MOORE'S MYTHS: "Fahrenheit 9/11" Debunked

[BlackRain]

July 12, 2004 -- AMONG its many errors, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is poisoning our political debate with its fictional account of the Florida vote in 2000.

Perhaps his distortions have gone unremarked because they've been repeated so often. (Jesse Jackson, for one, still speaks of Florida as "the scene of the crime" where " were disenfranchised. Our birthright stolen.") But still, Moore's "documentary" seems to set a new record for political dishonesty.

[b]Consider a few of the movie's assertions:

The Fox News Channel played a major role in Bush's victory in Florida: The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Gore, followed by a voiceover uttering, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy."

First off, Moore leaves out the fact that Fox first called Florida for Gore — and didn't call it back until 2 a.m.

Indeed, all the networks, Fox included, helped Gore by calling the Florida polls as closed at 7 p.m. Eastern time — and quickly declaring a Democrat the winner of the state's U.S. Senate race, before also saying the state had gone to Gore.

In fact, polls in the 10 heavily Republican counties in the state's western panhandle, located in the Central time zone, were open until 8. But why bother trying to vote when a trusted newsman says the polls are closed and you've already lost?



After surveying voters, Democratic strategist Bob Beckel claimed that the early call cost Bush a net loss of up to 8,000 votes. Another survey conducted by John McLaughlin and Associates, a Republican polling company, put Bush's net loss at about 10,000 votes.

"Under every scenario Gore would have won" the Florida vote if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't stopped the count. In making this claim, Moore chooses to ignore the most definitive post-election examinations of the ballots.

Two large news consortiums (USA Today and The Miami Herald headed one; the other included The New York Times) conducted massive recounts of Florida's ballots. Both reached very similar conclusions, and neither supported Moore's claim. To quote from the USA Today group's findings (May 11, 2001):

"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."

"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."

Unless all these news organizations are part of Moore's vast rightwing conspiracy, his claim that the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of the Florida Supreme Court's decision cost Gore the election is based only upon his own wishes, not facts.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush stole the election for his brother by removing African-American voters, who were likely to vote for Gore, from the rolls. Again, Moore ignores documented fact.

Some background: Florida bans felons from voting (unless they've been granted clemency). Before the 2000 vote, the state hired Database Technologies to purge rolls of felons and dead people. Some non-felons were erroneously removed from the rolls — but the errors didn't "target" minorities.

The liberal-leaning Palm Beach Post found that "a review of state records, internal e-mails of [Database Technologies] employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted."

The law against felon voting does have a racial impact, since African-Americans make up the greatest share of felons (nearly 49 percent felons convicted in Florida). But the application of that law in 2000 skewed somewhat the opposite way — whites were actually the most likely to be erroneously excluded.

The error rate was 9.9 percent for whites, 8.7 percent for Hispanics, and only a 5.1 percent for African-Americans.

*


Michael Moore has been honest in one regard: He freely admits he hopes his film helps defeat President Bush this fall. It's hard to find much else that he's been honest about, however — including calling "Fahrenheit 9/11" a documentary.

John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar and Brian Blase a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.

[BlackRain]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040712/summers.gif

[ShotOver]

haha, i like the cartoon.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm in the middle of reading a book about Moore. What a piece of work that guy is. He portrays himself as the shlubby "everyman" - waddling around dispensing folksy commentary. But he has on every occasion shown nothing but utter contempt for the American people that he claims to want to inform.

His "career", prior to his current gig as a left wing mouthpiece, seems to have been a series of short jobs, which he was usually fired from for being difficult, and then he'd turn around and sue his former employer. A consummate hypocrite who condemns the very culture that has produced him. In fact, he used the settlement money from one suit to begin production of his first film.

Starting with "Roger and Me" he has steadily built a career on distortions and outright lies. "Roger and Me", his seminal work, was savaged in the press for it's manipulations and timeline distortions. In fact, it can hardly even be called a "documentary" when the footage was manipulated so vigorously to create the desired effects. In short - Moore starts our with a goal, then edits together footage to support that view...a documentary isn't supposed to work that way.

He's even backed off calling 9/11 a documentary...now he refers to it as "my view of things" - since it has been shown to be such a reeking pile of left wing manipulation. But his supporters continue to tow the line.

I had a thought the other day of how much Moore reminds me of a character in a movie...it's kind of chilling actually. Check out the amazon.com review for this 1957 movie starring Andy Griffith called "A Face in the Crowd":


More timely now, perhaps, than when it was first released in 1957, Elia Kazan's overheated political melodrama explores the dangerous manipulative power of pop culture. It exposes the underside of Capra-corn populism, as exemplified in the optimistic fable of grassroots punditry Meet John Doe. In Kazan's account, scripted by Budd Schulberg, the common-man pontificator (Andy Griffith) is no Gary Cooper-style aw-shucks paragon. Promoted to national fame as a folksy TV idol by radio producer Patricia Neal, Griffith's Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes turns out to be a megalomaniacal rat bastard. The film turns apocalyptic as Rhodes exploits his power to sway the masses, helping to elect a reactionary presidential candidate. The parodies of television commercials and opinion polling were cutting edge in their day (Face in the Crowd was the Network of the Eisenhower era), and there are some startling, near-documentary sequences shot on location in Arkansas. An extraordinary supporting cast (led by Walter Matthau and Lee Remick) helps keep the energy level high, even when the satire turns shrill and unpersuasive in the final reel. There's an interesting parallel in Tim Robbins's snide pseudodocumentary Bob Roberts: both these pictures have almost as much contempt for the lemmings in the audience as for the manipulative monsters who herd them over the cliff. --David Chute

[sgt.pepper]

he is a gay

[WestCoastG's]

:bash: Someone should slaughter him like the fat cow he is :bash:

[A Soldier]

He is the poster boy for obesity b/c of Big Mac's maybe his next film should attack McDonalds. woot Fat Man with Ball Cap = Sloob

[vryhpyammoadded]

Moore is simply feeding his ego with the adulation of a target audience that wants to believe that the big, bad, evil Neocon’s, aka Fascists, are out to swindle us and take over the world crap. Its simply marketing combined with fancy editing otherwise known as “PROPAGANDA” I like to call it BullSh*t.

I highly recommend seeing “A Face in the Crowd”, a bit dated but, it’s a great movie anyway.
My high school government ed teacher made propaganda a required week study where we wrote various reports and watched a few classic German and Soviet propaganda films. He always saved “A Face In the Crowd” for last when someone would eventually say “Oh that would never happen in America”

[Durandal]

I am rather tired of hearing about the guy.

By the way, his name is Michael Moor not Moore. ;)

[Moledet]

I've downloaded it, and I gonna watch it today.

[Tranceaddict]

you guys should stop mentioning his weight, cause has absolutely nothing to do with what he says. You can make fun of his weight, but i cant figure out why it matters whether he's fat or not. He may say a few things that are slightly inaccurate, but Bush campaign ads are in the same boat.

[American Patriot]

I can't get over how morbidly fat Moore is. This pig must constantly stuff his mouth with BK™ Double Whoppers™ topped with extra greasy ingredients.

[Durandal]

you guys should stop mentioning his weight, cause has absolutely nothing to do with what he says. You can make fun of his weight, but i cant figure out why it matters whether he's fat or not. He may say a few things that are slightly inaccurate, but Bush campaign ads are in the same boat.

Just out of curiosity which Bush campaign ads are as "HIGHLY" inaccurate as ANYTHING Michael Moor does?

Heck, I'll make it easy. Which ads are "slightly" inaccurate?

I am tired of this style of comment/argument/discussion. Rather than making a statement as if it were fact, please provide the fact.

[BlackRain]

I am rather tired of hearing about the guy.

By the way, his name is Michael Moor not Moore. ;)


You might want to tell Michael Moore and Time Magazine that they have been spelling it wrong for a long time!

http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2004/1101040712_400.jpg

[Durandal]

I tried, but they would not listen...

:D

[BlackRain]

I tried, but they would not listen...

:D

;)

[Kilgor]

The weight is a important issue.

Because there is something so wrong about a hugely overweight millionare telling us how bad the evils of capitialism and big business are...

:roll:

[WestCoastG's]

I call for his death

[Secret Squirrel]

I call for his death

Good luck with that, i'll watch for you on the news. :roll:

[American Patriot]

I'm afraid if I throw a pie in his face he would eat it.

[Kilgor]

he'll explode like that man in monty pythons meaning of life !

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040712/summers.gif
rofl Thats great!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The weight is a important issue.

Because there is something so wrong about a hugely overweight millionare telling us how bad the evils of capitialism and big business are...

:roll:

Yeah - the man is a big-time capatilist - multiple homes, tons of money, in bed with the largest media corporations - and yet he condemns others for the very same thing. Of course when he puts himself onscreen, he's always sure to dress like a Wal-Mart refugee...

[mobster]

http://www.MooreIsFat.com
The one with the sheep is hilarious.

[Kilgor]

http://www.nypost.com/delonas/2004/06/06302004.jpg

My boss is wondering why i cant stop laughing behind the computer !

rofl rofl

[Deuterium]

http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/IRAQ2003/marines_say-FU2.JPG

[scm77]

http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/IRAQ2003/marines_say-FU2.JPG

rofl rofl rofl woot

[Dennis G]

http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/IRAQ2003/marines_say-FU2.JPG woot :hug:

[Pzkpfw]

anybody but bush

[Dennis G]

anybody but bush

Oh, not another one. Yeah like Kerry?

[FallenAngel]

anybody but bush

Oh, not another one. Yeah like Kerry?

Or Nader ? ;)

[b.scheller]

or Aldolf Gore

[Deuterium]

anybody but bush

Anyone running or anyone?

[WestCoastG's]

Where are rightwing radical militants when you need them? Oh yeah their planning his death right now(no literally i live near a very militant family in Georgia one that has a M60 machine gun)

[fokket]

Moore has better **** to say and even conspiracy theorists say MM is a liar

[Pzkpfw]

nope for kerry or nader

[Tane Angle]

While it'd be tough to find someone on this message board who appreciates Moore's intelligence, beauty, or style less than I do, he is still both a human being and an American citizen. I'm sorry, but I've seen enough people die to know that little if anything is gained by wishing things such as death on another.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Porta_jon]

Jack Black for president

[Pzkpfw]

Jack Black for president

or we could have a rock http://www.alliedassault.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_oOo.gif

[Dennis G]

Where are rightwing radical militants when you need them? Oh yeah their planning his death right now(no literally i live near a very militant family in Georgia one that has a M60 machine gun)

Good, free men own guns



nope for kerry or nader

Please fill us in.




While it'd be tough to find someone on this message board who appreciates Moore's intelligence, beauty, or style less than I do, he is still both a human being and an American citizen. I'm sorry, but I've seen enough people die to know that little if anything is gained by wishing things such as death on another.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I wouldn’t wish death on him, but if he were to die tomorrow I would not shed a tear.

[Pzkpfw]

erm, right now i question all politics and am not for any candidate so im just an observer of different views so as to not make biased views. im more or less socialist/green party views

[Dennis G]

erm, right now i question all politics and am not for any candidate so im just an observer of different views so as to not make biased views. im more or less socialist/green party views

are you Interested in military topics?

[Pzkpfw]

haha of course mate, my life is dedicated to military history and politics/world events. :D

[OB Kenobi]

Some of you act like Moore is the only one saying this stuff. He's just the only one to make a mainstream movie about it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but 50% of America is opposed to the Bu$h-Cheney corporate mafia. It was the same before the election and its still the same now, nothing short of Bu$h being undeniably caught and convicted will change anyone's mind. Probably not even then, look at OJ Simpson, some people still think he's innocent.

[Durandal]

Some of you act like Moore is the only one saying this stuff. He's just the only one to make a mainstream movie about it.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but 50% of America is opposed to the Bu$h-Cheney corporate mafia. It was the same before the election and its still the same now, nothing short of Bu$h being undeniably caught and convicted will change anyone's mind.

Yeah OB Kenobi...and I think you are a loon too.

In this nation you are innocent until proven guilty. Clinton, for example, was proven guilty, on several occasions. That has not happened to Bush.

With that said, Michael Moor is not different than some other jumped up money bags trying to buy the government. He is rich and lies to the common man to get his way. Just like a CEO or no Constitutional special interest group.

You PROVE to me Bush is a criminal and should be prosecuted, then I will agree that Bush is bad. Right now, I have issues with Bush, but not enough to get some bought and paid for liberal in the White House.

See, unlike you and those of your ilk, I understand that there is actually VERY little difference between Bush and Kerry. So, I normally keep quiet about the whole Bush vs. Kerry. They are both tools of big business. Neither one of them truly understands the common people in this nation. Both are rich (though Kerry is richer). Both are white. Both are corporate whores. Both sell out homo******s. Both waffle on certain issues that got them voted to were they are.

I mean the list goes on an on.

So do not preach to me about Bush unless you condemn Kerry in the same light.

With that said....

Michael Moor is not a documentary film director/producer, he is a op-ed filmmaker.

[fokket]

that MM is fat website is pathetic, Is there a website that goes head-on with MM's facts?

[cut]

Moore lies...so does Bush, Moore thank god isn't the leader of the free world, unfortunately Bush is. Moore is to neo-conservatives what Bush is to just about everyone else. Complain about Moore all you want, I don't care but don't stand in the way of criticism of Bush.

[Durandal]

Moore lies...so does Bush, Moore thank god isn't the leader of the free world, unfortunately Bush is. Moore is to neo-conservatives what Bush is to just about everyone else. Complain about Moore all you want, I don't care but don't stand in the way of criticism of Bush.

What did Bush lie about? Just curious. I have not heard about that one yet. I mean, did he knowingly lie? Has that been proven yet?

F*cking opinions...everyone has one. Bottom line, if in fact that intelligence was faulty EVERYONE is to blame. Get off your high horse and blame everyone or know one, because in our country, a President simply cannot do everything Bush has done without the will of those in both the legislative and judicial branches. You can look at the last elections and see this is what the people wanted and I'll be damned if the Senators and House Reps didn't do just that.

*snort* Bush Bush Bush...

You guys kill me...

What we have is a government corrupt from the top down...or not corrupt. Which is it. Bush is no different than the last three presidents we have had, YET, I hear folks like cut bitch and whine like this dude was something out of the ordinary.

rofl

Bunch of suckers!

[Kilgor]

Moore claims to be the voice of the truth and exposing the lies of the bu$h imperialist conspiracy.

Its one thing to lie, but everyone HATES hypocrites.

Moore is one of the biggest most disgusting ones out there.

Face it.

[Deuterium]

Bush is no different than the last three presidents...

Except that Clinton unequivocally lied, under oath, convincingly so, and pointed a finger at us when he did so. If Bush is PROVEN a liar then I'll jump on that crucifixion bandwagon. Until then I'm with Durandal.

[achilles]

I dont know if Michael Moor's claims in his film are all justified properly. To be honest i dont really care. At least he provides some kind of evidence in contrast to the evidence that George Bush and his governement has provided so far, regarding the aims of the American foreign policy and so forth...Perhaps Moor's work can be a reason for American people to start caring and thinking critically about who they vote every 4 years. If anything, Fahrenheit 9/11 acheives one thing pretty well: to show Bush's attitude and mental capacity under critical circumstances. Is there anyone who can advocate Bush's political (even mental) abilities based on...anything?

Apart from Bush and Moor i would like to make a general comment on the American foreign policy. USA is a nation built strictly on war and as such it has developed a vast weapons industry. Big strong industries create big strong lobbies that work in favor of their profits. In order for those giants to maintain profits war is needed...and here comes the wonderful exchange...the US governement creates the war in exchange for political and financial support...and everyone is happy...at least within the US borders...How do i know all that? Well i am the first one to claim that we cannot be certain about anything but its very easy to open up a few good independent books and other sources to get only a small piece of the big picture.
Do we really need Moor to know about Cheney and his involvement with the corporate world? Do we need any inside information to realize the 'quality' of Henry Kissinger's foreign policy? With a bit of research...the truth is right there. Are voters going to vote again for George W. Bush? Thats probably the wrong question...Is anything going to change if the democrats come in power? Not very likely, but as i said we cant be sure about anything...the only thing i am sure of is what Bush and his fellas are capable, or incapable, of.
I really feel sorry about one thing...for that large chunk of the American army, the one not too busy torturing and humilating Iraqis, that really believes the war they are fighting is about genuine ideals or self-defense(!!!).
Voting is probably the only democratic moment we are provided with and it comes only once every four years....voting is good...thinking before voting is even better for everyone.

God bless the blind...

[achilles]

oh and i have a question....speaking about Moor...what does weight and beauty has to do with telling the truth or not? get real....

[ibstolidude]

USA is a nation built strictly on war and as such it has developed a vast weapons industry.
- another true student of history.

"god bless the blind" - indeed sir, you need it.

[Romulus]

the US governement creates the war in exchange for political and financial support

Please tell me you are ****ing joking?

We create war? The US did not ask to be bombed at Pearl Harbor. Nor did we ask to have 4 planes hijacked and used as guided missiles against civilians. Your claims are baseless drivel and should be posted at the "I-Believe-in-rightwing-conspiracies.com" forum.

[OB Kenobi]

You see, Michael Moore was right:

U.S. Won't Turn Over Data for Iraq Audits
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 16, 2004; Page A16

UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- The Bush administration is withholding information from U.N.-sanctioned auditors examining more than $1 billion in contracts awarded to Halliburton Co. and other companies in Iraq without competitive bidding, the head of the international auditing board said Thursday.

Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, the U.N. representative to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), said that the United States has repeatedly rebuffed his requests since March to turn over internal audits, including one that covered three contracts valued at $1.4 billion that were awarded to Halliburton, a Texas-based oil services firm. It has also failed to produced a list of other companies that have obtained contracts without having to compete.

The Security Council established the IAMB, which includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, in May 2003 to ensure that Iraq's oil revenue would be managed responsibly during the U.S. occupation. The council extended its mandate in July so it could continue to monitor the use of Iraq's oil revenue after the United States transferred political authority to the Iraqis in June.

The dispute comes as the board released an initial audit by the accounting firm KPMG on Thursday that sharply criticized the U.S.-led coalition's management of billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenue. The audit also raised concerns about lax financial controls in some Iraqi ministries, citing poor bookkeeping and duplicate payments of salaries to government employees.

The Pentagon did not specifically answer questions about withholding information to auditors, but released a statement saying the Coalition Provisional Authority worked hard to manage Iraq's oil resources.

"In a very challenging environment, the CPA made every effort to bring sound management transparency and oversight to the Development Fund for Iraq while at the same time improving the quality of life for the Iraqi people," said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. "The CPA supported the efforts of the auditors. KPMG's comments and recommendations will be passed on to the Iraqi interim government for their use."

The audit, which covers May 2003 to December 2003, asserts that the coalition's management of Iraq's oil was plagued by "inadequate" bookkeeping and accounting systems, high turnover among coalition finance officials and a disregard for procedures designed to ensure competitive bidding for contracts. KPMG is planning to produce a second audit that covers the coalition's management of the program through June 2004.

The IAMB concluded that more than $10 billion in Iraq's oil proceeds and frozen assets had been "properly and transparently accounted for" after they were deposited in the U.S.-controlled Development Fund for Iraq. But it asserted that "financial controls were insufficient to provide reasonable assurance" that the money was properly spent.

"KPMG has not reported to us any evidence of fraud," Halbwachs told reporters before the audit was released. "There are weaknesses that could lead to fraudulent activities. It makes it easier to defraud the system if the controls are weak."

In a written response to the criticism included in the report, the U.S.-led coalition said management of Iraq's oil industry was hampered by ongoing violence.

"Although the auditor encountered difficulties, they are generally the result of the challenging work environment and the precautions the security conditions demanded," according to a statement included in the audit. "For example, retrieving a simple bank statement from the Central Bank of Iraq, or a meeting with Ministry of Oil officials, presented significant security issues, as these facilities required a security detail of at least six persons."

KPMG outlined a series of other shortcomings, including the coalition's failure to install meters on Iraq's Persian Gulf export loading platforms, making it impossible to determine how much oil Iraq was exporting. KPMG said that it was unable to verify independently the value of crude oil Iraq bartered for Syrian electricity.

[Dennis G]

Yeah guys Michael Moore was right, jeez get with the program you evil neocons :roll:


Oh Kenobi :petting:

[rob]

You see, Michael Moore was right:

U.S. Won't Turn Over Data for Iraq Audits
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 16, 2004; Page A16

UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- The Bush administration is withholding information from U.N.-sanctioned auditors examining more than $1 billion in contracts awarded to Halliburton Co. and other companies in Iraq without competitive bidding, the head of the international auditing board said Thursday.

Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, the U.N. representative to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), said that the United States has repeatedly rebuffed his requests since March to turn over internal audits, including one that covered three contracts valued at $1.4 billion that were awarded to Halliburton, a Texas-based oil services firm. It has also failed to produced a list of other companies that have obtained contracts without having to compete.

The Security Council established the IAMB, which includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, in May 2003 to ensure that Iraq's oil revenue would be managed responsibly during the U.S. occupation. The council extended its mandate in July so it could continue to monitor the use of Iraq's oil revenue after the United States transferred political authority to the Iraqis in June.

The dispute comes as the board released an initial audit by the accounting firm KPMG on Thursday that sharply criticized the U.S.-led coalition's management of billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenue. The audit also raised concerns about lax financial controls in some Iraqi ministries, citing poor bookkeeping and duplicate payments of salaries to government employees.

The Pentagon did not specifically answer questions about withholding information to auditors, but released a statement saying the Coalition Provisional Authority worked hard to manage Iraq's oil resources.

"In a very challenging environment, the CPA made every effort to bring sound management transparency and oversight to the Development Fund for Iraq while at the same time improving the quality of life for the Iraqi people," said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. "The CPA supported the efforts of the auditors. KPMG's comments and recommendations will be passed on to the Iraqi interim government for their use."

The audit, which covers May 2003 to December 2003, asserts that the coalition's management of Iraq's oil was plagued by "inadequate" bookkeeping and accounting systems, high turnover among coalition finance officials and a disregard for procedures designed to ensure competitive bidding for contracts. KPMG is planning to produce a second audit that covers the coalition's management of the program through June 2004.

The IAMB concluded that more than $10 billion in Iraq's oil proceeds and frozen assets had been "properly and transparently accounted for" after they were deposited in the U.S.-controlled Development Fund for Iraq. But it asserted that "financial controls were insufficient to provide reasonable assurance" that the money was properly spent.

"KPMG has not reported to us any evidence of fraud," Halbwachs told reporters before the audit was released. "There are weaknesses that could lead to fraudulent activities. It makes it easier to defraud the system if the controls are weak."

In a written response to the criticism included in the report, the U.S.-led coalition said management of Iraq's oil industry was hampered by ongoing violence.

"Although the auditor encountered difficulties, they are generally the result of the challenging work environment and the precautions the security conditions demanded," according to a statement included in the audit. "For example, retrieving a simple bank statement from the Central Bank of Iraq, or a meeting with Ministry of Oil officials, presented significant security issues, as these facilities required a security detail of at least six persons."

KPMG outlined a series of other shortcomings, including the coalition's failure to install meters on Iraq's Persian Gulf export loading platforms, making it impossible to determine how much oil Iraq was exporting. KPMG said that it was unable to verify independently the value of crude oil Iraq bartered for Syrian electricity.

and this prooves?

[achilles]

[quote=achilles]USA is a nation built strictly on war and as such it has developed a vast weapons industry.
- another true student of history.

"god bless the blind" - indeed sir, you need iI

I am afraid being ironic doesnt proove i am wrong...i never said i am 100% right in the first place...its just the way things seem to be. If you can proove or argue in favor of the opposite i would be really glad to follow you.
Nevertheless i must correct something which was actually a bad use of language...USA is not a nation built STRICTLY on war...war is a large part of its foundations and believe me, there are many things i admire about this country. I conclude with a question: can you refute the great role of the weapons' industry in conducting foreign and domestic policy?

[achilles]

the US governement creates the war in exchange for political and financial support

Please tell me you are f*** joking?

We create war? The US did not ask to be bombed at Pearl Harbor. Nor did we ask to have 4 planes hijacked and used as guided missiles against civilians. Your claims are baseless drivel and should be posted at the "I-Believe-in-rightwing-conspiracies.com" forum.

You maybe right about Pearl Harbor although Japan neither asked nor deserved two atomic bombs as a response. About 9/11...with all the respect and grief for the innocent victims...has it ever occured to you that the attacks were INDEED asked by the US? Could it be a reaction against the American oppression towards the middle-east and the support on Israel?Shall i ask the same question in the "I-Believe-in-rightwing-conspiracies.com" forum? And please dont percieve my questions as an attempt to justify the 9/11 attacks.

[Durandal]

Actually, The United States has been one of the single largest arms exporters in the world. We have been supplying, in some cases, both sides of several conflicts, ever since the end of the Revolutionary War.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. Nothing wrong with an arms industry. it is as legit as any other business.

The US has been pretty well established in the arms trade though.

Just thought I would point that out.

[achilles]

Actually, The United States has been one of the single largest arms exporters in the world. We have been supplying, in some cases, both sides of several conflicts, ever since the end of the Revolutionary War.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. Nothing wrong with an arms industry. it is as legit as any other business.

The US has been pretty well established in the arms trade though.

Just thought I would point that out.

I appreciate you pointed that out durandal. I would say that an arms industry is just fine and legitimate when it comes to producing weapons for self-defense or selling them to nations that really need them for their own purposes of protection. However the scale of the US arms industry does not allow it to operate this way...it needs exports in order for business to keep going well and this goes well beyond the scope of self-defense. Its about maximizing profits and this cannot be either justified or legitimate the way i think about it...its weapons we are talking about...not shoes, computers or whatever

[cut]

Moore lies...so does Bush, Moore thank god isn't the leader of the free world, unfortunately Bush is. Moore is to neo-conservatives what Bush is to just about everyone else. Complain about Moore all you want, I don't care but don't stand in the way of criticism of Bush.

What did Bush lie about? Just curious. I have not heard about that one yet. I mean, did he knowingly lie? Has that been proven yet?

F*cking opinions...everyone has one. Bottom line, if in fact that intelligence was faulty EVERYONE is to blame. Get off your high horse and blame everyone or know one, because in our country, a President simply cannot do everything Bush has done without the will of those in both the legislative and judicial branches. You can look at the last elections and see this is what the people wanted and I'll be damned if the Senators and House Reps didn't do just that.

*snort* Bush Bush Bush...

You guys kill me...

What we have is a government corrupt from the top down...or not corrupt. Which is it. Bush is no different than the last three presidents we have had, YET, I hear folks like cut bitch and whine like this dude was something out of the ordinary.

rofl

Bunch of suckers!

oh sorry, my mistake, Bush was gullible enough to suggest that Iraq was back on track with nuclear weapons, several times, which I remember because it surprised me at the time, but I'm sure you convienniently forgot about that.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

You see, Michael Moore was right:

U.S. Won't Turn Over Data for Iraq Audits
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 16, 2004; Page A16

UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- The Bush administration is withholding information from U.N.-sanctioned auditors examining more than $1 billion in contracts awarded to Halliburton Co. and other companies in Iraq without competitive bidding, the head of the international auditing board said Thursday.

Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, the U.N. representative to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), said that the United States has repeatedly rebuffed his requests since March to turn over internal audits, including one that covered three contracts valued at $1.4 billion that were awarded to Halliburton, a Texas-based oil services firm. It has also failed to produced a list of other companies that have obtained contracts without having to compete.

The Security Council established the IAMB, which includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, in May 2003 to ensure that Iraq's oil revenue would be managed responsibly during the U.S. occupation. The council extended its mandate in July so it could continue to monitor the use of Iraq's oil revenue after the United States transferred political authority to the Iraqis in June.

The dispute comes as the board released an initial audit by the accounting firm KPMG on Thursday that sharply criticized the U.S.-led coalition's management of billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenue. The audit also raised concerns about lax financial controls in some Iraqi ministries, citing poor bookkeeping and duplicate payments of salaries to government employees.

The Pentagon did not specifically answer questions about withholding information to auditors, but released a statement saying the Coalition Provisional Authority worked hard to manage Iraq's oil resources.

"In a very challenging environment, the CPA made every effort to bring sound management transparency and oversight to the Development Fund for Iraq while at the same time improving the quality of life for the Iraqi people," said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. "The CPA supported the efforts of the auditors. KPMG's comments and recommendations will be passed on to the Iraqi interim government for their use."

The audit, which covers May 2003 to December 2003, asserts that the coalition's management of Iraq's oil was plagued by "inadequate" bookkeeping and accounting systems, high turnover among coalition finance officials and a disregard for procedures designed to ensure competitive bidding for contracts. KPMG is planning to produce a second audit that covers the coalition's management of the program through June 2004.

The IAMB concluded that more than $10 billion in Iraq's oil proceeds and frozen assets had been "properly and transparently accounted for" after they were deposited in the U.S.-controlled Development Fund for Iraq. But it asserted that "financial controls were insufficient to provide reasonable assurance" that the money was properly spent.

"KPMG has not reported to us any evidence of fraud," Halbwachs told reporters before the audit was released. "There are weaknesses that could lead to fraudulent activities. It makes it easier to defraud the system if the controls are weak."

In a written response to the criticism included in the report, the U.S.-led coalition said management of Iraq's oil industry was hampered by ongoing violence.

"Although the auditor encountered difficulties, they are generally the result of the challenging work environment and the precautions the security conditions demanded," according to a statement included in the audit. "For example, retrieving a simple bank statement from the Central Bank of Iraq, or a meeting with Ministry of Oil officials, presented significant security issues, as these facilities required a security detail of at least six persons."

KPMG outlined a series of other shortcomings, including the coalition's failure to install meters on Iraq's Persian Gulf export loading platforms, making it impossible to determine how much oil Iraq was exporting. KPMG said that it was unable to verify independently the value of crude oil Iraq bartered for Syrian electricity.

This is laughable. The UN is the best joke in town. By what authority does the UN have the right to investigate this? The UN refused to participate in the "liberation", and yet they claim the right to audit it?

They're pissed because they think the contracts went to the wrong people. Once the oil-for-food gravy train stopped - a bunch of folks were out in the cold & very pissed off.

So let me get this straight...screw the US, oppose the war, block it at every turn at the UN, increase the danger to coalition troops by reducing the force size, force the coalition nations to pay for the entire operation...and then turn around and expect the coalition to give you the lucrative contracts?

I think not.

F*cking UN - just unbelievable. As far as I'm concerned, if they lacked the stones to HELP during the war - they can hardly now point fingers about how efficiently it was done.

The UN is hanging on by its last thread....desperate for something to make it relevant. Too late boys..that horse has left the barn.

[German_American]

achilles, I dont even want to read a response from you, but from what I read in your post, I almost threw up. From my understanding you think the US desearved 911 from supporting Israel and how corrupt we are. You really believe the Japanese did not desearve those atomic bombs. Im sure you would have rather read in the history books that a million American lives were lost in the invasion of Japan. By the way we killed a good number of people in Japan and Germany just carpet bombing and not with the atomic bomb. Whatever its a free country keep on talking, I shouldnt have opened my mouth, I forgot my views are not acceptable.[/quote]

[Sepper]

How many of you who are dogging the film actually saw it? Just wondering.

[mi35d]

Even if I was inclined to see the film, by purchasing a ticket I support Moore and his OWN capitalistic adventures. (Ironic in that Mr. Moore's fortune has been made on the sorrows of others.) I haven't seen him give all of the profits to Iraqi orphanages or given previous profits to a "Columbine Scholorship Fund". How about giving away the money from "Roger & Me" to help needy in detroit? Nah. Keep it and throw parties for your new Hollywood friends who find it trendy to be your buddy.

As for Japan not "asking for two atom bombs" - you're kidding right? Hmmm...let's ask the 10's of thousands of Chinese in Nanking if they "asked" to be raped, murdered and tortured.

As for the US being a major arms exporter since the late 1700's, that too is incorrect. The US was still importing the majority of its small arms and indeed, it's heavy arms until late in the 1800's. (Mausers were the gun of choice around the world. until WWII.) The US really didn't become and arms exporter of any substance until after WWII. (Huge stockpiles of M1 Garands and M1 Carbines ready for sale.) Beyond that, how many M16's have been exported as compared to say...AK-47's??? How many M60 or M1 tanks are rolling around the world as compared to say...T-72's? Etc. Etc. Etc.

[achilles]

achilles, I dont even want to read a response from you, but from what I read in your post, I almost threw up. From my understanding you think the US desearved 911 from supporting Israel and how corrupt we are. You really believe the Japanese did not desearve those atomic bombs. Im sure you would have rather read in the history books that a million American lives were lost in the invasion of Japan. By the way we killed a good number of people in Japan and Germany just carpet bombing and not with the atomic bomb. Whatever its a free country keep on talking, I shouldnt have opened my mouth, I forgot my views are not acceptable.[/quote]

I never mentioned anything about trowing up on someone's opinion but you can well do it and then start getting real. First of all, i did not mean that the Japanese did not deserve retaliations. I said they didnt deserve the SPECIFIC response that was meant to make them suffer for generations after. They absolutely deserved revenge as part of the axis.
Keep another thing in mind: the Japanese attacked a military target during the Pearl Harbor events whereas Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian targets. And we better not compare the number of casualties...
Before throwing up, go back to your history books and revise...maybe these statistics can help you a little. The total US casualties in ALL battles during WW2 were 405,399 and the total US casualties DURING ALL WARS in the American history, including the civil war, were less than a million.
And a final clarification on 9/11 since your understanding seems to be a bit slippery. I never said America deserved 9/11 and i definitely share the grief for the victims. However, suppressing the middle-east and supporting the 'dodgy' Israely 'foreign policy' are two good reasons to expect revenge from the Arab world. 'Expecting' revenge and 'deserving' revenge are two very different things.I hate terrorism as much as you do and even more Bin Laden and what he stands for.
Enjoy your history revision.....

[abncougar]

he doesnt deserve to have his name spelled right

[aartamen]

http://www.lepricon.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=465

I am with them on this issue.

[Durandal]

I appreciate you pointed that out durandal. I would say that an arms industry is just fine and legitimate when it comes to producing weapons for self-defense or selling them to nations that really need them for their own purposes of protection. However the scale of the US arms industry does not allow it to operate this way...it needs exports in order for business to keep going well and this goes well beyond the scope of self-defense. Its about maximizing profits and this cannot be either justified or legitimate the way i think about it...its weapons we are talking about...not shoes, computers or whatever

Sorry. I disagree. The American Defense Industry is not running around starting wars. Nor do they tell politicians what to do. I have family in the industry, I have heard a LOT of stories and let me tell you, that is NOT the way it works. The Federal Government HEAVILY regulates what leaves this country. You also have contractors fighting (politically) to get contracts because a good chunk of them do not have export licenses.

You need to research the Defense Industry a little bit more.

Oh, and BTW, a majority of the Defense Industry exports are NOT weapons. Even if they were maximizing profit, so long as safety is not sacrificed (for the user of whatever product) is QUITE fine by me. As an investor and a citizen that believes in at least a lightly regulated form of capitalism I see absolutely no problem with this. The sole purpose of company is to show a profit. In a perfect world is would profit and merit of product.

Not too sure what the problem is.

[Durandal]

As for the US being a major arms exporter since the late 1700's, that too is incorrect. The US was still importing the majority of its small arms and indeed, it's heavy arms until late in the 1800's. (Mausers were the gun of choice around the world. until WWII.) The US really didn't become and arms exporter of any substance until after WWII..

Not true at all. Follow the Revolutionary War there was a HUGE surplus of arms in the United States and while it was cheaper for the United States to purchase rifles from European armories in the end the US decided to push its own Arms Industry.


*In the arms industry, however, political logic can override economic logic. That happened in the early 1790s when the political situation in Europe led the Congress to see a threat in the lack of an American small arms industry. The conflicts boiling over from the French Revolution promised to shut off seagoing trade, quite possibly leaving the army vulnerable to another shortage of muskets if the U.S. were drawn into any conflict that called for mobilization. Thus, in 1794, Congress authorized the opening of a federal armory in Springfield, Massachusetts. This new arsenal, with 70 workmen and 30 apprentices, was expected to produce 4,200 muskets annually. The Springfield Armory began meeting its quota in 1799, just as Whitney was getting started on his production.


Whitney had a quota to meet of 10 THOUSAND pieces.

The US also had contracts with another 26 private companies for a total of 40K rifles.

Now, the Springfield and Harper's Ferry Armories were strictly domestic use (at that time).

Its those 26 odd private companies that were exporting arms.

During the Civil War, the North was capable of producing well over 5000 rifles in a single day.

Winchester, was exporting loads of firearms to Europe not ten years after its creation. As was Colt. The birth of the American Firearms Industry started in the late 1700s and by the early 1800s were selling LOTS of stuff. Not just rifles and pistols but raw powder and material to make explosives. Look at World War I. American was "part" of the conflict the moment Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated...shipping arms and war materials.

It was not till the 1950s that we see the Defense Industry we know today...with Eisenhower's blessings. That is a completely different tale however.

[Hiroshima]

This is probably going to be the one thing I'll agree whole-heartedly with anyone in this thread. The US Defense Industry makes the products, they don't cause the wars, wars are caused by people who either a> have run out of options, or b> are skipping ahead to plan b because it's convient. BTW, anyone hear anything on the tank mounted railgun they were testing a few years ago at Aberdeen?

[achilles]

I appreciate you pointed that out durandal. I would say that an arms industry is just fine and legitimate when it comes to producing weapons for self-defense or selling them to nations that really need them for their own purposes of protection. However the scale of the US arms industry does not allow it to operate this way...it needs exports in order for business to keep going well and this goes well beyond the scope of self-defense. Its about maximizing profits and this cannot be either justified or legitimate the way i think about it...its weapons we are talking about...not shoes, computers or whatever

Sorry. I disagree. The American Defense Industry is not running around starting wars. Nor do they tell politicians what to do. I have family in the industry, I have heard a LOT of stories and let me tell you, that is NOT the way it works. The Federal Government HEAVILY regulates what leaves this country. You also have contractors fighting (politically) to get contracts because a good chunk of them do not have export licenses.

You need to research the Defense Industry a little bit more.

Oh, and BTW, a majority of the Defense Industry exports are NOT weapons. Even if they were maximizing profit, so long as safety is not sacrificed (for the user of whatever product) is QUITE fine by me. As an investor and a citizen that believes in at least a lightly regulated form of capitalism I see absolutely no problem with this. The sole purpose of company is to show a profit. In a perfect world is would profit and merit of product.

Not too sure what the problem is.

The problem is, again, that we are talking about a very specific kind of industry that should not be treated in the same manner as any other exporting industry. I have no objection on what you are saying about the federal government regulating exports. Still, that doesnt mean that the total volume of exported arms can be justified, by any criterion of profit maximization. Restricting exports can well be a measure to maintain prices at desirable levels...something that can work in favor of certain weapons corporations. Therefore regulation can be, and in fact has been, a product of 'negotiation' between some companies and the governement. (in the same way they 'politically' fight to get more contracts).
Even if we accept your claim that the majority of the exports are not weapons (what is it anyway?), then this is not sufficient to justify the TOTAL VOLUME of exported weapons. So what is my problem with the enormous quantitities of cutting-edge weapons leaving the country?
The fact that, historically, arming some of the so-called 'rogue' or ambitious states has changed the balance of power towards their favor and this has triggered wars both within the state and outside. Examples? Turkey; check out what happened with Cyprus. Israel; check out the daily newspapers. Even Saddam's horriffic regime war partialy armed by the US. Do you see any 'sacrifice of safety' in this pattern? Well i do...

Wars are good for the defese industry. I would be the first one to buy some Lockheed Martin stocks once a war has been declared. I would also buy military-catering, construction and oil company stock (especially if the war was to take place somewhere in the Middle East). Add up all the above sectors and you have a considerable chunk of the American economy;adequate to trigger a war.
As an investor and a citizen who believes in a sufficiently regulated form of capitalism, i see too many problems with this connection between the governement and the corporate world and a great deal of global safety sacrifised in the name of profits...

[Deuterium]

Why is it Achilles that EVERY country in the past and present gets a pass except for the US from you? Let me tell you something son, I was in Iraq. I don't remember any US arms being fired at me. I do remember Soviet, French, Austrian, Czech, and Chinese weapons and ammunition being used against me. I do remember going into bunkers that were built by the Germans and French.

[Hiroshima]

Where did you serve? And sounds like you've had the entire soviet bloc's range of conventional small arms thrown at you.

[achilles]

Why is it Achilles that EVERY country in the past and present gets a pass except for the US from you? Let me tell you something son, I was in Iraq. I don't remember any US arms being fired at me. I do remember Soviet, French, Austrian, Czech, and Chinese weapons and ammunition being used against me.

I never said that EVERY country get a pass. I am focusing, and the whole discussion does, on the US and it makes perfect sense since it is the only military and economic superpower left and apparently plays the most crucial role on world affairs.
With all the respect, sir, US arms have indeed been sold to Sadam's regime back in the 80's when the relations between the two coutries were quite different. I know that Iraq was primarily armed by the Soviet Union, as you said and know better than me. What i said is that the US has PARTIALLY armed Iraq during the past. The fact that weapons and amunitions from various countries except US were, unfortunately, fired against you does not mean that American arms have never been sold to the Iraqi forces. Even if we assume that this never happened, this cannot refute my previous arguments.
I would be really glad to have the opinion of someone who saw thins from 'inside', regarding the general discussion we are having here.

[Hiroshima]

Actually, if I remember correctly, we bought Soviet weapons fron the Contras, then shipped them someplace where they were given to the Iraqis...to fight the Iranians...we equip our allies, dude.....not without a price tag, but that's what we do.....

[Deuterium]

One more thing Achilles let's go back to economics 101. Defense spending as a part of US GDP is less than 4%.

The largest portion of GDP, 80% is consumer consumption, you know washing machines, dining out, cars, etc.

So your supposition is that 3.4% of our economy is what drives everything?????? Son, put down the crack pipe. You are supposed to say NO to drugs.



http://www.bea.gov/beahome.html

http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/usspend4-2-98.pdf

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

[achilles]

Actually, if I remember correctly, we bought Soviet weapons fron the Contras, then shipped them someplace where they were given to the Iraqis...to fight the Iranians...we equip our allies, dude.....not without a price tag, but that's what we do.....

Equip our allies? Who? Saddam? This monster who fired chemical weapons on the Kurds back in the late 80's and later on invaded Kuwait?
This ruthless dictator who later on was capable of launching a WMD attack within 45 minutes? Are these the kind of allies we equipe dude?

But i must agree with the 'price tag' comment...and definitely with the 'thats what we do' part...

[Deuterium]

Actually, if I remember correctly, we bought Soviet weapons fron the Contras, then shipped them someplace where they were given to the Iraqis...to fight the Iranians...we equip our allies, dude.....not without a price tag, but that's what we do.....

A drop in the bucket. Let us not forget that entire "scandal" was to FREE hostages.

[Deuterium]

Actually, if I remember correctly, we bought Soviet weapons fron the Contras, then shipped them someplace where they were given to the Iraqis...to fight the Iranians...we equip our allies, dude.....not without a price tag, but that's what we do.....

Equip our allies? Who? Saddam? This monster who fired chemical weapons on the Kurds back in the late 80's and later on invaded Kuwait?
This ruthless dictator who later on was capable of launching a WMD attack within 45 minutes? Are these the kind of allies we equipe dude?

But i must agree with the 'price tag' comment...and definitely with the 'thats what we do' part...

Yep, why do you think the language of diplomacy is French? What's that "strange bed-fellows" quote????

[achilles]

[quote="Deuterium"]One more thing Achilles let's go back to economics 101. Defense spending as a part of US GDP is less than 4%.

The largest portion of GDP, 80% is consumer consumption, you know washing machines, dining out, cars, etc.

So your supposition is that 3.4% of our economy is what drives everything?????? Son, put down the crack pipe. You are supposed to say NO to drugs.

The US GDP in bucks is around 10 trillion $ annually. 3.4% of that is 3.4 billlion dollars. 3.4 BILLION $ PER YEARis not enough to drive or AT LEAST put pressures on some calls about foreign policy, especially when some top-end politicians are involved with the companies under consideration???. Oh, you can add a few more billions to the initial amount due to the oil companies, construction companies and all those who can have a good time before, during and after a war. Its not economics 101...it all comes down to elementary mathematics.

And the comments on drugs and crack pipes?...hilarious...

[Deuterium]

[quote=Deuterium]One more thing Achilles let's go back to economics 101. Defense spending as a part of US GDP is less than 4%.

The largest portion of GDP, 80% is consumer consumption, you know washing machines, dining out, cars, etc.

So your supposition is that 3.4% of our economy is what drives everything?????? Son, put down the crack pipe. You are supposed to say NO to drugs.

The US GDP in bucks is around 10 trillion $ annually. 3.4% of that is 3.4 billlion dollars. 3.4 BILLION $ PER YEARis not enough to drive or AT LEAST put pressures on some calls about foreign policy, especially when some top-end politicians are involved with the companies under consideration???. Oh, you can add a few more billions to the initial amount due to the oil companies, construction companies and all those who can have a good time before, during and after a war. Its not economics 101...it all comes down to elementary mathematics.

And the comments on drugs and crack pipes?...hilarious...

Well sorry that's my argument. It's just not reasonable for me to think that that small of a percentage, yeah it’s some bucks all right, leads the way in influence. So the auto industry alone, that is much larger than the defense industry tacks a back seat(pun intended) to the Defense industry? How can that be? More people are employed building cars than building bombs and fighter jets. I just can't see it. During WWII defense as a part of GDP was around 40%. Okay I'll buy your argument then. In fact Ike’s famous quote came about when the defense GDP numbers were so high. Today I'd but that Microsoft has more influence than any defense contractor. Just my thoughts.

[Hiroshima]

Achilles: Well, let's see.....it's politically expedient to deal with the scum of the earth, least ye holymen dare lead a revolt (Shan of Iran, the Ayatolla respectfully). Sometimes our sh*t backfires (read Afganistan), sometimes it works out well (don't remember anything off the top of my head). We supply arms to rebels who fight governments that dont like us, we supply weapons to goverments that typically have the worst human rights records in the world (read Saudi Arabia). We delt with the soviets in World War 2, knowing full well that afterwards we'd be squaring off against them during the cold war. Why? Well, A> Who cares if a million russians die? and b> Two front wars SUCK, especially if it turns into an 'Oh God Why Me?' sandwhich. If you're say...the US, and one of your allies gets overthrown by religious zelots, and there's this little punk who, years ago, went and did the samething but it was a British aligned ruler but was willing to go after the people that overthrew your buddy if you just, oh, dropped a few billion dollars in small arms, tanks, artillary, and monkeys trained to clear minefields.....sounds alright to me, no American lives are lots....scummy, but it works.

[Hiroshima]

Deuterium: Course, can't beat the spill over of military tech into the civilian sector! The US enjoys military equipment, so what happens when the US Military releases the goodies onto the civilian market? WOOT MONEY! MONEY MONEY MONEY......and we also sell that overseas! BWHAHAHAHAHA.....What? No want to buy guns? Well...how about these's brand new all terrain vehicles based off the US Military's general purpose vehicle?
Bling Bling baby, military goodies all the way woot

[achilles]

Deuterium: Course, can't beat the spill over of military tech into the civilian sector! The US enjoys military equipment, so what happens when the US Military releases the goodies onto the civilian market? WOOT MONEY! MONEY MONEY MONEY......and we also sell that overseas! BWHAHAHAHAHA.....What? No want to buy guns? Well...how about these's brand new all terrain vehicles based off the US Military's general purpose vehicle?
Bling Bling baby, military goodies all the way woot

Hiroshima...you are the epitomy of realism, man! Lets do some business together! ;)

[Deuterium]

So the Garmin eTrex is just our way of exporting war and misery to the Third World???? Oh I get it now.

http://img13.exs.cx/img13/4592/BUDANSKI.jpg

[achilles]

[quote=Deuterium]One more thing Achilles let's go back to economics 101. Defense spending as a part of US GDP is less than 4%.

The largest portion of GDP, 80% is consumer consumption, you know washing machines, dining out, cars, etc.

So your supposition is that 3.4% of our economy is what drives everything?????? Son, put down the crack pipe. You are supposed to say NO to drugs.

The US GDP in bucks is around 10 trillion $ annually. 3.4% of that is 3.4 billlion dollars. 3.4 BILLION $ PER YEARis not enough to drive or AT LEAST put pressures on some calls about foreign policy, especially when some top-end politicians are involved with the companies under consideration???. Oh, you can add a few more billions to the initial amount due to the oil companies, construction companies and all those who can have a good time before, during and after a war. Its not economics 101...it all comes down to elementary mathematics.

And the comments on drugs and crack pipes?...hilarious...

Well sorry that's my argument. It's just not reasonable for me to think that that small of a percentage, yeah it’s some bucks all right, leads the way in influence. So the auto industry alone, that is much larger than the defense industry tacks a back seat(pun intended) to the Defense industry? How can that be? More people are employed building cars than building bombs and fighter jets. I just can't see it. During WWII defense as a part of GDP was around 40%. Okay I'll buy your argument then. In fact Ike’s famous quote came about when the defense GDP numbers were so high. Today I'd but that Microsoft has more influence than any defense contractor. Just my thoughts.

So a threshold value for accepting my argument is something like 4 trillion bucks....ok i get it...we need world war 3 for large industries to start influencing the government. Maybe its better to accept the possibility that things may not be the way we think, instead of playing with numbers.

[Deuterium]

[quote=Deuterium]One more thing Achilles let's go back to economics 101. Defense spending as a part of US GDP is less than 4%.

The largest portion of GDP, 80% is consumer consumption, you know washing machines, dining out, cars, etc.

So your supposition is that 3.4% of our economy is what drives everything?????? Son, put down the crack pipe. You are supposed to say NO to drugs.

The US GDP in bucks is around 10 trillion $ annually. 3.4% of that is 3.4 billlion dollars. 3.4 BILLION $ PER YEARis not enough to drive or AT LEAST put pressures on some calls about foreign policy, especially when some top-end politicians are involved with the companies under consideration???. Oh, you can add a few more billions to the initial amount due to the oil companies, construction companies and all those who can have a good time before, during and after a war. Its not economics 101...it all comes down to elementary mathematics.

And the comments on drugs and crack pipes?...hilarious...

Well sorry that's my argument. It's just not reasonable for me to think that that small of a percentage, yeah it’s some bucks all right, leads the way in influence. So the auto industry alone, that is much larger than the defense industry tacks a back seat(pun intended) to the Defense industry? How can that be? More people are employed building cars than building bombs and fighter jets. I just can't see it. During WWII defense as a part of GDP was around 40%. Okay I'll buy your argument then. In fact Ike’s famous quote came about when the defense GDP numbers were so high. Today I'd but that Microsoft has more influence than any defense contractor. Just my thoughts.

So a threshold value for accepting my argument is something like 4 trillion bucks....ok i get it...we need world war 3 for large industries to start influencing the government. Maybe its better to accept the possibility that things may not be the way we think, instead of playing with numbers.

Oh I'll be the first to agree that I don't have any prima fascia knowledge of the goings on in the White House. Like you I'm basing it entirely on my point of view. I would agree that in this country money DOES buy influence as much as a voting block of the populace does. That said I don't buy YOUR argument that just because we are talking LARGE economic numbers that we should be persuaded by the "zeros". Its an economy of scale. It would also be wrong for me to say that the dreaded "military industrial complex" ooooohhhhh, doesn't have any political influence. On balance though, I find it ludicrous to believe that foreign policy is driven by Knights Armament's desire to sell more Rail mounts.


http://img13.exs.cx/img13/4592/BUDANSKI.jpg

[achilles]

ok i see your point...do you mind if i ask who budanski is before i hit the road?

[Hiroshima]

Couse.....anyone want to buy a few thousand Srgt. Yorks? How about the first version of the Bradley AFV? Those in the war buisness who deal out the projects supervised by the military get a nice amount of money. Anyone wanna know why the cut the Chomanche? Anyone care to tell me how to spell that? Anyway, we were on version f**king H on that damn thing and yet we didn't even deploy it into the field. Too much money spent, no results. Who kept it alive in the government? Not the companies engaged in it really, it was actually more like how the Marines (mudsuckers) are handling the V-22....too many lives, too much money invested in the project....IT HAS TO WORK...that's why it's still there.

Foreign Policy isn't driven by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), it's driven by US Buisness concerns, foriegn relations, military alliances, price of spam in a can, how many cuban baseball players we can import, how many japanese and indian computer programmers we can employ......heck, the current policy takes up a freaking closet....from top to bottom..every thing you wanted to know, ranging from questions the president asked to the price of eggs in berlin....

ps: Just ask your local hospital if they'd buy the military's latest stretcher...this puppy has life support built into it!

[Secret Squirrel]

Actually, if I remember correctly, we bought Soviet weapons fron the Contras, then shipped them someplace where they were given to the Iraqis...to fight the Iranians...we equip our allies, dude.....not without a price tag, but that's what we do.....

Equip our allies? Who? Saddam? This monster who fired chemical weapons on the Kurds back in the late 80's and later on invaded Kuwait?
This ruthless dictator who later on was capable of launching a WMD attack within 45 minutes? Are these the kind of allies we equipe dude?

But i must agree with the 'price tag' comment...and definitely with the 'thats what we do' part...

Reagan supported Saddam while Saddam was fighting the Iraq-Iran war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[Hiroshima]

Hey, thanks Secret Squirrel!

[Durandal]

Actually, if I remember correctly, we bought Soviet weapons fron the Contras, then shipped them someplace where they were given to the Iraqis...to fight the Iranians...we equip our allies, dude.....not without a price tag, but that's what we do.....

Actually it was the Iranians, not the Iraqis. We did the same with the Afghans so that we could be low key about our involvement in the Soviet Invasion...initially.

[Durandal]

Foreign Policy isn't driven by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), it's driven by US Buisness concerns, foriegn relations, military alliances, price of spam in a can, how many cuban baseball players we can import, how many japanese and indian computer programmers we can employ......heck, the current policy takes up a freaking closet....from top to bottom..every thing you wanted to know, ranging from questions the president asked to the price of eggs in berlin...

I completely support our arms industry in its sales outside the United States.

With that said, I am completely opposed to how sh*tful procurement happens WITHIN the United States. The MIC drives procurement and plays the politics game hard core. Generals and Senators and House Reps are bought by the score. If you think it works ANY other way, you are kidding yourself.

Does the MIC influence American foreign policy? No. Does it influence how much money the tax payers of this nation flush down the hole on programs that programs that cost more than they should or produce a product we either do not need or cannot use...hell yes.

[Hiroshima]

Well, after a military guy retires, the corporate sector is the best place next to federal government .... And there really hasnt been much in the way of 'sh*t procurments* recently, the Congressionaly Military budget committy thinggy has been keeping a close eye on it all now a days.

[Deuterium]

Foreign Policy isn't driven by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), it's driven by US Buisness concerns, foriegn relations, military alliances, price of spam in a can, how many cuban baseball players we can import, how many japanese and indian computer programmers we can employ......heck, the current policy takes up a freaking closet....from top to bottom..every thing you wanted to know, ranging from questions the president asked to the price of eggs in berlin...

I completely support our arms industry in its sales outside the United States.

With that said, I am completely opposed to how sh*tful procurement happens WITHIN the United States. The MIC drives procurement and plays the politics game hard core. Generals and Senators and House Reps are bought by the score. If you think it works ANY other way, you are kidding yourself.

Does the MIC influence American foreign policy? No. Does it influence how much money the tax payers of this nation flush down the hole on programs that programs that cost more than they should or produce a product we either do not need or cannot use...hell yes.

I agree with this post.

[khukuri]

Why is it Achilles that EVERY country in the past and present gets a pass except for the US from you? Let me tell you something son, I was in Iraq. I don't remember any US arms being fired at me. I do remember Soviet, French, Austrian, Czech, and Chinese weapons and ammunition being used against me. I do remember going into bunkers that were built by the Germans and French.

During first gulf war most of the american hardware were destroyed. Like m113 and stuff.
American military export too iraq consisted of other stuff than military hardware like apc:s and stuff. Execp the m113 thou.

By the way...

the chemical which gased the kurds came if I´m not wrong from german and british companys.

By the way.. interesting discussion, but not surprisingly i agree with achilles

[fantassin]

How well is the film doing in the US box office ?

[Nawlins]

How well is the film doing in the US box office ?

Unfortunately, it was #1 soon after it was released... it's #4 right now... not sure about how much money it's made.

[Tane Angle]

I for one am saving my 50 bucks (it's almost that much these days :roll: ) to see iRobot. Nothing like a summer flick filled with killer robots that move like panthers to distract us from the violence in the world. p-)

[Moledet]

Haaretz's view on Fahrenheit 9/11:



When Moore is less
By Uri Klein

It's difficult not to respect, and perhaps even admire, the bluntness and the daring, the gall, with which Michael Moore ignores all the rules of fairness that are supposed to accompany the making of a documentary film. `Fahrenheit 9/11' appeals mainly to the emotions.

In film director Michael Moore's world there are no nuances; there are only black and white, only good guys or bad guys, and the bad guys in the case of his film "Fahrenheit 9/11" are U.S. President George W. Bush and his confidantes. And the good guys? It is we who are the good guys, the people who watch Michael Moore's film, and we are drawn into his fervor and agree with his every word with the way he depicts the course of Bush's election as the 43rd president of the United States (and in Moore's opinion, he was not elected by the American people, but rather by the Supreme Court).

A sense of excitement arises from "Fahrenheit 9/11," the excitement of a child who is thrilled by a surprise that he is preparing for an important event - but there is not much new in "Fahrenheit 9/11." Everyone who has read newspapers and watched television during the past four years has already understood what Michael Moore knows, even if they have not yet formulated these things in the blunt manner that he has articulated in his film.

Even at the press conference at the Cannes Film Festival (where Moore's film was awarded the Golden Palm), he found it difficult to answer a journalist who asked him what, in fact, the film reveals that we had not known previously. He was forced in the end to note one of the revelations in the film: that Bush had erased the name of one of his friends from his military file, which Moore got a hold of, and that the friend was linked to the economic and social ties that developed over the years between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. There is no doubt that in this revelation there is a modicum of interest, but Moore relates to it as if it were a discovery far more sensational than it looks in the fabric of the film.

If there is something new in the film, it is not evident in Moore's statements and conclusions about the extent to which George Bush and his administration are corrupt, and in the lies that the president fed the public before launching the war on Iraq, but rather in one filmed sequence, in which Bush is seen on the morning of September 11, 2001, the day of the attack on the Twin Towers in New York and on the Pentagon in northern Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C. That morning Bush was visiting an elementary school, and his video cameras documented his reaction to the event. One of his aides enters the classroom where Bush was sitting and whispers something in his ear (according to Moore, the aide informed him about the first plane that had struck one of the towers of the World Trade Center; we do not hear what is said and we have to take Moore's word for it that this was the message). Bush does not respond, does not say anything; only his eyes begin to dart right and left in a strange way.

Several minutes later, this same aide comes back into the classroom and, once again according to Moore, whispers in his ear that the second plane has hit the towers. Bush still does not respond, does not say a thing, and his eyes begin to move about faster. Thus he sits there for many long minutes until in the end he picks up a copy of a children's story that is lying near him. The story is entitled "The Pet Goat," and Bush begins to read it aloud. Incidentally, when Moore was asked at Cannes how it happened that we had not seen this scene until now, he replied that this was simply because no one had bothered to ask the school for its documentation of the event. This is a scene that is both amusing and chilling, and it testifies to the strength of the film - and also to its main weakness.

Total manipulation

On the one hand, it is difficult not to respect, and perhaps even admire, the bluntness and the daring, the gall, even, with which Michael Moore ignores all the rules of fairness that are supposed to accompany the making of a documentary film, as well as all the discussions that have ever been held about the ability of a documentary film to present a historical truth or any other truth. It isn't that Moore is unaware of these rules and discussions; he is aware of them and he is also aware that we, the viewers, are aware of them. Precisely because of this he is prepared to go beyond them and transform total manipulation into a legitimate means in his struggle. It is as if he is saying: Yes, you and I know what I am doing.

We do not have time now for these refinements and courtesies. We are at war, we are at war with Bush, who is again standing for election this coming November and I am the general who is leading you in this battle, with endless fervor and commitment. And in war, as in war: any means are legitimate in order to achieve victory. But the manipulation remains a manipulation, and gradually the large number of manipulations that Moore uses during the course of the film, some of which, incidentally, are very effective both as propaganda and as entertainment, detract not from the reliability of the film, but rather from its dignity and make it into a film that is more an attack of fury than a profound and complex study of the present moment.

Moore's excitement derives from the fact that he believes that the film itself is a historic event. This feeling, which springs mainly from Moore's belief and hope that the film might serve as an element in determining the outcome of the forthcoming elections in the U.S., was reinforced by the Walt Disney Company's decision to retreat from its plans to distribute the film as a result, apparently, of political pressures - and Moore is enjoying every moment of the aura of protest that this decision has aroused as it has strengthened his position as a prophet at the gates and as a lone and fearless fighter against the cowardly and corrupt capitalist establishment - and was also reinforced by his receipt of the Golden Palm trophy at Cannes from the hands of American director Quentin Tarantino, who headed the festival jury this year.

The sense is that Moore truly believes that he is making history, and this was also the sense that Tarantino radiated when he gave the prize to Moore at the closing ceremony of the festival. There is something touching about this, but also irritating because of the arrogance, the boasting and the pushiness that accompanies it and that are so characteristic of Moore's work.

As in "Bowling for Columbine" and his previous films, Moore does his work in "Fahrenheit 9/11" like an experienced television preacher who knows very well how to manipulate the emotions and responses of the public that watches him. In the guise of an appeal to the viewers' intellect and reason, he appeals mainly to the emotions, and often makes use of tricks of demagoguery identical to those he accuses his foes of using in unfair and immoral ways.

The result is often entertaining; it is hard not to chuckle when Moore uses images from the mythical television western series "Bonanza" in order to describe the way Bush and his henchmen, in director's opinion, embarked on the war in Afghanistan. And it is hard not to enjoy the consternation of the U.S. Senators whom Moore stops in the street, trying to convince them to send their own sons to fight in Iraq. But the feeling that accompanies the chuckles and the enjoyment is also that it is too easy, too exploitative, and that there is something too blithe and self-satisfied in Moore's anger and protest. That the film first of all serves Moore himself, and the image that he has of himself and that he wants to public to adopt, and that he does not have enough respect for the audience that is watching the film, toward which he is being arrogant in the guise of making that audience into his ideological ally.

Not a narrative

If there is one key facet that is interesting in "Fahrenheit 9/11," it is the way in which the film makes the events of the past four years - from the scandal of the vote count in Florida in the 2000 elections to the present - not a narrative. As compared to "Bowling for Columbine," for example, which constituted a research study into a single, specific event (the massacre that was committed at Columbine High School in Colorado by two of its students in 1999), "Fahrenheit 9/11" aims at telling a chronological story, at making the history of the past four years into a continuous plot, and the way Moore chooses to do this arouses interest (and ultimately makes this work into the most complete and richest of Moore's films thus far).

It is possible to take exception to many of Moore's decisions - for example the decision to darken the screen when the story comes to the attack on September 11, with only the sound of shocked voices, or the way in which he introduces into the film the character of the bereaved mother from Flint, Michigan, the city where Moore was born and to which he returns in nearly every one of his films.

But the questions that the film brings up about the transformation of history into a meaningful narrative, which carries a message, arouses interest and makes "Fahrenheit 9/11" into a film that is not only an event in its own right, but also a work in which there is a measure of relevance for the documentary cinema as a whole. In the story that Moore recounts to us there is a main villain, George W. Bush, whom the director depicts as ridiculous and stupid.

It is pleasant to laugh at Bush, whom the movie shows in several very embarrassing and ridiculous situations. However, this is also one of the main failings of the film, as Bush is not only a ridiculous and stupid villain - he is also the strongest individual in the world, and he is dangerous and frightening, and this gets a bit lost in the general naughtiness of the film. It isn't that "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't a scary and even a depressing film, but there is something in the lightness and the smugness that characterize the result that blurs this sense and makes it into a film that seems to say that while the situation is worrying, it is not grave as long as there is a Michael Moore in our world who embarks on the struggle on our behalf in order to protest and repair this situation.

As in Moore's world there are only black and white, good guys and bad guys, the previous president of the U.S., Bill Clinton, is not mentioned in the film, nor is there any treatment of the arguments that have been heard since September 11, 2001, about Clinton's failings in the war against terror in general and against Osama bin Laden in particular.

Treatment of this could have injected into the film other nuances apart from black and white, and could have undermined the very elementary pleasure that Michael Moore wants to provide to his viewers from a story in which there are only good guys and bad guys and which arouses immediate and basic emotions of protest and anger, revolt and alarm. But "Fahrenheit 9/11," despite its problematic nature or perhaps precisely because of it, is also a cinematic text that is sufficiently open to allow viewers to inject into it more complex emotions than these and thus make it into a work that is not only of its own time - but also a work that says something about its time in a way that is at once sufficient, frustrating, provocative and annoying.


I totaly agree with Haaretz.

[Durandal]

Well, after a military guy retires, the corporate sector is the best place next to federal government .... And there really hasnt been much in the way of 'sh*t procurments* recently, the Congressionaly Military budget committy thinggy has been keeping a close eye on it all now a days.

Suuuuuuuure it has.

Listen, when a general who is two years away from retirement (or a Senator even) is the person advising on system, whether it be latrines or new hot sh*t jet bomber, chances are they end up on the board when they retire...

Way too much conflict of interest.

Osprey has not been killed yet (which it most definately needs to be) and now we are looking at the X-M8...ANOTHER 5.56mm weapon system, not the generational leap of the OCIW...come on now. It is STILL going on.