quote:

question @ tito: Would Milosevic still be in power had the US not attacked ?

I don't think so. Most of the people were against him, and there was real although opressed opposition. Besides, the US led attacks didn't do much harm to his army. They only chased him out of Kosovo, an area where he didn't have much popular support anyway, except for the 10% of the local serbian population. But maybe the fact that NATO attacked, together with support from most of the countries over the world was a sort of eye-opener for part of the people there, which made them see their country is really not very liked around the world. But most of them probably knew that anyway, so overall, I doubt it had much influence. It was like the sort of effect that the no-fly zones have on Saddam. They limited his expansionistic tendencies, but aside from that, couldn't have done anything to remove him from power.

___________________
1+1=10

well I have read the opinion polls too, the Australian ones that is. It is suprising because as an Australian, not one, not one person I know friend, acquintance or work colleague supports this war. Maybe that is just the people I speak to and perhaps people in different states or older people think the war and Dubya are just grand. I dont know. What I do know is when this war goes pear shaped (which it will) public support for america will evaporate.

Then onto the dude who suggested I go back to school and learn about checks and balances well I have two degrees one in law and the other in government so maybe I might know something about legal issues.

The thing that always amazes me about americans (well americans that arent black or minorities) is that they have this faith in the fact that their system works.

Well yes, if you are a CEO or a white person going to an Ivy League college then yes your system works just great.

In principle the US system of government is actually quite a good one, the Constitution is well thought out and in principle has good checks and balances. The founding fathers of the USA were very concerned lest government turn into a tyranny which might impact on their property rights.

In practice the system is fundamentally and systemically corrupt. Which isnt to say that other "democracies" in the west arent corrupt as well, there just not as bad as the USA.

Why, because of corporate power. The founding fathers of the USA never envisaged that there would be extremely wealthy and ultimately unaccountable corporations. In fact corporations didnt exist in the 18th century.

The corporations are that powerful and wealth is that concentrated that government in the USA does not exist to serve and protect the interests of the majority of its citizens but to serve the interests of the corporations, who in turn exist to benefit the ruling elite.

The so called checks and balances that the legislature, judiciary and executive balance each other out are illusory because corporate interests control all three.

I am sure that what I have said will be ignored or dismissed as the ramblings of a Communist (which I am not) but I could if it was really desired I could explicitly articulate how the system in America works in practice and give actual case examples of how political decision making is actually made.

the problem with Moore's speech is that he alienated many people that were simply against the war.

instead of preaching peace, he brought up old anti bush retorhic, and while the election results et al can be argued or justified, they truly have little to do with those that just seek peace.

on the other hand, adrian brody who won best actor for his role as a war survivor, spoke for those that actually seek to find peaceful solutions.

the problem here is that most people wouldnt take that serious, while another celeb like Moore is considered 'more legit' than just some actor.

i may agree with much that Moore stands for, but he is still an asshole- and if you truly want to get things accomplished in a civil manner, staging 'documentary' movie scenes and making an ass of yourself get you no where|


cheers for that link 'http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html' it was interesting, and made me feel less like an idiot, no matter what Cyrus wants to believe|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

Last edited by biznology on Mar-26-2003 at 16:57

quote:

Originally posted by occrider All these michael moore fans and nobody wants to refute the criticism of his film?

I read it.. its basically a cut appart of how he created the film duh.. its obvious it wasnt really a documentary.. it was simply a film that was suppose to give out a strong message that tehre is something wrong with the the combination of media displayed, propoganda, and guns in the US. MOORES overall points in the movie were very well proven.. there may have been some misinterpretation of facts by the viewers (due to the massive editing) but i found it quite funny.. the movie was a bit exaggerated but still to the point.. being that the US has a gun problem and people are brainwashed by the unescessary details that the media and news conveys which causes people to live in fear. hence the gun PROBLEMS. The big picture shows that the US media is brainwashing to the people.


Think about it.. why is it taht only the US britain and australia want to go to war?... look at the rest of the world EVERYONE is apposed to it.. and i dont know the validity of the US polls before the war.. im sure it must have been less than 50 % supporting the war (since there is no immediate danger from iraq towards the US and there is no basis to go to war even)

I understand that now since the troops are in iraq there is reason to support the war... heck its not fair for americans not to support their troops when they are forced to fight a war to solve a solution that could have been dealt with by the world community as a whole in a more civilized fashion.

Bringing it back to michael moore, his film was a very good representation onto how the media affects people and how giving only certain facts or showing people certain things make them go OMG those "EYE-RAQs are all terrorists".. it just goes to show how misguiding the media CAN be.. they can't even pronounce the name of the country in which they are going to war with

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit why is it taht only the US britain and australia want to go to war?... look at the rest of the world EVERYONE is apposed to it..

spain, portugal and poland were also supportive of a US led war agianst iraq, along with other countries as well such as colombia, afghanistan, ethiopia. so its not everyone who was opposed to it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Mar18.html

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I read it.. its basically a cut appart of how he created the film duh.. its obvious it wasnt really a documentary.. it was simply a film that was suppose to give out a strong message that tehre is something wrong with the the combination of media displayed, propoganda, and guns in the US. MOORES overall points in the movie were very well proven.. there may have been some misinterpretation of facts by the viewers (due to the massive editing) but i found it quite funny.. the movie was a bit exaggerated but still to the point.. being that the US has a gun problem and people are brainwashed by the unescessary details that the media and news conveys which causes people to live in fear. hence the gun PROBLEMS. The big picture shows that the US media is brainwashing to the people. Think about it.. why is it taht only the US britain and australia want to go to war?... look at the rest of the world EVERYONE is apposed to it.. and i dont know the validity of the US polls before the war.. im sure it must have been less than 50 % supporting the war (since there is no immediate danger from iraq towards the US and there is no basis to go to war even) I understand that now since the troops are in iraq there is reason to support the war... heck its not fair for americans not to support their troops when they are forced to fight a war to solve a solution that could have been dealt with by the world community as a whole in a more civilized fashion. Bringing it back to michael moore, his film was a very good representation onto how the media affects people and how giving only certain facts or showing people certain things make them go OMG those "EYE-RAQs are all terrorists".. it just goes to show how misguiding the media CAN be.. they can't even pronounce the name of the country in which they are going to war with

but while he is making his point, he is deceiving the viewers just as much as any other media source!

how is that fair to the viewer when the movie is being sold as a documentary? isnt it the same type of brainwashing, no matter whose pov?

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy spain, portugal and poland were also supportive of a US led war agianst iraq, along with other countries as well such as colombia, afghanistan, ethiopia. so its not everyone who was opposed to it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Mar18.html

can you tell me whether the other 200 or so countries in teh world are also supporting this war?.. heck even Iraq doesnt want to go to war lol

quote:

Originally posted by biznology but while he is making his point, he is deceiving the viewers just as much as any other media source! how is that fair to the viewer when the movie is being sold as a documentary? isnt it the same type of brainwashing, no matter whose pov?

The main theme in the film is not falsified he just exaggerates a bit to get his point of view accross its a powerful method to catch the viewers intrests.. you see people getting killed in school cause they bring weapons there.. then you flash back to charleton heston holding a rifle.. .. moore interviewed him.. and he was speechless.. I wouldnt blame him tho.. quite an awkward situation to be put in...

The movie is researched.. some criteria may have been misleading due to the exaggeration.. the editing was clever and the point was made..

the american media brainwashes people in a bad way.. this film does justice to the workings of media and propoganda in the united states. you cant tell me it isnt.. otherwise the US would listen to the UN and follow them.. instead of hastily going into war.. again.. the paranoia the media inflicts kicks in how ironic..

So what question should I ask Moore when the tard visits my university here on Monday?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I read it.. its basically a cut appart of how he created the film duh.. its obvious it wasnt really a documentary.. it was simply a film that was suppose to give out a strong message that tehre is something wrong with the the combination of media displayed, propoganda, and guns in the US. MOORES overall points in the movie were very well proven.. there may have been some misinterpretation of facts by the viewers (due to the massive editing) but i found it quite funny.. the movie was a bit exaggerated but still to the point.. being that the US has a gun problem and people are brainwashed by the unescessary details that the media and news conveys which causes people to live in fear. hence the gun PROBLEMS. The big picture shows that the US media is brainwashing to the people. Think about it.. why is it taht only the US britain and australia want to go to war?... look at the rest of the world EVERYONE is apposed to it.. and i dont know the validity of the US polls before the war.. im sure it must have been less than 50 % supporting the war (since there is no immediate danger from iraq towards the US and there is no basis to go to war even) I understand that now since the troops are in iraq there is reason to support the war... heck its not fair for americans not to support their troops when they are forced to fight a war to solve a solution that could have been dealt with by the world community as a whole in a more civilized fashion. Bringing it back to michael moore, his film was a very good representation onto how the media affects people and how giving only certain facts or showing people certain things make them go OMG those "EYE-RAQs are all terrorists".. it just goes to show how misguiding the media CAN be.. they can't even pronounce the name of the country in which they are going to war with

But that's what's so hypocritical of the film!! It's a commentary on US media attempting to brainwash us when the film ITSELF is brainwashing/decieving us!!! It's not misinterpretation by the viewers but the presentation by michael moore! Clearly he's trying to influence the audience with a certain message and is manipulating the facts to portray that message. Isn't he also giving certain facts to make people go "OMG this is a serious issue and here's proof for that"? So for him to try and tell everybody that the media is biased and is deceptive is like the pot calling the kettle black. Also it wasn't obvious to a lot of people here that it wasn't a true documentary ...

With regards to US support for the war, I've posted a crapload of statistical polls showing US support for using military force before the war started.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But that's what's so hypocritical of the film!! It's a commentary on US media attempting to brainwash us when the film ITSELF is brainwashing/decieving us!!! It's not misinterpretation by the viewers but the presentation by michael moore! Clearly he's trying to influence the audience with a certain message and is manipulating the facts to portray that message. Isn't he also giving certain facts to make people go "OMG this is a serious issue and here's proof for that"? So for him to try and tell everybody that the media is biased and is deceptive is like the pot calling the kettle black. Also it wasn't obvious to a lot of people here that it wasn't a true documentary ... With regards to US support for the war, I've posted a crapload of statistical polls showing US support for using military force before the war started.

yes it is a catch 22 situation but the thing is its being used to help the country instead of make it worse.. who wants to go to war? im sure no one does!.. who wants to get shot and killed by a peer in high school.. no one does! is it true that the media influences people and the way that it is portrayed by people in the US causes them to be frightened paranoid and keep guns in their house? YES

this kind of stuff doesnt happen here in canada

Michael moore gave us teh facts and statistics.. it was great to see his comparison of detroit to that canadian city that borders with it.. the amount of deaths per year in detroit much greater than that of the candian city (which had like 1 or 2 in the past 3 years or something i cant remember)

thats just 1 example.. so what if its not a true documentary.. thats not the point.. the media manipulates people thats the point.. havent you ever noticed how the news in canada is different than the news in the US? the fact taht you are trying to say that it has no credibility because its NOT a documentary is not satisfactory.. since it gives facts that are true iwthin the movie that proove the thesis he is portraying in the long run.. THATS credibility

also.. its a world issue to deal with iraq
how can you link iraq to terrorism.. the only common thing between the iraqi regime and terrorists are that they are both arab.. so is this racial targetting? i mean.. N korea is a greater threat than Iraq at the moment.. but the media has manipulated the people to see that yes SA DAMN is a threat to their population.. with no physical evidence yet of WMD.. why stop weapon inspections? simple because they want to show that this country and regime is an extreme threat that must be dealt with.. thats why ME mr president bush is going to take the initiative over the UN (who is doing the weapons inspections) and attack iraq to show that they are EVILLL.. and they HAVE WMD! OH NO!.. but wait we know that N korea already has them? so why attack iraq?.. i dont know it boggles me still as to the main reason.. i dont think the US cares about the iraqi people too much.. if they did they would deal with them in a humane way and not so hastily... we are talking about taking over a country here..

thats my 2 cents in a nutshell

Michael Moore is a perfect example of what Hollywood has turned out to be.

Hypocrisy: Stepping out on the stage at an event which advertises one of your country's biggest exports, entertainment, accepting and keeping your award then criticise your country and your government.

People say he had courage to do that. Marlon Brando had courage in his conviction when he refused his Oscar in the early 70s due to the way the US was acting at the time. Michael Moore is not courageous, he decided to keep his trophy of American idealism yet still lambast his country.

I believe his speech was nothing more than a attempt at more publicity for himself.

As for the other actors and actresses that stepped out to give their view. The Oscar's aren't a forum for posturing of political beliefs. One of the actors stepped up and said "Let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution", this in my mind was probably the most appropriate comment about the war on a night that should be devoted to cinematic excellence.

Great post inacoma!!! Couldn't have said it better myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit yes it is a catch 22 situation but the thing is its being used to help the country instead of make it worse.. who wants to go to war? im sure no one does!.. who wants to get shot and killed by a peer in high school.. no one does! is it true that the media influences people and the way that it is portrayed by people in the US causes them to be frightened paranoid and keep guns in their house? YES

Help the country or help Michael Moore? That's what I question. I don't doubt that the media sensationalizes events, but my point is that moore is guilty of the same thing.

quote:

this kind of stuff doesnt happen here in canada Michael moore gave us teh facts and statistics.. it was great to see his comparison of detroit to that canadian city that borders with it.. the amount of deaths per year in detroit much greater than that of the candian city (which had like 1 or 2 in the past 3 years or something i cant remember)

The article that I posted presented a valid point in that there is a vast discrepenancy in population density with the more urban areas having definitevely higher death rates. And as it does point out, In 2001 the nine American states with land borders contiguous to Canada had an average homicide rate of 2.5 per 100,000 persons, half the rate of the rest of the US and close to Canada's 1.8 rate.

quote:

thats just 1 example.. so what if its not a true documentary.. thats not the point.. the media manipulates people thats the point.. havent you ever noticed how the news in canada is different than the news in the US? the fact taht you are trying to say that it has no credibility because its NOT a documentary is not satisfactory.. since it gives facts that are true iwthin the movie that proove the thesis he is portraying in the long run.. THATS credibility

I'm not arguing the credibility of the thesis due to it not being a documentary. If you read way back, I was merely pointing out the irony in his stamtements about fiction at the oscars with respects to his methods in the film.

quote:

also.. its a world issue to deal with iraq how can you link iraq to terrorism.. the only common thing between the iraqi regime and terrorists are that they are both arab.. so is this racial targetting? i mean.. N korea is a greater threat than Iraq at the moment.. but the media has manipulated the people to see that yes SA DAMN is a threat to their population.. with no physical evidence yet of WMD.. why stop weapon inspections? simple because they want to show that this country and regime is an extreme threat that must be dealt with.. thats why ME mr president bush is going to take the initiative over the UN (who is doing the weapons inspections) and attack iraq to show that they are EVILLL.. and they HAVE WMD! OH NO!.. but wait we know that N korea already has them? so why attack iraq?.. i dont know it boggles me still as to the main reason.. i dont think the US cares about the iraqi people too much.. if they did they would deal with them in a humane way and not so hastily... we are talking about taking over a country here..

How did Iraq get brought up? I thought we were discussing Michael Moore. Are you asking me about my thoughts on weapons inspections, N. Korea, the use of force or is this a general question to other people? Hehe because I must have posted my thoughts on those issues a hunderd times already in other threads.