Michael Moore looses again! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2005, 03:13 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Oh the modest moral right...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 05:21 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoomerang96
check mate for rono.

sting
What are you trying to say?
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 05:26 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Re: Re: Michael Moore looses again!

Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0207-26.htm

Published on Monday, February 7, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

Out With the Old, In With the New: The Iraqi Elections Were Designed Not to Preserve the Unity of Iraq but to Re-Establish the Unity of the West
by Tariq Ali

...
The 2004 Afghan elections, even according to some pro-US commentators, were a farce, and the much vaunted 73% turnout was a fraud. In Iraq, the western media were celebrating a 60% turnout within minutes of the polls closing, despite the fact that Iraq lacks a complete register of voters, let alone a network of computerized polling stations. The official figure, when it comes, is likely to be revised downwards (according to Debka, a pro-US Israeli website, turnout was closer to 40%).

The "high" turnout was widely interpreted as a rejection of the Iraqi resistance. But was it? Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's many followers voted to please him, but if he is unable to deliver peace and an end to the occupation, they too might defect.

The only force in Iraq the occupiers can rely on are the Kurdish tribes. The Kurdish 36th command battalion fought alongside the US in Falluja, but the tribal chiefs want some form of independence, and some oil. If Turkey, loyal Nato ally and EU aspirant, vetoes any such possibility, then the Kurds too might accept money from elsewhere. The battle for Iraq is far from over. It has merely entered a new stage.

Despite strong disagreements on boycotting the elections, the majority of Iraqis will not willingly hand over their oil or their country to the west. Politicians who try to force this through will lose all support and become totally dependent on the foreign armies in their country.
...
The triumphalist chorus of the western media reflects a single fact: the Iraqi elections were designed not so much to preserve the unity of Iraq but to re-establish the unity of the west. After Bush's re-election the French and Germans were looking for a bridge back to Washington. Will their citizens accept the propaganda that sees the illegitimate election (the Carter Center, which monitors elections worldwide, refused to send observers) as justifying the occupation?
More pathetic attempts to marginalize what 8 million people did in Iraq two weeks ago and what coalition troops including my best friend who just got back from Iraq, have accomplished.

Tariq Ali can join Michael Moore in the looser column. Iraq is going to succeed in becoming a strong democracy, so both should be prepared for more disappointment in the years to come.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 05:49 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
from a talk by Noam Chomsky that I attended a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-22.htm

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by the International Relations Center

The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation
by Noam Chomsky

Let’s just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less democratic. What are the policies likely to be?

Well there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

That’s the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that’s something that goes back to biblical times.

What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.

What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.
Naom Chomsky, perhaps a greater looser than even Michael Moore.

Its interesting some of the extrapolations Chomsky makes with the Shia's. He forgets that most of the Iraqi's who fought and died against Iran in the 1980s, were Shia. He fails to recognize that Iraq has a culture and society of its own and Iraqi Shia does not = Iranian Shia. In addition, for any government to succeed in Iraq, even a Shia dominated one, its going to need the financial support and services of the United States as well as the United States military. The biggest Ally of any new Iraqi government is not Iran, or another middle eastern country, but the United States. For any Iraqi government to succeed, its going to be dependent upon the United States for years to come and the relationships that are formed over such time will not suddenly end once Iraq is less dependent on foreign aid. Both Germany and Japan still have US troops on their soil 60 years after the United States removed dicatorships there and started democratic development. Despite political disagreements with Germany lately, Germany, Japan and the United States are economically interdependent and still have very strong relationships.

Most Arab governments realize today that Israel is not an overpowering enemy. Only those that have opposition to Israel based on religion or historical points, view Israel as a threat. The threat to any government in Iraq is not from another country, but from the remainder of Saddam's regime which forms the main part of the terrorist insurgency.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 12:41 AM   #20
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 05:53 PM
St. Chomsky must derive pleasure from being so wrong so often
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 02:19 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
God Part III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,335
Local Time: 06:53 PM
You're making it sound like Moor didn't want Iraqis to vote.

Isn't the important thing that it this may finally get the US out of Iraq?
__________________
God Part III is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 02:33 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,673
Local Time: 11:53 AM
No, no, no the important part is to point fingers and call people losers.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 05:54 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by God Part III
You're making it sound like Moor didn't want Iraqis to vote.

Isn't the important thing that it this may finally get the US out of Iraq?

Michael Moore did not support the removal of Saddam from power, which was necessary in order for there to be democratic elections.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 05:56 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
No, no, no the important part is to point fingers and call people losers.

At least thats what Michael Moore feels is important based on his work.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 06:09 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? ~ Michael Moore
enough said, he isn't a looser, he is a goulish entertainer.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 10:14 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 01:53 PM
What the f is the matter with that guy?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 03:03 AM   #27
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 08:53 PM
frankly, i can not say fighting to kick out invaders out of your country is wrong. ijust cant blame a nation under occupation for fighting back. the problem arises from the methods they use. kidnappings, bombings of civilian targets etc.

but then, just to play the devil's advocate here, how far would YOU go if US was under occupation, say, by iraq ?
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 10:08 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 01:53 PM
If we were under a brutal dictatorship, fed into woodchippers, had to watch our wives being raped, and gassed by our own government, I'd be grateful for any country who is willing to end our oppression, and protect our lives. If the US was Iraq, and Iraq was the US, I would want their protection as long as we need it.

Glad to see that the Iraqi voters are optimistic about women's rights, ending rampant violence (TOP PRIORITY for Al-jaafari), and yes, even allowing US occupation as long as necessary.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 01:45 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
That billboard is so bad. I love it although I don't know how productive it is to gloat.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-18-2005, 01:52 PM   #30
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Sometimes it's devilish fun to be a divider
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com