+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: "Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& (/thread-8606.html)
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Rhydderch Hael - 06-09-2004
Palme D'Or- does that translate into "Golden Palm-Leaf" or "Golden Hand"?
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Fragbait - 06-09-2004
Hi Rhydderch Hael,
It translates into 'Golden Palm', that simple.
It's short for 'palme de or' which means 'palm made out of gold'.
Greetings, Fragbait
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Moldran - 06-09-2004
Chaerophon,Jun 9 2004, 05:45 AM Wrote:And from this we may draw my argument that the United Nations, as a supranational organization, possessed of its own charters and standards of law can be opposed to an action, and act unilaterally in condemning an action, even if a member of the security council is not. Just thought I'd throw that in there for Moldran.How does the fact that USSR invaded Hungary and Afghanistan and vetoed the SC resolutions condemning it lead to the conclusion that the UN as an organisation were opposed to these attacks ? The body that voted such a resolution in regard to Afghanistan was the GA. In the case of Hungary 1956, I think there was no UN resoultion at all.
So your argument is that the GA determines the UN's position in regard to military invasions ? The UN charter says otherwise. The GA is not allowed to even discuss such a question if the SC has the same question on its agenda. The GA has ignored that in the past, though (acting illegaly, if you take the charter serious).
BTW: Hungary was not annexed.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - kandrathe - 06-09-2004
Quote:Except they screwed up...20/20 hindsight. The US didn't know, and had to assume the worst case scenario.
Quote:Despite the fact the burden of proof was on OUR side, we simply claimed Iraq could not prove it had disposed of everything (attempting to sleight of hand burden of proof onto Iraq, which would be impossible for the Iraqis to prove even if they had disposed of everything), and thus invaded Iraq even though Afghanistan was still being rebuilt, screwing over not only the soldiers in Afghanistan but also the country, not planning at all for post-war Iraq rebuilding, thus creating a very hostile situation for the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers overseas, plunging us into even more debt (I believe the appropriations bills for Iraq, come to what, over 100 billion already?), and forcing us pretty much to make sure we stay in Iraq until we fix the mess we helped to create.South Africa dismantled its WMD programs under UN and IAEA supervision. That was the model the UN attempted to follow with Iraq. Iraq was belligerant, and the evidence even Mr. Blix found, indicated that Iraq obviously refused to give up its quest for illegal weapons.
As for the other nations... Well yes they are a threat to regional security and to WMD proliferation, but not the threat to the US in the same way that Iraq was. I think the US is hoping that China will help contain North Korea. North Korea has not expressed any expansionist rhetoric (other than unification with the south), but blackmails the world to supply it with food and energy. Iran, while still controlled by Islamofacists is moderating and I think the US is hopeful that change with come from within Iran. I'm not sure what the Pakistani's want, but perhaps if conditions improved for the people he might become more popular. As popular as the leader of a military hunta can be, I guess.
I like to step away from the myopic nationalist view and look at the forces that are influencing world events. In the US there is a struggle between the liberal movement toward multinationalism surrendering parts of US sovereignty(responsibility) to international entities, and the neo-conservative movement which seeks to keep the US as the worlds only super-power free to act unilaterally. In Europe you have the same type of struggle, between nationalists and unificationists. In Africa, well seemingly chaos, but it seems conflicts are centered around a few factors; AIDS and its destabilization, spreading Islamofacism, and fighting over control of Africa's vast natural resources. The Islamic world is violently torn between forces that are seeking to modernize Islam, and those "Islamofacists" that seek to keep progress rooted in 800 AD, or at least the 1700's in spreading the philosophies of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - kandrathe - 06-09-2004
Quote:BTW: Hungary was not annexed.Sorry, just short of annexed then I guess. From a US perspective all the USSR & satellite nations were treated as one entity under the dictatorial control of the Kremlin. Kadar was a Soviet tool. Even Cuba, and North Korea relations with the US were conducted with Moscow. I think it is still a challenge for the US to move beyond the "Cold War" mentality in its foriegn policy regarding former Soviet allied nations.
The Hungarian Revolution 1956
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Jester - 06-09-2004
"20/20 hindsight. The US didn't know, and had to assume the worst case scenario."
Why would that be, exactly? Why couldn't we have waited, improved our information, and made a better judgement from there? Because of an "imminent" threat of an attack on US soil? Chances are insignificant. Because of proliferation? No solid evidence Iraq even had active WMD programs, let alone spare WMD to give away, or use in frivolous spite attacks.
What would have been so wrong with waiting until Hans Blix presented his findings? Was it really reasonable to infer from the evidence that Iraq presented a danger at that time, or even at any time in the near future? Why, when the burden of proof was on us, couldn't we have tried a little harder to come up with a more realistic scenario, rather than jumping straight to "worst-case"?
I don't think the decision was made in good faith. I don't think the administration thinking about the concequences of extending or expanding inspections against those of going to war. I think the administration was looking to paint the most dangerous possible picture in order to justify a war they wanted for other reasons altogether. Hans Blix's report couldn't be allowed to guide the decision to go to war because they knew it would come down on the side of Iraq being mostly harmless, which would undermine their case. When you pull that kind of cynical move, you lose the right to claim "20/20 hindsight" as an excuse.
Jester
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - kandrathe - 06-10-2004
Yes. I think you are right about the Bush administration's motives, they are very hawkish. In hindsight, it might not have made any difference if they had waited. I don't think they believed there was any point in waiting, and only downside risk in letting Saddam prepare more. They wanted to catch him unprepared, and I guess they did. Like I said, I would not have gone to war with Iraq unless they attacked the US or one of its allies. But, I can understand why the US did push the war when they did. I think they also wanted to time it to have it done before summer.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Thecla - 06-10-2004
Quote:In hindsight, it might not have made any difference if they had waited. I don't think they believed there was any point in waiting, and only downside risk in letting Saddam prepare more.No, the real downside risk for the Bush administration was that US public opinion might recover from its 9/11-induced psychosis, realize that Saddam had no connection with 9/11, and turn against the proposed invasion of Iraq. Since the administration was determined to invade Iraq whatever the cost, they had go in before that could happen. The Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch scams.
It's surely futile to argue about this topic -- we all have our minds made up. But, for me, the dishonest justifications for this war were a complete breach of the trust in and obligations of any administration. The WMD arguments were transparently dishonest before the war, not only in hindsight -- the total lack of WMDs just highlights that fact. The Bush administration wasn't misled, they were only interested in using WMDs to justify what they wanted to do anyway. And, as we've seen, dishonest policies founded on illusion instead of reality tend to have many bad consequences.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - kandrathe - 06-10-2004
I can respect that position. For me, personally, I'm not invested in standing firm on one particular political hill. I'm interested in understanding the truth from the evidence, and not drawing an emotional conclusion according to some ideology.
My belief is that Bush was operating from a pessimistic view of Iraq based on a very pessimistic reading of US and British intelligence. And, that is not the first time. For instance, in hindsight, US intelligence over estimated the number of Soviet nuclear missiles by a factor of 10. That is a lot of American tax dollars spent (debt actually) building and maintaining a vast nuclear stockpile that was unneccesary and destabilizing.
It is clear to me, the "Wolfowitz" group, even prior to the Bush presidency, was upset with the lack of containment and enforcement over Iraq. They are a very hawkish group, and so it is probably true that they were spoiling for a fight. I think Clinton dropped the ball in not escalating Iraq to the Security Council when UNSCOM was shut out in 1998. Had the Clintion administration kept their eye on the ball, keeping high pressure on Iraq through the UN, then maybe the war would not have happened. I'm willing to condemn the actors, and well as those who failed to act.
There is no direct evidence of Bush "lying" or being "dishonest" at this point. There is evidence of intelligence failures, and of the administration being able to extend a case against Iraq that was pretty speculative. British and American Intelligence agencies, in my opinion from looking at the evidence, did supply fairly pragmatic and logical assessments. But, they appear to have been wrong in estimating Iraq's then "current" capabilities and threat. Again, the ISG has only scratched the surface of the Iraqi WMD programs. My opinion is that they might have done about 10% of the work neccesary to expose the truth. The nature of the Iraqi regime made it very difficult to have agents in Iraq, and the only "solid" first person intelligence was from defectors who appear to have over-stated the threat as well. The programs were intentionally fragmented and made difficult to discover by the thousands of UNSCOM investigators there for the prior 12 years. Now, this fragmented puzzle is further shattered and much of the truth will probably never be discovered. I am not sad that Saddam is no longer in power, even though I disagree with the means of how that came about. If a new Iraqi government can be established that does not collapse into a civil war, then maybe history will not be so harsh with Bush and Blair.
If you view 9/11 as an act perpetuated by mercenary commandos aided by an unknown collective of Islamofacists, then I think you might get a clearer picture of what the "war on terrorism" is truly about. So who is in the collective supporting these covert violent actions against the West? We are in the right neighborhood, but are maybe off by a nation. The core of what we are fighting is there in that region, and now they have gone to Iraq to fight with us. We established the front, as it were. What is missing currently in the US or Europe are leaders who are willing to fight the war of ideas, and to take a firm ideological stand rather than a "might makes right" agenda. If Vietnam taught us anything, it was that you can win the battles, but without the war of ideas changing the way the people think, then you have lost.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Thecla - 06-10-2004
Quote:I can respect that position. For me, personally, I'm not invested in standing firm on one particular political hill. I'm interested in understanding the truth from the evidence, and not drawing an emotional conclusion according to some ideology.
I will comment only that I draw my conclusions from evidence not ideology every bit as much as you do.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - nobbie - 06-15-2004
They just said on German TV that "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been restricted to an age of 17+ in the U.S. because the film is allegedly too violent. Ridiculous, considering that young people can obviously be sent to war at an age of 15 to 16 ...
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Munkay - 06-15-2004
nobbie,Jun 15 2004, 11:33 AM Wrote:Ridiculous, considering that young people can obviously be sent to war at an age of 15 to 16 ...Nit,
Asking merely for clarification: Young people from what country?
-Munk
My two cents: I agree with Thecla, this topic is becoming a dead horse. The lines are firmly drawn and most of what needs to be said appears to have.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - nobbie - 06-15-2004
That was a comment by Mike Moore himself, so I thought he was referring to the U.S. army?
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - nobbie - 06-25-2004
Just a quick reminder: Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" should start in theatres in the U.S. today (June 25, 2004)!
Us Europeans will see it some time this summer, so can anyone here who is going to see it in the U.S. today please post a quick "review" of the film? BBC News just showed some rave TV reviews of the film which consider "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be Mike Moore's best film ever ... :)
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Cybit - 06-27-2004
It is..very, very good. Opinions respected or not, he did an amazing job on this film. There are a couple of scenes, that no matter what possible context you could place them in, makes people wonder how on earth GW Bush got elected president. There are some downright funny, funny scenes in the movie, and it definitely played with the emotions inside of me, and I don't have much in the way of emotion usually.
There's already attacks on the "credibility/truth" of the film, the biggest attacks I've seen are at best hypocritical, at worst, blatantly lying. Moore definitely skirts the edge on i'd say two parts, one being the congress' kids in the armed forces, and the second portraying iraq far better off then it probably was pre-war, both of which are semantic attacks (Most people in congress dont have their kids in the armed forces, and Iraq, infrastructure wise and as far as the population is currently concerned, is worse off right now then it was pre-war). Ironically, Moore never argues that what he says is balanced in any way, shape or form, but most of the attacks claim to be coming from a "balanced" position, but use the same techniques Moore uses, in a way, discrediting itself. The biggest one is probably attacking Moore on semantics in one breath and attacking him for then actually being semantic in the next breath (aka, nail him on details in one fact, then whine about how he didnt get the bigger picture because he was following details).
If you guys actually find a legitimate retort, post it here, I'd be interested in seeing it. No, don't post the Slate one, that's a horrible argument that actually doesn't prove much of anything if read. (I'll post the link of the discrediting of the Slate article if someone asks)
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - nobbie - 06-27-2004
Thanks for the review. I found it interesting that - according to German TV today - most shows were already sold out in advance, and that about 50% of the people who are going to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the U.S. are Moore critics/pro Bush. So, Mike Moore's voice apparently does mean something in the U.S., no matter what his critics claim. Moore critics supporting Moore with their money - that's funny ;)
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Cybit - 06-27-2004
It was interesting, the showing I went to yesterday, there were some staunch Pro-Bushies there, and after the end, I think some of them may have had their minds shaken a little (the end scene got applause, but even the most staunch, pro-bush person in the world would find the ending either really funny, pathetic, or a combination of both).
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - nobbie - 06-28-2004
German TV reports today that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is now on top of the U.S. film charts, and that Mike Moore is the first director to achieve this with a documentary film. From Friday to Sunday, the film earned 24.8 mio. dollars so far in 868 cinemas across the U.S.. Imagine what the original distributor Disney could have earned if the film wasn't boycotted! 100 mio. dollar so far? :)
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Bone - 06-28-2004
Quote: No, don't post the Slate one, that's a horrible argument that actually doesn't prove much of anything if read. (I'll post the link of the discrediting of the Slate article if someone asks)
I've read the Hitchens criticism on Slate. Please enlighten me with the discrediting of the Hitchens article.
"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11& - Sir_Die_alot - 06-28-2004
Quote:That was a comment by Mike Moore himself, so I thought he was referring to the U.S. army?
Perhaps that is why you shouldn't take things he says at face value.
http://www.goarmy.com/army101/twopaths.htm
Quote: To enlist as an Active-Duty Soldier in the U.S. Army you must be:
 ⢠Between the ages of 17 and 34
 ⢠A U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident Alien
 ⢠Healthy and in good physical condition
 ⢠In good moral standing