It's a leftist propaganda piece, Maz, and like any 'work' of the genre it mixes half-truths with the blatently dishonest. Moore shows Hussein's Iraq as a utopia where children fly kites, shoppers happily shop and people move peaceably around a kingdom of joy; then boom!! The evil imperialist Americans drop death from the darkened sky! A movie made for the credulous and the vulnerable.

 

I presume you have seen the film in it's entirety and if so can you specify what the lies and half truths are? For example at the beginning when all the senators are putting in petitions rejecting Bush as President, is that a lie? The conflicting interests of the Bush administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice having stakes in petrochemical and battlefield industries)?

 

Can we drop 11/9 now? It was over a decade ago, the Americans have bled their sympathy dry, they have really milked the situation and their reaction to it has damaged their reputation and credibility on the world stage. Most normal people know the official story is as true as the three little pigs and the big bad wolf. Ultimately we will never know the truth just te grey areas in between. Lets now drop the whole 'sympathy' thing now.

 

And the moon is made of cheese

 

Yep, fvck all the conspiracy theorist nutters, they are looking for a smoking gun that they will never find (in most cases because none exists)

Just “follow the money”, it will normally explain things, money talks, bullsh1t walks

 

I watched the film at the cinema when it first came out and I've watched it since. It was quite funny in places, it made Bush look silly (which he was) and its commentary around the foreign policy of America and her allies was either risible or absurd. If you liked it and it fits in with your worldview, Maz, that's absolutely smashing; I think it's lefty hogwash undeserving of any further analysis. Moore's now a multi-millionaire.

 

Morning James.
It's not about world views and making people look silly, it's about revealing the truth. If everything Moore put in the film was falsified and untrue then shame on him. However why would he do that? Why would he put himself at great risk to satisfy some personal ego trip. Some of the things contained in the film are mind boggling. I'm sorry I can't just dismiss it as 'lefty hogwash'.

 

The Bush administration didn't do too badly either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...i_b_86364.html

 

ahah is that really true





no wonder she looks so pleased



follow da money

 

Yep, good article. I like Sheer, he's man of the left who's sincere and credible. What's your point?

 

Are you being delibrately obtuse?

 

Of course. Now what's your point about the article?

 

Being crap at art I'm unwilling to start drawing pictures.

 

So far you've mustered-up an anonymous and unfalsifiable conspiracy quote "from google" and the propaganda piece of a champagne socialist. Sheer's article is your saving grace, so I'm interested to know what it means to you and why you chose to publicise it in the context of this exchange. You may be crap at art, but you can write, so spell it out for me, Maz.

 

The quote from Google was in jest and in response to what someone else had already put. As for the propoganda piece from a champagne socialist, I specified two points which you failed to address. Yet you put forward your own assertions as gospel and dismiss haughtily anyone that disagrees.
The article by Sheer was to illustrate the irony of your point about Moore being a millionaire. The fact is members of Bush's cabinet have become billionaires after the Iraq war. Is this not even a little unsavoury to you? Does it not bring in to question the whole motive of the invasion?

 

Should we drop the holocaust mantra too?

 

First, Bush & co are unabashed capitalists; Moore's exploited the well intentioned, but unthinking left and their bedfellows in the Ummah and has enjoyed the spoils ever since. The former may be crooks, but at least they're honest crooks. Is it unsavoury? Capitalism's unsavoury. Does it bring in to question the whole motive of the invasion? Clearly it did and still does, but it didn't provide the answer and still doesn't.

In a nutshell you and people like you are saying that Hussein was preferable to Halliburton. Is that the case? If so, be prepared to justify it.

 

No but does it occur to you that every year there is a hoo haa about 11/9 even though it was not on our own turf. 7/7 does not get as much recognition as 11/9 does. I don't see threads on car forums about 'what you was doing on 7/7' or ' i can't believe is was x years ago'. Hell, the Tutu and Tootsi massacre was a lot more gruesome than 11/9, we don't hear about though do we?

 

James I never said Hussein (I presume you mean Saddam and not Obama) was preferable to anyone. He was a vile dictator but then so was Kim Jong Il, so is Mugabe, so is the Chinese premiere etc. Please don't infer I support Saddam in any way. My point is/was why were the public sold a story to pave way for the invasion in which many innocent lives on both sides were lost. Can YOU justify that?

 

Hutu. That was a massacre of the worst sort. A killing rate that surpassed even that of the *****.

 

Isn't this what Chilcott is supposed to be investigating? By the looks of it you've seen an advanced copy of the report

 

Martin I can't take you seriously unless you're discussing the composition of the moon!

The Chilcott report hmm....Is it going to be a whitewash?


The Inquiry has previously indicated that it intends to undertake a process of Maxwellisation, whereby individuals who may be criticised in the report will be informed of the proposed criticism (and provided with relevant parts of the draft report in which the criticism is made) in order that they may make representations to the Inquiry Committee before the report is finalised.

 

So basically what are saying is; if the report finds that the government lied to the public, then that OK because it supports your POV. If however it finds otherwise, then it's a whitewash?

Bleedin waste of time then

 

No, it was shameful, as is peddling snippets of information that sponsor the Hussein not Halliburton theme.

 

Now you're at it! Putting words in my bloody mouth.
What I'm inferring is there seems to be a get out of jail card for those in the firing line. It's akin to someone in court on a charge being briefed on the the case against them. Then having an opportunity (behind closed doors) to wriggle out of trouble before the case is heard. Does that not sound a little odd, maybe I'm being cynical but why isn't the report made public first? Why not make the process transparent so Doubting Thomases like me aren't questioning motives?

 

#205

 

The holocaust was not on our turf either, so should we forget about it?
Answer?

WW1/2 was not on our turf, forget about it?
Answer?

Where British citizens killed in 9/11 and 7/7?
Answer?

Is brutality commonplace in some African and Middle East nations?
Answer?

 

No it did not, ever been to Bergen/Belsen?

 

estimates say 500,000 to a million people in a 100 days in Rwanda

I don't think the Germans managed that killing rate tbh

 

It's a fact. The killing ratio surpassed the *****. Not that it diminishes what the ***** did or the persecution faced by the Jews, but the genocide in Rwanda resulted in more people killed per day whilst the conflict lasted.