The Unknown Soldier

[Johann]

Here's a quote from Stanley Kubrick which I think is very relevant to what we're discussing.

Sartre once wrote that if there was one thing you could tell a man about to be executed that would make him happy, it was that a comet would strike the earth the next day and destroy every human being. This is not so much a collective death wish or self-destructive urge as a reflection of the awesome and agonizing lonliness of death. This is extremely pernicious, of course, because it aborts the kind of fury and indignation that should galvanize the world into defusing a situation where a few political leaders on both sides are seriously prepared to incinerate millions of people out of some sense of national interest."

I agree with Kubrick 1000%.
This war in Iraq is tragically senseless.
It's not an act of superior morality to submit to Saddam's evil ways Steve, you're right.

[stevetseitz]

>>See Fahrenheit 9/11. If you see that film I firmly believe you'll change your outlook (or at least seriously reconsider it).<<

Like I said, I'll see it in such a way that Moore get's 0 revenue from my having watched it. What I have done instead of seeing the film, is examined the claims made in the film (by visting his website, and various other pro-Moore sites) and looked at the proof he uses for his claims.

>>On these threads you both have supported Bush.<<

So have you. You correctly said that the government let us down prior to 9/11. al-Qaeda was responsible for numerous attacks prior to 9/11. Bush responded to 9/11 with overwhelming force and took the fight not only to al-Qaeda but two of their state-sponsors. You'll note there have been no attacks since.

On Moore's website he has a three part section on "how a movie can affect the voting public".

>>Lots of staunch Republicans repeatedly state that they feel absolutely ashamed that they voted for Bush.
They know that Bush is an evil, manipulative psychopath who threw his leadership into the toilet. <<


Bwaaa-ha ha ha ha! Careful! You are starting to sound as if you believe your own propaganda. If anything Bush will have MORE support since his decision to defend America. It's wishful thinking by the anti-Bush crowd that this movie will have any impact.

>>He betrayed HIS OWN SUPPORTERS.
I dare you to see that film and still tell me you support Bush.

See the film and then tell me exactly what Moore lies about.
He's telling America straight up what's happening, and no one can deny it because of THE FOOTAGE. It's live, actual footage he's using- not conjecture, not hyperbole, not rhetoric- it's supremely powerful filmmaking, nee EDITING.

You call it propaganda, I call it PROPER PATRIOTISM.<<

Here are just a few examples of Moore's deceit:


1. Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.

Actually, the rally took place in the early hours of election day, before polls had even opened. Gore did campaign in Florida on election day, but went home to Tennessee to await the results. The "Florida Victory" sign reflected Gore’s hopes, not any actual election results.

2. The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.


3. How did Bush win Florida? "Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the "vote count woman." Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes.

A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."

Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What Fahrenheit does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved a type of recount which Gore had never requested in his lawsuits, and which would have been in violation of Florida law. Toobin's theory likewise depends on re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one candidate (Pat Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida law to guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the vote.

A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:

"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."


Shall I go on dissecting Moore's lies?


You might want to a few of the following sites:

Mooreexposed.com
Moorewatch.com
Michael Moore Hates America
fahrenheit fact
Centigrade 911
Bowling for Truth
Fahrenheit 411
Michael-Moore.com
Spinsanity on Moore

[stevetseitz]

>>I agree with Kubrick 1000%.
This war in Iraq is tragically senseless.<<

Senseless: Lacking sense or meaning; meaningless

It certainly makes sense to take out a state-sponsor of terrorism. It certainly makes sense to expose 50 million people to freedom. It certainly makes sense to stop a brutal dictator who had filled mass graves, used WMD on his own people and kidnapped, beat, tortured, raped and murdered innocent people.


>>It's not an act of superior morality to submit to Saddam's evil ways Steve, you're right.<<

Watch "The Deperate Hours", Bogart plays the terrorist, Bush is played by Frederick March, and you are portrayed by Richard Eyer. We live in a world , outside of your blissful realm of theory, where tough choices have to be made.

[Johann]

As PMW pointed out- neither side will budge. It's become increasingly clear that you'll justify ANYTHING.

I'm shocked that you said America needed a kick in the ass to get going.
Pearl Harbor was a forgotten remnant of the 20th Century, eh?

Thanks for describing 3000 deaths as "a kick in the ass".

You are one decent American.

Re: Moore's point about Bush winning Florida.
Anduril pointed out the same weak argument you did- it stiil holds no water.

I'm gonna post what Moore said on his website about it tommorrow because you don't listen.
Unless you wanna post it for me....

[stevetseitz]

>>As PMW pointed out- neither side will budge. It's become increasingly clear that you'll justify ANYTHING.<<

Just as YOU will justify inaction in the face of brutal totalitarianism and state-sponsorship of terror. Sorry, there is no sitting on the fence here There is no "peaceful", "loving" neutral alternative. Both our choices have consequences. Your choice simply leads to far more human suffering and death than mine. The numbers don't lie.

170,000,000 dead because of brutal regimes like Saddam

40,000,000 dead because of war.


>>I'm shocked that you said America needed a kick in the ass to get going.
Pearl Harbor was a forgotten remnant of the 20th Century, eh?<<

Pearl Harbor was a "kick in the ass" that prompted the U.S. to get officially into the war. 9/11 was the "kick in the ass" that prompted the U.S. to declare war on terrorism.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Amazingly, you want to argue, simultaneously, that President Bush was remiss for not acting sooner and that his actions following 9/11 are wrong. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.


>>Thanks for describing 3000 deaths as "a kick in the ass".

You are one decent American.<<

Thanks for supporting the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein which kidnapped, beat, tortured, raped, and murdered TENS of thousands.

You are one decent human being.

[pmw]

Another good battle. men - seriously... let it roll. there is an unbridgeable difference of opinion. The only thing left is some muscle flexing, and that's not so effective via the internet.

[Johann]

Quit putting words in my mouth Steve- I have never said I support Saddam or terrorism.

Once and for all (because you haven't heard me):
I'm on the U.S.'s side in the sense that Saddam had to go. What I'm not for is the stupid way Bush went about it.

The Short-Timers, tweaked:

"War is good business-invest your son.
Iraq never means having to say your sorry.
I write that Iraq is an Eastern Eldorado populated by a cute, primitive but determined people.
War is a noisy breakfast cereal.
War is fun to eat.
War can give you better check-ups.
War cures cancer-permanently.
I don't kill.
I write.
Grunts kill; I only watch.
I'm only young, Dr. Goebbels.
I'm not a sergeant."


The government (Bush or whoever) must present us with a balance of terror- one that we can all understand and support.

He's presented us with "either you are with us or you're with the terrorists".

That ain't good enough. We deserve better.

I'm not justifying inaction- I'm justifying exploring all the options before dropping bombs. Throw me some more numbers Steve- I love numbers.

I can't have it both ways? Like hell I can't. Your reasoning smacks of communism.

For the last time, I don't support Saddam. Never did. You accuse me of supporting something I don't simply because you can't argue with me properly.

[Johann]

Here's some writing I found on Michael Moore's website that is the most concrete, clear explanation of Fahrenheit 9/11:

To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. It's pace is usually fast. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.

This single maverick movie is often reflectively slow, and is not afraid to use silence. It appeals to people to think for themselves, and make connections. It identifies with, and pleads for, those who are normally unlistened to. Making a strong case is not the same as saturating with propaganda- Fox TV does the latter, Michael Moore the former.


It's a movie that tells jokes while the band plays the apocalypse. A movie in which millions of Americans see themselves and the precise ways in which they are being cheated.



WHAT DO WE SEE? Bush is visibly a political cretin, as ignorant of the world as he is indifferent to it; while the tribune (Moore) acquires political credibility as the VOICE OF ANGER for a multitude and it's will to resist.

There is something else which is astounding. The aim of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to stop Bush from fixing the next election as he fixed the last. It's focus is on the totally unjustified war in Iraq. Yet it's conclusion is larger than any of these issues. It declares that a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty and needs-in order to survive- a continual war, with some invented foreign enemy to maintain it's own internal order and security. It requires ceaseless war.

It's a film that deeply wants America to survive.

[stevetseitz]

>> Quit putting words in my mouth Steve- I have never said I support Saddam or terrorism.<<

But....you don't support the effort to oust Saddam and have insinuated that the war against his regime served no purpose (like when you say soldiers are dying for nothing)

Once again. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

There is no fence you can straddle here.

If you oppose terror you cannot, with a well informed conscience, allow a state-sponsor like Saddam to remain in power.

>>Once and for all (because you haven't heard me):
I'm on the U.S.'s side in the sense that Saddam had to go. What I'm not for is the stupid way Bush went about it.<<

Oh, O.K. I see... You want Saddam out, but you want this result to come about by the whole world joining hands and singing Kumbaya? Give me a break.



>>The government (Bush or whoever) must present us with a balance of terror- one that we can all understand and support.<<

A "balance of terror"???? What exactly is that? Please. Just admit that you oppose anything the Bush administration does because you are a brain-washed follower of Micheal Moore.

>>He's presented us with "either you are with us or you're with the terrorists".<<

What is so hard to understand about that? It is an ultimatum. Just like when Reagan told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall. It's leadership. It's taking a stand. The free people of the world have sat around long enough with their thumbs up their collective ass doing nothing because it was politically incorrect to respond to terror. President Bush laid out his plan. He gathered the available intelligence and went after two major state sponsors of terrorism. Let me ask you this Johann. If there are no regimes left in the world that support terror, where will the terrorists operate. What is a terrorist without refuge, weapons, training, intelligence, and logistical support? He is simply an ineffectual criminal.


>>I'm not justifying inaction- I'm justifying exploring all the options before dropping bombs.<<

After kicking Saddam's forces out of Kuwait, we pretty much explored the options for a decade. No diplomatic or financial pressure worked. No sanctioning worked. We put up with Saddam's regime sneaking around and buddying up to al-Qaeda, supporting terror, and generally instigating anti-American sentiment in the region. Sorry, chief...."Explore other options" is a liberal code word for inaction.



>>For Steve and anduril and all the other non-believers<<

Interesting terminology. It is with almost a religious fervor and certainly a leap of faith that the cult of Micheal Moore operates.


>>To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us.<<

The last century taught us that far more people suffer and die under brutal regimes like Saddam Hussein than in war. Moore plays upon human weakness, by using the basest propaganda techniques with clever editing and exploiting the deaths of thousands to make himself wealthy and laugh at the stinky, neo-hippy types that think so highly of him.

In this film, from the detailed descriptions of Moore's tactics it's clear that he is using all the basic "fallacies of distraction" to lead the viewer.

[Johann]

ha ha!

It ain't no cult brother, it's awesome reasoning.
And you can keep telling yourself whatever you want:

THIS WAR IS, WAS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE UNJUSTIFIED.

[Johann]

By the way, Steve, you're boring me.

Please give me some entertaining refutes for once.
I'm quoting Kubrick, Hasford, pop songs, Moore's sources and various other miscellania.

Try to jazz it up man- I'm yawning whenever you post.

[stevetseitz]

>>*cracking open another beer*
ha ha!<<

Yeah, that's the answer kill some more brain cells :)


>>It ain't no cult brother, it's awesome reasoning.<<

Moore's techniques are deceptive, his research is suspect, his motives are highly questionable and his conclusions are huge fallacies. The brainwashed who buy into his deceit are typically disillusioned and frustrated. They are unwilling to subject Moore and his statements to the same level of scrutiny they themselves use to judge President Bush.



>>THIS WAR IS, WAS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE UNJUSTIFIED.<<

So once again you pledge your allegiance to Saddam and his cruel regime of torture. Tell me, what do you like best kidnapping, beating, torturing, raping or murdering innocent Iraqis? Operation Iraqi Freedom liberated 50 million.


You have yet to respond intelligently to the abundance of evidence that proves:

A. Prior to the war, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror.

B. Prior to the war, Iraq had dozens of WMD programs.

C. Human rights conditions in Iraq were horrible.

Until you can respond to these in an intelligent fashion your claims that the war was unjustified are hollow and meaningless.
I, and anyone masochistic enough to read this thread, can understand that you can parrot the claims of Moore. Congratulations. Now you need to come to your own conclusions. Unlike Moore, you aren't preaching to the choir. Do some research and provide proof. Or...just crack open another beer and and ponder the inhumanity of the world.

[stevetseitz]

Like a person carefully covering his tracks, Moore is extremely careful in the claims he makes in his movie. Instead of outright lies, Moore constructs his propaganda from out-of-context clips and unrelated clips. These clips are presented and taken individually to be true, then strung together IMPLYING deceit and lies, leaving the viewer to connect the dots on some grand conspiratorial agenda.

It's classic case of the "complex question" fallacy. Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. If you believe one, you are force fed the other.

Moore's crusade began with the 2000 Election. He, like many liberals, is still a Sore Loserman and still can't swallow the bitter pill of their 2000 loss.

Using the same old, tired routine Moore says that all the networks were in on it, led by Fox News. The fact is, if there was any conspiracy it was against Bush! The networks called Florida for Gore prematurely and incorrectly. This devastated Bush's vote not only in Florida's conservative panhandle, but also out west where many voters turned around or failed to vote because they had been informed that their vote no longer mattered. The same thing happened to Jimmy Carter when he conceded the election in 1980. A loss turned into a rout.

[Johann]

You just can't admit you're wrong, can you?

How sad...

Anything to add about The Doors? That's what this thread is about.

Practice where the news is read
Televison, children fed
Unborn living living dead
Bullet strikes the helmet's head

And it's all over for the unknown soldier

[stevetseitz]

>>Talk about grabbing at straws<<

Yeah, exactly. Talking about Moore's techniques IS talking about grasping at straws.


>>You just can't admit you're wrong, can you?<<

Provide a single fact. I have provided specific names, places, dates and events. You have provided opinion. I have provided reasons for the war and a detailed the history of the region. You have provided theory and slogans. I have provided statistics and figures proving how much more destructive a regime like Hussein's is compared to the bogeyman of the left: war. You have provided...song lyrics..

You're right, how sad.