-
Maybe here is a double standard. If someone was in the audience, and if someone mentioned something about something, stood up and booed so loud that you couldn't hear what they were saying, they would be removed from the theatre pretty quickly.
So while I'd like to think that people have the right to yell and boo during Moore's speech as much as Moore has the right to get up and say what he did, when this happens it is negative (regardless of the opinion) and no one is heard.
The instructions from the academy was that they have 45 seconds and they can say what they wish. When those people who screamed during Moore's speach win an academy award, if they choose to say they think we should nuke all of Iraq, so be it, it doesn't mean I should stand up and scream during their speach, whether or not I have the right to do so.
Scott
Moore being compared to Rush, I had to laugh. But it is a good comparison.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
Matt Pacini
P.S. Roger, I got your sarcasm... but then, perhaps I'm able to more clearly understand what you're saying, because I'm not coming from the default position that you're some Ameri-fascist or whatever.
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Britain in on this too?
So the big question is, who is the bigger jackass:
The person who starts a stupid fight, or the one who joins with the person who starts the fight?
I recall some old saying about the pot calling the kettle black or something like that....</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahem...
You got Roger's sarcasm, perhaps because you are like, kinda American.
Yes, Britain are at war too. So what? How does this affect anything I've said? It's not exactly a secret that both our nations are at war, is it? Did I ever try to deflect that issue? I don't see myself as Britain, but you are clearly far more patriotic and quick to "defend" your national from legitimate criticisms than I am mine.
Regarding your last paragraph, I can only laugh, because it is very silly indeed.
Lucas
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
I quoted the entire isolated paragraph in both instances, so I make no apologies for treating it as a paragraph - it was one.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which, of course, means nothing. It's what comes before and after your selective quote that gives it context and meaning. Also, irony is apparently lost on you, Lucas. After posting this:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
What a stupid comment, Roger. I would have expected better of you. You come over as the stereotypical "ignorant, arrogant, right wing American." Sorry to get personal, but I find myself offended by this kind of flipancy and nonsense. What a ridiculous justification for war.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
You then later follow up with this claim:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
you (Roger) absolutely have to have the last word</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, really, what are my choices here? You take my comment completely out of context and sucker punch me with an insult and then I'm supposed to do what, exactly? Not respond? Which means, of course, that YOU expected to have the last word. [img]wink.gif[/img]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
I am actually coming around to your opinion that none of us know anything though Roger, after an interesting conversation i had today..... Perhaps it's better for us to get on with life in harmony than assume ideological poses which amount to nothing. </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. What we don't know surely outweighs what we do know. And what we do know is still filtered through other people's agendas which only muddies things even more. I really don't know what to think about the war in Iraq. The article you linked is interesting but still is based on half assumptions and uses conditional phrases like "it appears", "unlikely", "not implausible" etc which is funny for an essay entitled: The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq. It's like someone claiming,"Hey, I know why the guy committed the crime," and then supporting it by saying,"It appears to me that......". Again, either someone has 100% verifiable information or they don't. If they do, then they don't need to soften their comments with conditional phrasing.
Here, the writer is forced to work with multi-generational information and not really on what he personally knows to be a provable fact. Just another opinion, as far as I'm concerned. Interesting but nothing is any clearer or more assured to me now than before.
Roger
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 25, 2003 08:02 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]</font>
-
WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO PEACENIK
Author Unknown
PN: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: Well, it's not just about the UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long-range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons. They haven't done so yet during the campaign have they?
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.
PN: The USA sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: I thought you said that was ancient history. Anyway, a pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack us, proving a partnership between the two. The lesson from the tape is that there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq. He showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars?
WM: Nevertheless, they now appear to be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George B-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are notpatriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: You just did. But, so, what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is hiding them.
PN: You know this for a fact? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's something else. That's diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy in their case?
WM: We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Unless there is an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case....?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense, look...
WM: No you look, if you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that!
PN: I give up.
-
Hi Lucas -
I am not going to get involved in this discussion at the moment. However, I noticed that you mentioned that you don't consider yourself British. Just out of curiosity, may I ask where are you from? I don't have an ulterior motive, I just wondered!
Later,
- Jeff D.
-
Are we having fun yet? [img]smile.gif[/img]
Seriously, this thread is a more than a wee bit off topic. But.... most everyone seems to be operating on a civil plane and enjoying themselves, so I won't be the party pooper. The tumbleweeds are clearing out of here, after all.
But please, everyone, play nice. [img]smile.gif[/img]
-
Thanks, Mike. Long time no, si? [img]wink.gif[/img]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by bossjock-dp:
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
While all very humorous to us safely here in the west, it does illustrate my point about incomplete information from which everyone must form their opinion and how personal bias plays an important part in the decision making process. Hans Blix is a perfect example of the problem in action. If you compare what he says in public, which is obviously anti-war, to what his report actually says regarding the lack of cooperation and obvious violations by Saddam and company, you'd think the report was written by a totally different person than who appears on television for sound bites.
Blix details in his reports about how he and others were roughed up and physically removed from certain areas and how the Iraqi government was performing all sorts of deceptions but, when asked by reporters how things were going, he would claim that everything was just terrific and that great strides were being made and that the Iraqis were showing signs of compliance. What nonsense. Some of his most damning evidence regarding weapons violations and deceptions by the Iraqi government was buried in his report and he counted on people not actually reading his reports and knew that the internet, papers and television would instead carry his quotes and sound bites, which were very positive and misleading, in my opinion.
As much as I admire his desire for peace, doing what he did only added to the confusion of the entire debate regarding weapons inspections and the enforcement of UN resolutions for Iraq to disarm. So, here we have an example of information "direct from the horse's mouth", so to speak, that is contradictory and creates two separate realities, depending on who reads it and which version they get. No wonder things are so screwed up. Again, the more we know, the less we can be sure of anything, it would seem.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by bossjock-dp:
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, if true, this is no joke. Having talked with guys that were deeply involved in Desert Storm (or Iraq War I), I can say that their biggest fear at that time was the media giving away vital information about ground movements and attack plans. It is no secret that Saddam watches CNN all the time. IF he has weapons of mass destruction, etc, then the most stupid thing that the coalition could do is parade the evidence and photos around to the media vultures, showing locations, number of weapons and the such. Doing so would not only give away the element of surprise for eliminating them but would needlessly endanger countless military lives. The Allied forces faced a similar problem with the Japanese in WWII after learning their plans regarding fleet movements. There were Allied forces in the path of the advancing Japanese but, if the forces were warned or moved, that would tip off the Japanese that their plans were known. A tough call I wouldn't want to make if in command then or now.
Roger
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 26, 2003 10:07 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]</font>
-
So, have you read Hans Blix' report then Roger?
Lucas
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by digvid:
Hi Lucas -
I am not going to get involved in this discussion at the moment. However, I noticed that you mentioned that you don't consider yourself British. Just out of curiosity, may I ask where are you from? I don't have an ulterior motive, I just wondered!
Later,
- Jeff D.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Jeff,
I'm from England [img]biggrin.gif[/img] A subtle distinction perhaps, but I don't usualy deny also being British. I am British, I guess, in the same way that I am also European, whereas England is the nation with which I can identify better. This is signifficant when Britain plays against Britain in the European Cup qualifiers between England and Scotland, when British becomes an utterly meaningless concept. It's all semantics though really - I'm not too proud (or ashamed) of being British or whatever, and I like the Scots, Welsh and Irish a lot, but we are all different really (and alike too).
Lucas
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by lightfeat:
So, have you read Hans Blix' report then Roger?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not every single thing he has written, no. But I kept track of his reports via the media and the internet during his inspections and the tone of what he said in public compared to the tone of what he wrote in his reports was markedly different, to be sure. And, to be clear, Hans and company never came across "the mother lode" that they were seeking so the jury's still out on whether Saddam has the sort of weaponry suspected.
However, my point is that the information the public uses to form an opinion is never really solid and can take many shapes and shades of reality. Further complicating the problem is that each person generally already has a bias one way or the other. If someone that was against the invasion were to read only the sound bites, then Blix's public comments would only cement their predisposition against war. For people in favor of war, his reports would do just the opposite.
Personally, I'm against any war, including this one, but not for the reasons a lot of people are against it. My reasons are purely selfish: I ask myself if I'd be better off if they did invade Iraq or if they didn't. I think my family would be safer, based on the limited information that I have, if they did not invade Iraq. Perhaps in the future, some new information will surface that my current feeling is incorrect and that the invasion was needed. Too much mud in the water right now.
Roger
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 26, 2003 10:28 PM: Message edited by: MovieStuff ]</font>
