our economy capable and work with the rest of the world to rid the earth of tyranny. IT took 70 years to get rid of Communism, we can get rid of terrorism as well, But there are other ways.""""""""""

You sound like an enemy propagandist. You are spreading lies and disinformation recklessly, obviously you slept during your history courses and Geo/Politics.

""""""""There are no WMD in Iraq, there are none in Afghan. Why did we go there again? To rid the world of WMDs."""""""

We went to Afghanistan to attack the Tali ban.........remember? We went to Iraq to unseat by force a dangerous dictator who had used WMDs in the past and caused two major wars against his neighbors. The last one of which he violated every cease fire clause and UN resolution ever made against him. He even obstructed UN inspectors numerous times, lied to them, and kicked them out of Iraq while trying to hide his extensive WMD infrastructure............remember? Remember he even tried to assassinate a former President of the US?


""""""""Remember that, you will or you probably already do, know someone who was killed because the president wanted to finish something his daddy couldnt do. How does that feel?"""""""

"His Daddy" couldnt finish off Saddam because this "world police force" your so fond of demanded the US forces stop after ejecting Saddam out of Kuwait................remember? Or are the actual facts getting in the way of your M. Moore style propaganda you idiot. You do remember the UN members of the coalition demanding the President to stop dont you?

""""""""Yes Bin laden and Hussein are bad people. But so were Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Lenin, and Khomeini and the leader of N. Korea and China and Saudi. Are we going there? Iran and N.Korea and China admit to having WMDs, are they next. No, because they are financial partners. """"""""

History 101 here : Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Lenin, and Khomeni are all either dead or long disposed of. We don't have meaningful economic relations with Syria, Iran, or NK. We aren't "partners" with them in anything. China first developed nukes in the early 60's and has had them for 40 years. They currently have 20 ICBMs capable of reaching American cities with MT class warheads. We very well may be going to Iran or NK next. All these rouge regimes are going to have to be faced down or removed by force. We will never be able to live in peace with such monstrosities. But one war at a time soldier................"yeah like your really a soldier".

"""""""""I am capable of independant thought. Do you want your brothers, sisters, moms and dads to continue to be sent to war because you voted for Bush AGAIN. Please don't, I implore you. My wife and 20 year old daughter implore you, don't send my brothers and sisters in harms way so much. We raised our right hand to defend the constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those guys are enemies, but lets do it the right way, with a coalition based, world based police force. Not a cowboys and indians, grammer school mentality. Please. Make our borders strong, our economy capable and work with the rest of the world to rid the earth of tyranny. IT took 70 years to get rid of Communism, we can get rid of terrorism as well, But there are other ways.""""""""""

Were already in a war. We have been for 30 years. Americans have been getting slaughtered in the ME ever since I served there. If you didn't want to fight then you probably shouldn't have joined the Military. what did you think it was another welfare check? Gee your "being sent in harms way". Hey now, thats a surprise! A soldier being sent in "harms way". Why dont you shut the fuck up, stop spreading disinformation and lies, and do your duty? Thats right, you raised your right hand and took an oath. When you were doing it did you have an expectation that the definition of "enemy" was going to be put up to you for a vote?

We tried it the "world way", the "world police way, the "UN way". And we ended up with a huge shit sandwich. When are you children going to understand that if we allow our national security decisions to be put up to a world vote, or left to the UN, were all dead. The "world" is nothing but an amalgamation of Nation States that does things based on their own self interest. You think the world gives a shit about America? "Cowboys and Indians"? "grammar school"? Nice pal! Sounds like bites out of the Euro-press or Al Jazeer. Lets allow the rest of the world to tell us how to define ourselves. Is your name actually M. Moore?

Our borders will always be porous. Unless we become a Police state. They are so porous its a frightening joke. Even if we became a Police state, and I can just imagine your posts then, we would be extremly vulnerable. Ever take a look at a map of the US Einstein? "Work with the rest of the world"? 3/4 of the "rest of the world" is various dictatorships,rouge nations, police states, and tyranny's. Exactly who and what are we supposed to work with? Like all flag burners you are long with twisted facts,lies, and propaganda and very short on specifics. "Hey, kinda like this movie".

I dont believe you are a real soldier. If you are then you are a fucking embarrassment....................take care.......... Rich

"Death to Tyrants"!

Sean0621

Hey if he is a real soldier he's still fighting a war. There are marines in my unit that say Bush is an idiot but still fight hard. They are far outnumbered by the supporters, but I mean some guys in my unit aren't even planning on voting. My buddy John doesn't even watch the news or care who's president, so obviously he is completely politically opposed to me who is a Bush supporter. But none the less he is one of my best friends, and I can't think of too many people I'd rather share a fighting hole with. Now I disagree with MTN WARRIOR, but I am not gonna call him on not being a soldier or a disgrace, for all we know he might have saved some lives out there. Look Rich I like you and you sound like any sgt major I've talked to in the Marine Corps. Times have changed and a different generation is fighting these wars, and I'm not ashamed to admit it gets a little confusing to me about what I'm fighting for sometimes, but I follow orders and I just fight hard to help my unit and keep my friends and myself alive. But I think you've hit a generation gap alot of these Marines are like that, sure you still have the hard core jarheads who exist to join Force Recon and fight their whole lives. Alotta of guys aren't like that, as a leader in the Marine Corps, I have to find a way to get all of these guys to fight and work together, whether they believe in the war or the president or they don't. I can't just say they are scum I won't bother to train them, what if they get killed, that'd be on my conscience for my whole life, and I plan on living a long life. All I'm saying is that it's a different fight nowadays, and you can't afford to judge people and leave them behind like that, you have to build them up somehow to fight. That's just my humble opinion.

"The First Rule of Fight Club is, You do not talk about Fight Club."

maniclion

Dale Mabry

Oil

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

Dale Mabry

Yeah, actually, he was a friend of a friend and was a designated driver for yours truly one night. Pretty crazy.

If sense were common, everyone would have it.

4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...