Michael Moore: Pathological Liar or Moronic Ideologue?

[A Dying Breed]

International law doesn't count. Everybody breaks international law. And that shit they're pulling with the soldiers is perfectly legal.

HUH HUH HUH, CLASSIC! YOU REALLY GOT ME THIS TIME, YOU SLY DOG YOU!!!

You were talking about the administration breaking the law in the context of domestic policy with your little draft discussion. I had incorrectly hoped that you'd pick up on what I was asking for without me having to spell it out for you.

 

[beniko]

I have seen the movie twice. and I don't know whitch side to believe. Both have great points, and its just starting to piss me off!

 

[FauxPerspicacity]

I disgust both extremes left or right. It aggrivates me how so many people speak so harshly when they don't have the right facts. Michael Moore is right to say that certainly there is corruption in our government but his movies are primarily about making money. In bowling for columbine he claimed that the media was invoking fear when Moore is a fear mongerer himself we have to fear our government we have to fear kids shooting up schools. School is probably one of the safest places for a kid to be. I haven't seen F911 but i will when i don't have to spend so much fucking money.

I couldn't say whether or not to vote for Bush because i don't know if all of what im hearing is true. Too many people are saying the same things about Bush just because it seems to be popular. Its ridiculous how a lot of liberals are wasting their votes on Nader. Too many are acting on what they think is the truth. What Im pretty sure about Bush though is that the main reason he is pro Israel is because he's a Christian and the bible says that the Jews are in power in Israel at the apocalypse so the Jews have to be in Israel so they can be eliminated. I won't go into the whole 'chuch and state' issue because its off topic but I could say the main problem in this country is not in their leaders its in the mass 'blissfully ignorant'

 

[NEW_METAL_ORDER]

Farehnheit-911 reminds people that Michael Moore and other ultra-liberals are the "we hate America -- and want to destroy it from within" crowd. The film opened so shortly after Ronald Reagan's funeral that it only served to remind people why Ronald Reagan was so strongly supported, and placed some focus on what he said about liberals ("there they go again ... blaming America first for the world's problems ...").

Democratic Party leaders, by prominently attending and praising Farenheit-911, have walked into a 'bear trap'. They positioned themselves as a party whose patriotism is now suspect. The expected torunout of about 1 million protestors in NYC for the Republican Convention will serve to heighten that distinction; painting the opposittion to Bush as anti-US and posibly a bit treasonous.

Any heavy metal band (or Ted Nugent, if he's reading this) can score a quick $1-million by covering the old Charlie Daniels song, Uneasy Rider (Sample from the Lyrics:
"...he's a friend of those long haired hippy type pinko fags, I'll bet you he's even got a commie flag...")

---------------------
Since Michael Moore quotes George Orwell to make his points, I think it's appropriate to quote Orwell back:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

- George Orwell
Notes on Nationalism in May 1945.

 

[AlphaTemplar]

Everyone seems to be assuming I have a problem with capitalism. My problem is more with people...people who live in their own ignorant little bubble. The US has a voting turnout of about 50%...thats pretty pathetic.

 

[AlphaTemplar]

International law doesn't count. Everybody breaks international law. And that shit they're pulling with the soldiers is perfectly legal.

HUH HUH HUH, CLASSIC! YOU REALLY GOT ME THIS TIME, YOU SLY DOG YOU!!!

You were talking about the administration breaking the law in the context of domestic policy with your little draft discussion. I had incorrectly hoped that you'd pick up on what I was asking for without me having to spell it out for you.

So now, in addition to everything else, International Law is bullshit? We should break off from the rest of the world, follow Bush's faux-cowboy example, and continue not caring about anyone else?

Just out of curiousity, it seemed to be a problem when Saddam broke international law by refusing to allow inspectors full access to the country. Now it isn't a problem when Bush breaks international law. So we're above the rest of the world?

 

[thespectralsorrows]

How dare you question our President and his motives, you must be some kind of communist liberal who hates America...haha, ever notice how that's always the first words out of most hardline republican mouths lately? Seriously, yes the US does consider itself above international law, afterall we are the protectors of the free world. Well, I guess we'll have to see how strong the UN is next time a real world crisis happens now that the US has shown you can go against the UN. You may recall how the original League of Nations failed as WWII approached.

So now, in addition to everything else, International Law is bullshit? We should break off from the rest of the world, follow Bush's faux-cowboy example, and continue not caring about anyone else?

Just out of curiousity, it seemed to be a problem when Saddam broke international law by refusing to allow inspectors full access to the country. Now it isn't a problem when Bush breaks international law. So we're above the rest of the world?

 

[abrasiverock]

Don't forget that if you question Bush you are being unpatriotic. I love how Bush has been able to change the definition of “Support Our Troops” to “Support my war”. I have a friend over there that misses his family greatly. I support the troops by wishing they were home with their family's.




Http://www.abrasiverock.com/iraq He has a blog as well as exclusive photos if anyone cares.

 

[Mutilated1]

...they've broken many international laws/treaties from going against the UN to the way they've held and treated prisoners, not to mention all the unethical actions they've done and are attempting to do to their own solidiers(forced service, pay cuts, etc.).

going against the UN isn't breaking any law, the United States, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto anything the UN general assembly decides in the first place. In short, the US is not oblidged to do shit because the UN says so. If we want to invade anyone, there isn't jack-squat the UN can do about it anyway. Maybe you don't think thats right, but its not breaking any law.

 

[Mutilated1]

So now, in addition to everything else, International Law is bullshit? We should break off from the rest of the world, follow Bush's faux-cowboy example, and continue not caring about anyone else?

Just out of curiousity, it seemed to be a problem when Saddam broke international law by refusing to allow inspectors full access to the country. Now it isn't a problem when Bush breaks international law. So we're above the rest of the world?

Saddam was in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, 1441, 1554, and 1284.

Please give one example of Bush breaking international law. And please do better than "Invading Iraq" because that was legal or "going against the UN" because thats not a law.

 

[bchornet]

The behavior of the U.N. is not an argument against the legitimacy of the American war against terrorism, it's an argument against the legitimacy of the United Nations as the arbiter of which wars are permissible. I can promise you right now that if China ever invades Taiwan, the Security Council, in which China holds a veto, will not sanction American military intervention to save our ally from being swallowed up by imperialist China as ruthlessly as they swallowed Tibet. Would that make it "wrong" for us to take military action against naked aggression by the Chinese dictatorship against a people who have made it clear they do not wish to be a part of the Chinese Communist empire? No. This myth that we need U.N. approval or a war is "illegal" is only a temporary club designed to beat the Bush administration with.

 

[lord667]

For Britain, America and the rest of the Coalition to invade Iraq without UN approval was a violation of the UN Charter. Chapter 1, Article 2:

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Britain and America did something that they had specifically bound themselves not to do by signing up for an international body with authority over nations. Therefore, they broke the law. It's that simple. Saddam was doing it too, but that's no excuse. He was no threat to the UK or to Britain. He had no links to al-Qaeda. He had no functional WMDs and there's no evidence he was trying to get his hands on any. He's never shown military aggression to anyone except his immediate neighbours, and even that was more than a decade ago. This was a UN matter. It was none of Britain or America's business until the Security Council made it so. Of course the UN were bending over backwards to avoid military action against Iraq, that's what the UN is supposed to do. Try every peaceful means to solve a dispute before resorting to war.

 

[lord667]

The behavior of the U.N. is not an argument against the legitimacy of the American war against terrorism, it's an argument against the legitimacy of the United Nations as the arbiter of which wars are permissible. I can promise you right now that if China ever invades Taiwan, the Security Council, in which China holds a veto, will not sanction American military intervention to save our ally from being swallowed up by imperialist China as ruthlessly as they swallowed Tibet. Would that make it "wrong" for us to take military action against naked aggression by the Chinese dictatorship against a people who have made it clear they do not wish to be a part of the Chinese Communist empire? No. This myth that we need U.N. approval or a war is "illegal" is only a temporary club designed to beat the Bush administration with.

I refer you to Article 27, section 3 of the UN Charter:

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

If China invaded Taiwan, their vote (and veto) wouldn't count in any Security Council proceedings over it.

 

[lord667]

Saddam was in clear violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, 1441, 1554, and 1284.

Please give one example of Bush breaking international law. And please do better than "Invading Iraq" because that was legal or "going against the UN" because thats not a law.

Resolution 1554 doesn't exist. The one I think you're talking about, 1454, doesn't bind Iraq to do anything - it's a resolution to review the Goods Review List to help the humanitarian situation in Iraq. See here:

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/759/41/IMG/N0275941.pdf?OpenElement

As for the others, there's no question Saddam was in violation, but that doesn't make it legal for Britain or the USA to attack Iraq without a UN mandate.

 

[Arch]

Footnotes to Farenheit 9/11 if it hasn't been posted before: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/