I live a small island located of the cost of Nova Scotia Canada, and I'm amazed that Michael Moore latest documentary has made it into our local theater. We don't get every movie here, only the big name movies make it this far, and as for documentaries, this is a first.

Guess I should go see it?

Only if you like to freely submit yourself to propoganda. Me, I tend to stay away from such.

Is there a Democrat in the house?

St0n3y, my Republican friend, have you seen it?

As I said, I don't submit myself to propoganda. Do I need to see it to determine if it is propoganda? No. I seen enough of Micheal Moore's "doucmentaries" to know that he takes a truth, hides relevant facts, and twists them in a way to produce a pre-determined outcome.

Personally, I enjoy hearing other points of view, but only so much as the points of view are based on the entirety of the known facts.

St0n3y, come on, Michael Moore won an Oscar, and it would take a very long post to list all the awards this guy has been given.

He isn't exactly in the league of The National Inquirer or that type of tabloid journalism.

Did you watch him on 60 Minutes last week? They found a few holes, but not many.

Go ahead and see it. I did. Made for quite an evening of conversation at the Cokos house last weekend.

<Made for quite an evening of conversation...>

I can imagine

I'm off to see it this weekend - will comment later.

for the first time the potential of a mass medium — in this case, movies — to affect American politics in new ways."

Website...

And there you have it. The point of the movie is not to educate or to entertain, but to affect an election.

It's on my list of things to do at the weekend

So winning an Oscar actually means something in the real world? c'mon, you know better than that.

The measure of relevancy should not be how many like-minded people applaud you and give you awards, but how much truth seeking is actually applied.

If Rush Limbaugh creaded a "documentary" on Clinton or Kerry, or anyother liberal politician do you think Hollywood would give him an Oscar? I think not.

You got a good point, however, I tried to get in tonight, and it is still sold out. This is nuts.

Oh, ...jcokos, this is Canada, we don't vote, not even for our own politicians.

Now watch this drive!

anyone but Bush 2004

Michael Moore is the Court Jester of America.

Is he fair, unbiased, and scientifically rigorous in his methodology? Not by a long shot.

However, does he ask some important questions? Yes.

St0n3y, you said you don't submit yourself to propoganda. Have you ever watched the evening "news"?You'd better chuck the TV out the window. The "news" is propoganda.

Will Moore have some sort of effect on the US Presidential election? I am inclined to say no.

Flawed propoganda/documentary though it may be, Farenheit 9/11 is worth the price of admission at the local cineplex. Whatever your polotical views, the Court Jester does get away with asking important questions.

Ever seen Ran by Akira Kurosawa?

St0n3y, you said you don't submit yourself to propoganda. Have you ever watched the evening "news"?You'd better chuck the TV out the window. The "news" is propoganda.

Much of the news is propoganda. Which is why I'm selective. Not to mention I don't have to pay for it.

I saw it. He should have stopped shortly after the 911 attack, or at least condensed some afterwards. That last 40 minutes got VERY long...

I still haven't seen it. I've got family visiting this week ... and they have seen it. Their opinion is that it was boring. Apparently it was too much info and not enough Michael Moore.

philh ... what did you think of it?

I never went to see it.

After reading the stories of the Intelligence Report thingy last Thursday I thought I'd leave it a week or two.

I'm interested in American politics - but one can have too much of a good/bad thing.

The last half was real boring. I'm into politics and conspirast theories and stuff, and I kept thinking, "Gee, I could be washing dishes or something..."

Finally got to see it. In the end, the audience applauded, the lights came on, ... and then we went home.

Havent seen it yet... think i'll wait till it comes on DVD, and hire it out.

But i'll be watching Spiderman 2 tonight!!! Get in!

The 7 minutes in the classroom are priceless. Moore would have been more effective if he just shut up, cut the sound and let the timer run all the way out in complete silence.

Nice one Bush, you get the report whispered in your ear - Our country is under attack sir. and you sit in a kindergarten class for 7 minutes doing absolutely nothing... Freakin idiot and no one with an ounce of intelligence can dispute that complete and utter failure of duty.

vexcom, your ignorance is distrubing. If I remember correclty they believed the first plane to hit the tower to be a small passenger plane and a navigation error. No one thought we were under attack. But, perhaps my memory is wrong and they knew this by the time they told Bush. What SHOULD he have done? Jump up and run out of the classroom?

This is where liberal hatred of Bush is seen for what it is. Whatever reaction Bush had at that point would have been the wrong reaction for people like Michael Moore.

Since my political opinions aren't welcome here anymore, I'll simply say this .....

Before you spout off about someone being a "Friekin Idiot", based on what Michael Moore wants you to believe, please do some research. Go and find out what happened in the DOD, the Secret Service, and at every level of government in the minutes leading up to "The Whisper". Educate yourself on what was known at that exact moment, what protocols had already been activated, and what the exact exchange was during the Whisper, and what happened immediately afterwards.

Simply looking at 7 minutes of one man doesn't nearly give you the facts to make such a judgement. Moore doesn't give them to you, becasuse they don't support the point he's trying to make. They're out there, if you're brave enough to read them, and allow your pre-formulated opinions to suffer a bit of a jolt of reality.

Well said, John.

The scary thing is that we may have been duped with all the propaganda about what the war was suppose to be about and not what it was "really" about. Was the president really interested in saving the Irakis or actually interested in the oil? That's the question. Had there been no oil in Irak, would President Bush really care what was happening over there???

I'd say the U.S. would not have gone to war with Irak hadn't there been money to make. The U.S. needed an excuse to go to war with Saddam and what better way to get the americans fired up than to have Osama fly planes into buildings on 9/11 and then tie in Saddam. There were plenty of points in that movie that seemed to click in place when the puzzle is put together. Coicidence? maybe. Planned? could be that too. Makes me wonder.

I Hate Bush. But his 7 min spent finishing the story really didn't make a diff at this point, either does arguing about what happened 3 years ago.

If you want to blame people, blame the weak people on the first three planes who did nothing but sit on their hands.

Was the president really interested in saving the Irakis or actually interested in the oil?

what oil? Have we received any oil Iraq? If we went in for the oil, presumably that means money, why then are we still spending money on rebuilding? Why isn't that oil money going into our pockets?

The U.S. needed an excuse to go to war with Saddam

We did? 12 years of defying UN resolutions was not enough? All the evidence the World (including the UN, France, Germany, Russia, US (including the Clinton Administration)), a US policy of regime change in Iraq (Clinton Administration), Saddams' lies about weapons (more UN violations found after the war), and desire for WMD and nuclear weapons was not enough of a reason so Bush killed 3000 americans on 9/11 to get oil that we don't actually get?

If Bush was responsible for 9/11, why blame Osama? Why not just blame Saddam?

There were plenty of points in that movie that seemed to click in place when the puzzle is put together.

Only if you're clicking the pieces together with a sledge hammer (or a complete disregard for common and educated sense).

what oil? Have we received any oil Iraq? If we went in for the oil, presumably that means money, why then are we still spending money on rebuilding? Why isn't that oil money going into our pockets?

The thousands of barels of oil leaving Irak every day. That oil.

We did? 12 years of defying UN resolutions was not enough? All the evidence the World (including the UN, France, Germany, Russia, US (including the Clinton Administration)), a US policy of regime change in Iraq (Clinton Administration), Saddams' lies about weapons (more UN violations found after the war), and desire for WMD and nuclear weapons was not enough of a reason so Bush killed 3000 americans on 9/11 to get oil that we don't actually get?

The problen is that there are about 100 other countries, that qualify in the terms of imperialist amreicans to be invaded. And the oil is leaving Irak as we speak, who IS getting the money? There were no weapons of mass destruction, the un did not find them, the Bush didn't even let them finish looking. There are other "terrorist" countries that really do have WMD Sure, they start with oil, thats just a coincidance

If Bush was responsible for 9/11, why blame Osama? Why not just blame Saddam?

Because of the natural gas pipelines that couldn't be put in until the us took over (now they are in). Anyway afganistan is one of the largest producers of natural gas in the world.

Only if you're clicking the pieces together with a sledge hammer (or a complete disregard for common and educated sense).

The us air force asosiation even admited that those terrorist, with the education they had, could not have posibly made those plains crash with that precision. The goverment, doesn't even bring this vital issue up, why? Questioning these things is the educated means of going.


St0n3y, don't let over patriatic spirits overwelm the better judgment I know you have.

I can understand that you don't like (maybe even hate) the current administration. I can also understand and respect the fact that you may be against the war. However, I can't believe that I'm reading posts from educated and intelligent people here that are falling hook, line and sinker for such outrageous conspiracy theories. Don't let your emotions cloud actual fact. To Wit:

Bush ordering the 9/11 Attacks
I can't believe that I'm even addressing such a ludicrous point. It didn't happen. Give the terrorists credit where it's due. They trained for nearly 10 years, some of them, for this attack. They waited until we dropped our shorts, and then they got us. Not even someone that hates America as much as Michael Moore would do something like that. It's evil, pure and simple that did that, not the "Imperialistic Whims" of a president that you don't like. Get real

OIL
Iraq is pumping, selling, and shipping many thousands of barrels of oil per day. Not a drop of that has come to the US, nor has one dime from it's sale. That oil belongs to Iraq, and they are producing and selling it, and using these legitimate profits to fund their police, army, new government, schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure needs within the country. They are becomming self sufficient, and the money is now getting to the people, not the dictatorship. Prior to the war, that same oil was being sold "under the table" to many diplomats in France, Germany, Russia, and hundreds of other nations that were supposed to be obeying the UN sanctions. Sanctions against Iraq didn't work, because the UN looked the other way as they were being violated by their membership. This is documented fact. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html

Imperialistic America
Websters defines "Imperialism" as The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.. When exactly has the United States exhibited this type of activity? Since 1940, our nation has freed billions of people from tyranny, dictatorship, and actual imperialist nations --- Japan, France, Poland, etc in WWW2, the Taiwanese, the South Koreans, The Serbs, The States that formerly made up the USSR, and more recently, Afghanastan and Iraq. To date, we have "acquired" none of their territory, nor do we influence their governmental operations. Granted, in Afghanastan and Iraq, we're still working with them to get up on their own 2 feet, but just like with all the other nations, once they're stable, we'll allow them to function independantly. To suggest that our motives are imperialistic in any way is simply untrue and unfounded.

WMD
Do you know what a "stockpile" of chemical weapons looks like ? Anyone? Let me hazard a guess here. Since we know that it takes very little to a whole lot, it would take roughly 1 "gallon" of VX Nerve Agent to kill about 200,000 people. I use the word "gallon" as a visual analogy, as that stuff typically isn't found in liquid form, but the volume is right. A crop duster plane flying over a football stadium that dropped that much VX would kill everyone there, and for miles around. We can all pretty much agree on that fact ... a little bit of these things goes a long way. Now, if you ran a country the size of California, and had some of these lying around, and wanted to hide them, where would you put them? A container that would easily fit UNDER THE SEAT of a minivan could kill thousands. How many such vehicles are in Iraq ? How many square miles of sand are there? Do you think it's possible to put that stuff in a cardboard box, and bury it 20 feet below the ground, never to be found again? How easy would it be to transport on the backs of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries? I think we are all expecting there to be some giant warehouse full of organized shelving with boxes labled "Anthrax for NYC" on them. That's not going to happen. This stuff is most likely stored in old soup cans, cereal boxes, folded up socks, inside of spare tires, etc ... spread all over the place. We'll probably NEVER find them all, or even a significant percentage of them. Thankfully, Saddam and his henchmen don't have access to them any longer either.

Remember, he kicked out the inspectors 4 years before our invasion. God only knows what he was up to during that time. Recall during the run up period to the war that we had inspectors back in there. Remember what actually happened during that time, not what you want to believe happened -- the inspectors did not have full access to the country. They were allowed to inspect only specific areas that Saddam said they could, and only with scheduled arrival and departure times .... "Hey Mr. Hussein, we're going to check out that suspicious looking metal building in the middle of the desert the day after tomorrow. Does 1:30pm work for you?" You'll also remember that we were flying high altitude spy planes over the country to look at every square inch ... provided that we gave 2 days notice, and the exact location of the areas to be covered by the plane. Does that sound like an environment likely to produce any real evidence to you? Does it smell like a rat? Isn't it strange that the very countries that were involved in the Oil for Food scandal are the same ones that agreed with this ridiculous protocol? Again, this is not a conspiracy theory, this is documented fact. That is exactly how the weapons inspections prior to the war went.

Regime Change in Iraq is not a new concept. From the Washington Post May 8, 2003:

Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq.

Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Don't Believe me alone ... listen to some of the same people that are "on your side" in this whole thing .... they are/were on board with the whole thing when it was convenient for them.

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

As I said a few weeks ago, we need to do everything possible to make sure that innocent men, women and children in the US and other countries are not at risk. Getting rid of the training camp and support system in Afghanastan was step 1, taking out a host country in Iraq was step 2. Now we can start working on others: Iran, Syria, etc. Lebanon got the message, maybe some of the other Rogue Nations will too. You can call Bush a cowboy all day if you want, but the natives over there are most certainly getting restless, and that's exactly what needs to be done.

Now, if we can just close the borders, check every single bag in transit, every container at the docs, and stop strip-searching old ladies and start looking harder at the right demographic ... I might just get on a plane sometime soon.

damn, that's a lot of typing...if I was ever that inclined to type that much about a point, I'd just say 'forget it'.

It's important stuff.

Emotion coulds Judgement, and I hate to see people getting too caught up in the emotion of an issue, when facts are forgotten. Very often, the facts are tossed aside for a "feel good", and that leads to poor leadership, and poor results.

I've done that here at times ... so I know from whence I speak !

It's a movie. Moore is an artist, it's up to the individual to decide if he's a good one or not.

Artists contribute to society and provoke thought. Moore has been successful in that goal. I read several forums, not all technical, and everyone of them has a Moore thread.

It's a movie. Moore is an artist, it's up to the individual to decide if he's a good one or not.

True but how many people are walking away from the movie believing somethign that is just not true, because Moore deliberatly hides the facts that don't agree with him.

Here is an example:

Because of the natural gas pipelines that couldn't be put in until the us took over (now they are in). Anyway afganistan is one of the largest producers of natural gas in the world.

Who knew about this before watching Moore's 'fakeumentary'? And who also knows that this is completely untrue?

John, Great post. Lots of good hard facts that many reading will clearly ignore!

I have no doubt that Saddam was an evil man. I also think it's naive to think that the U.S. can do no wrong. Bush or any leader can get corrupt and still not get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Whether or not Moore has all the facts straight is of course up for debate. I personally do not believe all that he said. However, it's very possible there was a whole lot of greed behind this Iraq war. To think that some of the greedy rich big wigs (who are NOT Iraqis) are not making money off of that oil is also naive. They have plans. We just don't know the depths of the planning involved and if there was indeed conspiring to bring this about. Guess we'll never know for sure what's what.

Curt, Reality is Top Secret!

However, it's very possible there was a whole lot of greed behind this Iraq war.

And it is very possible there was NO greed behind the war and the intentions of the war were precisely what was stated.

We just don't know the depths of the planning involved and if there was indeed conspiring to bring this about.

Exactly. We don't know so to presume and believe the most evil motives were in play, as Moore does, is just as evil as one wants to portray the other side.

Since we don't know the motives because we cannot read minds we can deduce quite a bit from what we see.

1) We are not getting the oil. If we were, I'm certain our gas prices would be much lower.
2) If bush believed there were no WMD, going into Iraq on that basis would have to be one of the dumbest political moves in US history.
3) Haliburton is losing money in Iraq, not to mention peoples lives. If invading Iraq was based on financial considerations this has to be one of the dumbest business moves in US history.
4) THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED SADDAM HAD WMD. If Bush had NOT acted on the known intelligence I'm 100% certain the democrats would be calling for his impeachment if/when the next terrists strike occurred on our soil. Lets remember, everybody likes to point fingers backward and ask "why didn't we" (read: the 9/11 commission) and then use phrases like "no blood for oil" when we dare act on real world threats.

Interesting read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266328,00.html

That Guardian article confirms what I've been saying. Who says that war doesn't make money. IF it isn't Oil it's the sales of war weapons and war services.

No body said war does not make money, but the fact that it does in no way implies that we went to war for money. The reasons for going to war were clear and the congress and Senate and many other nations agreed with those reasons.

We just see things differently. Forcing military operations on over 80 countries since the foundation of the USA to me is imperialism. To you it’s liberation. The Spanish, French, Portuguese and English also thought that when they “liberated the Americas”.

Here is a little of what I mean:

PHILIPPINES/l898-1910 (-?)/Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, U.S. troops kill 600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA/l898-1902 (-?)/Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, U.S. still illegally holds Navy base there over Cuban objections.
PANAMA/1901-03 (-?)/Naval, troops/Broke off from Colombia in a U.S. organized 'rebellion', U.S. annexes Canal Zone.
HONDURAS/l903/Troops/U.S. Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP./1903-04/Troops/U.S. business interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA/1904-05/Troops/U.S. Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA/1906-09/Troops/U.S. Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA/1907/Troops/"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate (psuedo- colony) set up.
HONDURAS/l907/Troops/U.S. Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA/l908/Troops/U.S. Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA/l9l0/Troops/U.S. Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS/1911/Troops/U.S. business interests protected in civil war.
CUBA/1912/Troops/U.S. business interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA/l9l2/Troops/U.S. Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS/l9l2/Troops/Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA/1912-33/Troops, bombing/20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO/l9l3/Naval/Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1914/Naval/Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
MEXICO/1914-18/Naval, troops/Series of interventions against Mexican nationalists.
HAITI/1914-34/Troops, bombing/19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1916-24/Troops/8-year U.S. Marine occupation.
CUBA/1917-33/Troops/Military occupation, U.S. declares Cuba an economic protectorate (psuedo-colony).
USSR/1918-22/Naval, troops/Five landings to fight Bolsheviks in effort to overthrow the fledgling socialist government.
PANAMA/1918-20/Troops/"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS/l9l9/Troops/U.S. Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA/1920/Troops/2-week intervention against unionists.
TURKEY/1922/Troops/U.S. fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA/1922-27/Naval, troops/Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS/1924-25/Troops/Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA/1925/Troops/U.S. Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA/l928-34/Troops/U.S. Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR/l932/Naval/Warships sent during Marti revolt.
KOREA/l951-53(-?)/Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats/U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in l950, and against China in l953. China accuses U.S. of biological warfare. Still have bases.
IRAN/l953/Covert/CIA overthrows democratically elected socialist premier, installs Shah.
GUATEMALA/l954/Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat/CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. companies' lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
LEBANON/l958/Troops, naval/U.S. Marine occupation against rebels.
PANAMA/1958/Troops/Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM/l960-75/Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats/Fought South Vietnamese revolt & North Vietnam during the Vietnamese civil war; over two million Vietnamese casualties in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
LAOS/1961/Covert/Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA/l961/Covert/CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
PANAMA/l964/Troops/Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA/l965/Covert/One million-plus killed in CIA-assisted army coup. CIA provides assassination lists to military, plus weapons.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1965-66/Troops, bombing/U.S. Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA/l966-67/Covert/Green Berets intervene against rebels.
CAMBODIA/l969-75/Bombing, troops, naval/Up to 2 million killed in decade during/after U.S. invasion of Cambodia and bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN/l970/Covert/U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion to intervene in Oman civil war.
LAOS/l971-73/Command operation, bombing/U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
CHILE/1973/Covert/CIA funds and backs coup ousts democratically-elected Marxist president and installs brutal military dictatorship.
CAMBODIA/l975/Troops, bombing/Intervenes to seize captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
IRAN/l980/Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing/Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA/l981/Naval jets/Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR/l981-?/Covert/U.S. mercenaries, military advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war.
NICARAGUA/l981-90/Covert, naval/CIA funds, trains, equips and directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
HONDURAS/l982-?/Troops/Maneuvers, help build bases near borders with Nicaragua.
LEBANON/l982-84/Naval, bombing, troops/Marines expel PLO and back Christian Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA/l983-84/Troops, bombing/Invasion four years after socialist revolution. U.S. installs puppet government.
LIBYA/l986/Bombing, naval/Air strikes try to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA/1987/Troops/Coast Guard and Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN/l987-88/Naval, bombing/US intervenes on side of Iraq in Gulf War.
LIBYA/1989/Naval jets/Two Libyan jets shot down.
PANAMA/1989-?/Troops, bombing/Nationalist government ousted by invasion. U.S. installs puppet government and refuses to hold new elections.
LIBERIA/1990-?/Troops/Foreigners evacuated during civil war; troops protect CIA communications/listening post.
SAUDI ARABIA/1990-?/Troops, jets/Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. Forces also in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ/1990-?/Naval, bombing, troops/Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT/1991-?/Naval, bombing, troops/Attacks on Iraqi military; effort to return royal family to throne.

I have never seen the movie that is at mention at this moment. So yes, what I am saying does not come from, or was affected by whoever’s movie you all are talking about. This has been a topic of interest of mine for years.

Giving foreign aid has also been a way for the USA to manipulate many governments. The USA gives away billions in both loans, and grants to other countries, many of these ARE conditioned. That is a known fact. Also, I will remind you again that there is a huge list (larger than the one I posted) of countries that have had US military intervention.

If you think that all this military and economical mussel has been shown for “general good” I think you should consider things a little more closely. But then again, these facts will probability be viewed thought the mentality of: we are Americans and we do things to make the world better (kind of like superman) with no personal benefit; we are cultured and civilized and we are going to bring civilization to the rest of the world (through military and economical means). That, IMO, is the mentality every Imperialist force has had.

And don’t worry, you wouldn’t be the first to call me crazy. That just makes me feel more right.

Yellowwing, I truly believe reality is top secret. Reality is an illusion. Everybody views life through their own looking glass and compare what they see to come to a common agreement of reality. What we know is what our eyes, nose, mouth, ears and touch pick up and then that information gets twisted in a extremely complex set of magnetic fields know as our brain. If you believe that is reality, fine. But, IMHO, this is not reality. I believe in god, and I believe he MAY know reality. And sometime, I doubt he grasps reality either (but that is just my absence of faith speaking) .

Anyway, in conclusion, one thing I love about the US, is that you can hate me for my opinion. Or you can accept me as a person with good things to him/her, not so good things, like my political opinion and leave anger a side (which is what I am going to do, if I disagree with someone). Or you can call me a crack pot (which I am rarely forced to do with others). Or you can like me (again rare). But whatever your reaction is going to be (I predict defensive), I still keep on doing my thing and you will keep on doing yours.

I am a US Marine Veteran, serving from 1983-89. I am very proud I was part of the team that brought down our long time nemesis, the USSR.

One of the main agendas of the USA is to project power. In many cases, like South America, I am not so proud.

The world is getting smaller. Who will lead, and will they lead by wisdom? This movie addresses this. It is one artist's opinion. He has brought the topic out in the open, and everyone is talking about it. This is a good thing for a democracy. Apathy is a cancer for democracy.

intersting points.

The USA gives away billions in both loans, and grants to other countries, many of these ARE conditioned.

Why shouldn't our tax dollars be conditioned?

I saw on the news the other day that Palestinian organizations receiving U.S. money were refusing to sign an anti-terrist plege, meaning they won't allow moneys to be spent on terrorist activities. REFUSING to sign. I'm tired of countries that want our money but then hate us for "interfering" and when they don't get enough money they hate us for not "helping".

lets just keep our money (and our military bases) at home and let the american-hating countries defend themselves against thier own agressors. Yes, I know, there are a thousand reasons why that is not realistic, but a man can dream, can't he?

Keeping our money and troops at home is NOT projecting power!

There's nothing wrong with putting conditions on loans/grants as long as it doesn't serve to enrich the already filthy rich who would like to manipulate the poor folk in other countries to control them and manage them for the rich people's benefit and not for those poor folks' benefit.

Why shouldn't our tax dollars be conditioned?

I am not discussing that. I did not mention whether that is good or bad . I only brought this up because

Webster’s defines "Imperialism" as The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.. When exactly has the United States exhibited this type of activity?

It is an answer.

lets just keep our money (and our military bases) at home and let the american-hating countries defend themselves against thier own agressors. Yes, I know, there are a thousand reasons why that is not realistic, but a man can dream, can't he?

I actually agree that the USA as a country should keep our money and military bases at home. But that is only one American (makes two now) vote(s). I believe that the USA has SO outrageously overpowered other nations, including militarily and economically, that expansion as far as the military goes, is totally not necessary. The USA spends more on military and foreign aid than all the rest of the countries combined. A good chunk of the several trillion dollar debt of the American people and its government is thanks to this. I see it as an abuse of power that the USA has used both its military and economical force so many times on so many countries (and not always for pink, good guy reasons). As an American citizen myself this is an outrage, and a taboo issue (to doubt the government) among fellow citizens.

However, I can't believe that I'm reading posts from educated and intelligent people here that are falling hook, line and sinker for such outrageous conspiracy theories.

Guess that makes two of us who are surprised. I wouldn't call my thoughts or your thoughts "outrageous"; I understand where each of us are coming from. We all have our blind sides.

And I know I probably will loose the respect of some of you in these forums, but if by giving my opinion I can get just a few people to just consider rationally what I am saying, that is all I need. Plus these political theories are unrelated to what we are all here for; virtual marketing.

Well, I just got back from a week's holiday in London and finally got to see it.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it is a good documentary that provides some insight into the arrogant world of the American (and Saudi) "have mores".

Although Michael Moore does push his luck a little at times, I think the evidence of a world super-power led by a bunch of greedy, scheming elite that cares little for human life, is overwhelming.

Why the American right is even slightly worried about it puzzles me though, Moore is like a bicycle brake to Bush's steamroller. I certainly don't think it is powerful enough to bring down the President.

However, as the target of this documentary wields the real power, I worry that Moore may only have shown us the tip of a monstrous iceberg.

I don't think his movie is going to change anything. The US oil reserves are going to be dry by the year 2015. That is not a joke, its fact. So basically, whoever wins is going to have to make war with some middle easter oil rich country. Atleast that is my prediction.

Today Bush announced that we are withdrawing 70,000 troups from Europe and Asia. Guess who's complaining about that? John Kerry's surrogates.

This discussion is about a film, not about politics.

If you guys want to start a thread about American Presidential elections, go ahead - just don't do it here.

Even though I haven't seen the movie, yet, I sence (from the conversation) that it is a political film. Discussing whether the political theme of the movie is right, is on theme. Let me see: the movie is about bush, the presidential election has bush as a candidate. Am I missing something?

I mean, you are right, if I was planing on beating this dead horse any longer, I should make a new thread. So you are sort of right, but common philh, don't be such a grump

[ Message was edited by: greenleaves 08/16/2004 03:16 pm ]


[ Message was edited by: greenleaves 08/16/2004 03:52 pm ]

greenleaves - sorry if I came over a little harsh, it's just that finally having got to see the film, I was hoping the thread would get back on topic - I was just a little frustrated

"MY THOUGHTS ON POLITICS"

In politics
everyone carries a sign saying
hurray for our side.

It wasn't our fault
it was the other guys.

Don't believe my opponent...

He lies.

Copyright © 2004 T. J. Daniels

Ahh philh, don't worry, I'll still love you I too am sorry if I was harsh.

the movie and politics are inseparable discussions.

Revisited:

I just saw the movie Fahrenhype 9/11 also interesting. Both movies, Fahrenheit and Fahrenhype have a ring of truth, but after having 2 years go by and gathering 2 years worth of history, learning, and observation along the way, I've concluded that both movies have some truth and both have deception built into them. Moore capitalizes on all the negativity (real and imagined) and this latest movie capitalizes on all the positiveness (real and imagined).

I'd like to disect both movies and comment on both, but only if time permits.

I still feel the Iraq war had to do with oil to some degree, but not the way most people think of the oil issue. Someone is getting rich from the oil, but it's not the average American, nor any average person around the world. The general American is caught in the middle of this conflict. There is a longer range goal of liberating the Iraqi oil and the goal is set by some unnamed wealthy people who have covered their tracks well enough to remain a mystery. Iran is next (probably).

Some elite individuals want to liberate all the oil over seas, then use it all up, then go on to tap the vast reserves in the midwest of USA and make a killing off of that for the next 50+ years. Why do you think we are continuing to be dependent so much on oil? Because these individuals are going to continue to make billions and perhaps trillions and who do you think is going to take the blame. America. The fault is not America, France, or Even Russia, the fault lies with these elite few who are in control. They manipulate situations for war so they can profit. And what better way to divert blame from themselves than to put the blame on a mass of people called the Americans. Perhaps even Bush is a pawn not seeing the whole picture (or perhaps he is their man in place).

There is so much stuff that we are not told about. It's pretty scary that just a few elite are wielding power through the use of money manipulation and power manipulation and misdirection to hide their tracks. To them people's lives are a game and they care not very much who wins as long as they maintain power. If America helps them maintain power, they will ensure that America stays on top.

Side point: On the Science channel, a few air force people are finally admitting just a little that we have super fast military aircraft that can fly at 8,000+ mph using pulse detonation engines with the Aurora aircraft (at least they are hinting at it). My friend says the aircraft can actually fly up to speeds of 12,000 mph. They are also admitting a little that we have used flying saucer aircraft back in the 70's and 80's, but yet encouraged people to believe in aliens with UFO's to cover their tracks (military misdirection—someone's making money on those projects). That is just the tip of the iceberg of what is hidden from us. There are all kinds of goodies (inventions) that are kept from us that would make us not dependent on oil, but “someone” would lose and they can't have that.

This Iraqi war is just a diversion to keep the general public involved in something so that we don't think about the real issues at play.

[ Message was edited by: Curt 02/19/2007 12:56 am ]

Curt, my man, we need an award:

Best Revival of an Old Thread

You'd be a shoe-in!

Now, I'll have to see this new movie - I find MM's stuff fascinating because, frankly, as a Canadian, I'm amazed at some of the stuff the American public misses - things their own government does - worse, things the government tries to get away with, and in some cases succeeds - sad that a government even tries this crap...

I'm sure it's the same here in Canada, and we don't see it all, either - and I'm not poking fun or knocking Americans (I know a few, they're good folks. )

I think maybe the saddest commentary is that we don't have any real documentary-worthy events/things going on here in Canada - we kinda blow that way - just sittin' up here, shivering, drinking good beer and watching TV...

Now, as to the super-fast aircraft the saucer stuff - I'm all up on that gear! Love tech like that.

I was thinking yesterday what tech will be like in about 2020 - I mean, I think in some ways we'll see things far advanced from where we are today. In other areas, for various reasons, it'll be much the same as today.

The only real question I have is this:

Where's my personal commuter plane? Wasn't that promised to be here by now...? LOL

...and if unreviewed ever reads this - please tell me that small island off Nova Scotia isn't Cape Breton my man. If it is, we need to talk.

SportsGuy making me giggle teehee

There are tons of issues that North Americans (yes all of North America), Europeans, Asians, and Aussie's don't address. And it's not the fault of any one country of people. The masses are kept busy thinking about other stuff = misdirection. TV is the biggest culprit, not the educational type TV, but the flash wiz bang type and that includes sadly to a large degree these news media sources too. Sure a lot of what the news stations say is true, but much of the featured stuff is still designed to take our minds off of the “not often” thought about important questions, serious questions we are not asking. I must admit that I get caught up in it too. A person can find it hard to focus on the serious hidden problems, problems that should be apparent, but we are too busy thinking about other stuff.

We only see part of the picture because so much is hidden from view or we just don't ask ourselves the right questions to actually uncover these hidden things.

Technology in it's pure form should make life dirt cheap and easy to afford for everyone, but it hasn't. Most of the world is in deep poverty and suppressed. The super wealthy control everything important to their agendas while keeping the rest of us inline for their own benefits and game playing. The military is basically another political tool as well as the governments are. Why do you think they keep so much of the stuff secret? If it were divulged, we'd be upset that they were spending “our” tax dollars the way they do.

Then the high ranking government figures, not the government in general, have the audacity to say that the stuff they are working on is none of our business. None of my business?? My tax dollars I'm paying into the government is paying for those covert super aircraft and the other technologies that might benefit mankind in general, but which the secret government (CIA, NSA, black-ops, etc.) is keeping to themselves while the rest of the world suffers all in the name of control and keeping power away from the masses.

So here we are paying taxes, paying our governments to work for us (all the different governments work for us--they are our employees, not the other way around) and they say we can't walk into area 51 or some other place on this planet and check up on some of the latest beneficial technology that you and I helped to pay for. They (black-ops, skunk works) say N.O.Y.F.B. on their insignia patches ([Google Search]). The officers will sometimes point to it if you ask about the secret stuff that the top secret organizations are working on.

So here we are, trusting strangers with our money to do whatever they please without our input and on top of that we don't get to benefit by it either. And guess who's behind it? These super wealthy or powerful few individuals. National Security? hmmm, I wonder if that is all that they are concerned with. That can't possibly be the only reason they want to keep beneficial technology away from their own people who fund these things.

Would you hire someone to hire someone to hire someone to build your house and not be able to have a say so in how it's built and then charge you whatever they want without question? Well... that's our governments and they are run by a few powerful and/or wealthy powerful individuals. The powerful people are not just Americans, they are the elite French, the elite Germans, the elite spaniards, the elite British, the elite Chinese, etc. It's not really our governments making these decisions, it's these few people who have amassed power to control stuff and to use misdirection to fool us and keep us occupied in serious other issues while still keeping the masses in the dark.

If people really knew what was at stake, ALL of the masses would be mad at these few individuals. It's always been that way and sadly most people ignor or refuse to acknowledge or make up excuses for these few super powerful people as to why they do what they do and somehow justify their status in life. Those people are nothing more than humans like you and me and yet they act like gods over us.

I do believe though that some of the masses are starting to get it, maybe. I wonder how long this crap can keep going on before the masses are tired of obeying these rulers, these super wealthy, and the super powerful. Remember, it doesn't always mean that a person needs tons of money to have tons of power. Sometimes it's about the person's position in the world (case in point: 5 star generals of military).

At any rate who's telling the truth? These movies are another source of misdirection. Analyse them and then think clearly about the big hidden issues. Who stands to really win big by this war? Not the general public that much, not the general American (or other foreign) government employee, but these few “super people” (just a label if you will).

Keep the masses pacified, giving them just enough to survive on and also keeping them entertained. We are being entertained and the general public loves it. And the general public is kept busy, but making little back in wages. Many industries are designed that way or they just happen along that way, but it doesn't matter how they got that way as long as it benefits the few and they can be amused with our lives. Funny thing is, most of the upper class people are caught up in the fervor as well making their money not even realizing that they too are pawns.

SportsGuy said:

I was thinking yesterday what tech will be like in about 2020 - I mean, I think in some ways we'll see things far advanced from where we are today. In other areas, for various reasons, it'll be much the same as today.

The chilling reality is that we already have it and the masses don't know about it. It's kept in the realm of sci-fi so that we think it's just a fantasy. We say, it's not real because it's just Star Trek. I probably have seen documents from my friend that I should not have seen. My friend, it is scary and exciting at the same time--wish you could have seen the huge binder of black-ops aircraft that I saw including the faster than light-speed anti-gravity nuclear powered space craft technology (hint, think IONIC BREEZE yeah pretty far out, but not impossible). Einstein was wrong about light speed and it's not the first time he was wrong. The nuclear bomb wasn't suppose to be possible either according to what Einstein originally figured, but you know what happened with that idea.