Log in

View Full Version : Michael Moore writes eloquent article.



shadowed by the secret police
28th November 2006, 15:08
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1127-23.htm

Published on Monday, November 27, 2006 by Michael Moore.com
Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do ...
by Michael Moore

Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.
That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Ghandis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.

Yours,
Michael Moore

Pirate Utopian
28th November 2006, 15:18
enough with micheal moore!!!, he is not the proud face of the leftists, he's just some liberal weasel

Anton
28th November 2006, 15:20
Fuck Michael Moore!

norwegian commie
28th November 2006, 15:53
Fuck Michael Moore!

well. Where to begin.
IN our struggle for justice and peace, we needloud voices througout the world. And we need someone exposing the capitalists and opppressors for what theyr eally are. We need support for anti-war campaigns.

YOu can say: MIchael ain't no commie and therefor fuck him! but that is not logical thinking and you are not considering the good of the people.

We are not embracing MIchael and using him as a picture... However he is a strong critical anti-imperialistic voice, supporting leftism. We need that.
And i ask you, could Michael have had this role if he had declared himself as a communist?
NO, because of the strong anti socialistic environment in the US, he would not reach out to a sole. SO naturally our strong anti-imperialistic voice cant be a communist since USa people wouldnt respect him. Therefor it MUST be some "liberal weasel" That is the way it has to be. And it benefits us. As the left has always been and are still the leading and strongest members of the peace movement.

Try to look beyond your own shit... You need to consider the situation as a whole.

Dont say fuck him, as that is to easy to say and it seems to me as poor politics, as you cant consider a situation other than. Commie! not commie then fuck him.
The deal is that communism isnt exactly the strongest movement around.. We need help. If you cant see that than fuck you. (excuse my language)

The artice was good, and perhaps a wake up call for many yanks and other people.
Viva Michael!
the great anti-imperialist
The great anti-bushist

Well.. maybe a bit much.. But anyways, thx fo the support M. Moore we appreciate it.

Sugar Hill Kevis
28th November 2006, 17:26
Michael 'champion of the poor and opressed' Moore is nothing but an egotistical liberal weiner.

His films are all self-congratulatory, use evidence out of context and at points are downright pathetic - even if he does manage to bring up some viable points (mostly in his earlier films)

For those who have seen Roger and Me, you'll remember the rabbit lady - unable to read, Moore gave her a lump some of around $400 and got her to sign a contract so that she could not collect any more money for staring in that film. Since this Moore has made hundreds of thousands from that film, yet the rabbit lady has not received another penny.

Any charitable acts which he commits in his films seem to be purely for making him seem philanthropic on screen to create euphora amongst liberals and contribute to his ego

Rosa Lichtenstein
28th November 2006, 17:43
Shadowed, thanks for posting that.

I appreciated it if these others did not.

[And they wonder why no one listens to the hard left....!!!]

luxemburg89
28th November 2006, 18:14
I'd agree with Rosa 'Lichtenstein' and 'Norwegian commie' on that one. Michael Moore doesn't get much press over here, so all i know about him is through the internet, his films, and articles. All of which are mixed.

I would agree the left needs a little help.

Marxist-Anarchist
28th November 2006, 18:51
Once Moore comes out with his next film "Sicko" he's going to win a lot of fans in the extreme hardcore left, even some Bolshevists and anarchists.

AlwaysAnarchy
28th November 2006, 18:56
Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 28, 2006 03:53 pm

Fuck Michael Moore!

well. Where to begin.
IN our struggle for justice and peace, we needloud voices througout the world. And we need someone exposing the capitalists and opppressors for what theyr eally are. We need support for anti-war campaigns.

YOu can say: MIchael ain't no commie and therefor fuck him! but that is not logical thinking and you are not considering the good of the people.

We are not embracing MIchael and using him as a picture... However he is a strong critical anti-imperialistic voice, supporting leftism. We need that.
And i ask you, could Michael have had this role if he had declared himself as a communist?
NO, because of the strong anti socialistic environment in the US, he would not reach out to a sole. SO naturally our strong anti-imperialistic voice cant be a communist since USa people wouldnt respect him. Therefor it MUST be some "liberal weasel" That is the way it has to be. And it benefits us. As the left has always been and are still the leading and strongest members of the peace movement.

Try to look beyond your own shit... You need to consider the situation as a whole.

Dont say fuck him, as that is to easy to say and it seems to me as poor politics, as you cant consider a situation other than. Commie! not commie then fuck him.
The deal is that communism isnt exactly the strongest movement around.. We need help. If you cant see that than fuck you. (excuse my language)

The artice was good, and perhaps a wake up call for many yanks and other people.
Viva Michael!
the great anti-imperialist
The great anti-bushist

Well.. maybe a bit much.. But anyways, thx fo the support M. Moore we appreciate it.
HEAR HEAR!!!

TWO BIG THUMBS UP FOR YOUR POST!

And muchos kudos for posting that article!!!

yesss!!! :lol: :D :wub:

BurnTheOliveTree
28th November 2006, 19:35
The point is, critiques of this article will almost invariably say Fuck Michael Moore, because he is Michael Moore. If Moore writes something decent, we should fucking support his decent sentiment. If he writes something shite, we should condemn his shite.

It isn't hard, is it? Really? lol. Anything but this instant "Moore's a liberal bastard, so I'll ignore him even if he makes a good point". It's juvenile, to be honest.

-Alex

BreadBros
28th November 2006, 19:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 05:26 pm
For those who have seen Roger and Me, you'll remember the rabbit lady - unable to read, Moore gave her a lump some of around $400 and got her to sign a contract so that she could not collect any more money for staring in that film. Since this Moore has made hundreds of thousands from that film, yet the rabbit lady has not received another penny.

Any charitable acts which he commits in his films seem to be purely for making him seem philanthropic on screen to create euphora amongst liberals and contribute to his ego
Well Roger and Me was a pretty low-budget film with limited release and when he made it Moore was a pretty low-key filmmaker with just a lil bit of TV work under his belt, I doubt he had the foresight to see that he would later make millions.

AlwaysAnarchy
28th November 2006, 19:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 07:35 pm
The point is, critiques of this article will almost invariably say Fuck Michael Moore, because he is Michael Moore. If Moore writes something decent, we should fucking support his decent sentiment. If he writes something shite, we should condemn his shite.

It isn't hard, is it? Really? lol. Anything but this instant "Moore's a liberal bastard, so I'll ignore him even if he makes a good point". It's juvenile, to be honest.

-Alex
BurntheOliveTree - Sometimes I think you make too much damn good sense for the people on this board. :rolleyes:

Pirate Utopian
28th November 2006, 22:36
this just another one of those get the "US out of iraq" articles written everyday, nothing new or intresting and this is one of the lesser ones too

Anton
29th November 2006, 00:01
Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 28, 2006 03:53 pm

Fuck Michael Moore!

well. Where to begin.
IN our struggle for justice and peace, we needloud voices througout the world. And we need someone exposing the capitalists and opppressors for what theyr eally are. We need support for anti-war campaigns.

YOu can say: MIchael ain't no commie and therefor fuck him! but that is not logical thinking and you are not considering the good of the people.

We are not embracing MIchael and using him as a picture... However he is a strong critical anti-imperialistic voice, supporting leftism. We need that.
And i ask you, could Michael have had this role if he had declared himself as a communist?
NO, because of the strong anti socialistic environment in the US, he would not reach out to a sole. SO naturally our strong anti-imperialistic voice cant be a communist since USa people wouldnt respect him. Therefor it MUST be some "liberal weasel" That is the way it has to be. And it benefits us. As the left has always been and are still the leading and strongest members of the peace movement.

Try to look beyond your own shit... You need to consider the situation as a whole.

Dont say fuck him, as that is to easy to say and it seems to me as poor politics, as you cant consider a situation other than. Commie! not commie then fuck him.
The deal is that communism isnt exactly the strongest movement around.. We need help. If you cant see that than fuck you. (excuse my language)

The artice was good, and perhaps a wake up call for many yanks and other people.
Viva Michael!
the great anti-imperialist
The great anti-bushist

Well.. maybe a bit much.. But anyways, thx fo the support M. Moore we appreciate it.
yea i see your point,
I was in a fucked up mod when I posted that.
Although I still can't say "viva" in his direction, I might have overdone it a bit there.
I wouldn't say he's a great anti-imperialist, and I was disappointed to say the least at Fahrenheit 9-11, but you're right, he does spread a message that is better then the message spread by other mainstream sources in the US, so by reahcing a large amoutn of people with his message he is actually being useful.

Anton
29th November 2006, 00:02
Originally posted by Marxist-[email protected] 28, 2006 06:51 pm
Once Moore comes out with his next film "Sicko" he's going to win a lot of fans in the extreme hardcore left, even some Bolshevists and anarchists.
really? what is that movie supposed to be about?

RedCommieBear
29th November 2006, 00:42
Originally posted by Anton+November 29, 2006 12:02 am--> (Anton @ November 29, 2006 12:02 am)
Marxist-[email protected] 28, 2006 06:51 pm
Once Moore comes out with his next film "Sicko" he's going to win a lot of fans in the extreme hardcore left, even some Bolshevists and anarchists.
really? what is that movie supposed to be about? [/b]
It's apparently a movie about the pharmaceutical industry and the millions without health care in the United States. It will be released "early 2007".

Anton
29th November 2006, 00:50
interesting

Demogorgon
29th November 2006, 03:57
People here hold every leftist (apart from themselves) up to such a high standard that no human being could possibly fulfill them. Michael Moore isn't perfect, he's a long way from it, he is made of flesh and blood. But no other leftist in America is as good at driving a left wing view point into the mainstream media as he is.

Would you really rather no left wing viewpoint was heard? Because let's face it, that's the alternative. Nobody is going to listen to somebody who declares anybody who doesn't follow the party line on every issue to be wicked.

kurt
29th November 2006, 09:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 11:35 am
The point is, critiques of this article will almost invariably say Fuck Michael Moore, because he is Michael Moore. If Moore writes something decent, we should fucking support his decent sentiment. If he writes something shite, we should condemn his shite.
Fine then.

This article, while expressing an anti-war feeling is nothing a sincere revolutionary leftist should support. The tone of this article, for the most part seems to express the sentiment that the U.S. should be getting out of Iraq because the war was a failure for the US, and not because it was an imperialist endevour from the start.


The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

I suppose this might have been taken as a joke by some readers, but in all sincerity I can't see how that could be the case.

He seems to be praising the USSR for knowing when to get out of a 'sticky situation' per se. Furthermore, he goes on to mention how the US overthrew the bad guys and how everyone lived happily ever after. Well, anyone with half a brain can tell that this is far from the case in Afghanistan, as there is still quite a bit of fighting going on; the pace hasn't really slowed down for a few years.


It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Right. If only the war was started by "men of valour", then it wouldn't have been such a disaster. Those cowards! They know nothing of murder!


If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become.

Yeah, so every single person in the US is responsible for how their tax dollars were used. Awesome way to shift the blame away from the bourgeois, Mike.

phoenixoftime
29th November 2006, 10:28
In reply to kurt

Right. If only the war was started by "men of valour", then it wouldn't have been such a disaster. Those cowards! They know nothing of murder!

You seem to have conveniently forgotten this statement:

...lost because it never had a right to be won...

It is also silly to say that better military strategy would have still resulted in a disaster - sure the whole war might be bullshit, and other strategies might be socially dispicable and/or logistically difficult, but a military victory is still *possible*, even if improbable.

I think the article was good. Michael Moore does a good job at getting these anti-imperialist messages through in a country whose media is so terribly slanted.

R_P_A_S
29th November 2006, 11:16
say what you say about the guy. but he is 110% right on that issue. no one can denie that.

kurt
29th November 2006, 11:18
It is also silly to say that better military strategy would have still resulted in a disaster - sure the whole war might be bullshit, and other strategies might be socially dispicable and/or logistically difficult, but a military victory is still *possible*, even if improbable.

There really isn't a military strategy that could win this war that wouldn't involve killing most, if not all Iraqi's. Even Moore makes it clear for you: they don't want the US to 'win'!


lost because it never had a right to be won

I didn't convienently 'miss' this statement as you propose. I just doubt the intent behind those words, seeing as the bulk of that 'argument' (If it can be called as such. It seems like more of an emotional appeal than anything.) was decrying the bush adminstration (I would assume) as mere cowards who wouldn't know the first thing of war because 'they haven't been there'.


I think the article was good. Michael Moore does a good job at getting these anti-imperialist messages through in a country whose media is so terribly slanted.

If you keep diluting the message even Bush himself might agree with you...

shadowed by the secret police
29th November 2006, 14:36
Originally posted by kurt+November 29, 2006 09:49 am--> (kurt @ November 29, 2006 09:49 am)
[email protected] 28, 2006 11:35 am
The point is, critiques of this article will almost invariably say Fuck Michael Moore, because he is Michael Moore. If Moore writes something decent, we should fucking support his decent sentiment. If he writes something shite, we should condemn his shite.
Fine then.

This article, while expressing an anti-war feeling is nothing a sincere revolutionary leftist should support. The tone of this article, for the most part seems to express the sentiment that the U.S. should be getting out of Iraq because the war was a failure for the US, and not because it was an imperialist endevour from the start.


The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

I suppose this might have been taken as a joke by some readers, but in all sincerity I can't see how that could be the case.

He seems to be praising the USSR for knowing when to get out of a 'sticky situation' per se. Furthermore, he goes on to mention how the US overthrew the bad guys and how everyone lived happily ever after. Well, anyone with half a brain can tell that this is far from the case in Afghanistan, as there is still quite a bit of fighting going on; the pace hasn't really slowed down for a few years.


It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Right. If only the war was started by "men of valour", then it wouldn't have been such a disaster. Those cowards! They know nothing of murder!


If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become.

Yeah, so every single person in the US is responsible for how their tax dollars were used. Awesome way to shift the blame away from the bourgeois, Mike. [/b]
I think he was being sarcastic when he mentioned everyone lived happily ever after. Maybe you should take a class on understanding literature.

norwegian commie
29th November 2006, 14:44
I see it in the way as: Michael is supporting our struggle against imperialism and the capitalist superpower. He gets loads of media attention, he involves people and enlightens US citizens.

He is making an effort, and it is important not to divide the forces on the issues we agree on. No need for unnecessary dividing. United front against imperialist, and if he tries to explain soviet invasion in Afghanistan well.. good!

The peace movement, greatly affects and represents the world opinion right? so when we show display an united front, we force the capitalists to avoid actions greatly discriminating people, like war (anti-terror)
Michael is a memeber of our movement, in another branch, but nonetheless a member.
that is something we must not cast aside...

Ander
29th November 2006, 14:49
It looks like pretty much everything has been said here to the morons who immediately scream "FUCK MICHAEL MOORE!"

Trust me, we KNOW he is a liberal. But he's a loud liberal who gets heard by many people and is liked by many as well. Would you prefer he be on the side of the Righties? I think not.

Pirate Utopian
29th November 2006, 14:51
micheal moore never pointed any finger to capitalism, he is just a loberal and he might make some liberals

kurt
30th November 2006, 00:27
I think he was being sarcastic when he mentioned everyone lived happily ever after. Maybe you should take a class on understanding literature.

It's tough to detect sarcasm (if any exists here) if you throw it in the middle of a serious essay, especially given the nature of what he said about Afghanistan in the previous sentence.

Guerrilla22
30th November 2006, 01:07
I might have been impressed by this if it was the line Moore was towing all along, however it isn't. I recall Moore calling for more troops and calling for the war to be fought "the right way" as little as two years ago when he was supporting former NATO Supreme Allied Forces Europe, Commander Wesley Clark, who couldn't be more of a hawk, for President. real leftist objected to the war from the very start.

Prairie Fire
30th November 2006, 02:03
Michael Moore....

I'd give him a "C-" at best for his article.

As with all Liberals, Michael Moore puts forward the viewpoint that "the war in Iraq is wrong, but the war in Afghanistan was okay." .

And, as with all Liberals, 90% of his problem with the war in Iraq is that the basis for the war was lie. So... If Iraq did have weapons, it would be OKAY to occupy their nation?

Also, he seems to idolize people like Washington, Jefferson, and even Ghandi as defenders of freedom and liberty.

It's cute that his concern for the the Iraqi people is his third point out of a total of three points.

He re-iterates a few good points; Where were the suicide bombers when Saddam was at the helm?

Now, I'm not going to dismiss Moore purely on the basis of him being a cappie.
I think the leader of the Comunist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) summed it up best. She says that of course Michael Moore is an idiot liberal, but on the other hand he makes ideas available to the masses who would normally shun politics in all forms. The issue is not wether or not Moore is genuine; who gives a shit if Moore is a fake? He makes basic left-wing notions mainstream, where others would be spit on.

If this article contributes to the fervour to remove troops from Iraq, however nationalist and liberal it is, then it can't hurt.

BurnTheOliveTree
30th November 2006, 18:02
As with all Liberals, Michael Moore puts forward the viewpoint that "the war in Iraq is wrong, but the war in Afghanistan was okay." .

Fuck off does Moore say the Afghanistan war was okay, he spends a significant amount of time in his books making the point that the vast majority of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis, very few from Afghanistan, yet the U.S still invades. He thinks it was an oil war. Not okay.

-Alex

P.S PA - Thank you, I'm flattered. :blush:

Guerrilla22
30th November 2006, 19:05
Ok, now enough with posting articles by Michael Moore, if you want to post something post something written by an actual leftist, such as Ward Churchill, Chomsky or Zinn.

BurnTheOliveTree
30th November 2006, 19:28
The point is not who wrote the article, it's the substance of the article.

If Moore writes something worth reading, let's lend him our critical support. Obviously we don't have to become liberals by admitting he said something of value.

Go on, be brave. Admit that he has a point with this, even if every other word that comes out of his mouth is crap in your opinion. You can do it. :P

-Alex

Guerrilla22
30th November 2006, 19:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:28 pm
The point is not who wrote the article, it's the substance of the article.

If Moore writes something worth reading, let's lend him our critical support. Obviously we don't have to become liberals by admitting he said something of value.

Go on, be brave. Admit that he has a point with this, even if every other word that comes out of his mouth is crap in your opinion. You can do it. :P

-Alex
Like I said before, this wasn't his viewpoint two years ago when he was calling for more troops to be sent to Iraq and supporting Wesley Clark. Yeah its great he's calling for a withdrawl, it would have been great if he were to have called for a withdrawl all along.

Pirate Utopian
30th November 2006, 19:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 08:28 pm
The point is not who wrote the article, it's the substance of the article.

If Moore writes something worth reading, let's lend him our critical support. Obviously we don't have to become liberals by admitting he said something of value.

Go on, be brave. Admit that he has a point with this, even if every other word that comes out of his mouth is crap in your opinion. You can do it. :P

-Alex
:unsure: no never, liberals might bite my wiener off

Cheung Mo
30th November 2006, 19:39
Originally posted by Red Tendency+November 29, 2006 12:42 am--> (Red Tendency @ November 29, 2006 12:42 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 12:02 am

Marxist-[email protected] 28, 2006 06:51 pm
Once Moore comes out with his next film "Sicko" he's going to win a lot of fans in the extreme hardcore left, even some Bolshevists and anarchists.
really? what is that movie supposed to be about?
It's apparently a movie about the pharmaceutical industry and the millions without health care in the United States. It will be released "early 2007". [/b]
Anything going after the pharmaceutical industry is music to my ears: It'll help get medecine to those who need it but are being fucked over by greedy fat cats as well as legal marijuana to me. :lol:

Prairie Fire
30th November 2006, 20:50
Moores position on the war in Afghanistan, like his position on everything else, fluctuates.

Watch Farenheit 911, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Most of his point is that
"The soldiers that are in Iraq could have been better used in Afghanistan", and he doesn't seem have a problem with the foreign removal of the Taliban. Moore justifies the war in Afghanistan, or at least overlooks it, repeatedly.

I am farmiliar with his analysis that most of the 911 hijackers were Saudis (Dude, where's my country?) What does that have to do with his take on Afghanistan?
He still justifies the occupation of afghanistan.

BurnTheOliveTree
1st December 2006, 08:07
Moores position on the war in Afghanistan, like his position on everything else, fluctuates.

Man, everybody's position on everything tends to fluctuate. lol. Cut him some slack... But yes, a fair point.


The point is, the Bush administration originally justified the invasion of Afghanistan by saying that Osama Bin Laden was there, hiding behind the taliban. Thus from this, they encouraged the view that the Afghanistan war was a simple retaliation to being attacked by the Afghanis themselves, hoping to generate popular support for their war. And it seemed to work, by and large. Hence Moore spends time pointing out that the bombers were from Saudi Arabia, and by virtue of this fact, says the war was illegitimate.

Now, you can argue that he would have supported an invasion of Saudi Arabia perhaps, but we can only theorise. In good old fashioned reality, he doesn't support the war in Afghanistan. If he fluctuated, he was probably desperate to gain more support, and felt he needed to take a less hardline (by american standards) view. Naughty, but understandable. In any case, we're talking about the man. I don't support the man, I support the article.

-Alex

Demogorgon
2nd December 2006, 16:29
Moore directs his views at the mainstream. He has to tone them and alter them to make them palatable. Would it really be so great if he was just another fringe voice preaching to the converted?