PDA

View Full Version : Moore's Film- Top PRIZE


reeds
05-22-2004, 04:23 PM
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Cannes' Top Prize

American filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," a scathing indictment of White House actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, won the top prize Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's "The Silent World" in 1956.

"What have you done? I'm completely overwhelmed by this. Merci," Moore said after getting a standing ovation from the Cannes crowd.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top award from sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival's main competition but no great ones that rose to front-runner status.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002.

Some critics speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.

With Moore's customary blend of humor and horror, "Fahrenheit 9/11" accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans' support for the Iraq war.

Moore appears on-screen far less in "Fahrenheit 9/11" than in "Bowling for Columbine" or his other documentaries. The film relies largely on interviews, footage of U.S. soldiers and war victims in Iraq, and archival footage of Bush.

The best-actress award went to Maggie Cheung for her role in "Clean" as a junkie trying to straighten out her life and regain custody of her young son after her rock-star boyfriend dies of a drug overdose.

Fourteen-year-old Yagira Yuuya was named best actor for the Japanese film "Nobody Knows," in which he plays the eldest of four sibling raised in isolation, who must take charge of the family when their mother leaves.

The directing and writing prizes went to French filmmakers. Tony Gatlif won the directing honor for "Exiles," his road-trip about a couple on a sensual journey from France to Algeria.

Agnes Jaoui and her romantic partner, Jean-Pierre Bacri, won the screenplay award for "Look at Me," their study in self-image centering on an overweight young woman who feels neglected by loved ones. Jaoui and Bacri also co-star.

Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul's "Tropical Malady" widely regarded by Cannes audiences as a snoozer for its elongated scenes of a man wandering a jungle alone, with no dialogue won the festival's third-place jury prize.

Another jury prize went to Irma P. Hall for her role as an elderly Southern woman who foils a casino robbery in the Coen brothers' crime comedy "The Ladykillers," starring Tom Hanks as the heist's ringleader.

Keren Yedaya's "Or," about a Tel Aviv prostitute in failing health and her teenage daughter, won the Golden Camera award for best film by a first-time director. The U.S.-born Yedaya, who grew up in Israel, gives lectures about the problems of prostitution for government officials and mental-health professionals.

MavKikiNYC
05-22-2004, 04:43 PM
Meaningless.

Cannes was already passé.

MavKikiNYC
05-22-2004, 08:37 PM
One wonders: Why are things French so out of style today?


NYC
Another Grande Dame Says Adieu
By CLYDE HABERMAN

Published: May 21, 2004


A WHITE-HAIRED man in a well-tailored gray suit wagged his finger at Rita Jammet. "Méchante," he said. "Bad girl" is a reasonable translation from the French, given the context. He meant it more as a verbal hug than a rebuke.

Mrs. Jammet stood accused of naughtiness because she and her husband, André, are about to close La Caravelle, one of the last surviving grandes dames of French gastronomy in New York.

In an age when elegance sometimes seems defined as wearing the most expensive ring possible in your exposed belly button, La Caravelle has endured as a graceful refuge where men are expected to wear jackets and women to leave tank tops in the drawer. Inexpensive, it ain't. But it isn't stuffy, either. There are places in this city known to serve food half as good at twice the price and a quarter of the warmth.

Tastes change, however. La Caravelle now joins a growing line of classic French restaurants in Midtown that have not survived the opening rounds of the 21st century (which is fast shaping up as a miserable century for reasons having nothing to do with high cuisine and everything to do with lowlifes).

In the last year or so, Lutèce, Lespinasse and La Côte Basque all collapsed like an ill-prepared soufflé. Tomorrow night, it will be La Caravelle's turn. After 44 years, the last 20 under the Jammets' full or partial ownership, the restaurant will serve its last pike quenelle and white chocolate mousse.

Does New York suffer as a result of these closings? "Suffer" would seem a stretch. But it might be argued that the city does lose some of its luster.

New York is, above all, people and neighborhoods. Then, maybe, it is museums and art galleries and concert halls. But without its pockets of glamour - the high-end restaurants, the gleaming stores on Madison Avenue, the chic of SoHo - the city would be perceptibly diminished.

You might never once set foot in Tiffany's or in Le Bernardin, any more than a typical New Yorker visits the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. You might even be the sort who considers such temples of extravagance to be beneath you. But the odds are strong that you are quietly glad they exist. Just knowing they are there is part of what makes you feel you are living in Oz.

Mrs. Jammet, born in Saudi Arabia and reared in Switzerland, understood that the moment she first landed at Kennedy International Airport in 1977. "I got out of the plane and said, 'This is it,' she said. "The gut voice, as I call it, was talking to me." New York was where she had to be.

SINCE word of La Caravelle's imminent demise got out nine days ago, customers have all but arm-wrestled for tables. The place has been packed all week. Perhaps if it had done business like that on a regular basis, it might not have had to close. If she shared that thought, Mrs. Jammet was too discreet to say so out loud.

"I don't have bitterness at all," she said the other afternoon. "I believe that everything has a reason. Yes, this is sad. But it's also a time of renewal."

At lunch on Wednesday, the 105-seat room was filled mostly with regulars, including David Rockefeller, who sat against a wall under one of the several murals of Paris by Jean Pagès. One by one, customers thanked the Jammets for the memories.

There was the fellow of the "méchante" remark, and a woman who had to have one final quenelle, and a man who told Mrs. Jammet, "You owe yourself a vacation," and a guy who said to her as he headed to the door, "It was a great run."

Martin Lager, a certified public accountant, sat at the bar. He was way too late in trying to make a table reservation. But he said, "I wanted to see the room one last time."

He asked Adalberto Alonso, Cuban-born and a bartender at the restaurant for 42 years, what his plans were.

"I'm going to retire," Mr. Alonso said.

"Mazel tov," Mr. Lager said, extending his hand.

The bartender was confident that most of La Caravelle's 50 employees would have little trouble finding work. "They're professionals," he said.

What the next chapter holds for the owners is unclear. Nothing has been decided, Mrs. Jammet said. There are things to tend to first: murals to be taken down, tableware to be stored or sold, and wine - 15,000 bottles worth - to be auctioned.

Why not drink it?

"You need a good thirst for that," she said, "and a good liver." Oh, and something else. "A good group of friends to share it with," she said.

dude1394
05-23-2004, 12:40 AM
Hopefully the french/german wine industry can also be positively affected. I know in my household the austrailia wines are very popular right now.

And italian.

mavsman
05-23-2004, 05:47 AM
I just hope your household doesn't support a basketball team with a German and a Frenchman on their roster. That would be more than hypocritical.

dude1394
05-23-2004, 08:46 AM
Yes my household does support an AMERICAN BASKETBALL TEAM. My workplace also has many honorable germans and frenchmen.

Would you boycott south africa during apartheid? Yet not support successful south africans in this country during that time?

I can easily seperate the government actions (which their government and by representative cases themselves) from people who come to america to taste the american dream. Unfortunately for the french/german citiizens who have pushed their governments to be not allies, but more like enemies they will pay the economic price. But it's the only way to put pressure on them and their politicians.

FullBurst41
05-23-2004, 11:08 AM
This is one good joke, my friend. Did I just read a comparison between the Apartheid regime and the French government? ROFLMAO Tse Toeng! I mean, sure, I don't like Chiraq either, but that is just ridiculous beyond belief..

Your coments about the French just goes to show that you have never been there. I will try to refrain from judging you the same way.

MavKikiNYC
05-23-2004, 12:19 PM
There is as yet no evidence at all that Michael Moore was walking on the roof prior to its collapse.

Paris Airport Terminal Collapses; 5 Dead

May 23, 10:58 AM (ET)

By JOCELYN GECKER

(AP) Firefighters inspect the debris of the 2E passenger terminal after a section collapsed at Charles...

ROISSY, France (AP) - A huge portion of the vaulted roof of the new passenger terminal at Paris' Charles de Gaulle airport collapsed Sunday, killing at least five people and injuring three in a shower of concrete, glass and steel.

Tons of material from the roof of the futuristic, cylindrical Terminal 2E, which sits on pylons, fell onto a waiting area and pulled the outer walls down. Several parked cars underneath were smashed.

Transport Minister Gilles de Robien said there was nothing to indicate that a terrorist attack triggered the collapse just before 7 a.m., though the cause was not yet known.

Hundreds of rescue workers rushed to the scene, and temporary hospitals were set up on the tarmac and in the gleaming terminal, whose distinctive ceiling is honeycombed with hundreds of windows that bathe the interior with sunlight.


(AP) Aeroports de Paris (ADP) president Pierre Graff holds a news conference at the 2E passenger...
Full Image


Authorities said that five people were definitely killed but that the number could reach six. They were all likely passengers, said Hubert de Mesnil, director general of Paris airports.

Rescue officials could not immediately access the area of the accident. However, search dogs indicated there were few, if any, bodies left under the wreckage, said Michel Sappin, prefect of the Seine-Saint-Denis region where Charles de Gaulle - France's biggest airport - is located just north of Paris.

"It looks pretty bad out there," said Amy Haight, 30, arriving from Houston with her husband, Nelson, for a friend's wedding. She said she saw the collapsed building and dozens of rescue vehicles as her plane landed. "It's so sad, it's so scary. My God, we're so lucky."

The accident occurred in an approximately 98-foot-long section of Terminal 2E that opened just 11 months ago, after at least two construction delays.

The French television station LCI said safety issues caused the delays, and there had been media reports that a huge light fixture fell as inspectors were checking the $890 million facility.


(AP) Aeroports de Paris (ADP) President Pierre Graff talks to reporters outside the 2E passenger...
Full Image


When it was finally opened, the long, tunnel-like terminal with arched roof and sleek design was considered a "prestige" site in the sprawling airport complex, said Pierre Graff, president of the Paris airports authority. "It was our showcase," he said.

The cause of the accident was under investigation, and Graff said there were warning signs right before the collapse.

"Some witnesses heard something cracking just before the collapse. There were cracks and some dust from the concrete," he said. The director-general of the Paris airports, Hubert de Mesnil, said there was "absolutely nothing" in the past to indicated a structural problem.

"It's the structure that gave way, the structure itself," he told reporters.

Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin, who inspected the site of the accident along with the transport minister, said there were five confirmed dead and "perhaps six." Paris Fire Dept. Chief Laurent Vibert confirmed that.

Officials had earlier said that six people were killed.

Terminal E2, which has slots for 17 planes, was being closed indefinitely, said Graff. He suggested the move would pose problems for arrivals and departures.

The tragedy comes as France braces for an influx of summer tourists.

President Jacques Chirac said he was requesting "that the necessary investigations be immediately started so that the causes of this accident can be determined as quickly as possible."

He expressed his "very deep compassion" to families of the dead and the injured, a statement from the president's office said.

Sappin, the prefect of the region, said there was only a moderate number of people coming and going in the area of the terminal at the time. An Air France plane coming from New York and another from Johannesburg, South Africa, had just landed, he said. Another Air France flight was taking off for Prague.

The identities of the victims were not immediately known, Sappin added.

The accident strewed concrete over an area about 50 yards by 30 yards. "There are several tons of concrete that collapsed in a structure in a waiting area that leads out to the airplanes," Paris Fire Dept. chief Vibert told The Associated Press.

MavKikiNYC
05-23-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
This is one good joke, my friend. Did I just read a comparison between the Apartheid regime and the French government? ROFLMAO Tse Toeng! I mean, sure, I don't like Chiraq either, but that is just ridiculous beyond belief..

Your coments about the French just goes to show that you have never been there. I will try to refrain from judging you the same way.

I don't read that comparison being made at all. If you do, I think it says a lot about your trying to distort non-issues to make a cheap rhetorical non-point.

FullBurst41
05-23-2004, 05:09 PM
A rhetorical non-point, eh? I don't think so.

Have you ever thought about why it is that so many jump on the French government (heck, the French people for some) because of their opposition to the war in Iraq? Does the expression "Freedom of Speech" mean anything to you? Isn't that partly what Mr. Bush is trying to bring to the people of Iraq? Isn't that part of "The American Values" (like the rest of the world d doesn't have them)? Think about that.

dude1394
05-23-2004, 05:26 PM
Here is why I jump on the french fullofit41... It's because they act more like our enemies than our allies. Do "I" not have freedom of speech to voice my displeasure in a country that we've asked many times to help us but usually does not? Don't "I" have the freedom of speech to choose what wines I might buy, what countries products I might support just like I'm sure you do as well in this country.

You know like not watching a Woody Allan movie because you don't really want to support someone who's committed incest? Or a roman polanski movie, things like that?

Have you ever decided against buying anything in this country due to some reason, political, social, whatever. Weren't YOU exercising your freedom of speech or were you trying to squash the company/person you decided to not support. Your argument is juvenile, however I've heard it a lot on the left.

I wasn't comparing the french to south africa (although I wouldn't mind seeing someone make that comparison, historically speaking I"m sure the french have enslaved many,many more that the south africans ever did. ).

Oh and by the way, I have been there numerous times although it's irrelevant, how many times have YOU been there?

mavsman
05-23-2004, 05:28 PM
double message thingy

mavsman
05-23-2004, 05:40 PM
Dude, yes, you support an American team, god forbid. But just like Hitler let those Jews live who could be of service, you ignore the fact that the most important employee of your American team is German. For one time, be consequent, boycott the team that employs the enemy. Don't buy jewish! If you think that you can send a message to the governments that didn't support the US by ruining the lives of poor chaps who live in the US for half of their lives and just try to run a business but bear the wrong passport, be my guest. See you in the stands, booing Dirk.

Murphy3
05-23-2004, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by: mavsman
Dude, yes, you support an American team, god forbid. But just like Hitler let those Jews live who could be of service, you ignore the fact that the most important employee of your American team is German. For one time, be consequent, boycott the team that employs the enemy. Don't buy jewish! If you think that you can send a message to the governments that didn't support the US by ruining the lives of poor chaps who live in the US for half of their lives and just try to run a business but bear the wrong passport, be my guest. See you in the stands, booing Dirk.

That's some very iffy logic

dude1394
05-23-2004, 05:58 PM
How in the world can you compare me supporting dirk on a mavericks basketball team, in a country that is the most multi-cultural in history to something done by hitler? good grief...

Dirk Nowitzki is NOT my enemy... Let him come out and say the crap that the german politicians do and you'd see how quick I tell cubes to take his tickets and shove it, however you make litreally no sense to me.

The french restaurant guys are NOT my enemy, but too dang bad if they are on the wrong side of the popular opinion. Tough tiddly winks. I may/may not go to their restaurant but c'est la vie as it were, start another one. It's just too bad man and people have strong feelings, I guess unlike yourself.

What actually is your POINT?? That because I won't buy german/french products I have to hate all germans/french to not be hypocritical. It's a silly point. Please answer my question about the south african products (OR WHATEVER) if there IS anything you feel strong about. Like maybe not eating tuna for some reason, or some other thing you might feel passionate about. I'm sure there is some poor fisherman whose kids are going hungry because you won't eat starkist, how can you do it, aren't you being callous and hypocritical?

dude1394
05-23-2004, 06:18 PM
Oh I also boycott the NYTimes as well. But I guess it's because I have no feelings for the poor newspaper editor who is promoting my countries defeat in a militiary action approved by the american people.

LRB
05-23-2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
A rhetorical non-point, eh? I don't think so.

Have you ever thought about why it is that so many jump on the French government (heck, the French people for some) because of their opposition to the war in Iraq? Does the expression "Freedom of Speech" mean anything to you? Isn't that partly what Mr. Bush is trying to bring to the people of Iraq? Isn't that part of "The American Values" (like the rest of the world d doesn't have them)? Think about that.

Not so far fetched considering the political and illegal military support that France gave the Saddam Regime in the post Gulf War era. So long as Frenchie could make a buck, or in this case a franc I guess, the hell with their "friends" who save their butts twice during the last century. The French are led by a dispicable and morally bankrupt regime that actively supports tyranny and the enemies of the United States. To hell with them and all who support them. And I'll take France as an open enemy anyday over being a "friend". Friends don't stab friends in the back.

FullBurst41
05-24-2004, 12:10 PM
Err, LRB, as much as I want to say "Yes, you're right," you're overlooking the fact that the country you live in, or rather the politicians that run it, have done the same thing in the past. It's part of political life, it's partly that which I contest. I'm not saying that things will be all merry when Bush is replaced, because it won't. The Brits, the French, the Jerries, heck the Belgians, the Americans, the Chihnese, the Russians, the South Africans, they're all the same when your own profile is on the line. That's a fact. Just look at countries like Chile, Congo (which the entire Western world left to rot after communism fell), and Iran (that's right). Those are some examples, but don't you forget that the oh-so-bad Saddam used your weapons aginst his own people. Those were not Frenchie weapons he used.

FullBurst41
05-24-2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Here is why I jump on the french fullofit41... It's because they act more like our enemies than our allies. Do "I" not have freedom of speech to voice my displeasure in a country that we've asked many times to help us but usually does not? Don't "I" have the freedom of speech to choose what wines I might buy, what countries products I might support just like I'm sure you do as well in this country.

You know like not watching a Woody Allan movie because you don't really want to support someone who's committed incest? Or a roman polanski movie, things like that?

Have you ever decided against buying anything in this country due to some reason, political, social, whatever. Weren't YOU exercising your freedom of speech or were you trying to squash the company/person you decided to not support. Your argument is juvenile, however I've heard it a lot on the left.

I wasn't comparing the french to south africa (although I wouldn't mind seeing someone make that comparison, historically speaking I"m sure the french have enslaved many,many more that the south africans ever did. ).

Oh and by the way, I have been there numerous times although it's irrelevant, how many times have YOU been there?

That's not the point at all. You can disagree with the French all you like, but you do so in the utter belief that you are right and shouldbe helped by a government that you belief owes you something. Perhaps more the second than the first, I don't know, I don't really care either. What you buy and don't buy is none of my business. I myself have never boycotted anyone's products (I still happily guzzle coke), and if I don't consume a nutritional supplement, it is purely because it is not my taste.

Again, I find boycotting products juvenile, to make a stupid comparison:
"Oh? You don't agree? You ungrateful idiot! Come here, let me shackle you to the floor for a couple hours, we'll see who talks rough then!"

As for France itself, I go there multiple times a year, so don't tell me I don't know the French. (yes, yes, I know you didn't) That is pretty much my point and I stand by it, hopefully you get it right this time.

LRB
05-24-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
Err, LRB, as much as I want to say "Yes, you're right," you're overlooking the fact that the country you live in, or rather the politicians that run it, have done the same thing in the past. It's part of political life, it's partly that which I contest. I'm not saying that things will be all merry when Bush is replaced, because it won't. The Brits, the French, the Jerries, heck the Belgians, the Americans, the Chihnese, the Russians, the South Africans, they're all the same when your own profile is on the line. That's a fact. Just look at countries like Chile, Congo (which the entire Western world left to rot after communism fell), and Iran (that's right). Those are some examples, but don't you forget that the oh-so-bad Saddam used your weapons aginst his own people. Those were not Frenchie weapons he used.


1st of all Saddam used weapons from the US, France, and many other nations against his own people. I'm not especially proud of how we sat by and let him do it either. But at least we didn't try and stop someone from correcting the error and removing his sorry @$$ from power just so we could keep making a buck.

And please name one instance where the US has supported keeping a dictator in power versus having him removed and replaced with a democratic form of government just so we can make a buck? During the cold war we supported some unsavory governments that is true, but it was to combat a meglamanic opponent. Is that right? Personally I wish we would have pushed harder for reforms in the governments that we supported. But we also supported Stalin in the fight against Hilter. Maybe that wasn't right either. But even if we made mistakes in the past, it hardly justifies France making one now.


Again, I find boycotting products juvenile, to make a stupid comparison:
"Oh? You don't agree? You ungrateful idiot! Come here, let me shackle you to the floor for a couple hours, we'll see who talks rough then!"


So if you walked into a McDonald's and the server came out, unzipped his pants and pissed on you, you mean you'd keep going to McDonald's? Guess not everyone likes being pissed on. If it's juvenile not to let someone keep pissing on you, then I pray that I always act juvenile in your eyes. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

FullBurst41
05-24-2004, 01:14 PM
Well, I'm quite certain that both the Iran and Iraq alliances were quite helpful economically to the US. You could sell military material to both, and get oil in return (especially in Iraq's case here) as much as you liked.. Of course, supporting dictators in the third world is rarely lucrative.

Then again, why is it that the French can't make a mistake now and it's alright just dismissing (though admitting) mistakes the US policy makers made in the past? I fail to see the logic in that.

What you say about supporting a vicious leader as to protect the country and questionand yourself from not-so-friendly people is partly true. I don't particularly like the Iranian government as it stands today, and it was far worse twenty years ago. However, how the Chile incident exactly works out, I do not quite understand. It's not like the Soviets were going to place missiles in there just to piss you off, I don't think they were going to make that mistake again. That said, the soviet Unjion was by then becoming a toothless tiger (or perhaps that's a bad analogy).

As for the McDonnald's peeing thingie, I really fail to see what relevance that holds to the boycotting of products and it being juvenile. If you think the French pissed on you by saying "we won't support you in this war" and it having more to do with economic reasons than anything else (for the government, at least), they can say the exact same about the US government. Many a person over here thinks that Bush likes the economic prospects this country might bring him and his allies. The Halliburton incident didn't help a lot either.

Another thing that quiteintrigues me, if you'll let me divert slightly, is why the Bush administration stands by its "freedom for the world" stance so much. Why aren't American troops rolling into Zimbabwe? N ot much chance of them being attacked by militants there, and the Simbabwean army isn't much to worry aboutfor such a powerful force as the American army. South Africa obviously isn't going to do anything about its neighbor abusing its people and basically holding a fascist government, so why doesn't the US step in? Its not like they're going to drop nukes on your turf, like the North Koreans might. It's not like everyone from Lebanon to Usbekistan is going to come at you screaming "FOOOK YAAAAAAGH!" like what might happen in Iran, if you invaded.

Hell, I think you might even find international backinig for it, after some pushing and shoving.

Drbio
05-24-2004, 01:43 PM
Some critics speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.

Duh. Liberal artsy-fartsy morons were going to ensure that Moores piece-of-crap won. Did you not see that coming?





The rest of this thread is amazing. good grief.

LRB
05-24-2004, 01:48 PM
Well, I'm quite certain that both the Iran and Iraq alliances were quite helpful economically to the US. You could sell military material to both, and get oil in return (especially in Iraq's case here) as much as you liked.. Of course, supporting dictators in the third world is rarely lucrative.

I'm sure that both countries did bring a good deal of wealth in for some companies. Our government also expended a great deal of money in aid. What was the net result? I'm not sure, but I can tell you that in neither situation were we raking in the money hand over fist. The primary objective in supporting those governements was to combat the soviet regime and to stabalize the region. And with time our government has been increasing restrictions on countries that we sale military hardware to.


Then again, why is it that the French can't make a mistake now and it's alright just dismissing (though admitting) mistakes the US policy makers made in the past? I fail to see the logic in that.
Well let's see, the cold war is over so exactly which enemy is France fighting by supporting Saddam against the US? Is France saying that they are an enemy of the US? And just when was the United States a signatory to an international agreement not to supply certain military hardware to a dicator and violated that agreement? It's not like we told France that they had to agree with not giving Saddam help, they agreed to this on their own. They just didn't adhere to their agreement.


What you say about supporting a vicious leader as to protect the country and questionand yourself from not-so-friendly people is partly true. I don't particularly like the Iranian government as it stands today, and it was far worse twenty years ago. However, how the Chile incident exactly works out, I do not quite understand. It's not like the Soviets were going to place missiles in there just to piss you off, I don't think they were going to make that mistake again. That said, the soviet Unjion was by then becoming a toothless tiger (or perhaps that's a bad analogy).


I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What specifically are you referring to about Chile?


As for the McDonnald's peeing thingie, I really fail to see what relevance that holds to the boycotting of products and it being juvenile. If you think the French pissed on you by saying "we won't support you in this war" and it having more to do with economic reasons than anything else (for the government, at least), they can say the exact same about the US government. Many a person over here thinks that Bush likes the economic prospects this country might bring him and his allies. The Halliburton incident didn't help a lot either.


In case you haven't realized that the American taxpayer is paying out far more for Iraq that what is entering the American economy from Iraq. It's hard to believe the European educational system is so bad at teaching math. And it's not that the French didn't support us, no they actively opposed us in all but shooting at us with their own forces. When you're sending military supplies to an enemy that is actively trying to kill American service men I consider that a lot worse than pissing. So I guess my analogy was off, just not in the way that you were intimating.


Another thing that quiteintrigues me, if you'll let me divert slightly, is why the Bush administration stands by its "freedom for the world" stance so much. Why aren't American troops rolling into Zimbabwe? N ot much chance of them being attacked by militants there, and the Simbabwean army isn't much to worry aboutfor such a powerful force as the American army. South Africa obviously isn't going to do anything about its neighbor abusing its people and basically holding a fascist government, so why doesn't the US step in? Its not like they're going to drop nukes on your turf, like the North Koreans might. It's not like everyone from Lebanon to Usbekistan is going to come at you screaming "FOOOK YAAAAAAGH!" like what might happen in Iran, if you invaded.


When we do act as a nation, it is not to conquer territory for imperial reasons. We come, we kick butt, we rebuild, we teach, we leave. Generally we spend a great deal more that we make. We do it to safe guard our interests, yes that is true. But we believe our interest are best served only in removing credible and significant threats of violence against US citizens, assets, or trading means and helping rebuild any region that we have to use military force to accomplish the 1st. It's actually more complicated that this simple explanation, but I don't have time to write a book and this is close enough for now. Occasionally we do intervene for humanitarian means. The results for these reasons alone are substantially less because there tends to be less committment to see it through to the end.

FullBurst41
05-24-2004, 02:03 PM
First of all, Chile. Are you telling me that you never heard of Pinochet? A leader the Americans helped to power and proceeded to commit human rights abuses across the board? Who's educational system is lacking again?

As for Iraq, you should know that I'm not talking about "today, right now, here and now." I'm talking abotut he future. That said, just because the American citizen isn't feeling his purse getting heavier, top xecutives might. But let's not go there, lest you come here and bite my head off.

What exactly was Iraq going to do to any of your trade allies? Pee on 'em? I mean, their military obviously isn't much to speak of. After the first Gul War in Iraq, the US made damn sure that Kwait and Saudi Arabia were more or less prepared for whatever Saddam could throw at them, or at least hold them off until the cavalry arrived. If they even tried to point their finger at Israel, hell, they might've gottena WMD on their skulls, who knows. As for Islamic militants, I think it's prudent to say that the militants most certainly aren't where your troops go all the time, more like they go where your troops are. Ideologically, Saddam and bin Laden don't agree terribly well, except perhaps in their hate for the West That leaves the question, what's going to come out of Iraq that can hurt anyone but Lichtenstein (if only it were located closer to the Middle East).;

Mavdog
05-24-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by: Drbio
[quote]
Some critics speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value. [/i]

Duh. Liberal artsy-fartsy morons were going to ensure that Moores piece-of-crap won. Did you not see that coming?

Actually the selection of Farenheit was not what most saw as the most likely film to win the gold Award. Guess Moore was very persuasive in his presentation....
-------------------------------------------

France and Brazil vie for top Cannes prize
20 May 2004

CANNES: French and Brazilian films are the leading contenders for top prize at the Cannes festival but movie industry watchers say that with cult director Quentin Tarantino presiding over the jury, anything is possible.

They lead the race for the Palme d'Or top film prize at a 2004 festival which has, by common consent, far surpassed last year's lacklustre effort, bringing big stars, edgy themes and powerful politics to the Riviera.

French director Agnes Jaoui's Look at Me and The Motorcycle Diaries by Brazilian Walter Selles both deal with themes of awakening, but there the similarity ends.

Jaoui tells the story of a tortured 20-year-old desperate for the attention of her self-centred father and longing for the figure of a fashion model.

The Motorcycle Diaries, starring Mexican Sex Mex screen idol Gael Garcia Bernal, traces the political awakening of a young Che Guevara on a Latin American odyssey.

"The general sense of the festival is that the adrenalin is flowing. Cannes got a facelift at the age of 57," said Tim Gray, executive editor of the trade paper Variety.

"Last year was sleepy with nothing to talk about," he said as the festival headed into the home straight and Saturday night's prize-giving.

"Cannes is traditionally the most apolitical of festivals. This year it is very political. That's exciting. It is reflecting what is happening in the world."

But picking a winner could be tricky. "With Quentin Tarantino head of the jury, I have no idea," Gray said.

With superstars Brad Pitt and Tom Hanks walking the red carpet for the first time, Hollywood really embraced Cannes this year.

It used to avoid it as a costly event where jaded critics would often give blockbusters a real grilling.

Today, fearful of the pirates who can easily plunder a big hit as it opens from territory to territory, studios have opted for instant global releases and Cannes offers an ideal publicity platform.

Politics has taken centre stage with Fahrenheit 9/11, a blistering tirade against the Bush administration by documentary film-maker Michael Moore.

Critics say his angry slice of propaganda is so emotionally effective that it could play a part in influencing vacillating voters in November's presidential elections.

Tarantino said: "I'm in heaven" at the prospect of being shut in a darkened room for 12 days watching art-house movies..

With his bloodthirsty tastes, critics believed Tarantino could be tempted to opt for Korean revenge movie Old Boy in which the distraught hero cuts off his tongue after finding out he has slept with his long-lost daughter.

Critics were close to vomiting over the explicit violence.

No animation film has ever won the Palme d'Or but the Hollywood Reporter believed that the crowd-pleasing Shrek 2 could be the surprise final choice.

And a possible outsider may be The Edukators by young German director Hans Weingartner whose parents mortgaged their house so he could make the movie.

Screen International's round-the-world poll of critics put France and Brazil in as favourites, followed closely by Moore's political diatribe.

"There has been a conscious effort this year to introduce more mainstream films," said the paper's Editor-in-Chief Colin Brown.

"And it was certainly difficult to imagine a more glitzy Cannes. Stars were far more ready to travel this year," he said. "France's Jaoui is the one the critics like but if the jury decides to go political, it could be Moore."

LRB
05-24-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
First of all, Chile. Are you telling me that you never heard of Pinochet? A leader the Americans helped to power and proceeded to commit human rights abuses across the board? Who's educational system is lacking again?

As for Iraq, you should know that I'm not talking about "today, right now, here and now." I'm talking abotut he future. That said, just because the American citizen isn't feeling his purse getting heavier, top xecutives might. But let's not go there, lest you come here and bite my head off.

What exactly was Iraq going to do to any of your trade allies? Pee on 'em? I mean, their military obviously isn't much to speak of. After the first Gul War in Iraq, the US made damn sure that Kwait and Saudi Arabia were more or less prepared for whatever Saddam could throw at them, or at least hold them off until the cavalry arrived. If they even tried to point their finger at Israel, hell, they might've gottena WMD on their skulls, who knows. As for Islamic militants, I think it's prudent to say that the militants most certainly aren't where your troops go all the time, more like they go where your troops are. Ideologically, Saddam and bin Laden don't agree terribly well, except perhaps in their hate for the West That leaves the question, what's going to come out of Iraq that can hurt anyone but Lichtenstein (if only it were located closer to the Middle East).;

Your description of the US role with Pinochet was somewhat lacking. But it did take place was the Cold War was going full force. I definitely don't agree with our support of Pinochet, but the reasoning was either we support him or the soviets will. but you're still talking abou the Cold War. It's much easier now than when living under the very real threat of a nuclear war.

As for Saddam, the Sarin gas contained in the shell that was fortunately ineffectively exploded resently could have caused several times the deaths of 9/11 if given to terrorists. Saddam's threat was very real. Even supplying easy access to conventional weapons and training grouds could have been very dangerous to the US. A few anti-aircraft missles in terrorist hands or some explosives could be very deadly. And even if Saddam didn't have WMD's, and we can't prove conclusively that he didn't, he had the means and opportunity to do so if we had not intervened.

I still can't understand why you Europeans and leftist extremeists are crying so much for a monster like Saddam. All you have to defend him are that there are other people just as bad that the US didn't take out. You sound like a bunch of spoiled children who are mad that they didn't get their way.

Incrdible abuses have been halted in Iraq. Mass murders on the scale of hundreds of thousands at a time have been halted. And for the most part except for a very few incidents the whole scale torture chambers of Saddam have been shut down. The painful but ultimately rewarding process of democracy has begun. Aid is arriving to help the Iraqi's rebuild. Yet all Eurpopeans can do for the most part is ball about the poor dead terroists and fascists. Sigh.

dude1394
05-24-2004, 07:09 PM
I was going to jump in here but LRB is doing such a fine job, that I refrain.

Murphy3
05-24-2004, 08:07 PM
As a liberal, I must say that I complete disagree with the United States' role in Iraq regardless of how many lives that they are saving simply because I'm a liberal and I must take the most annoying and polar opposite stance from republicans simply because it's my right.

dude1394
05-24-2004, 08:24 PM
As a liberal I would expect that you would be a promoter of freedom throughout the world. Like kosovo, bosnia, south africa, iraq, sudan etc. Ala christopher hitchens.

Murphy3
05-24-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
As a liberal I would expect that you would be a promoter of freedom throughout the world. Like kosovo, bosnia, south africa, iraq, sudan etc. Ala christopher hitchens.

I could do that, but then I wouldn't be the annoying liberal guy that simply digs my heels in and opposes anything and everything republican regardless of bad I make myself look.

dude1394
05-24-2004, 08:54 PM
*Chuckle*

u2sarajevo
05-24-2004, 10:47 PM
Michael Moore and Me (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)
From the May 31, 2004 issue: An encounter with the Cannes man.
by Fred Barnes

A FEW YEARS AGO Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"

Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me--I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.

The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels. One, I've never met Moore or even talked to him on the phone. And, two, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey in my first year at the University of Virginia. Just for the record, I'd learned what they were about even before college. Like everyone else my age, I
got my classical education from the big screen. I saw the Iliad movie called Helen of Troy and while I forget the name of the Odyssey film, I think it starred Kirk Douglas as Odysseus.

So why didn't I scream bloody murder when the book came out in 2001? I didn't learn about the phony anecdote until it was brought to my attention by Alan Wolfe, who was reviewing Moore's book for the New Republic. He asked, by email, if the story were true. I said no, not a word of it, and Wolfe quoted me as saying that. That was enough, I thought. After all, who would take a shrill, lying lefty like Moore seriously?

More people than I thought. Moore's new movie attacking Bush was given a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore has described the movie as breaking new ground and revealing new facts, but the accounts by reviewers suggest it merely provides the standard left-wing, conspiratorial critique of the president. Reviewer Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, who gave Moore's previous movie Bowling for Columbine four stars, said the anti-Bush film would be news only "if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan." Still, I suppose it's not surprising they loved it in France.

In publicizing the movie, Moore has been up to his old dishonest tricks. Just before the screening at Cannes, he charged that Disney had told him "officially" the day before that it would not distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore said this was an attempt to kill the film. He indicated a newspaper article had the correct explanation of Disney's decision: "According to today's New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

Later, in a CNN interview, Moore admitted he'd learned nearly a year ago that Disney would not distribute the movie. By pretending he'd just gotten word of this, Moore was involved in a cheap publicity stunt. And it wasn't the New York Times that said, on its own, that Disney feared losing tax breaks. It was Moore's agent who was quoted as saying that in the Times. Disney denied its president Michael Eisner had told the agent of any such fear. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically oriented film during an election year," Eisner told ABC News.

Where does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened?

I have just the person to look into Moore's lies and distortions. Al Franken has taken special interest in public liars, writing a bestseller called Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Al, the Moore case is now in your court.


Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Drbio
05-25-2004, 09:25 AM
Mavdog- there was never any doubt that Cannes was going to be a liberal love fest this year. No matter how many biased articles you cite, it will not change that fact. Everyone knew it going in and Moores "award" was highly predicted.

Drbio
05-25-2004, 09:25 AM
murph- greatness......




I echo dude above.....go get 'em LRB.....

FullBurst41
05-25-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
First of all, Chile. Are you telling me that you never heard of Pinochet? A leader the Americans helped to power and proceeded to commit human rights abuses across the board? Who's educational system is lacking again?

As for Iraq, you should know that I'm not talking about "today, right now, here and now." I'm talking abotut he future. That said, just because the American citizen isn't feeling his purse getting heavier, top xecutives might. But let's not go there, lest you come here and bite my head off.

What exactly was Iraq going to do to any of your trade allies? Pee on 'em? I mean, their military obviously isn't much to speak of. After the first Gul War in Iraq, the US made damn sure that Kwait and Saudi Arabia were more or less prepared for whatever Saddam could throw at them, or at least hold them off until the cavalry arrived. If they even tried to point their finger at Israel, hell, they might've gottena WMD on their skulls, who knows. As for Islamic militants, I think it's prudent to say that the militants most certainly aren't where your troops go all the time, more like they go where your troops are. Ideologically, Saddam and bin Laden don't agree terribly well, except perhaps in their hate for the West That leaves the question, what's going to come out of Iraq that can hurt anyone but Lichtenstein (if only it were located closer to the Middle East).;

Your description of the US role with Pinochet was somewhat lacking. But it did take place was the Cold War was going full force. I definitely don't agree with our support of Pinochet, but the reasoning was either we support him or the soviets will. but you're still talking abou the Cold War. It's much easier now than when living under the very real threat of a nuclear war.

As for Saddam, the Sarin gas contained in the shell that was fortunately ineffectively exploded resently could have caused several times the deaths of 9/11 if given to terrorists. Saddam's threat was very real. Even supplying easy access to conventional weapons and training grouds could have been very dangerous to the US. A few anti-aircraft missles in terrorist hands or some explosives could be very deadly. And even if Saddam didn't have WMD's, and we can't prove conclusively that he didn't, he had the means and opportunity to do so if we had not intervened.

I still can't understand why you Europeans and leftist extremeists are crying so much for a monster like Saddam. All you have to defend him are that there are other people just as bad that the US didn't take out. You sound like a bunch of spoiled children who are mad that they didn't get their way.

Incrdible abuses have been halted in Iraq. Mass murders on the scale of hundreds of thousands at a time have been halted. And for the most part except for a very few incidents the whole scale torture chambers of Saddam have been shut down. The painful but ultimately rewarding process of democracy has begun. Aid is arriving to help the Iraqi's rebuild. Yet all Eurpopeans can do for the most part is ball about the poor dead terroists and fascists. Sigh.

We do not defend Saddam. We are not extremists. (since Europeans are now automatically linked with "leftist extremists," I presume that we are extreme as well, in your eyes). If you want to prevent Islamic militants from getting their ihands on a couple of anti-aircraft missiles, then why don't you propose the US just nukes the MIddle East and bedone with it, followed by a large-scale invasion of Indonesia, the sanitation of India, and anything else you want to do to eliminate the threat of Islam. Because you don't need a guy like Saddam Hussein in a country like Iraq to get your anti-aircraft missiles. Hell, they can probably obtain them in Russia far quicker than they ever could in Iraq or any other friendly government.

As for small armsin general, anyone could've bought those in Baghdad just after the fall of Hussein's regime. I heard a BBC reporter going to investigate the sale of weapons that too place just after the Americans had leveled Saddam (literally and figuratively). You could get your hand grenades for about $1 a piece. You might have heard the story of the JApanese journalist that ended up blowing a couple of Jordanian customs workers to hell with a hand grenade in his luggage.

The point to all this, is that I find the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq pretty questionable, in keeping with the "defense of our own citezens" logic. If you fear the security of your citezens, it is time to put major pressure on Kim Jong Il, he is far more dangerous to US forces and US allies in the area than Saddam ever could be. And remember, it was the United States ofo America, who had the full backing of the UN, who were not able to wipe Saddam out of Baghdad, because, as I gather, Bush wasn't sure he could defend such a move. As far as I'm concerned, you can't defend it today either, but that's that, I guess.

FullBurst41
05-25-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by: Drbio
murph- greatness......




I echo dude above.....go get 'em LRB.....
Yeah LRB, go and show that anyone that disagrees with you has no valid opinion. Make my day.

LRB
05-25-2004, 11:31 AM
We do not defend Saddam.

Sure sounds like it. You keep complaining about our invasion of Iraq that removed Saddam. Sure sounds like you'd rather have him back in power. Maybe we should try putting the Nazis back in power while we're at it. Really we didn't have any better reason to remove them than we did Saddam.



We are not extremists.

Well if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, and acts like a duck generally I would call it a duck. Same thing for extremists. And I'd call anyone who thinks that Saddam should be back in power an extremist. See below for example of extremist rhetoric:


If you want to prevent Islamic militants from getting their ihands on a couple of anti-aircraft missiles, then why don't you propose the US just nukes the MIddle East and bedone with it, followed by a large-scale invasion of Indonesia, the sanitation of India, and anything else you want to do to eliminate the threat of Islam.

BTW we don't believe that we can prevent anyone from obtaining conventional weapons, but we can make it extremely difficult for terrorists to get them without our knowledge. With knowledge comes the ability to strike and destroy the weapons before they can be put to use. And we have a great deal of intelligent assets in Russia as compared to what we had in Iraq pre-invasion.


If you fear the security of your citezens, it is time to put major pressure on Kim Jong Il, he is far more dangerous to US forces and US allies in the area than Saddam ever could be.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. We are putting major pressure on him and are getting concessions. Try using some relevant observations next time.



And remember, it was the United States ofo America, who had the full backing of the UN, who were not able to wipe Saddam out of Baghdad, because, as I gather, Bush wasn't sure he could defend such a move. As far as I'm concerned, you can't defend it today either, but that's that, I guess.


It wasn't our objective to remove Saddam from power only to remove him from Kuwait and as an immediate threat. We did that. Now should we have added the job of removing him? Well I for one wish we had. Several hundred thousand dead Iraqi's probably do as well. But one mistake not to remove him, does not justify doing it again. We gave Saddam the chance the pansy Europeans of the world wanted to give him. And it cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lifes and ultimately ended up putting much of the world potential hostage to Saddam's WMD capabilities. And just because we didn't find any doesn't mean there weren't. And even if there weren't any, doesn't mean that he wasn't working towards being able to make them in secret.

Of course there are a lot of Europeans like you seem to be who would rather see hundreds of thousands dead than to admit that they possibly made a mistake. But hey are you the guys who gassed the Jews and other "undesirables"?


Yeah LRB, go and show that anyone that disagrees with you has no valid opinion. Make my day.


Hey anyone's free to disagree with me. I don't have a monopoly on being right either. But if you are to argue, all I ask is that you argue intelligently and be mature enough to concede points, not the whole argument, but points when logic shows that you're wrong.

Drbio
05-25-2004, 12:51 PM
Yeah LRB, go and show that anyone that disagrees with you has no valid opinion. Make my day.

Hello pot. This is the moronic kettle calling you black. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

mavsman
05-25-2004, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
How in the world can you compare me supporting dirk on a mavericks basketball team, in a country that is the most multi-cultural in history to something done by hitler? good grief...

Dirk Nowitzki is NOT my enemy... Let him come out and say the crap that the german politicians do and you'd see how quick I tell cubes to take his tickets and shove it, however you make litreally no sense to me.

So you say that the small German winemakers that you gladly boycott all said the "crap that the German politicians do" and are therefore your enemies? I don't think so. You don't even know one of them, neither do you know anything about their political background. You just boycott them and try to ruin their business, because your republican buddies tell you to do so. How's that any different from third reich germany's policy of "don't buy jewish"?

I happen to know quite a handful of Germans that went to the US and started a business there, most of them left Germany for a reason and are more hardcore-republicans than you or madape, but still their businesses suffer, because they bear the wrong passport. You may say "tough luck, buddy!", I say that's nationalistic BS, and you know it.



What actually is your POINT?? That because I won't buy german/french products I have to hate all germans/french to not be hypocritical. It's a silly point.

No, I think it's a clever move to punish small businessmen for what you think their government does wrong. I don't think that your horizon is wide enough to grasp the concept, but just like not all of the US voted for your current president, we also had just about 50% voting for our current chancellor. Okay, ours had a slightly better result, but nevertheless, there is no such thing as a "German opinion" on things. You may boycott everyone you like, but be asured that the German public is able to seperate American individuals from your government and not to vent their little anger at the wrong folks.

mavsman
05-25-2004, 06:22 PM
And, oh, I forgot: You were asking why I was calling you a hypocrite. That's obvious. You say you don't despise Dirk because he didn't say "the crap that german politicians do", just like you didn't hear any German winemaker say "the crap that german politicians do". Yet you feel free to boycott the winemaker, because it's easy for you to replace german wine by italian or american, but you don't boycott Dirk, because you just can't replace him that easily. That hypocrisy at it's best, if you ask me.

dude1394
05-25-2004, 07:19 PM
Whatever mavsman... The idea that I cannot express my displeasure with a governments policy with the only tool at my disposal because the people who ELECTED that government and are responsible for it's policies might be inconvenienced is ridiculous to me. The reason I don't "boycott" dirk is because it would have no impact on the german economy or the policies of the german populace. However NOT purchasing german products DOES have an impact on germany and the german populace.

Plus I like dirk. If I knew a german personally then I probably would make an exception and still frequent his business if I liked it. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm perfect and just because I'm not doesn't invalidate my trying to effect german politics in a small way.

You can call me a hypocrite but I would say it was:

"a nuanced european position". You know how I can sell arms to a known mass-murderer like sadaam but still come down hard on algerians for example or look the other way in kosovo/bosnia.

dude1394
05-25-2004, 07:27 PM
No, I think it's a clever move to punish small businessmen for what you think their government does wrong.

"Their" government. Yup "their"government. Just like the bush you probably despise (unless I'm mistaken) and certainly the republicans you loathe are MY government. Please continue to buy american products because you are so enlighted that you would never try to effect our politics. I'll be glad to sell them to you.


I don't think that your horizon is wide enough to grasp the concept, but just like not all of the US voted for your current president, we also had just about 50% voting for our current chancellor. Okay, ours had a slightly better result, but nevertheless, there is no such thing as a "German opinion" on things. You may boycott everyone you like, but be asured that the German public is able to seperate American individuals from your government and not to vent their little anger at the wrong folks.

I'm happy that you can do that. We (ugly americans that we are) cannot, so don't forget it. You know we sort of hold a grudge when we've died, given billions, risked nuclear war for 50 some odd years for a country whom we've called friends and they stab us in the back when we finally ask for help.

FullBurst41
05-25-2004, 11:59 PM
LRB, I am at the point of giving up. I really am. You're even denying that George W. Bush took your country to war on the whole premise of WMDs? Is that right? By the way, did you ever get classes in argumentation? You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, argue a point based on things that might happen in the future because you did not take a certain action. That is pure speculation on youro part. Saddam is a decptive SOB, there's no telling what he would do, even if he had the capability to develop WMDs, which is doubtful in itself. Until the soldiers serving in Iraq find conclusive evidence that Saddam did (and not one single artillery shell, for goodness sake), then your point is naught. Pure and simple.

As for us pantsy Europeans, I find it rather amusing to find that you call us that just because we would not support a war in Iraq (woops, err, I mean, except for the Brits). It just keeps me baffled why it is never okay for anyone to make a mistake in your eyes, while the ones that you make can always be offset. Why do we not deserve a second chance? What is it about the United States of Ameica that they get carte blanche to go here, remove leader, clean up mess, rince and repeat, insult others who didn't.

And ask yourself, what in God'sname are you accomplishing? You're playing right into Al Qaeda's hand, and you don't even seem to flinch one bit! Just check out the new British document on Al Qaeda's recruitment, and I think it's fair to say that this is a modest estimate.

As for the dicussions between dude and mavsman, well again, it's all opportunism really, and that's not used against the US at all, everyone does it. That's why the US hired Werner von Braun, mastermind of the V2, for slightlyu more peaceful means after the war. I don't blame them for it, I just think you have to be mature enough and admit it, that's all.

LRB
05-26-2004, 01:11 AM
LRB, I am at the point of giving up. I really am. You're even denying that George W. Bush took your country to war on the whole premise of WMDs?

Best news I've heard all day!!! i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif


You're even denying that George W. Bush took your country to war on the whole premise of WMDs? Is that right?

I've never denied that it was one of the main, but definitely not the only, reason that we went into Iraq. If you believe that was the only reason that we went into Iraq, then you have been sadly duped. It was definitely a major reason though. But there is nothing wrong with that. To the best of our abilities it appeared that Saddam had WMD's and while it can't be proved that he did have them, it also can't be proved that he didn't.


You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, argue a point based on things that might happen in the future because you did not take a certain action.

Says who? You? And who made you the authority? But let's obtain another opinion. From www.Dictionary.com :


argumentation

\Ar`gu*men*ta"tion\, n. [L. argumentatio, from argumentari: cf. F. argumentation.] 1. The act of forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying them to the case in discussion; the operation of inferring propositions, not known or admitted as true, from facts or principles known, admitted, or proved to be true.



Wow "inferring propositions, not know or admitted as true, from facts or principles know, admitted, or proved to be true." Sort of like how Saddam did have WMD's, has knowledge to make WMD's, precluded the international community from positively verifying that he had WMD's, willfully violated UN resolutions and international treaties that he had agreed to, Showed agression in the past towards other countries, displayed hatred towards the US and publicly vowed to hurt us, used WMD's against other countries and his own people in the past, has been shown to have met with or had his representatives meet with members of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations in the past, the US was the major obstacle in his path for military domination of the region. Known and proven facts all. These all can be looked up and verified by numerous news sources. So knowing these facts it would be a highly reasonable argument that he would have tried to develop WMD's and use them against the US if given the opportunity and means to do so.


Until the soldiers serving in Iraq find conclusive evidence that Saddam did (and not one single artillery shell, for goodness sake), then your point is naught. Pure and simple.


An absolutely absurd statement. See the above argument if nothing else. Further more if anyone finds the WMD's, not just soldiers serving in Iraq, it would conclusively prove my argument. However until you can prove that my argument which is supported by a host of known and proven facts, is not true or at least have an overwhelming amount more evidence that it isn't true, then it is your point not mine that is naught. That is neither pure not simple, but true in Oscar Wilde's words "the truth is rarely pure and never simple."


As for us pantsy Europeans, I find it rather amusing to find that you call us that just because we would not support a war in Iraq (woops, err, I mean, except for the Brits).

No, Iraq was just the latest in a long string of cowardly actions by European nations. You could go by to appeasing Hitler which led to WWII. Don't forget the Frenchies, and your country for that matter, easy capitulation to the Nazis. How about when we wanted to retaliate against the Libyans in 1986? Pansy ass France wouldn't even let us fly through their air space. When Saddam invaded Kuwaite, the US and Great Britan had to drag most of cowardly Europe into action. Most of you would rather have let Saddam keep Kuwaite and just put up a paper embargo. All most European nations want to do is kowtow to terrorists. Just give them what they want. That only encourages them. But then again it's a long and sordid history of being fearful and lacking curage to do the right thing and stand up to tyrants, terrorists, and warmongers until it's too late to be effective. Thank God that the English were blessed with more balls than the rest of Europe taken collectively. In fact the only balls you'll find in France are on a soccer field.


And ask yourself, what in God'sname are you accomplishing? You're playing right into Al Qaeda's hand, and you don't even seem to flinch one bit! Just check out the new British document on Al Qaeda's recruitment, and I think it's fair to say that this is a modest estimate.


No, it is you and your kind who are playing right into Al Queda's hands. Appeasement only makes them grow stronger. We choose to kick them in the balls and then chop their heads off. When's the last time you saw a headless terrorists with swollen balls do any acts of terrorism? That would be never. However the terrorists who were allowed to act with relative impunity are responsible for the deaths of several thousand innocents in my country on 9/11. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. People who kill innocent women and children and dream of blowing themselves up while taking thousands of innocent lives can't be reasoned with because no reasonable person would commit such horrendous acts on purpose. As for this piece of propagandist fluff that you refer to, it's a sick joke. We're in a war with Al Queda. And in any war there will be casualties. The best way to keep your side from getting them is to take out the other side 1st. We're doing that. Al Queda is not dangerous if a few scrawny, ill fed, under educated, poor, and deranged lunitics join their ranks. They are dangerous if their existing lunitics have money, safety, easy access to weapons and training facilities, and diplomatic help. We're systematically taking those advantages away while killing a hell of a lot of the lunitics. We're keeping them from becoming highly organized. We find their communication channels and destroy them. We find any mass congregations and destroy them. You sit back and get fat whining and complaining. We take names and kick ass. Our foot may be sore at the end of the day, but we've protected our ass your sorry one to boot. What's more we've given you European's what makes you most happy. Something to sit back and critize others about.

Evilmav2
05-26-2004, 03:09 AM
As for us pantsy Europeans, I find it rather amusing to find that you call us that just because we would not support a war in Iraq (woops, err, I mean, except for the Brits).

I'll refrain from calling you or your countrymen (whoever those particular fellows might happen to be in the EU) "Pantsy", but I will say that you are forgetting to mention the fact that not only the English, but also the Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Danes, Estonians, Hungarians, Italians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Macedonians, Dutch, Poles, Romanians, Slovaks, and Spaniards (not to mention the semi-Europeans of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan) all provided troops or material support to the "Coalition of the Willing" last year...

In my opinion, your snide and dismissive comments asserting that "we" (again, I have no idea what happy Euro nation you claim as home) didn't support the Iraqi war betrays the same kind of "Old Europe" chauvinism and willful blindness that many Germans, French, and Belgians and their respective governments have seemed to have exhibited consistently over the last few years.

Many of the constituencies and governances of Europe (significantly including many of the recently liberated nations of Eastern Europe) DID support the forceful and honorable military exercise of the United States that succeeded in putting paid to Saddam and his gang of criminals last Spring, and in my opinion those nations deserve much credit for having done so.

madape
05-26-2004, 06:05 AM
The argument that Sadaam didn't have weapons is a stupid one, and a partisan one. He DID have them. He used them in combat. He used them as a device to exert political dominance.

As a condition of his surrender in the first Gulf war, the UN required that he destory his arsenal. He refused to provide any evidence that he did. Now we see chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists, being used against our troops.

It seems to me that the case doesn't need to be further substantianated. Saddaam had weapons designed to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Now he doesn't. A sworn enemy of America and Israel, a man who funded and harbored terrorists, a man who has shown himself willing to use chemical and biological weapons for military and political purposes, is now rotting in a US military prison. Thank you George Bush.

Fuck you France, Germany, Russia and the other cowardly EU nation-states.

FullBurst41
05-26-2004, 06:50 AM
Well, so as to play into LRB's hands, and to save me the waste of time, this will be my last post on the matter (in this thread, rather).

First of all, EvilMav, you have a good point, and you are right to rub my nose in it, I admit it.

Now, onto the personal tirade.

Since my dear friend LRB finds it to be of no real concern to argue points concerning an Iraq that never saw the light of day, I guess that pretty much mutes me in that regard. If you want to do that, well, there you go. If that convinces yuou that you are right, by all means, convince yourself.

One thing I will say, is that I actually went and read the ultimatum speech by George Bush again this morning. I suggest you do the same. Once again the reason (yes, reason) for going to war is explained. Bush does mention the Iraqi people's hardship, but this is not cited a s a reason to go to war. It was used as a means to tell the Iraqi people that their lives full of misery would finally be over, to remind them of their leader's evil deeds, and to convince them that it would change.

Remember that this speech was being broadcast to the Iraqis as well, so this was obviously an important part of the speech. Perhaps you understand it differently, I don't know, but Colin Powell didn't go to the UN with satellite imagery to argue that we should go out there and whip Saddam out because he was a bad guy.

Now, as for the terrrorists. The chemical weapons is one thing. As I've already said, it would be so much easier for Al Qaeda to go to Kazakhstan, raid one of those badly protected and badly sealed storage areas of old Soviet-era equipment, and they could get weapons of all kinds (including chemical and biological) to their heart's content. Why go through the trouble dealing with Saddam Hussein, a Pan-Arab mania, with whom they only agreed on the fact that America had to go, or be destroyed, and preferably the whole Western World with it.

As for the kicking in the balls and all that, you are so totally wrong, I cannot even imagine what your line of thinking is. Sitting there and looking on in pure disbelief isn't going to help, I agree with you there, but using the other extreme isn't going to get you anywhere either. IF we Europeans (I'm sorry, Belgians, French, Germans, and whoever else you want that's pantsy, or sort of pantsy) don't dare to say to the terrorists that we aren't going to sit there and let them commit mass murder, then why is even my own country (Belgium) commited in Afghanistan? Perhaps it might be better if the United States of America used its preemptive striking ability to launch a serious clean-up operation in the border area (including the tribal areas) between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I know the forces are stretched, but hey, that's what happens when yuou have all those soldiers in Iraq.

As for kicking these terrorists in the balls, the whole context in which it is happening is obviously not helping your cause. What do you base your assumption on that terrorism is in decline because the United States Army is cleaning house in Iraq, let alone cleaning out militants that probably mostly entered the country after the war had started or had ended. I'm sure you have some enlightenment for me there, right?

I find your statement that we capitulated easilly when the Germans invaded offensive. I really do. Except for Great Britain, my country held itself for longer than any of its Western European compatriots in the Second World War, and may I note that it was Belgian resistance that might have saved the mobilising French army from early destruction, together with the quick entry of Britain in the hostilities? Or did you just say that because it so suited your pantsy Euopean view? Belgium is a more complex country than you might think, its 164 years of independance have been filled with difficult situations between two different communities that had to learn to live together, through lingual and cultural differences. Today we still have the same problem, although now there's only a small minority who wants to seperate Flanders. I do not regard myself as Flemmish, rather I regard myself as Belgian. With all the internal bias about the Wallons going on here, I really do not need some external bias about Belgium in the first and second world war.

I'm done, I realy am. I guess we won't agree, ever. So be it then. I will not bother you with my pantsy and leftist remarks again, if that suits you.

LRB
05-26-2004, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by: Evilmav2

As for us pantsy Europeans, I find it rather amusing to find that you call us that just because we would not support a war in Iraq (woops, err, I mean, except for the Brits).

I'll refrain from calling you or your countrymen (whoever those particular fellows might happen to be in the EU) "Pantsy", but I will say that you are forgetting to mention the fact that not only the English, but also the Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Danes, Estonians, Hungarians, Italians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Macedonians, Dutch, Poles, Romanians, Slovaks, and Spaniards (not to mention the semi-Europeans of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan) all provided troops or material support to the "Coalition of the Willing" last year...

In my opinion, your snide and dismissive comments asserting that "we" (again, I have no idea what happy Euro nation you claim as home) didn't support the Iraqi war betrays the same kind of "Old Europe" chauvinism and willful blindness that many Germans, French, and Belgians and their respective governments have seemed to have exhibited consistently over the last few years.

Many of the constituencies and governances of Europe (significantly including many of the recently liberated nations of Eastern Europe) DID support the forceful and honorable military exercise of the United States that succeeded in putting paid to Saddam and his gang of criminals last Spring, and in my opinion those nations deserve much credit for having done so.


Evil thankyou for remembering and mentioning so many of the nations of Europe that did come to America's aid. Even more nations did not actively oppose us even if they didn't agree to lend ative support. I am thankful to all the citizens and government officials from those countries who supported us. I'm also thankful for those citizens who advocated supporting us but lived in countries which chose not to. I'm sorry if I've overlooked you. And for the citizens of Europe who supported their governments actively opposing up, which is what I have been, probably in an somewhat erroneous manner, as Europeans, I direct my derogatory comments. For any who donot fall in this group, I sincerely apologize for not taking the time and energy to clarify your exmeption.

reeds
05-26-2004, 10:28 AM
"And, oh, I forgot: You were asking why I was calling you a hypocrite. That's obvious. You say you don't despise Dirk because he didn't say "the crap that german politicians do", just like you didn't hear any German winemaker say "the crap that german politicians do". Yet you feel free to boycott the winemaker, because it's easy for you to replace german wine by italian or american, but you don't boycott Dirk, because you just can't replace him that easily. That hypocrisy at it's best, if you ask me. "

GREATNESS!!!! you go mavsman!

Evilmav2
05-26-2004, 11:29 AM
find your statement that we capitulated easilly when the Germans invaded offensive. I really do. Except for Great Britain, my country held itself for longer than any of its Western European compatriots in the Second World War, and may I note that it was Belgian resistance that might have saved the mobilising French army from early destruction, together with the quick entry of Britain in the hostilities?

Good points about the Belgians, FB.

The Belgians along with "Hitler's Canary" Denmark fought with a more disproportianately fierce resistance against the Nazi's in the Second World War than any other occupied nation of continental Europe. Unlike their Dutch neighbors, the Belgians consistently tied down large amounts of German fighting power through an unceasingly effective sabotage campaign and through a frustratingly pervasive and adept resistence web that eventually helped thousands of Jews, intellectuals, and Allied airmen escape to Great Britain. Also, unlike the Dutch, Belgium did not provide thousands of recruits to the Waffen SS foreign legions in 44 and 45 (the existence of formations like the SS "Nederland" division still serves as a lasting brand of shame for your Dutch neighbors).

Similarly, elements of the British-based Belgian free army made a disproportianately large beneficial contribution to the conventional Allied efforts to liberate Western Europe. Certainly, much of the precious fuel and supplies that kept Patton and Montgomery's columns flowing into Western Germany in 1945 came through an Antwerp harbor that Canadian and Belgian divers had helped to capture largely intact.

That said, I still think you are absolutely in the wrong about this Iraq business...

I am not going to indulge in generalization and cliche by throwing around wholesale condemnations of all Germans, French, and indeed Belgians as being craven weaklings and moral cowards for opposing US war efforts in Iraq, but I will say that it is absolutely inarguable that many distinguished personages in the the French Chirac regime reaped huge financial windfalls over the last decade in exchange for their support for Saddam's tottering crime state. And this fact probablyhad more to do with the genesis of French led opposition to our efforts of 03 than any imaginary claim that that some Euro goverments somehow knew in 03 that Saddam had succeeded in hiding or destroying his arsenal of germ and nerve death agents (a claim that no government made contemporaneously).

Millions upon millions of Euros were reaped by these political creatures through the cashing in of "Oil for Food" petroleum contracts, through Iraqi non-competitive contract awarding, and through the surrepticious graft schemes of false-front Middle Eastern charitable organizations, and this served as a very strong foundation for a great deal of the Paris-Berlin Axis' opposition to the American effort to add muscle to all of the broken UN Iraq resolutions of the 90's.

Again, in my opinion, money, graft, and greed had more to do with the origination of French opposition to America's desire to remove Saddam from power, and in that sense I find it disengenous to for anybody to make hindsight-assisted arguments that somehow the govenments of "Old Europe" possessed a knowledge that Saddam had been successful in cleaning up his old nerve gas stocks and based their opposition to US and British military intervention on Iraq upon this fabulous and wholly imaginary knowledge.

LRB
05-26-2004, 12:41 PM
I find your statement that we capitulated easilly when the Germans invaded offensive. I really do. Except for Great Britain, my country held itself for longer than any of its Western European compatriots in the Second World War, and may I note that it was Belgian resistance that might have saved the mobilising French army from early destruction, together with the quick entry of Britain in the hostilities? Or did you just say that because it so suited your pantsy Euopean view? Belgium is a more complex country than you might think, its 164 years of independance have been filled with difficult situations between two different communities that had to learn to live together, through lingual and cultural differences. Today we still have the same problem, although now there's only a small minority who wants to seperate Flanders. I do not regard myself as Flemmish, rather I regard myself as Belgian. With all the internal bias about the Wallons going on here, I really do not need some external bias about Belgium in the first and second world war.


True your countrymen did put up a relatively strong fight for conquered European nations in WWII. Certainly better than the French. And as Evil has mentioned above your resistance efforts did add meaningful aid to the Allied cause. However that resistance came way too late to prevent the wide scale tragedy which became know as World War II. All that could have been largely avoided had decisive action been taken before Hilter had built up his miltary machine which ended up running over and conquering most of Europe. My country indeed bears a fair share of that blame as does Great Britan. However both of us had natural barriers which helped protect us. Most of continential Europe did not, and paid an extremely high price for not taking decisive action when it would have been most effective. Even when Hitler made his 1st military aquisitions, he could have been stopped with a great deal less loss of life and certainly liberty for Europeans. Instead a reluctance to take decisive action and be assertive cost your country and most of Europe. Appeasement was tried, which is what many Europeans such as yourself advocate in dealing with the Saddam's and the terrorists of the world. It did not work then, nor will it work now. When I refer to your "pansy" resistance, I'm talking about the your failure to stop Hitler when you could for lack of assertiveness. And by "pansy", i am referring to the following definition:


a timid man or boy considered childish or unassertive

Now you have accused me of not allowing for other countries to make mistakes, but skimming over my country's own mistakes. While I was yet to be born when these events were decided, I do not give a free pass to my leaders for their decisions. A classical quote that applies here is that "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I have problems wht contries repeating the same mistakes over and over again and failing to learn from them. That's why I advocate strong assertive action to any like Saddam before they can gain the means to create and deliver WMD's. That we have not found any only confirms my conviction that we acted in an expedious manner instead of waiting until it was too late. Of course we could be struck by weapons that he had but that escaped the country any day. I pray that there are no such weapons though.

And while you many not like external criticism of your country's actions, you feel free to criticize mine. Your country, France, Germany, Russia, and whoever else agreed with you didn't have to support us with our war in Iraq. It would have been appreciated though. But what I complain about is opposing us and actively siding with Saddam. Of course as Evil pointed out that many of the European nations that supported Saddam were doing so solely or at least mainly to line the pockets of key government officials and the majority of the citizens either didn't care or let their hatred and envy of the US take over and supported those officials. That is not easily forgivable, nor do I belive it should be. Full support would have save many lives and possibly would have avoided a war. Even true neutrality would almost assuredly have yeilded better results and reduced the loss of life. Your support embolded Saddam to resist, would he have done so with out the support of many European nations? Can't say for certain, but assuredly he would have been less likely to resist without having that support. Live with that on your conscience why don't you. But I'm sure, like most everything else, you'll blame it on someone else. In this case the good old USA.

You are right that freeing the Iraqi people was not one of the reasons for invading Iraq that President Bush enumerated, although it was one of our goals of doing so. However, WMD's was hardly the only reason as well. We invaded because of a credible threat of WMD's, and there was such a credible threat. It was of Saddam's own making. That we haven't found a substantial horde of WMD's does not disprove that there was a credible threat. We also invaded to remove a refuge for terrorists. Yes Saddam and Bin Laden shared little in common except the hatred of the US. Sort of like Roosevelt and Stalin only sharing a hatred of Hitler. Saddam had no way other than terrorism of striking out at the US. That we have found evidence of his support is largely ignored by Europeans such as yourself. Further more Saddam was a threat to the whole region as long as the US did not commit a great deal of forces and intelligence assets to make sure that didn't happen. Now we commited an even larger amount, but only for a few years, and then we can lessen it considerably. We're in this war on terrorism for the long haul. We have the stomach to bring our enemy to his knees and utterally destroy him. This is what it will take to remove the threat from the Al Queda's of the world. This will not be accomplish quickly and will be an extremely long process. But with the right commitment we will do it.




What do you base your assumption on that terrorism is in decline because the United States Army is cleaning house in Iraq, let alone cleaning out militants that probably mostly entered the country after the war had started or had ended. I'm sure you have some enlightenment for me there, right?


What proof do you have that there wasn't terrorists in Iraq before the war? What proof is there that those we encounter only came after the war? None that I know of. What we have found is terrorists in Iraq. We had intelligence that told us that they were there and then we came in person and found them. What more proof do you want that is possible to give?


Now, as for the terrrorists. The chemical weapons is one thing. As I've already said, it would be so much easier for Al Qaeda to go to Kazakhstan, raid one of those badly protected and badly sealed storage areas of old Soviet-era equipment, and they could get weapons of all kinds (including chemical and biological) to their heart's content. Why go through the trouble dealing with Saddam Hussein, a Pan-Arab mania, with whom they only agreed on the fact that America had to go, or be destroyed, and preferably the whole Western World with it.


This is one of the most ill thought out and illogical arguments that I have ever encountered. 1st of all if it's so easy to get WMD's in former Soviet Republics, then why isn't every Tom, Dick, and Harry doing it? How do you know that they are easy to get? Have you been there in person? Or are you just going on some biased media report?

But let's just suppose that they are as easy to get as you say. Just like walking into the supermarket and picking up a jar of pickles so to speak. But I'm sure even if they are that easy to get, that they would at least be noticed. If nothing else the US has a hell of a lot of intelligent assets to watch them, a tremendous amount more than we ever had in Iraq. Once we know that they're missing, then we'll be on guard. That takes away the terrorists primary advantage, total surprise. Now with Saddam, they could have gotten the things and we'd have been unlikely to have known about it. Giving the terrorists a much better chance of surprising us.

But I cannot fathom the logic that you use to justify that it would be easier to get WMD's from some former Soviet Repbulic than from Saddam. Saddam has shown that he will use WMD's and would love to do so against the US. However he has no means of striking us directly with the WMD's. This is where the terrorists come in. Plus I'm sure that several European government officials would make a hefty some to help keep this quiet and supply needed materials on the sly. Al Queda pays the money, Saddam get the WMD's, French and other European officials get the money, and Al Queda gets to strike at the USA. It was a great plan for you guys, sorry we pissed on your money parade.

FullBurst41
05-26-2004, 04:35 PM
I promised not to respond, but I'm saying just out of historical correctness to EvilMav's post.

Your post indeed is correct, however there is one small thing that you overlooked, I'm afraid (yes, I'm not proud of it). You say that we did not supply recruits to the SS legions. This is true when you take in the "large amounts" bit, but Belgium did supply those troops, mostly through far right parties that spurred on youngsters to sign up and then just end up stone cold dead in the hells they were thrown into. These young men were absolutely adament that they would destroy bolsjevism, they only found death int he East. I think in total, there was one mostly Belgian brigade in the SS. However, we did not supply them in '44 and '45 quite simply because we were liberated in '44. Whether we would have continued to do so? Possibly, if nto likely. It's a dark chapter in our history, and we had similar things happen in the first world war. It all has to do with the differences between the two main Belgian communities, for the young men at least, instead of all the big ideologies.

I hope that clears up a few things.

dude1394
05-28-2004, 10:36 PM
Michael Moore also wrote last April on his Web site: "I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."

Stay in drace dip-stick, we don't need any more traitors over here. Let me see how long is my list these days...Need to repeat it every once in a while to keep my memory sharp....

German products, french products, woody allen, alec baldwin, tim robbins, susan sarandon, michael moore, janene garafolo, nytimes.


Ooopssss... Forgot sean penn.

FullBurst41
05-29-2004, 10:59 AM
Umm, sorry for asking, but what makes the Germans "traitors" in your eyes?

mavsman
05-29-2004, 05:37 PM
No HBO in Landstuhl, the biggest American military hospital outside the US. But seriously, I respect dude's pov, even if I can't share it, but I still find it amusing how his peers would boycott French and German restaurants and shops in the US to "hurt the French/German economy". That's some clever move, but you can't have everything. Desire for revenge and logic somtimes don't come hand in hand.

dude1394
05-30-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
Umm, sorry for asking, but what makes the Germans "traitors" in your eyes?

Hmmm... If you think I hinted at it, I apologise. I never said that germans were traitors. Michael Moore is a traitor. I don't think he's german.

I'm just not a purchaser of german goods and others obviously.