Jump to content

Farenheit 911


Darth Jebus

Recommended Posts

We live in a country where the freedom of speech is a bedrock principle for American values. What has always seperated us from other countries is tolerance for views that we not only disagree with, but maybe even find offensive. This is why I've always believed we need the Michael Moores and the Jerry Falwells of the world. Irregardless of the political spectrum you find yourself on, we need to hear these voices. Or, and this is what makes America great, we DON'T have to hear those voices when we don't want to.

 

Yet it seems that the only time you hear of some organization trying to prevent an airing of something or a release of a movie that might be controversial, it is most certainly a conservative group leading the charge. The latest example is Farenheit 911. Michael Moore's newest pic which deals with the relationships between the Bush family and its ties to Bin Laden. Now, I'm not going to say whether I agree with Moore's views or not. But what I am going to say is that, as an American, I am sick and tired of this culture of censorship, this culture of Neo-McCarthyism that exists today.

 

Move America Forward, the same conservative group that spearheaded the charge to prevent CBS from airing their mini-series "The Reagans", is now leading a similar push to prevent many theater chains nationwide showing Farenheit 911. Even though the docu is already booked in many of those venues, I think it is disgusting and dangerous for any group, on the left or the right, to engage in blatant censorship such as this. I felt the same way about Passion of the Christ. Many groups protested that movie before anyone had even seen it yet. I found that equally disturbing.

 

Though you do have the right to protest and air views, you don't have the rite to tell the rest of us what we can and can not decide for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You speak about the Freedom of Speach.

 

It's dandy. Freedom of Speach allows Moore to film that documentary, and to release it. No one is stopping him. Disney didn't want to release it, and yet they owned the rights to it. They could have burned the footage, and there would be the end of the story.

 

Disney has had all kinds of problems with contraversy and the Christian Coalition maintaining a boycott of everything Disney. Instead Disney sold the movie away so that it could be released.

 

Where is this mass conspiracy to stop this movie from being seen?

 

All I see is news articles talking about it, Apple showing the trailer, and Miramax hyping it with Lion Gate films. There is no cover-up here.

 

And CBS has the freedom to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want. That's the freedom of speach for you. No one should twist their arm and force them to express a political opinion they don't agree with. That's not censorship. Censorship would be if the government stepped in and outlawed the show. When CBS chose not to broadcast it, they were execising their right to free speach and chose not to show it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm eagerly awaiting Fahrenheit 911 as I am sure it will be very interesting. I thought Bowling for Columbine (which is where I got the fact when I claimed the US has started more wars than any other nation in the world during the twentieth century, btw) was entertaining and quite informative. Michael Moore is like a breath of fresh air compared to almost everything else coming out of the US (movie-wise).

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Michael Moore is a very intelligent man. I credit him for pursuing what he believes in. That doesn't make all of his claims true.

 

Like I said before, the United States didn't really start any wars in the 20th Century. We finished a bunch though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You speak about the Freedom of Speach.

 

It's dandy. Freedom of Speach allows Moore to film that documentary, and to release it. No one is stopping him. Disney didn't want to release it, and yet they owned the rights to it. They could have burned the footage, and there would be the end of the story.

 

Disney has had all kinds of problems with contraversy and the Christian Coalition maintaining a boycott of everything Disney. Instead Disney sold the movie away so that it could be released.

 

Where is this mass conspiracy to stop this movie from being seen?

 

All I see is news articles talking about it, Apple showing the trailer, and Miramax hyping it with Lion Gate films. There is no cover-up here.

 

And CBS has the freedom to broadcast or not broadcast whatever they want. That's the freedom of speach for you. No one should twist their arm and force them to express a political opinion they don't agree with. That's not censorship. Censorship would be if the government stepped in and outlawed the show. When CBS chose not to broadcast it, they were execising their right to free speach and chose not to show it.

I agree with most everything you just said. Except for one small detail. Censorship is censorship whether it is government sponsored or not. This vew of censorship that cons like to get hung up on is samantical and, dare I say, Clintonian.

 

If a liberal or a conservative group successfully prevents a network or a theater from showing something, that's censorship. Plain and simple.

 

When Clear Channel pulled Howard Stern from their networks, no one questioned their rite to do it, but that doesn't mean it isn't censorship.

 

When the Sinclair Media Group refused to air Nightline on it's networks because it found the reading of the US soldiers killed in Iraq objectionable, that was censorship.

 

In the above examples, each organization had a rite to do it, but they still engaged in censorship. And just because they are not goverment organizations has little to do with it. Amplify that about 1000 times when you factor in the reality that both of the above media organizations are extremely powerful and reach millions of households across the country. AND are very generous donars to the Republican Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Clear Channel example is a good one.

 

The FCC theatened legal issues if they kept Howard Stern on. The FCC has gone nuts lately, taking down radio shows and threatening web comics. All the attention is on how Michael Moore is being censored, when he isn't and no one is paying attention to the FCC.

 

I'd like to take a lead pipe to the FCC guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Michael Moore is a very intelligent man. I credit him for pursuing what he believes in. That doesn't make all of his claims true.

 

Like I said before, the United States didn't really start any wars in the 20th Century. We finished a bunch though.

I don't believe everything Michael Moore says. He's only human after all. But it all depends on your own view of the situation. You can always claim you didn't start a war and that you were provoked to fight. Apparently Newsweek claims USA hasn't started a war during the entire twentieth century. I am not so sure the rest of the world sees it that way.

 

An interesting article on the subject:

 

http://hnn.us/articles/1042.html

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read on www.fair.org (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting), the more I begin to understand why most americans view the world so entirely different than everyone else in the world. If you're interested in discovering what the small nuances in choice of words have for effect when reporting the news, read this interesting article:

 

http://www.fair.org/extra/0403/pow-tv.html

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article.

 

And BTW, the War of 1812 never existed. I refuse to believe we got our butt kicked by Canadians, and that they burned down the White House. Excuse me while I put a bag over my head. :blink:

 

Edit: I like the mention of the Spanish-American War. That was rather funny. The Maine was poorly designed, and they didn't have a fire-wall between the furnace and the coal. An explosion sank the ship, and we assumed it was attacked. History suggests otherwise. However, it wasn't a lie that brought us in, but rather a false assumption.

 

Edit: The article questions some of our motives, but still doesn't point out a war the United States started in the 20th century, if ever leading up the invasion of Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: The article questions some of our motives, but still doesn't point out a war the United States started in the 20th century, if ever leading up the invasion of Iraq.

I know, in fact I haven't found any credible source of information backing up Michael Moore's claims. But as usual, it's a middle thing between extremes. I've ended up in the middle of Newsweek and Michael Moore by now.

 

Another thing though.. You wrote in another thread that Hans Blix was caught lying (if I remember correctly you called him worse than that) but I haven't been able to find this anywhere. When I searched for Hans Blix lies I ended up here:

 

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/ios030711.html

 

Chief UN inspector of Hans Blix told the Security Council on 14 February 2003 that "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly ... we note that access to sites has so far been without problems".

 

I'm familiar with Hans Blix since several years back and I've never heard anyone call him a liar. He was chosen to work for the UN (United Nations, where the US are also members, remember?) because of his fairness and ability to stay neutral.

 

Could you direct me to a (non right wing extremist) source of information about this?

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hans insisted that Iraq complied 100%. CNN said otherwise, and so did the UN. The UN Security Resolutions speak for themselves in that regard. Stuff like:

 

Rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections unless the composition of Unscom teams is altered to limit the number of inspectors from the US, and to prohibit Unscom overflights. Imposes travel ban on officials to be lifted when full cooperation resumes. Sanctions review to be in April 1998 if cooperation has been restored.

 

Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors. Threatens travel ban on obstructive Iraqi officials not "carrying out bona fide diplomatic assignments or missions" if non-cooperation continues. Sanctions reviews again delayed.

 

"Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".

 

On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.

 

"Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ... Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation with Unscom. According to a spokesman for the US Central Command, the resolution was passed following a threatening buildup of Iraqi forces near the border with Kuwait, and bars Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone.

 

Deplores Iraq's refusal to implements SCRs 706 and 712 and recalls Iraq's liabilities. Takes steps to transfer funds (including Iraqi assets overseas) into the UN account established to pay for compensation and humanitarian expenses.

 

Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for Unscom and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes.

 

Iraq UN Security Council Resolutions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hans insisted that Iraq complied 100%.  CNN said otherwise, and so did the UN.  The UN Security Resolutions speak for themselves in that regard.  Stuff like:

 

Rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections unless the composition of Unscom teams is altered to limit the number of inspectors from the US, and to prohibit Unscom overflights. Imposes travel ban on officials to be lifted when full cooperation resumes. Sanctions review to be in April 1998 if cooperation has been restored.

 

Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors. Threatens travel ban on obstructive Iraqi officials not "carrying out bona fide diplomatic assignments or missions" if non-cooperation continues. Sanctions reviews again delayed.

 

"Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".

 

On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.

 

"Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ... Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation with Unscom. According to a spokesman for the US Central Command, the resolution was passed following a threatening buildup of Iraqi forces near the border with Kuwait, and bars Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone.

 

Deplores Iraq's refusal to implements SCRs 706 and 712 and recalls Iraq's liabilities. Takes steps to transfer funds (including Iraqi assets overseas) into the UN account established to pay for compensation and humanitarian expenses.

 

Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for Unscom and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes.

 

Iraq UN Security Council Resolutions

Hans Blix took the job at UNMOVIC, created specifically to disarm Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, in January 2000.

 

The quotes you provided are conveniently not dated, but in reality they are from the year 1991, that is 9 years before Hans Blix started his job in Iraq. So you are blaming him for incidents that took place before he was ever involved? Again, I don't know if you're lying or just misinformed. And I ask again, do you have any facts backing up your claims that Hans Blix is a liar?

 

"What should be remembered is that Blix also was the one who, when the time came with North Korea, it was his inspectors that found that North Korea was violating its rules under the IAEA and discovered their plutonium production."

- Walter Pincus, Washington Post Reporter

 

Strange that he could find WMD's in one anti-american nation, but not the other?

 

"Hans insisted that Iraq complied 100%." - EnderWiggin

 

Well, then, this is Gary Milhollin on Hans Blix work in Iraq:

 

"I think his job is to say yes or no; the Iraqis are either cooperating on the disarmaments or they are not. And so far he's avoided taking that position. He's avoided writing that last paragraph."

- Gary Milhollin, Wisconsin Project on Arms Control

 

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east.../blix_2-13.html

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: I like the mention of the Spanish-American War. That was rather funny. The Maine was poorly designed, and they didn't have a fire-wall between the furnace and the coal. An explosion sank the ship, and we assumed it was attacked. History suggests otherwise. However, it wasn't a lie that brought us in, but rather a false assumption.

Not to say the US Navy got lost and end in the Pacific and mistaken the Philipines for Cuba ...

drakron.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pulled quotes from 1991-1997 because it was the first thing I saw. Shortly after 9/11, The UN Security Council passed another unanimous resolution threatening Iraq and criticizing it for not complying. This was after Hans was on the job.

Chief UN inspector of Hans Blix told the Security Council on 14 February 2003 that "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly ... we note that access to sites has so far been without problems".

That sounds like Hans wrote the last paragraph all right. Hans swore there were no weapons. Then why did we find some? Why did we find training labs hinting at even more while Hans didn't find them? News agencies at the time kept reporting how Iraq demanded that inspections only occur at certain times at certain sites. Hans performed a bunch of inspections. But he didn't find the weapons that were in fact there.

 

When the UN passed yet another resolution in the end of 2001 (1441 I believe) in regards to Iraq, they demonstrated that they didn't buy Blinx's story.

 

Resolutions Legalizing Force in Iraq

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We found empty labs and nothing more. Besides, who gives a f**k about Iraq and their WMDs. There was no way they could be used against US citizens on US soil and even they were we have over 250 million of us in this country. Losing a couple of thousand, though a tragedy, wouldn't harm us one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are a great deal many people who consider preventing another 9/11 to be a major priority. And we are a member of the UN. The UN has a role to keep the peace globally. I could never in a million years simply go "it's only a few thousand innocent civilians being murdered".

 

We originally got involved in Iraq 13 years ago because the UN asked us to. And I thought you didn't care.

 

As far as biological weapons and not being able to affect us, do you remember the Anthrax scare? Do you understand that a lunchbox could contain enough devastation to affect a city? Chemical weapons are downright scary and Saddam had no qualms using them in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No he didn't but he used them on his own people and not us so why should I care? If the Iraqis were stupid enough to let him stay in power then they deserve what they get. When the US invaded he had none. If I was Saddam and I had WMDs I would have used them. He didn't have them and none were found. Bush lied or he was too incompetent to see that.

 

There are about 6 to 7 billion people on this planet. Even if we lost 100,000,000 in a major war or natural disaster the human race will continue. The human race would easily survive and move on. Look at the big picture, Ender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush lied or he was too incompetent to see that.

I've seen you show support for Kerry. Kerry has been quoted on the record several times of saying Iraq had WMD. I guess Kerry lied and/or was just as incompetent. But you put the blame solely on Bush. My guess is that if Bush went into Iraq sooner, we would have found more weapons. Bush tried to avoid war in Iraq. Clinton bombed with no warning or attempt at diplomacy.

Even if we lost 100,000,000 in a major war or natural disaster the human race will continue. The human race would easily survive and move on. Look at the big picture, Ender.

First off, human life is precious. I don't see lives as numbers. I'm saddened that you can write off human life so easily. But you want to talk about the big picture.

 

They used to say that the sun never set on the British Empire. Their reach was vast. Our little tiny colonies with no military to speak of spanked England and sank the greatest navy in the world. Their empire fell apart, as did the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Babylonian Empire, etc. You feel confident that no one can touch the United States and that you're safe.

 

How do you think all the other empires in history felt? On September 11th, I saw children dancing in the streets and singing in Palestine. They were singing that God loved them because Americans were dying. I think you're a little ignorant about how various people feel about Americans. This was before we went into Afghanistan or Iraq. This was before Bush really did anything. People were rejoicing at our deaths. You blame Bush for the world's opinion of us. Before Bush ever got into office, people were willing to blow themselves up to take a few of us with them.

 

There are those who would kill you if they could. There are those than want to destroy your very life without knowing a thing about you.

 

And you could care less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The diference is those being american lives, if 9/11 was done against London we would never had that "war on terrorism" nonsense.

 

The US is one of the most egocentric counties in the world.

Hrm.

 

We certainly don't care that Palestinians blow up Isreali civilians every day. As long as you kill them in small amounts, it's easier to overlook. If you kill thousands at once, it's harder to overlook.

 

England is a major ally of ours. We would go to war for England in a heart-beat.

 

What if terrorists killed thousands in Zaire? That I don't know. It would matter to me, but I don't know about the administration. I think the American public would pull a Hades and say screw them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like Hans wrote the last paragraph all right. Hans swore there were no weapons. Then why did we find some? Why did we find training labs hinting at even more while Hans didn't find them? News agencies at the time kept reporting how Iraq demanded that inspections only occur at certain times at certain sites. Hans performed a bunch of inspections. But he didn't find the weapons that were in fact there.

 

Resolutions Legalizing Force in Iraq

No, he didn't "write the last paragraph". If you read the report he says there are some small amounts of weapons unaccounted for, but he believed them to have been destroyed 10 years ago. The 500 shells of sarin they found a few weeks ago are probably from that unaccounted batch. Hans never swore that there were no WMD's in Iraq. That is an outright lie.

 

"Speaking publicly for the last time as chief arms inspector a week ago at a meeting in New York, Blix took his parting shot at the Bush administration, saying "It is sort of puzzling that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty about where they are." But later, Blix told me that he feels the U.S. teams may still find banned weapons."

 

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/30/...ain561104.shtml

 

If you read his book "Disarming Iraq", which is an interesting read, you'll find out that he, himself, thought he would find WMD's in Iraq. He and his crew of 1400 inspectors just didn't find any.

 

By the way, that link you provided and aptly named "Resolutions Legalizing Force in Iraq" isn't about the resolutions. It's Lord Goldsmith's "view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq". It's one man's opinion, not a resolution.

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It mentions and cites the three resolutions that give legitimacy to the US occupation of Iraq.

 

Regardless, the UN recognized the occupation as being legal and sovreign after the fact.

 

Edit: Fair enough, I took Blinx's statements to the next level and put words in his mouth. He didn't swear they weren't there. However I think he failed to really grill Iraq. The UN said they believed Iraq was in violation and Blinx complied with Iraq's games and non-sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you still haven't proven your claim that Hans Blix is a liar..

 

Ok, saw your edit. Yes, he failed to grill Iraq. He admits that too in his book. He isn't as agressive as the americans wished him to be, which is why yhe US government decided to pass him up. I'm not saying he is flawless, but I am saying he is not a liar. He did not comply to anything the Iraqi government wanted him to do though. The Iraqi complied to him.

Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe I ever said "Hans is a liar" I said that Hans said one thing and UN said another. Who should we believe, well Hans was proven wrong, so that's an easy call.

 

You said that Bush called Hans a liar. Let me go back and check what I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...