Kilgore,

Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq murdered many of its citizens, many with weapons of mass destruction (gas).
At the end of WWII, allied forces stayed in Europe for a time to stabilize the country, and for "mopping-up" operations. The USA still has troops in Europe as part of NATO.
Much of the Iraq population is happy with what the USA did, although it is greatly downplayed by our popular media. Occupiers? The US has officially turned control of Iraq to Iraq. US troops will leave as soon as possible. I don't know when that will be. However, since the government hasn't asked us to leave, it's not "occupied".
If you're looking for more "right wing rag(s)", you should try out "The NewAmerican" magazine [tna.org]. 8) It's generally conservative, but sides more with democrats on the issue of international trade, they are against the war in Iraq, and generally anit-establishment.

"Ironically, Michael Moore railing against war makes him a neo-conservative. He's basically advocating isolationism, something that Bush and Co. wanted before 9/11 happened. Post-911, Bush and Co. got involved in the world in a way that they didn't want initially."

Well, even that is open to question and controversy. According to two of Bush's top former advisors who quit their posts and wrote books about the Bush administration, Bush wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Depends on who you listen to and who you believe, I guess.

John

I would agree that Canada doesn't have a history of being an aggressor. Also, as much as I dislike Bush, I think that attacking Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein is the one good thing that he's done. Hussein is an awful man, and to have let him run Iraq after he invaded Kuwait was a huge mistake on Bush's dad's part.

I recall that Josh made a statement about leaders sometimes "not telling the truth" in order to get something done, and to some extent, I agree. Sometimes, our leaders can't disclose everything to the public for fear of letting our enemies discover our secrets, troop movements, etc. Also, as most people only care about getting food in their stomachs and don't give a rat's ass about what is happening in other parts of the world, it's better to do the right thing and risk your constituents' resentment rather than sitting there and letting a tragedy happen (as what Clinton did when he let Rwanda happen...Clinton has said that his biggest regret is not doing anything to prevent the massacres and genocides in Africa).

Ironically, Michael Moore railing against war makes him a neo-conservative. He's basically advocating isolationism, something that Bush and Co. wanted before 9/11 happened. Post-911, Bush and Co. got involved in the world in a way that they didn't want initially.

[Post edited by posters5 on Oct 10, 2004]

QUOTE:
Kilgore,
>>>We have never invaded anybody.<<<

>>>...but we did join WWII in September of 1939, long before the US did, with more than a million soldiers,.....The Canadians were responsible for taking Juno Beach<<<

Those two statements definately sound inconsistent to me.
END QUOTE:

it is this kind of spindoctoring that people like Dave Kopel are famous for. He did it with Bowling for Columbine", and he's doing it again with "Fahrenheit 911". If there is a more right-wing rag than William F. Buckley's spawn National Review, I'd like to know about it.

Inconsistant?

Canada was part of the Allied forces in WWII. We joined the war to help defeat the Nazi's, and we joined long before the US did. THe Nazi's were trying to conquer Europe. There was no need to search for evidence...they HAD invaded Poland...they HAD invade France...

When Canada, Britain and the US landed on the beaches of Normandy, it was to drive the Germans out of France...to LIBERATE France...not to OCCUPY France. Our troops were welcomed and when France WAS liberated, the French people came out in droves and paraded.

So...when I say that Canada has never invaded anybody, I obviously am not talking obout under the conditions of war...I am talking about an unprovoked attack on any country. To try to spin my comments in any other direction is, quite frankly, terribly offensive.

A FEW MORE EXAMPLES:
Moore shows scenes of Baghdad before the invasion (read: liberation) and in his weltanschauung, it’s a place filled with nothing but happy, smiling, giggly, overjoyed Baghdadis. No pain and suffering there. No rape, murder, gassing, imprisoning, silencing of the citizens in these scenes. When he exploits and lingers on the tears of a mother who lost her soldier-son in Iraq, and she wails, “Why did you have to take him?” Moore does not cut to images of the murderers/terrorists (pardon me, “insurgents”) in Iraq…or even to God; he cuts to George Bush. When the soldier’s father says the young man died and “for what?”, Moore doesn’t show liberated Iraqis to reply, he cuts instead to an image of Halliburton.

The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.

Michael Moore told Time magazine that at the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit, Tom Daschle "gave me a hug and said he felt bad and that we were all gonna fight from now on. I thanked him for being a good sport." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Rapid City Journal that he has never even met Moore. :(

Hey, I just realized something!
John Kerry's name is an anagram for "horny jerk"!
They could use that against him in political commercials or something! :p
Check out these other great political anagrams:
Politics
United states of America: aim it at us, confederates
Hillary Clinton - "Richly, ill, no tan"
Ronald Regan - "No darn regal"
George Dubya - You're Bad Egg
President Bush - Burnished Pest
President W - Newest Drip
Dick Cheney - Needy Chick
PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN = DISPENSED HUMAN DISASTER
John Kerry = Horny Jerk
President Clinton of the USA: to copulate he finds interns
Tom Brady = Tomb Yard
Saddam Hussein: Demands of sushi
Saddam Hussein: Sad, Minus Heads
Saddam: Maddass
Ronald Wilson Reagan: Insane Anglo Warlord
United States of America: Aim at Confederate Suits
George Bush: He bugs Gore
George Bush: Shoe Bugger
George W. bush: where bugs go
Ross Perot: Pro tosser
Vice President Al Gore: Prerogatives Decline
Michael Dukakis: I am a kicked lush
Mister Newt Gingrich: Nice right wing monster
Tony Blair PM: I'm tory plan B
Liberal Democrats: Creditable morals
The Republican Party: Breach planet purity
Hillary Clinton: Only I can thrill
Saddam Hussain: Humans sad side
Osama Bin Laden: I be so damn anal
Osama Bin Laden: Mean as bad lion
Osama Bin Laden: A mean sand boil
Osama Bin Laden: An Islam bad one
Osama Bin Laden: A nomad be slain
Osama Bin Laden: Anal media snob.
Osama Bin Laden: Am a bold insane.
Osama Bin Laden: An SOB led mania.
Osama Bin Laden: A damn alien SOB.
Osama Bin Laden: A man, an SOB lied.
Kill Osama: Slim Koala
:)


But seriously now...
BTW, I really like Michael Moore's "Canadian Bacon" because he doesn't say that it's a documentary because it's a satirical fictional movie. Political satire films are great (like Wag the Dog or Primary Colors). His new stuff is mostly fictional and he lauds it as a documentary. "Bacon" was made in 1995, so he's been whining about the government FOREVER. It doesn't matter if Bush is Pres. or not, he will complain no matter who is Pres., saying that we are some big hypocritical nation. Fact is, USA is better off than most of the rest of the world. It could be worse, we could be Communists or under a dictatorship. If Moore hates America and loves Canada so much, why doesn't he move there? Nobody's making him live here. Moore should set his sights and his intelligence on something other than politics for once. I'd love to see a documentary, A REAL documentary on just about anything else. He has the smarts, but he doesn't want to move on. Every country, every group of people has contradictions and hypocrisies within their structure. There is no perfect system hat will please everybody. Our elected leaders do the best they can, and they sometimes (often, actually) make mistakes. These mistakes need to be addressed and analyzed, but Moore approaches the subject and handles it the wrong way. He is so cynical all the time, as if being a rich celebrity in a mansion is the hard-knock life. The fact that he's able to make a movie about the most powerful man in the world that makes fun of him or exposes his blunders in the office proves that Americans have an ultimate freedom that most other countries will never have. Do you think a man from North Korea can make a film about their President/dictator's brutality? All together, despite our problems, America is a GREAT country. We are the ones (the majority) who elected the President. Like I said, there's no perfect system that will please everyone.

BTW, I started this thread (89 replies)
the Spider-man 2 thread (57 replies)
upcoming rumored sequels thread (20 replies) and
the Star Wars Trilogy DVD thread (40 replies).
Plus, my Fight Club review gained 36 replies and my Passion of the Christ review earned 17 replies on the comments section.
I can't believe I complain about Moore when I stir up as much controversy as he does on this site!
I TOTALLY deserve some recognition for that! ;)
;);)

[Post edited by TGP on Jul 16, 2004]

Hey, if this thread gets over 100 replies do I get an award or something?
The DVDTown controversy encouragement award :p ;) :D 8) :)
That would be sweet!
I didn't realize that this was such a hot topic that people were passionate about!
:o

MRA,

I work graves Thursday - Sunday 6pm - 6am, so the message board is one of the few things that keeps me awake. I'm technically on my weekend, so I should be asleep right now, but it's hard to flip flop my sleep schedule from sleeping days to nights on my weekends, and then back to days for my work week. It takes it's tole on me.

So that's the short of it for me.

- Josh

Kilgore,
I did not ignore your Canada rebuttal.
Everything I wrote was in reply to it.
Perhaps I need to write more clearly next time.

ALL,
What's everyone doing up so late?

John,

VERY well made point. Not to undermine the point of this thread, but ANY information passed on here (or anywhere else for that matter) is based upon "faith" that the information (and it's source(s)) are both reputable, and accurate. Seeing as how many "humans" are involved in every facet or tidbit of information out there, the "human error factor" could be rather high on any given piece of information. Which unless you individually have first hand (or witnessed) information on a given subject, everything else is "hear say". Though this line of thinking could also be on par with conspiracist. I suppose, my point is that you have to take the information you get (no matter the source(s)) with the preverbial "grain of salt". Even reputable and well known news sources have been BASS ACKWARDS on important subjects.

TGP,

I'm not positive about this, but you may just go down in DVD Town history for having the topic with the most replies! I think it may take another Michael Moore discussion to top it. Actually... no, it would take a little more than that... maybe a "Michael Moore" topic with a dash of Jerry Springer flavor to it? Maybe a Michael Moore fight for a man to be married to a beast, and still raise a child?... That should do it. LOL... keep 'em coming TGP!

MRA,

Nice retorts. And you have to love that sense of humor. Keep it up!

Kilgore,

Well, you and I didn't get off on the best foot, but you're voicing your opinion, and that's a good thing. So even though I disagree with your perspective, I do respect it.

Welcome, and happy posting!

- Josh 8)

[Post edited by Nachtkriechen on Jul 16, 2004]