Moore sued for falsifying newspaper headline for movie - Page 3 - 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 08-01-2004, 02:27 AM   #31
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 08:55 PM
A_Wanderer, I'd like to know of a completely unbiased documentary. Seriously, please name one.

Edited to add:

Also, Anthony. I completely agree with everything you've said in this thread.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 02:34 AM   #32
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Re: Re: Forgive me for being blunt.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Gee,

You remember this post:

"Imminent threat?"
The difference being "imminent threat?" was in direct response to your post. If I recall correctly, my initial comment on the US not going in mainly for the benefit of the Iraqi people wasn't even directed towards you.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 02:48 AM   #33
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


So tell me what Bush has KNOWINGLY said that is false?
WMD in Iraq is not one because the President had intelligence information that backed up each of his claims regardless if some of the intelligence later turned out to be inaccurate.
Even though it's pointless debating with you, I will mention this, just to get it out there.

I for one find it extremely hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't in some way know that his information wasn't as rock solid as it should be, as only a couple years back all reports indicated that Saddam was well contained and unable to build any arsenal or even threaten his neighbors. Couple that with Richard Clarke's statements (yes, I know you'll immediately try to discredit him), and reports that Cheney's office was heavy-handed in directing the flow of information to and from the CIA and FBI, and I am extremely skeptical that no lies (as you define them) were told.

A scenario I find more likely is that the Bush administration felt it necessary to go to war, whether or not the evidence of WMD was solid. Now they very well may have wanted to go to war solely because Saddam failed to verifiably disarm and thus broke the UN Resolution, but they knew that this alone would not convince the American people to go, especially since the rest of the UN wasn't eager to take action. Knowing they would not be able to convince the American people to go to war without additional evidence, they presented what they had and beefed it up a bit. And kept drilling and drilling in the message of an imminent and growing threat from Saddam, and planted the 9/11 pixie dust by hinting at Al Qaeda ties.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 02:54 AM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:55 PM
Okay ThatGuy, I would say that the World At War series is a very good documentary that gives the facts with minimal bias, presents them in an appropriate way that does not demonize either side, it shows WW2 for what it was. Michael Moore is a propagandist and not a documentarian and the way that he distorts the facts and blantantly lies about some issues is a testament to this. He is using film as a medium to spread a blatant political message by demonizing his opponents, if you count this as serious documentary then Triumph of the Will or Der ewige Jude arent propaganda pieces either.

I strongly suggest that you read 'Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 03:08 AM   #35
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Every documentary is subjective because it is produced by people with their own biases. There is no way around it, even if the filmmakers try to be balanced. In the end, what you see on the screen is the filmmakers' version of events as they see it, and nothing more.

And I'll never understand why documentaries are now supposed to "present both sides" and be "fair." When did this become law when making documentaries? The first documentary wasn't even truthful. Do you know the story? Imagine if Michael Moore tried to get away with that?

Edited because you edited while I was responding:

I don't think it's fair to compare a film about one American president's unfitness for office with films that glorify the Aryan "race" and demonize the Jewish race to justify the Jews' extermination. Apples and oranges, and frankly little different than comparing someone to a Nazi to prove a point.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 09:54 AM   #36
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
A_Wanderer, I'd like to know of a completely unbiased documentary.
While it's true people who make documentaries usually do it with their own agenda in mind and do slant things in their favor, perhaps avoiding adding things that would not favor their points, there is a difference between that and outright falsifying of documents as Moore has done.
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 04:35 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


Even though it's pointless debating with you, I will mention this, just to get it out there.

I for one find it extremely hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't in some way know that his information wasn't as rock solid as it should be, as only a couple years back all reports indicated that Saddam was well contained and unable to build any arsenal or even threaten his neighbors. Couple that with Richard Clarke's statements (yes, I know you'll immediately try to discredit him), and reports that Cheney's office was heavy-handed in directing the flow of information to and from the CIA and FBI, and I am extremely skeptical that no lies (as you define them) were told.

A scenario I find more likely is that the Bush administration felt it necessary to go to war, whether or not the evidence of WMD was solid. Now they very well may have wanted to go to war solely because Saddam failed to verifiably disarm and thus broke the UN Resolution, but they knew that this alone would not convince the American people to go, especially since the rest of the UN wasn't eager to take action. Knowing they would not be able to convince the American people to go to war without additional evidence, they presented what they had and beefed it up a bit. And kept drilling and drilling in the message of an imminent and growing threat from Saddam, and planted the 9/11 pixie dust by hinting at Al Qaeda ties.
A couple of years ago, Saddam had a total military force of 387,000, over 2,700 tanks, as well as unaccounted for stocks of Anthrax, Mustard Gas, and the means to deliver those agents, just to name a few things. Saddam had the 13th largest military force in the world, much larger than anything Kuwait or Saudi Arabia had.

The SERIOUS problems the United Nations inspectors had when they were forced out in November 1998, still existed as problems at the start of the Bush administration. Where do you get the idea that somehow those problems were magically resolved?

The condition of sanctions and the embargo against Saddam were falling to pieces. If Saddam was so contained as you say, why was he able to sell over 4 BILLION dollars worth of oil on the black market in the year prior to the start of the war?

I'll say this again, The United Nations in the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed to verifiably disarm! These resolutions and the ceacefire agreement were all passed by the United Nations.

If the use of force against Saddam if he failed to verifiably disarm was not as you say a strong enough reason to go to war, the United Nations would NEVER have approved the resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement that in fact authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed to disarm.

More importantly, it has never been incumbent upon any member state of the United Nations to prove that Saddam had WMD X, Y, or Z. The terms of the Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement make it the responsiblity of SADDAM and SADDAM alone to prove to the international community that he had fully disarmed of all WMD.

The Central case for war against Iraq has always been Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Liberals like to cherry pick various pieces of intelligence mentioned in speeches AFTER the decision to go to war was already made, but the fact remains that the coalition went to WAR NOT ON SINGLE PIECE of intelligence about building x or y or campground a, but based on the overwhelming documentation by UNITED NATIONS inspectors on Saddam's failure to disclose and account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, thousands of Bio/Chem capable shells among several things that Saddam had not verifiably disarmed of.

The international community had tried for 12 long years to achieve full verifiable disarmament of Saddam through peaceful means and failed. Countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Kazaksthan and South Africa all successfully verifiably disarmed of their stocks in under a year. Saddam had the means to do this and clear example to follow but he chose not to. That is why war became a necessity as it had become the only way to insure that Saddam was fully disarmed.

The President went to the United Nations on September 12, 2002 and presented the facts of Saddams failure to comply with the UN resolutions and why action was necessary based on that fact. In October, the US congress gave the President full authority to use military force to disarm Saddam. In November the United Nations passed resolution 1441, further authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply with his obligations. There was never a point during those 2 months that the American public or the United Nations wavered in their general support to insure that Saddam was disarmed by all means necessary. Even Syria voted in support of resolution 1441!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 05:14 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:55 AM
Sting
Quote:
The SERIOUS problems the United Nations inspectors had when they were forced out in November 1998
That you forget to mention is that the inspectors had to leave because of airstrikes against Iraq and Saddam didn't let them back into the country after that.
And in this Iraq war there were successfull UN Inspectors but they had to leave the country again because war started.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 07:04 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Sting

That you forget to mention is that the inspectors had to leave because of airstrikes against Iraq and Saddam didn't let them back into the country after that.
And in this Iraq war there were successfull UN Inspectors but they had to leave the country again because war started.
You forget to mention why the airstrikes were needed and the UN inspectors report following the airstrikes reporting how the inspections process had failed to accomplish its goals because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate.

The UN inspectors who went back in 2002 were totally unsuccessful in dealing with the problems listed in their report from 1998, once again because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate. The problems listed in the UN report from 1998 still existed in March 2003 despite all efforts to resolve those problems peacefully. That is why military action became a necessity.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 07:48 PM   #40
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:55 PM
"The UN inspectors who went back in 2002 were totally unsuccessful in dealing with the problems listed in their report from 1998, once again because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate. The problems listed in the UN report from 1998 still existed in March 2003 despite all efforts to resolve those problems peacefully. That is why military action became a necessity."

Revisionist history and BS to boot. Sadaam was cooperating if you listen to Hans Blix.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 07:53 PM   #41
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Oh sure, he 'co-operated' after they had to keep giving him more and more deadlines, which gave him time to hide or destroy everything, as a drug dealer flushes his stash when the cops are at the door. I used to laugh my ass off when I'd hear of these "UN inspectors' giving him more time.
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:23 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,293
Local Time: 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart


No you misread that. It said there WAS a line reading that way in the paper, but it was over a 'letter to the editor' one individual person had written, on the back page, and came with a disclaimer that it did not reflect the views of the paper. Moore falsified the paper's headline to look as if this was a big story they had written and put on the front page! That's FRAUD!
Yes, it was over a letter to the editor...but who writes the headlines over the letter to the editors? The letter writers? NO...the paper!

Yes, in fact the dates were smudged. I bet Moore settles the $1 lawsuit, unlike Bush who will continue to lie, or, send our troops into a war situation based on incorrect information.

someone lied about the WMDs - and in the end, Bush is the Commander in Chief, and told us this is why we need attack Iraq - it was NEVER sold to the American public as a humanitarian mission...It was sold as a way to protect the world againt terror and potential attack using WMDs - but now that there are no WMDs, and the Iraq link to terrorism is weak....the Bush admin will sell it off as a Humanitarian campaign....I guess, like Moore, make the situation fit the picture you want.

Back to the lies...I do not approve of lies, but, has anyone lost their lives due to Moore's movie touch ups?
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:26 PM   #43
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Yes, it was over a letter to the editor...but who writes the headlines over the letter to the editors? The letter writers? NO...the paper!
Sometimes, sometimes not. I've given my own letters headings which they have kept. But even if they did, they were only referring to the content of the person's letter, which they did not endorse, and even put a disclaimer on.
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:27 PM   #44
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 04:55 AM
But no matter, dragging something off the back page and making it look like a headline is still fraud. Your big stupid fat white man is a fucking fraud. Just like Bush! No more hero for you!
__________________
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:31 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
"The UN inspectors who went back in 2002 were totally unsuccessful in dealing with the problems listed in their report from 1998, once again because Saddam was unwilling to cooperate. The problems listed in the UN report from 1998 still existed in March 2003 despite all efforts to resolve those problems peacefully. That is why military action became a necessity."

Revisionist history and BS to boot. Sadaam was cooperating if you listen to Hans Blix.
Name one thing that is an example of revisionist history or BS? Name one problem listed by UN inspectors in 1998 that Saddam helped to resolve in 2002/2003?

Dr. Kay successfully found over 300 items involved in Saddam's WMD program that Saddam could have given to Hans Blix but never did. All 300 items were violations of resolution 1441.

Fact: After 12 years of inspections, Saddam had yet to comply with a single UN resolution! If you want an example of how a cooperative verifiable disarmament is completed successfully, look at the disarmament of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa. Each of these countries successfully disarmed in under a year.

If Saddam was Mr. Cooperation as you claimed him to be, all of these issues would have been resolved years ago.

I guess I should not be surprised that some think Saddam is innocent on this particular issue though.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 11:55 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