|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Michael Moore is a social satirist. And he's good at it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| I like the idea about the lie detector. Im sure they can use some part of his body, maybe his neck. While they are at it they can ask him if hes ever been involved in any covered up mass killings in Iraq. |
I don't know but I can tell you that he probably was involved in making sure Saddam Hussein can't wipe out the kurds or attack anyone else.
Saddam killed more than 300,000 when he was in power what was he going to do if he ever got free?
I must say however that with posts like that I am certainly glad you are on the other side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cigar_Guy
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Two points.
Michael Moore gets sued for 85 million not because he has that much money, but because he has it (in large part, as they're arguging) because of the movie he made misrepresenting (again, they'll argue) this guy's situation. If Bill Gates punches you in the face, you're not entitled to $40b (or whatever he's worth nowadays). However, if he punches you in the face, then makes a hundred million dollars for the video rights to "Extreme Nerd Fights 2006!!!" based on him punching you, then you're talking some more money. Now, I don't know the details of just how much money Moore made from the movie (and DVD sales, which are always big nowadays), but we should keep things in perspective.
Secondly, I know I'm not going to get a good answer out of this, but I've got to wonder. Let's assume you guys are right: Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but had all sorts of ulterior motives for doing it (leaving aside the arguments on that)--why would he make such an
easily-verifiable lie the centerpiece of his case for going in? I mean, if he knows they're not there, why start a 48-state whistlestop tour of the United States talking only about the WMDs in Iraq and how they have to go when he knew that as soon as we got in we wouldn't find any? I mean, if he's the capable evil genius that you guys seem to think he is, couldn't he have come up with a better cover story?
Or is it possible that things didn't happen quite the way you remember?
Sorry, one last thing:
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| Does your humor know any limit? |
Your use of the word "limit" is improper, as it assumes that was in fact, funny at some point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nasigoreng
Joined: 14 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| What gets my goat is the completely out of hand litigation culture in the US. Oh, you`ve upset me, gimme 85 million dollars! How does one arrive at that figure? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Moore really does have that money? If a bum on the street upset you, would you sue him for 85 million? It seems that the amount that is sued for is related to how much the person has, and not tied to the nature of the offense. Poor people dont get sued a lot. The american dream is rotten at the core at this stage... |
Ironically, MM got his startup money for "Roger & Me" my suing his former employer for wrongful termination .
| Quote: |
In 2003, the Star-Ledger printed an opinion piece by Paul Mulshine where he quoted Paul Berman who stated that Moore had been fired, following a series of clashes with people on the magazine's staff, which included a dispute over Moore's refusal to publish an article by Berman that was critical of the Sandinistas' human rights record, a piece the magazine, before Moore's arrival, had commissioned. [3] Moore later sued for wrongful dismissal, seeking $2 million. He finally accepted a settlement of $58,000�the amount of anticipated trial costs- from the magazine's insurance company. Some of this money provided partial funding for his first film project, Roger and Me.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore#Early_life |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cigar_Guy, its not that we think Bushie is an evil genius, its that he's an idiot (literally and figuratively) who is surrounded by hardcore christian and jewish fundies and hardcore take no prisoners capitalists. How could Bush go around and talk about Saddam and Bin Laden in the same sentence until most Americans though they were the same thing? If you agree with the Thomas Friedman reasons for the war then maybe its defensible, but the problem is that the Bush Crime Family lies (or misleads) about everything they do and they also screw up everything they do. They have yet to implement a single policy that has not caused some major problem for some segment of the American population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cigar_Guy
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Cigar_Guy, its not that we think Bushie is an evil genius, its that he's an idiot (literally and figuratively) who is surrounded by hardcore christian and jewish fundies and hardcore take no prisoners capitalists. How could Bush go around and talk about Saddam and Bin Laden in the same sentence until most Americans though they were the same thing? If you agree with the Thomas Friedman reasons for the war then maybe its defensible, but the problem is that the Bush Crime Family lies (or misleads) about everything they do and they also screw up everything they do. They have yet to implement a single policy that has not caused some major problem for some segment of the American population. |
"I'm sorry, my mistake--I didn't realize you were crazy. I thought I was talking to someone here. "
--Louis C.K. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah well i suspect the history books written about Bushie's adventure into Babylon will show my side as the ones being right. You're welcome to join, or better yet since you're so smart why don't you enlist, I hear the Marines are looking for scouts, nice weather, good pay, free education, meet new people, build character, etc.
www.marines.com
"The Few, The Proud, The Expendable" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nasigoreng wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| What gets my goat is the completely out of hand litigation culture in the US. Oh, you`ve upset me, gimme 85 million dollars! How does one arrive at that figure? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Moore really does have that money? If a bum on the street upset you, would you sue him for 85 million? It seems that the amount that is sued for is related to how much the person has, and not tied to the nature of the offense. Poor people dont get sued a lot. The american dream is rotten at the core at this stage... |
Ironically, MM got his startup money for "Roger & Me" my suing his former employer for wrongful termination .
|
That's mildly ironic. But that kind of litigation is not really what I'm talking about. It can basically be argued on a factual basis. And it's important that stuff like that is in place. I'm talking about the out of control suing for personal damages, emotional distress, loss of happines, and other nebulous concepts. And the fact that, mysteriously, it always seems to be rich people that get sued for these things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
| Do you really believe that Bush KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion (when , btw, virtually every single Israeli family had prepared a "safe room" with gas masks within their homes???) |
That is exactly what they believe. |
Yes, let's just ignore the FACT that the UN weapons inspection team had informed Bush - and the world at large - that they had ZERO evidence of WMDs and needed only MONTHS to make a final confirmation of this.
Disingenious. Sick. Disgusting. Putrid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsyfish
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
| Do you really believe that Bush KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion (when , btw, virtually every single Israeli family had prepared a "safe room" with gas masks within their homes???) |
That is exactly what they believe. |
Yes, let's just ignore the FACT that the UN weapons inspection team had informed Bush - and the world at large - that they had ZERO evidence of WMDs and needed only MONTHS to make a final confirmation of this.
Disingenious. Sick. Disgusting. Putrid. |
Hans Blix reported to the UN Security council on 27 Jan 2003 (a couple months before the invasion of Iraq) that 'These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.'
Hardly 'ZERO evidence of WMDs'.
In the same report he said that inspectors couldn't account for 6,500 missing chemical weapons and couldn't prove that Iraq destroyed all the anthrax they had admitted to producing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/
In the end, the inspectors might have proved there were no WMDs. (Besides, that was a canard for Bush to go in. If it wasn't that, it would have been something else.) The USA probably shouldn't have invaded Iraq.
But,
Saddam could have made it more difficult to justify the invasion, though, by fully cooperating with the inspectors and abiding by the sanctions that had been placed on Iraq after the first Gulf War (the one where he invaded Kuwait). Saddam tried to keep the world guessing as to whether he had WMD.
'Disingenious. Sick. Disgusting. Putrid.'
Last edited by gypsyfish on Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Many (perhaps all) of us were there in 2003 when this went down.
Long before we knew whether there were or weren't WMD, the argument against war was that you only do it as a last resort only when you have to.
That's the bottom line. The absence of WMD only support this point.
Having been one of "those" there in 2003, I'll tell you my take on the Iraq war:
A lot of Americans get off on war. With this comes claptrap about patriotic duty and what-not. Especially wars that we'll win.
In military circles, the one great mistake is to treat the current war as the last one.
This is what happened.
There was a broad assumption that this would be a replay of the '91 Gulf War.
Hindsight says it wasn't.
The 2004 election was a referendum on the war.
That's about all there is to be said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
| Do you really believe that Bush KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion (when , btw, virtually every single Israeli family had prepared a "safe room" with gas masks within their homes???) |
That is exactly what they believe. |
Yes, let's just ignore the FACT that the UN weapons inspection team had informed Bush - and the world at large - that they had ZERO evidence of WMDs and needed only MONTHS to make a final confirmation of this.
Disingenious. Sick. Disgusting. Putrid. |
Let's also ignore the fact, that a senior Iraqi general also said that there WERE WMD and that they were moved to Syria.
Now THAT'S "Disingenious. Sick, Disgusting. Putrid." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiliz
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bush and Blair told us there were WMD ..they were wrong. why can't the 'senior..unnamed...general also be wrong? why are you putting so much credence on this persons statement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiwiliz wrote: |
| Bush and Blair told us there were WMD ..they were wrong. why can't the 'senior..unnamed...general also be wrong? why are you putting so much credence on this persons statement? |
Hardly unnamed. Georges Sada is his name. He was the number 2 in Saddam's air force, so I think that he would know more about Saddam's WMD programs than some guy on a messageboard.
But it wasn't just him.
Moshe Yaalon the former chief of the IDF has also made this claim regarding Iraqi WMD being moved to Syria.
Charles Duelfer who investigated these claims stated "What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of material left Iraq and went to Syria. There certainly was a lot of traffic across the border points...
Whether this material was or was not WMD he could not say conclusively. But given the above claims by people who were in a position to know, it certainly jibes with the evidence.
Furthermore we do know that Saddam at one point DID possess WMD. That was never in dispute. He had the technology and facilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
