News Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?

[Dagenais]

The same argument is going on at another forum I go to. The only difference is that it's almost all Moore fans.

I was wondering what you think of the posts in that thread and does it change your opinion on Moore (especially page 2):

http://www.couchmaster.ca/forum/messages.cfm?topic_id=12&thread_id=1060&page=1

That behavior is completely underhanded, so why do people support it?

Why do people support his films?

Well, his films are pretty hyped up. If you hype something up enough, people are bound to show up at the Cinema.

You see his commercials everywhere, how people claim his film is controversial, and how he'll fly to Toronto, then break the law, just to get people to come to his film. It works, people get curious.

There are a lot of people that dislike, but he does have his supporters, especially those against Bush.

 

[Dagenais]

Wow, I'm reading the new posts in the thread I linked to, and it's amazing how some people won't admit that Michael Moore is a liar.

Even when their is proof right in front of their face.

 

[Prometheus]

it's amazing how some people won't admit that Michael Moore is a liar.

Even when their is proof right in front of their face.

Why are you so surprised? This is the way that people are.

Isn't it also amazing how some people won't admit that Bush is a liar, even when the proof is right in front of their face?

 

[russ_watters]

I won't claim either is a liar: Both are very good about covering their butts while they speak (Moore does it himself - Bush has people do it for him). That said, both have been intentionally deceptive. It shouldn't be surprising from Bush - he's a politician and they all do it - but that doesn't make it acceptable.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think Moore's intentional attempts to distort events is far more egregious than Bush's supposed denials. It is one thing to cover your own butt (which I think all of us do from time to time); quite another to craft lies to attack others. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Nereid]

I think Moore's intentional attempts to distort events is far more egregious than Bush's supposed denials. It is one thing to cover your own butt (which I think all of us do from time to time); quite another to craft lies to attack others. But that's just my opinion.

Hmm, let's see, one is the Commander in Chief of the only superpower here on Earth, and President of the world's largest economy. He has a large staff, and is head of the cabinet (Secretaries of Defence, etc). He is personally very wealthy, and has strong personal connections with a great many other, very wealthy people, many of whom are CEOs of large multi-national groups. The other is a film-maker.

Given the disparity in terms of real power (could Moore order the bombing of Afghan villages? can Moore get on prime-time television just about any time he wants to? etc), I feel Bush's lies and deceits are far, far more egregious than Moore's. Read the report of the 9-11 commission - the Bush team learned from Reagan's 'plausible deniability' weaknesses. Even that well-known left-wing pinko rag "The Economist" calls Bush and Blair 'the sincere deceivers'.

 

[kat]

Edit: Some of you might say that Cambodia wasn't even during Bush's presidency, you're right. However, the same situation as Cambodia is developing in Sudan. There's been estimates that 200-300 people die in Sudan a day, and it's boarding being declared a genocide. Does Sudan have oil? No, therefore, we won't liberate it.

No oil in Sudan?! Hello?

 

[Nereid]

I won't claim either is a liar: Both are very good about covering their butts while they speak (Moore does hit himself - Bush has people do it for him). That said, both have been intentionally deceptive. It shouldn't be surprising from Bush - he's a politician and they all do it - but that doesn't make it acceptable.

Are you implying that there's one standard for politicians and another for the rest of us? That their profession teaches politicians the art of spinning, deception, lying (and when exposed, how to 'contextualise' the lie) so they are more skillful at it? But that it's not the intention which counts (a pollie's spin is just as much an intent to deceive as a lie from a non-pollie) - or the outcome (how well the intention is realized), rather the direct truth value of the statements themselves?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm pretty sure Russ doesn't mean to imply this (I'm not so sure about several other posters to this thread though).

 

[Tigers2B1]

Add another Mooreism onto the high heap of Mooreish lies and misrepresentations. Let's call it Mount Moore. Here Michael decides that the real newspaper headline used by The Pantagraph just would not do for the story he decided he wanted represented. Can’t find the facts? Don't like the facts? Never stopped Mike! Just another "editing" job in the Moore work day. So add this one onto his growing heap of lies and misrepresentations.

BLOOMINGTON -- The Pantagraph has a message for Michael Moore, creator of the movie hit, "Fahrenheit 9/11":

If he wants to "edit" The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job and not simply show made-over and "falsely represented" pages from the newspaper in his movie -- or he should at least ask for permission first.

In a letter drafted Thursday and sent to Moore and the movie's Santa Monica, Calif.-based distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment, the newspaper admonished him for his "unauthorized ... misleading" use of The Pantagraph in the film. He also was cited for copyright infringement..

And the link --

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

"Stunned into silence" by Big Mike's editing skills yet??

 

[Nereid]

Pot calling the kettle black?

Add another Mooreism onto the high heap of Mooreish lies and misrepresentations. Let's call it Mount Moore. Here Michael decides that the real newspaper headline used by The Pantagraph just would not do for the story he decided he wanted represented. Can’t find the facts? Don't like the facts? Never stopped Mike! Just another "editing" job in the Moore work day. So add this one onto his growing heap of lies and misrepresentations.



And the link --

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

"Stunned into silence" by Big Mike's editing skills yet??

Have you read the 9-11 commission's report yet? Having read it, how culpable do you feel your leaders are for the deaths of, first, thousands of folk in the twin towers, and second, thousands of totally innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians? Perhaps you would like to tell us that Bush et al are merely bad leaders, not cynical liars? Once you have read the report, you may be able to tell us why Bush resisted the establishing of the commission so strongly (and refused to make statements under oath to it).

Oh, and remind me again, how many thousand innocent Afghan and Iraqi (and other) civilians have died as a direct result of orders issued by Michael Moore?

 

[Tigers2B1]

Hey Nereid, we’re talking about Mike Moore – o’tay? – If you want to start a Bush Bashing thread feel free --- I might even post over there. Otherwise please don’t try to hijack this thread or use what's become the standard deflect tactic common among the hyped up Moore folks --- you know the "never mind that man behind the curtain! --- look over here! -"BUSH IS A LIAR!" – yada yada yada" If you can’t defend Moore’s tactics, better just admit as much and move on --- If the only method you have to "defend" Moore's lies and misrepresentations is by bashing Bush - well that speaks volumes -

 

[Dagenais]

He is personally very wealthy

And Moore isn't?

 

[Nereid]

Hey Tigers2B1, we can really only bash Moore by showing that his characterisation of Bush (and his administration, friends, associates, the Republican Party, etc) is inaccurate - a discussion devoid of the key content of Moore's film would constitute a perfect example of just what you decry; "us[ing] what's become the standard deflect tactic common among the hyped up [Republican] folks --- you know the "never mind [the main purpose of the film]! --- look over here! -"MOORE IS A LIAR!" – yada yada yada""

After all, the title of this thread is 'Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?'. We're talking about a film too, not a government press release. Moore - a film-maker, not a politician, remember? - seems to have chosen to make a political statement, so it's only natural that those who wish to counter him - politically - will use the standard political tactic of sowing FUD, while resisting furiously any attempt to address the question of the extent to which Bush et al did actually say and do the things depicted in the film.

If you can’t defend Moore’s target, better just admit as much and move on --- If the only method you have to "defend" Moore's target's lies and misrepresentations is by bashing Moore - well that speaks volumes -

 

[Nereid]

He is personally very wealthy

And Moore isn't?

Hmm, didn't I read, earlier in this thread, that one of Moore's blackest sins was to take words out of context? Not give the full quote??

Nice one Dagenais, you learn fast.

 

[loseyourname]

No oil in Sudan?! Hello?

Here's a decent overview of the oil situation in Sudan:

http://southsudanfriends.org/issues/oil000614.html

Just so that nobody is stupid enough to believe that the reason we are in Iraq and not Sudan is that Iraq has oil. By the way, Venezuela, which is (I believe) either the 3rd or 4th largest exporter of oil to the US (it is certainly a larger exporter than Iraq), had a great deal of civil unrest and yet we did not invade and take over there.

War for oil? I don't think so. On to the next vast right-wing conspiracy, please.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you implying that there's one standard for politicians and another for the rest of us? That their profession teaches politicians the art of spinning, deception, lying (and when exposed, how to 'contextualise' the lie) so they are more skillful at it? But that it's not the intention which counts (a pollie's spin is just as much an intent to deceive as a lie from a non-pollie) - or the outcome (how well the intention is realized), rather the direct truth value of the statements themselves?

I'm actually not quite sure what you mean here (and I thought I was clear enough that Bush is not skillful at it - he has speachwriters and strategizers to do it for him). To the specific questions though:

First one, there shouldn't be, but it appears to me that most people do not hold politicians to the same standards they hold themselves.

Second one, absolutely yes.

Third one, I don't understand. An intentionally deceptive statement, even if it contains actual facts has no "truth value." I'm not sure that was your point though.

Let me elaborate on my own opinion:

When I hear a politician whine about the other side's negative campaign ads, I laugh. When I hear a Democrat whine about their party not having a counter to Rush Limbaugh, I laugh. When I hear a politician who simultaneously voted for and spoke against a bill say he was deceived, I laugh. When I hear someone argue that we should accept a deceptive argument to counter a deceptive argument, I laugh really hard. When I hear someone say deception is ok if it serves 'a greater good,' I'm saddened.

Functionally, Bush's deception on Iraq and Moore's deception on Bush are quite similar. Moore's cover a wider range of topics, but whatever - both are equally wrong. If Bush were an honorable man, he'd have told the country exactly why he wanted to go to Iraq before he sent troops and accepted the political consequences. I supported the action then and I support it now - I don't support Bush.

I also wish the Democrats had a better candidate (or perhaps just a better party focus) - even a Kerry/McCain ticket would have been compelling. I'm not seeing anything from Kerry that makes me want to vote for him. And not liking Bush is not a compelling reason to vote for Kerry.

 

[russ_watters]

[questions not directed at me but deserve answers]

Have you read the 9-11 commission's report yet?

No. I really need to.

Having read it, how culpable do you feel your leaders are for the deaths of, first, thousands of folk in the twin towers...

Not having read it, I'd say our leaderS are primarily responsible.

...and second, thousands of totally innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians?

Loaded question. Do you consider Bush responsible for saving thousands of "totally innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians" as well?

Perhaps you would like to tell us that Bush et al are merely bad leaders, not cynical liars?

Bush is a bad leader, and that's an opinion. Liar is much tougher, but can be a fact - if his opponents believed they could prove it, they would already have indicted him.

Once you have read the report, you may be able to tell us why Bush resisted the establishing of the commission so strongly (and refused to make statements under oath to it).

Politicians don't like investigations of anything and politicians don't like to go on record about anything. None of that should be surprising, nor is it evidence of anything other than that Bush is no better than other politicians.

Oh, and remind me again, how many thousand innocent Afghan and Iraqi (and other) civilians have died as a direct result of orders issued by Michael Moore?

Exactly the same number as were saved by Moore's non-removal of two dictatorial regimes.

 

[amp]

Russ Vote for Nader, who is now the republcan 'safe' vote.

 

[Dagenais]

Hmm, didn't I read, earlier in this thread, that one of Moore's blackest sins was to take words out of context? Not give the full quote??

Nice one Dagenais, you learn fast.

My point was that you pass Moore off as "just a flim maker." Just a helpless film maker, up against the world's most powerful man, and the world's most powerful man, knows a lot of rich powerful people. And Moore..."just a film maker."

I'm sure Michael Moore has his connections with rich people too. Moore is wealthy, his Fahrenheit 9/11 film made more money than Bush's annual salary - a lot more.

Fahrenheit 9/11, according to Access Hollywood, is tied at 9th place with Anchorman. It hit the 3.1 Million mark.

Moore has his fans too.

Don't pass him off as "just a film maker" up against George Bush.

 

[Nereid]

But that it's not the intention which counts (a pollie's spin is just as much an intent to deceive as a lie from a non-pollie) - or the outcome (how well the intention is realized), rather the direct truth value of the statements themselves?

I'm actually not quite sure what you mean here (and I thought I was clear enough that Bush is not skillful at it - he has speachwriters and strategizers to do it for him). To the specific questions though:

...

Third one, I don't understand. An intentionally deceptive statement, even if it contains actual facts has no "truth value." I'm not sure that was your point though.

Thanks Russ, looks like I judged your position pretty accurately (ambiguity in my questions notwithstanding).

What I was getting at is close to what you actually addressed: in 'bashing' Moore (or Bush) are we to examine the words themselves, and judge if they are literally true (or not)? Or should we seek to determine the intention behind the words, or the outcome of using those particular words? IMHO, that's what a politician's spinning is all about - finding ways to say something that is not, strictly speaking, an untruth or a lie but nonetheless is intended to create an impression or interpretation that the politician knows perfectly well is misleading (at best) or downright false (the 'outcome' part is perhaps better described as 'gaming').

Those engaged in politics - whether professionally (e.g. Bush, Cheney) or as amateurs (e.g. Moore) - will use whatever words and tools (and $$) they have at their disposal; they will spin, deceive, and occassionally lie. They will try to avoid big, obvious lies, and stick to small, 'white' lies, or lies that are hard to detect. When accused of telling big fibs, they will react in predictable ways - misdirection, obfuscation, waffle, denial, ... occassionally mea culpas - and they will plan their reactions carefully, with their advisors if they have them. None of this is new; neither is it new that many see the best defence against Moore's Bush-bashing as Moore-bashing (rather than trying to make the case that Bush's words and actions were honest, honourable, and 'the whole truth').

 

[loseyourname]

I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.

 

[Tigers2B1]

From Nereid - …We're talking about a film too, not a government press release. Moore - a film-maker, not a politician, remember?..

Moore's creation is not just "a film" like The Wizard of OZ you know -- Moore presents this as a "documentary" (which, by the way, is yet another Mooreish lie) --- you know, a “documentary” is a piece that "presents facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter..." (from American Heritage Dictionary).

Moore's idea of a documentary is almost the exact opposite of a documentary. When I, and most other reasonable folks, go to a documentary, we expect to see real headlines (or, at worst the facsimile) not wholly made up headlines taken out of time AND context – we expect real speeches, not one pieced together by Moore and presented as what the speaker really said (when he never said anything of the sort) – real chronology not artificial chronology that leads the viewer down a different storyline – honest implications and not false innuendo -

So, it appears at least, that in the Book of Nereid, it’s just fine that 'Moore The Unethical' uses unethical means to call someone else "unethical" --- Gees, who is going to buy that? Wait, those glassy eyed Mooreites that file stoned faced out of his film seemed to have.

This is what I don't like about Moore and his cult following – truth doesn’t matter – it doesn't matter just as long as "the message" follows their preconceptions of what Bush is or isn't. Just as long as the prescribed "message" gets out there – it ethical to say to hell with facts, to hell with truth. Big fat liars and the liars who lie are A-OK when they lie for our truth –

So, we see how some liberals and the Moore cultists react when one of their own are caught in a multitude of lies, half-truths, and misleading statements. These same libs who constantly whine about what they describe as "Bush's lies" – start the two-step in defence of their own. Sorry, but Integrity doesn’t jump up, spring wings, and fly out the window just because you're speaking about someone who holds different political beliefs.

 

[Nereid]

My point was that you pass Moore off as "just a flim maker." Just a helpless film maker, up against the world's most powerful man, and the world's most powerful man, knows a lot of rich powerful people. And Moore..."just a film maker."

I'm sure Michael Moore has his connections with rich people too. Moore is wealthy, his Fahrenheit 9/11 film made more money than Bush's annual salary - a lot more.

Fahrenheit 9/11, according to Access Hollywood, is tied at 9th place with Anchorman. It hit the 3.1 Million mark.

Moore has his fans too.

Don't pass him off as "just a film maker" up against George Bush.

OK, fair 'nuff ... but why didn't you say that?

Why use precisely the tactic which someone in this thread accuses, and condemns, Moore of using?

 

[Nereid]

Moore's creation is not just "a film" like The Wizard of OZ you know -- Moore presents this as a "documentary" (which, by the way, is yet another Mooreish lie) --- you know, a “documentary” is a piece that "presents facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter..." (from American Heritage Dictionary).

Moore's idea of a documentary is almost the exact opposite of a documentary. When I, and most other reasonable folks, go to a documentary, we expect to see real headlines (or, at worst the facsimile) not wholly made up headlines taken out of time AND context – we expect real speeches, not one pieced together by Moore and presented as what the speaker really said (when he never said anything of the sort) – real chronology not artificial chronology that leads the viewer down a different storyline – honest implications and not false innuendo -

So, it appears at least, that in the Book of Nereid, it’s just fine that 'Moore The Unethical' uses unethical means to call someone else "unethical" --- Gees, who is going to buy that? Wait, those glassy eyed Mooreites that file stoned faced out of his film seemed to have.

This is what I don't like about Moore and his cult following – truth doesn’t matter – it doesn't matter just as long as "the message" follows their preconceptions of what Bush is or isn't. Just as long as the prescribed "message" gets out there – it ethical to say to hell with facts, to hell with truth. Big fat liars and the liars who lie are A-OK when they lie for our truth –

So, we see how some liberals and the Moore cultists react when one of their own are caught in a multitude of lies, half-truths, and misleading statements. These same libs who constantly whine about what they describe as "Bush's lies" – start the two-step in defence of their own. Sorry, but Integrity doesn’t jump up, spring wings, and fly out the window just because you're speaking about someone who holds different political beliefs.

... neither is it new that many see the best defence against Moore's Bush-bashing as Moore-bashing (rather than trying to make the case that Bush's words and actions were honest, honourable, and 'the whole truth').

Thanks Tigers2B1, for so quickly and so convincingly demonstrating my point.

 

[Nereid]

I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.

Or, if I may be so bold as paraphrase in terms of this thread ... 'don't vote for (or against) Bush just because of the lies he's told (or not told), nor cast your vote for (against) him just because of the lies Moore told (or didn't tell)' ... or 'this thread doesn't do much to help any reader understand Bush's platform'.

 

[Tigers2B1]

And thanks Nereid for being a crowning example of a guy who gives liars a free-pass when you agree with their politics. The hypocrisy is just amazing --

 

[loseyourname]

Nereid isn't a guy. But yeah, I agree with you.

 

[loseyourname]

Or, if I may be so bold as paraphrase in terms of this thread ... 'don't vote for (or against) Bush just because of the lies he's told (or not told), nor cast your vote for (against) him just because of the lies Moore told (or didn't tell)' ... or 'this thread doesn't do much to help any reader understand Bush's platform'.

Yeah, pretty much. Weed through the propaganda and vote based on reason.

 

[Adam]

So, I've been away for most of the week. Do we yet have an example of Moore lying?

 

[Nereid]

Here's a decent overview of the oil situation in Sudan:

http://southsudanfriends.org/issues/oil000614.html

Just so that nobody is stupid enough to believe that the reason we are in Iraq and not Sudan is that Iraq has oil. By the way, Venezuela, which is (I believe) either the 3rd or 4th largest exporter of oil to the US (it is certainly a larger exporter than Iraq), had a great deal of civil unrest and yet we did not invade and take over there.

War for oil? I don't think so. On to the next vast right-wing conspiracy, please.

So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?

a) To overthrow a despot (plenty of despots in the world, why choose Sadam?)
b) Because Sadam broke Security Council resolutions (please remind me again how many such resolutions has Israel broken? why not invade Israel?)
c) Iraq had WMD (the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea, and yes, even Israel all have WMD; Iran is pretty clearly intent on getting them too - why not invade those countries?)
d) It suited the national interests of the US to do so (no further questions needed)
e) To restore honour to the Bush family.

Read some history - countries go to war primarily over access to resources.

AFAIK, Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia; Canada's - and Venezuela's? - oil tar deposits not included).

 

[Nereid]

Nereid isn't a guy. But yeah, I agree with you.

Nereid isn't a US citizen, so cannot vote for (or against) Bush, Kerry, Nader, ...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ Vote for Nader, who is now the republcan 'safe' vote.

Nope. I don't like him either. He pushes a flat tax, right?

Nereid, we seem to be more or less in agreement - except that Moore is most decidedly not an amateur. He's a highly successful marketing/media professional: his movie did, after all gross something like $100 million.

I think Russ' point is that, given both sides will deceive and lie, don't vote against someone who you think has lied. Vote for the candidate whose platform most agrees with your own views. In his case, and in mine as well, that candidate is Bush.

Actually, honesty is more important to me than that. I hate the "lesser of two evils" argument. Call me idealistic (I've been called worse), but I want to want to vote for someone. In last year's election, I didn't vote for a major candidate for the Senate - I voted for someone who I first heard of when I read about him in the newspaper that night. Some organization publishes candidate facts and answers to questions: his was the only answer that wasn't canned. He sounded sincere and real, so I voted for him. I may do the same thing this November.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid, we seem to be more or less in agreement - except that Moore is most decidedly not an amateur. He's a highly successful marketing/media professional: his movie did, after all gross something like $100 million.

:surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You can make any true claim about your product.

No mention of puffery anywhere in your statement.

Again, is your statement true, yes or no? If yes, then how can you explain the following?

Even if all of the claims in an advertisement are literally true, their combined effect in the advertisement can be deceptive, and thus not permitted.

This directly contradicts your statement, does it not? Just answer the questions.

 

[russ_watters]

:surprise: I didn't know that. How many people have seen the movie, in theatres? Why do you think so many people have been willing to shell out $$ ($5? $50?) to watch it? After all, I guess the Bush and Kerry teams (and their supporters and sympathisers) have spent at least this much for TV ads etc, and how many people watch those (or use something like TiVo (?) to make sure that they don't have to)?

Well, at an average of $8 apiece, that's 12.5 million people. Some of that is the Howard Stern Effect - if you saw his movie, there was discussion of how people who hated Howard Stern used to listen to him twice as much as those who liked him. Like him or hate him though, Moore elicits a strong emotional response - and that fills seats.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Goebbels had a strong following too.

 

[pervect]

Well, I must admit that I'm mildly interested in what opponents of Moore think.

So I visit this website - and what do I see? O'Reily - from "Faux" Fox news! He's the guy who's telling the "truth" here

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

It'd be funny if it werent' so tragic.

 

[JohnDubYa]

If you have examples of where O'Reilly behaved in a manner like Moore, feel free to post them. Otherwise, of what value is your post?

 

[loseyourname]

So, why did the US go to war in Iraq?

a) To overthrow a despot (plenty of despots in the world, why choose Sadam?)
b) Because Sadam broke Security Council resolutions (please remind me again how many such resolutions has Israel broken? why not invade Israel?)
c) Iraq had WMD (the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, N Korea, and yes, even Israel all have WMD; Iran is pretty clearly intent on getting them too - why not invade those countries?)
d) It suited the national interests of the US to do so (no further questions needed)
e) To restore honour to the Bush family.

a) First, he was one of the worst. Second, removing him and installing a democratic regime could be key to reforming a good deal of the middle east.

b) It was probably more important to the US that he ignored mandates from the US. Israel is our ally, and is also democratic. There is no need to overthrow a democratically elected administration. They can be voted out.

c) N Korea may very well be next if it doesn't shape up. Of course, all of these other nations have nuclear capabilities, which makes it a little trickier to deal with them, and most of them are our allies and have shown no inclination to use their WMD for first-strike. The concern is over regimes having the capability to perform a first-strike using WMD.

Also, with regard to Iran, I was watching the senate hearing before the decision to go to war was made. The intelligence men testifying before the senate sold the committee that they had good reason to believe the Iranian regime might be overthrown by the people of Iran if Iraq were to become democratic. If that is the case, it is better to wait and see rather than go right in and fight two wars.

d) Of course. It suits many interests to have a democratic government in place in one of the largest and most affluent (especially once they get into their oil reserves) nations in the middle east.

e) I'm sure you have a lot of evidential basis from which to make the claim that GW Bush took us to war because he felt his family was slighted, right? Who is he? Agamemnom?

Read some history - countries go to war primarily over access to resources.

AFAIK, Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia; Canada's - and Venezuela's? - oil tar deposits not included).

Countries go to war over access to resources when there is a dispute over resources and those resources are scarce. You're acting like the US annexed the land and claimed ownership of the fields. Why not open up the reserves in Alaska if oil is such a huge concern? Surely that's easier than fighting a war in the most volatile part of the world for which myriad terrorist groups are plotting revenge.

 

[Adam]

Note that the new USA-installed government is debating bringing back the death penalty. Yay for executing opposition in a democractic society!

 

[JohnDubYa]

They are not going to be executed for being political prisoners, but for real crimes in which they terrorized a country with brutality.