"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[eppie]

Thanks for your comments Kandrathe, this is the kinds of things I like to hear. But as you can imagine I don't agree.
I want to reply on one paragraph you wrote:

Ok, specifically, how do I feel about Bush? Since the beginning of his Presidency, I've faulted his administration (and our media) for failing to communicate clearly and loudly on why he is taking a particular course of action. It is easy now for people to review history in hindsight and say "he went to Iraq for wrong reasons", but leadership to me means that you have to be willing to commit to even a risky course of action based on the information that you have. I give Bush credit for taking actions that Clinton was unable, or unwilling to take. The jury is still out on whether Afghanistan or Iraq can emerge from these wars with at least civilized governments. The UN tried the carrot approach (or sanctions) for the entire Clinton presidency, and when you run out of carrots, all you have remaining are sticks. We are doing the same dance with North Korea, placating their blackmail for food and fuel oil and in the name of compassion we are delivering it -- but it still smacks of appeasement to me. Any positive press spin on that one for America? No.

I cannot blame a president for taking the wrong actions if I look back on a certain fact in history, nobody ever knows the complete picture before taking deccisions. The main problem however, and I think a lot of people feel like this is that Bush took actions for personal gain. Let me explain: "what did Bush do wrong"? apart from the reports of torture of prisoners in Iraq, not much. I mean a war is always ugly and if you take the deccsion to go to war you should not be surprised there will be casualties. (I really don't agree with people that where firts in favor of the war, and now (because of victims) are against. It shows they are not really in touch with reality.

The biggest problem is here "why did he go to war?" When you say now " it is easy to in hindsight point out all the mistakes that are made" please check some older threads here in the lounge from when the war just started or even before. (I am almost sure there was this kind of thread) You see that a lot of people allready said at that time what was wrong with going to war. I myself allready had the opinion that there were no WMDs in Iraq anymore and that Saddam did not have anything to do with Al qaeda. Even before this war there were more or less proofs of these two things (at least there were serious doubts) and Bush still took this decission.

This is why the biggest problem with Bush (according to me any many others) is not that he made msitakes but that he, on purpose, went to war, and used lies for that. (to blame the CIA and the FBI for the wrong information was outright pathetic).
If he was so lucky that WMDs were found, or that some al queda connection was discovered he could even get away with, it but now he cannot.
The obvious (not proven) reasons why Bush went to war are of course oil/building contracts/sponsering of weapons industry. (something I already posted on these forums months ago, and subsequently got accused of using conspiracy theories :D ). Like I said we don't know if it is true, and Michael Moore tries to convince us it is.

As I said before I don't need Moore to tell me what to think but I agree with his opinion. And that gets me back on why I asked you (and others) what you think about the "trustability" of Bush.

I would like to detach this from being republican or democratic because people tend to "take" a lot more form politicians from their favorite party. I think Bush is in it for the money, together with people like Cheney and Rumsfeld. And I'm surprised how many people think "wow that guy is a good businessman (or son of a good business man :D )so he will probably do what is best for me" even now after al these rich peoples tax cuts. (something which you see also in Italy with Berlusconi)
eppie

[kandrathe]

...structural control exerted by dominant elites in the United States over media and the economy...

I think the case in America is that control is held by the dominent elites until the masses begin to suffer. Once the economy sours, and massive numbers of the middle class are unemployed the suffering causes political upheavals which shift power to the new "dominent elites" that are at least offering the best plan to alleviate the suffering. When the cattle are well fed, there is less concern and less participation in the democracy. That may be one reason why different groups of the "dominent elites" drag us from one "war" to another, in an attempt to get the population engaged in a "problem" that will unseat the current rulers, and usher in a new regime. Some of it is legitimate as in the entry of the US into WWII, but as history has shown others, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, are fabricated to create a "cause".

I would argue that in this sense, Germany is more democratic than America because a more diverse spectrum of viewpoints and perspectives are engaged in that country than in your own. With a wider spectrum of ideas comes a wider spectrum of criticism, and so popular ideas are better tested by democratic means.

You are right, I think. America practices representative democracy, which is one step removed from a real democracy. We democratically choose citizens to represent our views and make the laws that govern us, and what is wrong with the system is that these positions are being bought. So, the test of a representative is no longer merely a measure of ideas, but of his campaign war chest.

It's even worse to suppose that neoliberalism is a "logical" conclusion without considering the fact that it is an ideology embedded in a democratic framework, a supposed forum for a "hierarchy of ideas", that is particularly imperfect and one-dimensional (at an official level - just watch CNN, Fox News, or even NBC for the proof in the pudding.) in the North American context.

I can't argue with that. The test of the model in my mind has failed at least once, in that during the last boon, the US government should have taken advantage of the increased coffers to pay down the national debt. They did not which exemplifies the lack of character in our selection of representatives. The media is very focused on what "works", in that they are if effect telling the people what they want to hear ("ratings driven"). That coupled with the fact that they are a part of the corporate machinery, and so their perspective is not objective or sometimes intentionally skewed to attract a particular audience.

[kandrathe]

The biggest problem is here "why did he go to war?" When you say now " it is easy to in hindsight point out all the mistakes that are made" please check some older threads here in the lounge from when the war just started or even before. (I am almost sure there was this kind of thread) You see that a lot of people allready said at that time what was wrong with going to war. I myself allready had the opinion that there were no WMDs in Iraq anymore and that Saddam did not have anything to do with Al qaeda. Even before this war there were more or less proofs of these two things (at least there were serious doubts) and Bush still took this decission.

I was a part of those discussions, and still no one seems to understand or see the big picture of the situation. Again, here is the anti-Moore story I believe;

1] Iraqi intelligence did have substanitive dialogs with Al Queda operatives, including OBL in Sudan in the mid 90's. I even presented here Jonathan Shanzer's detailed account of how Al Queda ran a base in northern Iraq under the control of Iraqi Intelligence, linked to Abu Wael who is a high ranking Iraqi official within the Tikriti mob. So, to say that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Queda, to me, is ludicrous -- what is missing is that there is no evidence of a connection between the Al Queda plot of 9/11 and complicit support from Iraq, or any other nation for that matter. So not to single out only Iraq, which other nations have had substanitive working relationships with Al Queda and OBL?

2] The attempts to influence Iraq to dismantle their WMD programs via sanctions had failed. Iraq proved itself duplicitious over and over and over again. Containment was not working, and Saddam was growing a 3 billion dollar annual black market economy and now it comes out that they were even corrupting the UN Oil for Food program. The humanitarian cost of a decade of sanctions was unbearable for compassionate western democracies. We wanted to put pressure on Saddam, not the Iraqi people. Again, to be fair to Iraq, they are not the only nation on our terrorism supporters hit list that also has WMD programs. It did not matter whether or not Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's. Only that they had the capability and the willingness to build and use them. And, in fact the ISG has found that they had active WMD programs throughout the 90's to research and perfect their knowledge and techniques so that once inspectors had left they would begin to reconstitute their stockpiles.

3] Saddam and his regime were willing to do anything. America was target number one and there was no room for diplomacy. For Saddam, there was no end of Gulf War 1.

So, when you add these together with the 9/11 realization that the American mainland is not a fortress, but a sieve, and you can see where the administration concluded that having a sworn and motivated adversary with the possibility of training or arming their terrorist compadres with chemical or biological weapons was a situation that could not be allowed to culminate in an attack. That is the new Wolfowitz doctrine of preemption. The US has determined that the old status quo of responding to aggression was not a good strategy when you consider the use of WMD.

It was the UNSC's responsibility to follow through with "enforcement" of "serious consequences". They failed that test. That left the responsibility for dismantling the Iraqi threat to the US. Bush might have waited a little while, but the growing tide of political sentiment in Europe was to lift sanctions. In fact, some countries like Russia and France had already signed multi-billion dollar contracts with Saddam. Again, in retrospect the "threat" posed by Saddam was less than the worst case scenario that was presented to the American people and the world. But, the "threat" did exist and the removal of the regime was one way to alleviate the threat. So, I believe that Iraq was a problem that needed correcting. Clinton failed to keep Iraq contained, and Bush took the responsibility of fixing the problem.

Back to my point. The motivations of the Bush administration were not clearly communicated. You now have a politcal situation where 1/2 the population is saying "There is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, so the war was unjustified." It really was Bush's job to present all the information about why a war with Iraq was neccesary and more so that there would be no room for doubt that Iraq was a situation that we needed to shed blood over. Bush failed to make that case. It's not that he is ignorant, or untrustworthy, just bad an innundating the press with information to support his positions. He needs someone more bombastic to be his press secretary.

[nobbie]

An interesting related link: http://www.moveon.org

[jahcs]

Iraq was in possesion of weapons in violation of the UN resolutions at the start of the war.

The al-samoud missile, which was fired at Kuwait City and our staging areas in Kuwait in the opening days of the war:

Global Security's report on the al-samoud weapons program


Also, with regard to the prisoner abuse in Iraq that keeps being brought up, George W. Bush may not be to blame for every mistake individual soldiers or command groups make in Iraq, but he is responsible for it. As Commander in Chief of our armed forces the "buck stops here." The chain of command works in both directions.
In saying that I must also point out the soldiers involved stated they: "did not recieve adequate training." How much training is required for people to know that you shouldn't sodomize a prisoner with a chemlite? There is an element of personal responsibility for every soldier involved, from the lowest private to the senior commander. If the private was ordered to do those things they have the duty to not obey the unlawful order. If the soldier's leaders were not aware of the situation then they were derelict in their duty of supervision of the troops.

edit: here is the link for the official prisoner abuse report:
Taguba Report

[Minionman]

The other problem I have that comes out of this prisoner abuse is that if they really were using bad buildings and reservists for this wrok, it gets me worrying that the people in the government aren't willing to spend the money, time, and energy needed to get Iraq rebuilt, and also that the war was started without really planning for the rebuilding. If they realy are, good for them, but it doesn't look like it.Here I think the problem comes from how people elect the government. Instead of really thinking about issues, they either yell out ideaology crap like"lower taxes" "show the U.S. isn't weak" "No U.S. casulties" "Get the terrorists" etc., so the people who get elected are the ones who are best at pretending to be miracle workers instead of the ones who run the government based on what it really can and can't do. In this example, starting the war and rebuilding Iraq well will take a lot of money, and a lot of people to go over there and do the building and fighting. The war and rebuilding probably wasn't planned well because spending time planning doesn't seem as macho as ruching in there, and spending a lot of money is out because tax cuts are needed. So instead of getting a rebuilding that seems to be going well and also helps the U.S. with the rest of the world, we get this prisoner abuse thing which throws away a lot of people's opinion of the U.S. government, caused partially because there aren't enough people working over there.

What I'm hoping more for is people in the government to make plans based on how practical they are, not based on the best possible way they could turn out. I also hope when people in general vote on issues they think about what's important to them, how important it is compared to other issues, and what the best ways to get the most of what they want are without expecting the government to do everything.

Not related to Iraq, another issue I hope people push the govewrnment on is making it run more effeciently. an example is instead of whining that social programs waste money, someone could figure out what wastes the money and get it to waste less, and/or come up with new programs that get similar results as the other social programs but cost less. These wochanges would realistically happen bit by bit but would after awhile save tons of money while keeping the government working at the same level.

Edit: changed the tone of second paragraph, added extra one.

[jahcs]

The other problem I have that comes out of this prisoner abuse is that if they really were using bad buildings and reservists for this wrok, it gets me worrying that the people in the government aren't willing to spend the money, time, and energy needed to get Iraq rebuilt, and also that the war was started without really planning for the rebuilding.

That's one rumor of why General Shinseki left his position as Chief of Staff. The administration did not like his estimates of how much manpower and time it would take to stabilize the country when we rolled in with our tanks and troops.

[kandrathe]

My impression (which may be false) of the rebuilding is that the focus is on what war profiteering contractors should be involved, rather than energizing and empowering the Iraqi people to rebuild their own country. Why not build Iraqi responsibility, administration, instrastructure, and "pride in workmanship" all at the same time. Sort of an "Iraq First" program where even the raw materials if possible should be "Built in Iraq". You aren't likely to make many Iraqi friends when you blow up something they just built.

A lesson for all aggressors.

[CelticHound]

If the private was ordered to do those things they have the duty to not obey the unlawful order.

On the other hand, many people respect the notion of "My country, right or wrong."

-- CH
(Though personally, I have trouble telling the difference between that and "My tribe, good or evil.")

[Chaerophon]

On the other hand, many people respect the notion of "My country, right or wrong."

Unfortunately...

[Munkay]

It's just Un-American to not beleive in my country right or wrong.

Bleh. Patriotism is easily perverted into a warped elitism. It's the same mentality I see exercised all over Boston when I'm at school. Last year alone I saw at least 5 full on first fights that resulted from a "Red Sox" vs. "Yankees" arguement. To many people being a fan of the Red Sox is a competition to be the best "super fan" and to prove everyone else is merely a 'fairweather fan' in comparision. It's worse enough to see when two superfans of opposing teams meet (the abovementioned 5 incidents), let alone seeing how "super fans" for the same team often cause friction amongst their fellow adorners. There's nothing wrong with a love for an object, or in a broader case Patriotism for a country. But personally I beleive the negative effects overshadow the good when it comes to Patriotism. It's too easily transfered into zealous fanaticism; It's too easy to throw out rational judgement in the name of Patriotism.

-Munk

[D-Dave]

...empowering the Iraqi people to rebuild their own country. Why not build Iraqi responsibility, administration, instrastructure, and "pride in workmanship" all at the same time. Sort of an "Iraq First" program where even the raw materials if possible should be "Built in Iraq".

I have to agree with that last post of you very much as the past has shown it is exactly this method that works. Anyone remeber the "Marshall-Plan" right after WW2?

On another Issue I strongly disagree with you and this is the "necessity" for the Iraq-War.
I still stand up for what I wrote ages ago:

Why I do think this way? [Note: Going to war is a bad idea] Well, the result of the UN-Inspections backed by a military threat was an Iraq under control. Let me repeat this Iraq was under control, weapons were destroyed (no, I'm not naive enough to believe that there are not plenty of weapons left) and Inspectors made at least some sort of progress.
The Result of war so far: dozends of US and British Troops killed, hundreds of Iraqi soldiers killed, plenty of civilian victims, destabilizing influence on the whole Region and worst of all creating symphathy for Hussein within the neighbour countrys which before did clearly support disarmament of Iraq.
Taken from my post here

Secondly, You stated before that other Countrys also thought that Iraq was producing WMDs. Among those you name Germany and that is absolutely untrue...but an understandable misperception.
For example the Information about those "Mobile Production Facilitys" (Chem- / Bio-Production Facilitys on Trucks) presented to the UN as "proof" of WMD capability, opriginaly came from the BND (German intelligence service) but for some strange reason (maybe the communication got interfered somehow) the german Report stated that Saddam Hussein had outfitted Trucks with communcations equipment and means to have mobile command posts...

IMHO a perfect example of the way Information was, let's say "filtered", to match the Administrations desiered tone. (just listen to all those former FBI and CIA employees that are talking of how they were instructed what information to look for and what information to hold back)

But this is a Michael Moore Film Thread so lets get back to the point:

-about the NRA-Meeting after the shooting:
while there may be Laws that forced the NRA to hold that Meeting, my perception was more a criticism was mainly towards Mr. Hestons Speech and not towards the meeting itself; (the "from my dead cold hands" and "don't come here? We are already here" quotes)

-about the "Guns are evil" theme:
While I may be mistaken or I may have seen a different movie, I realized a strong tendency towards Gun control (for exampel the victim's Father quote " A Tech 9 is not used for killing deer") but not a single sign of demonization of guns on a general Basis (else the whole deal of showing how gun-loving Canadians are, but how few gun-murders there are would have been pointless)
Downsizing the whole "Bowling for Columbine" Movie to it's core it is the Question why there are so many more Gun-Killings in the US then anywhere else in the world.

Interestingly enough of all the things that I read about the Movie I have never ever read a single line about what imho is the most distressing quote in the film. It is this female militia member stating that one calls the police because they have guns and something of cutting off the middleman and taking care of it (intruders) oneself. Is it just me being ignorant or isn't it the police's role to protect the innocent AND uphold the law? After all the above statement sounds an awefull lot like a propaganda slogan for self-justice to me.


-about Fahrenheit 9/11
For me it is a little hard to understand those people that bash on the movie saying it is too biased, it is too negative on Bush.
Come on, that President was not elected by the majority of the people but empowered by a court's decision to stop the recount in Florida, he did nothing (!) on the Security Briefing that stated that Osama Bin Laden was planning to Attack America by hijacking Airplanes (August 6, 2001), he evacuated all Bin Laden's Family from the US after the 9/11 Attacks, he disrespected human rights and the Geneva Convention by mistreting prisoners in Gitmo, he misled the US population by presenting speculations as facts, he send Soldiers into war without having a solid plan for the time after, etc.
Is the movie too negative on Bush?

I'd say no...but what do I know...I am probably too simple minded, as I don't even understand why President Bush is happily in office and there is not even an official examination of all of the above and on the other hand President Clinton almost had to resign because of having Sex with a person that agreed to it.

But wait, after having said the above....maybe I should not travel to the US for the next decade or two as customs will probably arrest me for being a potential Terrorist and lock me up and I better close by pleaing to Mr. Bush not to invade Germany as it harbours such potentialy dangerous Persons as myself...

edit: @Munkay When asked about patriotism I like to quote Oscar Wilde: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."

[eppie]

To D-Dave:

I think you point out a big problem here, which is the behavior of the members of the democratic party. For some reason (probably the risk of losing votes) they never question Bush on things that are very obviously done wrong by the Bush administration. If I see how here in europe members of the oposition use any excuse to try and bring down a member of the government, I would expect that also to happen in the US with their "quasi two party system".
Probably most of the democratic members of parliament also have connections with the companys that are bulding up Iraq now. :D

[Nystul]

It's not that the Democrats aren't blasting Bush. But until they can effectively communicate some real, solid ideas on how things *should* be done, they just sound like a typical, partisan, minority party trying to get back into power. The stereotypical "apathetic American" just doesn't care about this kind of criticism.

According to the USA Today/Gallup polls, Kerry actually lost a few points to Bush as the result of the Democratic National Convention. That's absolutely unheard of in recent American politics. You are always expected to gain a few percentage points during your own convention. I don't think the swing voters here in the U.S. are very happy with the way Bush has handled certain things (although, to be honest, they are probably more unhappy about the still-sluggish economy than any of the issues you hold against Bush), but they don't seem to be too excited about what the Democrats have to offer either.

As for me: My union dues seem to be going straight into Kerry's campaign coffers, but I suspect my vote will go to Bush.

[kandrathe]

Stoke-on-Trent anyone?

My thought is that slaughter of one another is a primal human desire only kept in check by the civilizing effects of community. But, then in the form of a tribe, it expresses itself as a riot, and in the form of a nation expresses itself as a war.

[kandrathe]

Let me repeat this Iraq was under control, weapons were destroyed (no, I'm not naive enough to believe that there are not plenty of weapons left) and Inspectors made at least some sort of progress.

That is our point of disagreement. As of a few months ago the ISG had only investigated 10% of the known facilities and storage locations.

why there are so many more Gun-Killings in the US then anywhere else in the world

BTW, the US is not the leader in per capita murder. That is not to say it is not a problem. My perspective for what it is worth; I live near a pretty large metropolitan area. The 60 or so murders that occur in this area each year are mostly confined to a 1 mile square area, which is the poorest, most crime ridden place in the city. 1 in 6 houses there is a crack house, and the other residents are afraid to leave their homes. Murders occur for two reasons. 1] protecting of drug turf, or during a drug transaction, or 2] because someone is insane with drugs, alcohol or both and kills someone in their family (usually a spouse of girlfriend). Generally speaking, every large metropolitan area has the same problem. What is different about America is our drug culture, and that our drug users are twice as likely as Europeans to be using cocaine, crack, amphetamines, or methamphetamines.

It is this female militia member stating that one calls the police because they have guns and something of cutting off the middleman and taking care of it (intruders) oneself. Is it just me being ignorant or isn't it the police's role to protect the innocent AND uphold the law? After all the above statement sounds an awefull lot like a propaganda slogan for self-justice to me.

I've been to Germany a few times and it seems like a very well ordered place that reminded me of my state or Wisconsin. I have not been to the worst places in Frankfurt though. I have been involved in a number of incidents in my life where death or violence against me and those with me was a possibility. In every case, I was able to use psychology to convince the perpetrator to back down. Had I been armed (in one case I was), I still would have tried the verbal approach first. When you are face to face with a homicidal maniac or when armed thugs kick down your door in the middle of the night, you need to have a plan for how you are going to save your life and the lives of your family. Odds are it won't happen to you, and hopefully not me anymore. My experience with the police was that they showed up later (sometimes hours later) to arrest the perpetrator of the crime, or take a statement and start an investigation. Most people cannot and do not trust that the police will shield them from violence in America.

Come on, that President was not elected by the majority of the people but empowered by a court's decision to stop the recount in Florida, he did nothing (!) on the Security Briefing that stated that Osama Bin Laden was planning to Attack America by hijacking Airplanes (August 6, 2001), he evacuated all Bin Laden's Family from the US after the 9/11 Attacks, he disrespected human rights and the Geneva Convention by mistreting prisoners in Gitmo, he misled the US population by presenting speculations as facts, he send Soldiers into war without having a solid plan for the time after, etc.

I see you are fodder for Moore's propaganda. I urge you and your fellow Europeans to read the 9/11 Commission Report to get the facts rather than rely on Moore's distortions. I can rebut each of your statements, but that would devolve into 7 different arguments.

[D-Dave]

That is our point of disagreement. As of a few months ago the ISG had only investigated 10% of the known facilities and storage locations

Hm, okay, let's put it this way: During the "official" War Hussein used all his military arsenal to defend his Dictatorship but he did not use a single Weapon of Massdestruction. Now those who resist the US Forces in Iraq today use guerillia tactics including car bombing the own people, still no one uses poison gas or anything the like. If there are realy any supplies of those materials, don't you think those people would know where to find them and would use that knowledge to obtain and use them? I mean they are not afraid to decapitate hostages but don't use more "effective" means to make foreign forces withdraw?
To back this up, I served some time with the German Anti-Chemical Warfare Unit until just a few days before the attacks on Iraq started and what I learned there was that the Iraqis could not even drive a pickup truck to the next village without being tracked and that is just the information that was passed to our unit...so my guess is that US Headquaters knew just about everything that happened there.
One of the most astonishing line from a presidential speech comes to remembrance: "We know they have those Weapons and we know where they are!" Funny, our Unit never had such Information. Even more surprising, if that statement was true, why did the ISG inspect 10% of the known facilities without finding a drop of anthrax.
While this does not prove that there are no WMDs it certainly proves that the Bush Adminstration did not know that there were/are WMD and that is exactly my point, they presented presumptions as facts.

Generally speaking, every large metropolitan area has the same problem. What is different about America is our drug culture, and that our drug users are twice as likely as Europeans to be using cocaine, crack, amphetamines, or methamphetamines.

You can't be serious about that. Do you realy think that drug addiction and assorted crime is any different in the US then in any other western country? One difference that I can think of is the concentration of those people in ghettos, but thats about it.

My experience with the police was that they showed up later (sometimes hours later) to arrest the perpetrator of the crime, or take a statement and start an investigation. Most people cannot and do not trust that the police will shield them from violence in America.

Well, exactly my point but the two of us seem to come to different conclusions. While I think in a country that is based on law and order, which, if my memory serves me right, is true for both the US and Germany, the solution ought to be to enable the police to respond more quickly to deal with "homocidal maniacs" rather then providing the population with firearms to take the law into the own hands. Well this seems to be matter of different attitude and i guess this can not be resolved by arguments.

I see you are fodder for Moore's propaganda. I urge you and your fellow Europeans to read the 9/11 Commission Report to get the facts rather than rely on Moore's distortions. I can rebut each of your statements, but that would devolve into 7 different arguments.

Excuse me, but I am by no means "fodder" for anyones propaganda. In fact the only information in my argumentation that I used Michael Moore as a source for was the Date of the Security Briefing.

The court's decision to stop the recount in Florida is a fact and no matter what reason (if I remember correctly the court explanation was that it wanted to defend the "institution of the President") is something that appears to me as a very bad idea in a democracy.

The Security Briefing is also a fact and if you have seen the hearing of Mrs. Rice on CNN you know that she actualy argued that the title of the document "may have been misleading" so the president did not take it as seriously as it should have been taken. (btw. on the question what the Title was, she replied "Bin Laden determined to attck inside the US"...well that is reeeeaaaaly misleading)

All members of the Bin Laden familiy that were inside the US on September 11th were flown back to Saudi-Arabia without being questioned at all, thats a fact.

During my time in Kuwait I discussed the orders on how to interrogate prisoners with friends from the US forces. There was even a leaflet from Mr. Rumsfeld featuring such nice things as keeping prisoners awake for extended periods of time, hold them in "uncomfortable" positions for extended periods of time, exposing them to extreme noise, threatening them with guard dogs, blindfolding them or combinations of the above to gain information. Interestingly this leaflet made it as far as the german newspaper "Stern" which featured a copy of it in April or May this year. While any of the above treatments are a violation of the Geneva Convention and more astonishingly favored methodes used by such nice organisations as the KGB and the Eastern German "Staatssicherheit".
Even the supreme court of the US came to the conclusion that the treatment of the prisoners was illegal.

Speculations presented as Facts? See above.

A solid plan for peace? Look at the current situation. You even said it yourself when proposing a different approach to the process of rebuilding Iraq.


Now, please, rebut any of the above statements. Me and my fellow Euopeans do not like to rely on distortions as we learned from our history that it is a bad idea. So there is a scary tendency to question the things we are told, no matter what source they are coming from. Following that tendency and while not agreeing on some conclusions Moore draws, after seeing his movie I could not disprove any fact that was presented in it.

[kandrathe]

Hm, okay, let's put it this way: During the "official" War Hussein used all his military arsenal to defend his Dictatorship but he did not use a single Weapon of Massdestruction. Now those who resist the US Forces in Iraq today use guerillia tactics including car bombing the own people, still no one uses poison gas or anything the like. If there are realy any supplies of those materials, don't you think those people would know where to find them and would use that knowledge to obtain and use them? I mean they are not afraid to decapitate hostages but don't use more "effective" means to make foreign forces withdraw?
To back this up, I served some time with the German Anti-Chemical Warfare Unit until just a few days before the attacks on Iraq started and what I learned there was that the Iraqis could not even drive a pickup truck to the next village without being tracked and that is just the information that was passed to our unit...so my guess is that US Headquaters knew just about everything that happened there.

Good. Then you know that it is possible that Saddam was not prepared for the invasion or the speed of the attack, and that as a general rule you do not store chemical or biological weapons in a ready to use state. You store the precursors and mix them up just before you use them. I believe most of those chemicals were trucked to Syria in the weeks prior to the war in an attempt to thwart Hans Blix's team.

Well, exactly my point but the two of us seem to come to different conclusions. While I think in a country that is based on law and order, which, if my memory serves me right, is true for both the US and Germany, the solution ought to be to enable the police to respond more quickly to deal with "homocidal maniacs" rather then providing the population with firearms to take the law into the own hands. Well this seems to be matter of different attitude and i guess this can not be resolved by arguments.

People in the US have been calling for more law and order for decades, and in response we have more people incarcerated that any nation on the planet. We also have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves with guns if we like. But, you entirely side-stepped my argument that the problem was drug use, and not firearm use.

You can't be serious about that. Do you realy think that drug addiction and assorted crime is any different in the US then in any other western country?

Amphetamine Use (methamphetamine, amphetamine and substances of the ecstasy group)
It was estimated that there were 24 million users of amphetamines in the world in the late 1990s. Of these, 58% lived in the Americas(3), 14% in Western Europe, 11% in Africa, 10% in Asia, 5% in Eastern Europe and 3% in Oceania. They represent 2.9% of Oceania's population, 0.8% in Western Europe, 0.7% in Asia, 0.5% (each) in the Americas and Africa, and 0.4% in Eastern Europe.

Of the estimated 4.5 million users of ecstasy, 51% lived in Western Europe, 27% in North America, 9% in Oceania, 7% in Eastern Europe, 4% in Asia, 2% in Africa and less than 1% in South America. These users represented 1.6% of Oceania's population aged 15 and over, 0.6% in Western Europe, 0.4% in North America, 0.1% in Eastern Europe, 0.02% in Africa, 0.01% in South America and 0.01% in Asia.

Heroin Use
Of the estimated 9.2 million heroin users in the world, 61% lived in Asia, 15% from Europe, 13% from the Americas(4), 6% in Oceania and 5% in Africa. These represent between 0.12 % and 0.22% of the population of these continents.

Cocaine Use
Of the estimated 14 million cocaine users in the world, 50% lived in North America, 22% in South America, 16% in Western Europe, 9% in Africa and 1% (each) lived in Asia, Oceania and Eastern Europe. Those users represented 2.2% of the population aged 15 and over in North America, 1.1% of the population in South America, 0.9% in Oceania, 0.7% in Western Europe, 0.3% in Africa, 0.04% in Eastern Europe and 0.01% in Asia.
Canadian DOJ: Drug Use and Offending by: Nathalie Quann, Research Analyst

United Nation: Office on Drugs and Crime -- Global Illicit Drug Trends
Americans are 4 times as likely to use Amphetamines, and Methamphetamines, and 3 times more likely to use Cocaine or Crack. Europeans are more likely to use Marijuana or Ecstasy. I am saying that the drugs that are used by Americans induce more violence. Americans patterns of drug abuse might also be different.

The court's decision to stop the recount in Florida is a fact and no matter what reason (if I remember correctly the court explanation was that it wanted to defend the "institution of the President") is something that appears to me as a very bad idea in a democracy.

The Supreme Courts argument for stopping the recount was that selective recounts in only 4 democrat counties violated the "equal protection" clause. Either the entire state needed to be recounted, or none. It was obvious that any legal recount would result in a slim Bush victory.

Although we find that the appellants are entitled to reversal in part of the trial
court's order and are entitled to a manual count of the Miami-Dade County
undervote, we agree with the appellees that the ultimate relief would require a
counting of the legal votes contained within the undervotes in all counties where
the undervote has not been subjected to a manual tabulation. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.  
ALBERT GORE, JR., and JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN vs KATHERINE HARRIS, as Secretary, etc., et al.

All members of the Bin Laden familiy that were inside the US on September 11th were flown back to Saudi-Arabia without being questioned at all, thats a fact.

9/11 Commission Report - Page 329

During my time in Kuwait I discussed the orders on how to interrogate prisoners with friends from the US forces. There was even a leaflet from Mr. Rumsfeld featuring such nice things as keeping prisoners awake for extended periods of time, hold them in "uncomfortable" positions for extended periods of time, exposing them to extreme noise, threatening them with guard dogs, blindfolding them or combinations of the above to gain information. Interestingly this leaflet made it as far as the german newspaper "Stern" which featured a copy of it in April or May this year.

Many of the detainee's in Abu Garib and Guantanamo are not POW's, so in a strict legal sense the GC does not apply. They should be treated humanely, but I disagree that they should not be aggressively interrogated. We are not fighting the Boy Scouts here, many of these people are ruthless terrorists. I would prefer we could all act civilized, but we need to realistically look at who we are dealing with here. Unfortunately, Abu Garib happened, and that was a mistake -- those responsible are being held accountable.

Me and my fellow Euopeans do not like to rely on distortions as we learned from our history that it is a bad idea. So there is a scary tendency to question the things we are told, no matter what source they are coming from. Following that tendency and while not agreeing on some conclusions Moore draws, after seeing his movie I could not disprove any fact that was presented in it.

And, yet it is obvious to me that you did not read the 9/11 commission report. So from where do you get your facts?

Edit: US Supreme Court admonishes the Florida Supreme Court for trying to rewrite election law after the election.

[Chaerophon]

People in the US have been calling for more law and order for decades, and in response we have more people incarcerated that any nation on the planet. We also have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves with guns if we like. But, you entirely side-stepped my argument that the problem was drug use, and not firearm use.

The problem is not drug use, Kandrathe. The murder rate in Washington is 46.2 per 100,000. Methamphetamine use is still classified as relatively low in that city, at 0.2% (http://www.kci.org/meth_info/june98_trends.htm). In Vancouver, where I live, meth use is very prevalent and we have one of the highest per capita injection drug use rates in all of North America. Yet our murder rate is a mere 2.1 per 100,000. Don't tell me that it is due to racial makeup, either, because our city has an extraordinarily diverse racial makeup. This is about the culture of violence and social issues.

Guns pervade a culture of violence. Not provable by specific statistics, perhaps, but undoubtedly provable by that old tool, common sense.

Interestingly enough, I'm not in any kind of opposition to the acquisition of guns through a process of stringent registration. However, if you can buy a Tech-9 at the local sporting goods store, there's a problem. Gun crime is not even a part of the mainstream Canadian consciousness; however, in the States, gun use, and the potential threat of gun use, is a constant. Furthermore, Canada boasts a FAR more extensive welfare and unemployment insurance sector and has consequently avoided the rampant ghettoism that pervades American cities.

Rather than solving the problem at its root, mainstream American libertarian response is to "protect one's self" rather than source the problem. Consequently, everyone buys a gun, the state incarcerates 10s of thousands more people, and yet no one is willing to address the human security issue by attacking the problem at its source, which is the pervasive social inequality and ghettoism of the cities. Frankly, this is the same reason that the American response to their domestic "human security" issues post-9/11 was to spend more money on the military and "close up ranks" rather than say, for example, relieve third world debt or adapt their foreign policy in a more positive way. To my view, the positive human security externalities to be derived from a redistributionist state far outweigh any inconvenience imposed by higher taxation. In addition, it's probably worth adding that corporate tax fraud costs the average taxpayer far more than does welfare fraud.

Regardless, violence and murder rates are cultural issues in the United States. One must go back a couple of hundred years to find their roots. The American ethos of militant individualism and unilateralism isn't going to adapt any time soon, so I guess you're right, Kandrathe, buy as many guns as you can, and pray, because common sense flew out the window a long time ago.

[kandrathe]

DC is also a very addicted city.
Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse -- January 2004
DEA Briefs - Washington, DC.

I would offer as a counter argument;
Dutch Embassy Speaks out on Drug Use and Crime Statistics.
HRW: Incarcerated America

Guns pervade a culture of violence. Not provable by statistics, perhaps, but undoubtedly provable by that old tool, common sense.

_____ pervades a culture of violence. That blank could be filled with any number of words, like Poverty, Desperation, Addiction, Gangs, etc.

My proposed solution is to decriminalize drug use, and devote the efforts and resources to preventing illegal distribution and manufacture of drugs. Decriminalize marijuana completely, the "modern prohibition" is not working. Also, as you propose it is a social problem in that the disenfranchised turn to this lucrative criminal enterprise in an attempt to improve their quality of life.

:) I don't really need guns where I live and I don't like hunting. In fact, I don't really need to lock my doors. Like I said, most of the violence in my State is confined to the ghetto areas. Remove the ghetto's and you will see a reduction in violence to "European" or "Canadian" levels.

Edit: I did a quick survey of some of my friends asking an open ended question, "Why is there more violence in America?" -- here are thier ideas; 1] the attitude of the population towards authority and government, 2] Americans are more materialistic, 3] the police are ineffective and so people need to fend for themselves.