Bowling for Columbine

[vava]

Azat Jan, Nobody said that Mr. Moore is an American hero. Oh wait, someone did say that!

 

It doesn't really matter - i don't think his comments were meant to be racist - i think he was just trying to underline his hypothesis concerning American 'fear' culture.

 

I have many african, and jamaican friends. And I certainly don't know about 'brothers' in the planes - but pitcture this: You just get on a bus, there are twenty people on the bus - now imagine that everyone on that bus is a black man. You're the only white man. Look into their faces - tell me honestly that you won't notice, that you won't feel anything at all....

 

It happened to me - and I was quite shocked by my own reaction. The fact that I consiously made the observation "I am the only white man on the bus" made me realise race issues still exist - and this, despite our best intentions.

 

I believe Moore is right in pointing out that American pop culture still often presents the black man as a figure to be feared. And this is reflected in American (and Canadian too) society.

[vava]

Monday, March 17, 2003

A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War

 

George W. Bush

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Washington, DC

 

Dear Governor Bush:

 

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:

 

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

 

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

 

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

 

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

 

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

 

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

 

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!

 

But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!

 

Yours,

 

Michael Moore

www.michaelmoore.com

[Sip]

He is very wrong in this. I think he should step out of his comfy beverly hills home and go and talk to some real Americans. Right or wrong, the fact is that more than 70% of the Americans do support this war.

[vava]

Funny how 70% of the population supports war on iraq - when less than 15% of the population can actually place iraq on the map.

[Azat]

Sip jan, he does not live in Beverly Hills. He on that same Oprah show where he said that he would be scared if 2 white guys walked toward him and not 2 black guys, also announced that he lives in New York. He just left out the part that he lives in a million dollar plus apartment on 5th Avenue where no black can get close to.

 

He is a hypocrite...

 

I tell you what I would be scared of. If I had a sandwich in hand and he was walking toward me. Now that would scare the crap out of me.

 

[ March 24, 2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Azat ]

[Sip]

Vava, I never said we Amaricans are good in Math. http://zr2.cs.ucla.edu/Sip/zr2/roflmao.gif

 

Don't worry Azat ... I doubt he'd be interested in a broccoli sandwitch with no ham, turkey, or chicken.

 

I appologize for this entire post ... somehow today I have this excessive need to vent the junk building up in my brain.

[Stormig]

I had seen that one in my mailbox, but I disregarded it due to:

 

Really? So those pro-war protestors trying to measure up with the anti-war were my imagination?

 

How about - IQ? Bush's, that is.

[Azat]

ya, but it's got lots of ketchup on it as well.

[Cilician]

Now now, lets not play spin doctor. He says very clearly that nobody is GUNG-HO, he does not say that nobody supports it.

 

Also, I find it telling that most of the polls regarding Iraq tend to ask whether people support the removal of Saddam, a very different question than whether they support the war. Media spin doctoring...

[MJ]

Dear Raffi,

 

But which developed nation wants war? Why should one try to prove here that Americans, including the governement, want war? No one wants it. But if war is forced upon America, no one should have doubts on her willingness to win it.

[THOTH]

OK OK - so he is an idiot too...well i already knew that...I still see him as an American hero...anyone who stirs it up like he does is a hero in my eyes...it needs to be done and he is doing it...so he lacks style (well he does have a certain stlye...LOL)...and he doesn't have all of the facts...sure nobody is perfect...he is a rabble rouser in the great American dissenting spirit...and thats what counts IMO - we need more like him...to hell with all of the sheep...

[MJ]

Dude,

 

You have a lot of soul searching to do. One would think that at your age, you should've passed through that stage, though.

[THOTH]

MJ - sure - no one wants war. But Americans were basically sold that this "action" would be one sided and essentially bloodless (I said essentially, not entirely)...much like the video game shoot em up of the last war. There were many reasons why we did not pursue Saddam in the last war - one of them was the realization that any action were troops had to go into urban areas to root out the (native) enemy was going to be a bloddy one. Additionally the entire Arab world (and a good portion of the rest of the world) has serious reservations and doubts about this war. And it may be essentially unwinable - another Vietnam or Algeria (or worse - because the terror type attacks will actually be trans-border - resulting in American civian victims...etc). there are so many reasons why this action was a bad idea. Even if we can subdue the nation and destroy Saddam & Co. and capture/destry any bad stuff it still may (likely will) be a net loss in the long haul (in so many ways - politcal-economic-safety...etc). I do honestly hope I am wrong in my thinking...

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

Dude,

 

You have a lot of soul searching to do. One would think that at your age, you should've passed through that stage, though.

Yes perhaps - but it is with great pride that I hold onto my youthful values - this included. Stagnation and complacency are the enemy - IMO. Without active particiapation in democracy and active oversight of institutional (inherently corrupt) powers we become victims and not citizens...

 

[ April 02, 2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[MJ]

I have no stong objections to your last statement, much like when my children demonstrate such behavior. However, what's its relevance? Is it an a priori attitude? (I think I know the answer.)

[MJ]

I just saw your prior message.

 

I have followed the coverage of the war on a daily basis. No representative of the administration has made such statements. If the media has made them, what’s new about media’s ventilation?

 

However, in the large scale of things, using your terminology, it has been essentially one sided and bloodless.

 

I can tell you precisely why Saddam was not pursued in the first Gulf War. That war was being conducted under the UN mandate, and the mandate was given only to liberate Kuwait. The same forces which were opposed to the war this time were the same ones that opposed the marching of the US troops towards Baghdad. I just wish that you don’t express any more a priori opinions as you have advocated in your previous material.

 

I don’t see a need or a desire of subduing the Iraqi nation - there is no such agenda nor need.

 

From the beginning of this discussion, the people on your side have predicted 100,000s of civilian deaths, World War III, blah, blah, blah.

 

You also express other vague thoughts, and I don’t want to response to every [non-clear] one, and have no desire to turn this into ping-pong.

[THOTH]

Sure it has been relatively bloodless - so far....will that last? - well I hope that it will...is this likely...all depends on Iraqi resiliance and willingness to take punishment...unfortunatly many of the (Saddam loyalist) troops may think they have nothing to lose (and everything to gain) by fighting it out. And sure terroristic type attacks are (for the most part) not militarily significant (w/o use of WMD...) but could be responsible for a steady stream of body bags for years to come....a price worth paying? perhaps...but tell that to the parents/children etc of the dead...at some point I expect that many Americans will become more critical of this war (and even the occupying "peace") as it drags on and more Americans are lost (even the issue of reservists kept away from home/family/careers etc...)...and even with the President stating that this war will likely be more costly (in deaths etc) then people realize I still think there was clearly a fundemental expectation put forth that this would be a fairly easy and relatively bloodless endevor...thats just my take...and its not a Priori at all but based on observation...the whole thing was pretty much a given - just listen to the statements - "we will win" "the outcome is without question" etc etc - well in war the outcome is never without question...please...

 

Also - I understand the various factors (as you have stated) for the first war ending....however the issue of additional casualties for pressing to Bahgdad was certainly one of the factors...

 

Weather the various estimates of casualties (military and Iraqi civilian) will come about is entirely dependent on weather the Iraqis will capitulate (as had already been expected by now based on the original "war plan") or if they dig in. The #s of casualties may rise significantly if the Iraqis are able to succesfully repel and do some damage (like with WMD or just fierce/determined resistance). If the US nose gets bloodied the gloves may come off...to date the (collateral damage/casualty etc) restraint shown on the part of the US & British forces has been comendable...but that is because it is still percieved that this war cannot be lost (and perhaps that is accurate...with the air & firepower available...etc)...but you wouldn't have thought we could have "lost" in Vietnam either...I do certainly hope that we can pull this one off with the minimul of losses/commitment and with the minimul negative political, economic and terroristic fallout...but we are in fact rolling the dice big time with this one...

[MJ]

Err…

 

First, about the “body bags”… I keep hearing it since the Balkan conflict and Afghanistan. Frequently, I feel those who have advanced this terminology and concept are expressing more of a desire than prediction…

 

Terrorism does not start with this war. This was is one of the necessary steps to prevent terrorism. Terrorism has become more vicious because, despite the warning of the experts in the last 10 years that the primary threat in the world is terrorism, one ‘happy’ administration and another ‘happy Union’ did not have the aptitude to grasp it – even after the failed attack on the WTC in early 90s. You don’t eliminate terrorism by appeasing the terrorists. You fight it out. Additionally, you help the economies of the regions and cultures, which incubate terrorism, to help them to create wealth so that their people are not so desperate that their lives and the lives of others have no value to them.

 

I am frequently puzzled as to what lengths would people go just to ‘prove’ that this war is ‘wrong,’ it is not ‘planned well,’ the ‘actions are right but not the motivations,’ etc. Such a bizzare philosophy…

 

As far as the future/potential Iraqi resistance is concerned, if you have been following the news of the last 24 hours, two elite divisions are gone, with four left. We can talk in few days about the four.

 

And, contrary to your insinuation, I believe that the restraint that the US and British Armies have demonstrated is not indicative of the “inevitability of the victory,” but of values that their societies hold. And there is nothing wrong in claiming that the victory over Saddam is inevitable. It is a fact and not propaganda. It is obvious from all material and moral factors.

 

[ April 02, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

To slightly lighten up, few jokes, which I think are reflective of the sides' complexes:

 

In Moscow, the respected daily Izvestiya devoted more than half of its front

page on Tuesday to dark satire on the war.

 

"Saddam claims to have shot down a British warplane, but Bush says: 'It's a

lie. We shot it down!"' read one of the Russian jokes mocking friendly fire

incidents in the war.

 

"Mr. Bush, do you have proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?,"

asks a journalist at a fictional news conference. Bush's answer: "Yes, we

kept the receipts."

 

Even comedians in traditionally neutral Sweden can't resist.

 

"The text on leaflets dropped over Iraq reads: 'McDonald's, opening soon in

Baghdad' 'Hands up!' and 'Collect four of these and you'll get a free Coke

once we're finished bombing'."

[564312]

I agree with MJ

I myself am against any war but it was inevitable, the beast was attacked.

And it is comical to see this world’s upheaval against this war. Where were the objections in the Chechen war or when Russians lazered away Japanese wanting to take part of Russian land and so many other wars.

It is more anti-Americanism then anything else.

[THOTH]

MJ -

 

I am very offended by any insinuation on your part that I would in any way desire to see American body bags.

 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this attack will increase terrorism against us and also increases not decreases the likelyhood that state and non-state entities will attempt and eventually succeed in aquiring and using nuclear or biological attacks against us. If indeed we wished to fight and blunt terrorism I feel this is very much the wrong approach. (I was 100% behind the action in Afghanistan BTW).

 

I am no apologist for Sadaam - in no way. I was all for pushing on to eliminate him and his regiem durign the last war - and thought we should go after him in the interveening years. I applaud the attempt to crater him and the start of the war (in fact I advocated such before it was done)...and who knows perhaps we got him eh? I also understand that a war against Saddam and his regiem may have been inevitable...I just don't think that the approach taken was the correct one - for a great number of reasons. But of course I hope everything turns out favorable to us. I very much want to be wrong in my concerns/predictions.

[MJ]

Thoth,

 

I had somehow missed that you had “advanced the terminology and concept of body bags.”

 

As far as the increase or decrease of the terrorism is concerned, our arguing on that subject would be immaterial. Based on the last two years experience, this administration is performing its duties, especially in the arena of national security, on a super-professional level, and you should delegate that function to them, as appropriate, rather than trying to solve it yourself. And don’t you worry – there are more than enough checks and balances in the American system.

 

As far as your concerns about the potential nuclear and biological attacks are concerned, it seems to me that this administration shares your concerns and is aggressively pursuing the prevention of such an outcome.

 

In general, you have a very peculiar way of conveying your thoughts. Frequently, your two opposing views blur and fade, unnoticeably transiting from one pole to the other (with the help of few IMOs and prentices ), which makes it hard to assess where you stand on the issues.

 

[ April 02, 2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: MJ ]

[vava]

MJ,

 

I wholeheartedly enjoyed your jokes... I don't often laugh out loud when reading folks' opinions on the war.

 

I agree, for the most part, with your statement above. However, the current administration, as well as that of Bush senior, have played a large part in 'incubating' terrorism - especially where Iraq is concerned. Iraq has effectively no control over their largest export product, crude oil. And they have not since the previous Gulf war. Their oil production/exports are controlled by the UN sanctions committee, who decide the quantity of Iraqi crude to be sold, to who, and for how much. The revenue generated is allocated through the 'Food for oil' program, in part to pay for some of the food, medicine and other 'humanitarian' needs of the country and the remainder is restitution for Kuwait. Additionally, the funds are spent entirely on imports - no funds are used for domestic product, or to aid the re-establishment of Iraqi industry, effectively shutting out any possiblity of EVER rebuilding the countries economy.

 

In a sense, we have done the exact opposite of what you propose to counter terrorism - and we have created a desparately poor, totally anti-western society, and now we're arriving at their doorstep with missiles and bombs and a flag of liberty.

 

If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't buy it either.

[vava]

I forgat to add, that a select few multinationals are the only ones profiting from the current situation in Iraq. It's certainly not the American, nor the Iraqi people.

[MJ]

Vava,

 

I significantly differ on some of the issues you have talked about - one of them being the “multinationals profiting from the situation.” In general, I think the term 'multinational' is much misused and bears much misguided sentiment.

 

I also think that your description of the landscape around the "Food-for-Oil" program is not descriptive of the reality.

 

Few weeks ago, I had provided a hyperlink with about 70 pages of independent studies, which can shed much light on the issue. I am somewhat sleepy right now, and cannot find the thread it was referenced in. But it is in one of the relevant threads.

 

With all my disagreements with some of your statements, I appreciate the restraint you have demonstrated in your material.