• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

An Open Letter to Dubyah from Michael Moore

silver1

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by zee
I don't know if Bill Maher said anything critical of Clinton during the Gulf War (I'm not even sure if he had a talk show back then) but what about the comments he made after Sept 11 that eventually got him fired?
He said something to the effect of "We've been the cowards, attacking a country by launching cruise missiles from thousands of miles away"
Though he doesn't mention it specifically, it sounds like they were aimed at what Clinton did during the Gulf war
They were aimed at what the US were planning on doing in Afghanistan.

And Maher definitely had his show for the majority of Clinton's presidency. But he never spoke out against him for his foreign policy. Just snickered at him for his lewd behaviour.
 

Lurker

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by silver1
Oh for sure. I don't support this war. I just don't think villifiying Bush while praising Clinton is a good argument.
True enough. But, I think that Clinton was a much more level headed international thinker, and more willing to talk things out, thus earning him some measure of international respect.

Clinton was a very smart president who got caught doing dumb things. Bush is a dimwit being fed lines and can't think on his own.

Paul
 

silver1

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Lurker
True enough. But, I think that Clinton was a much more level headed international thinker, and more willing to talk things out, thus earning him some measure of international respect.

Clinton was a very smart president who got caught doing dumb things. Bush is a dimwit being fed lines and can't think on his own.

Paul
See, Clinton internationally (foreign policy) sucked pretty bad too (acts of agression in other nations, pulling troops from Rwanda etc.). But he was very charismatic, a great speaker and had a nice smile. He didn't come across as much as a country bumpkin like Bush does.

Clinton got backlash in the foreign community but was loved at home.

And like I mentioned his country was doing great economically too. The US economy is sucking right now so it's easier for there to be domestic descent when your leader is making mistakes.

And when your own people start showing descent, it snowballs quickly (i.e. many people jump on the bash Bush bandwagon).
 

The Watcher

TRIBE Member
It's all so crazy,... I dont know what to think of America right now.

One thing is for sure, I dont like traveling there.
 

simple10

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by The Watcher
It's all so crazy,... I dont know what to think of America right now.

One thing is for sure, I dont like traveling there.
really? why not? where have you gone before?
 

LoopeD

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by silver1
See, Clinton internationally (foreign policy) sucked pretty bad too (acts of agression in other nations, pulling troops from Rwanda etc.). But he was very charismatic, a great speaker and had a nice smile. He didn't come across as much as a country bumpkin like Bush does.

Clinton got backlash in the foreign community but was loved at home.

And like I mentioned his country was doing great economically too. The US economy is sucking right now so it's easier for there to be domestic descent when your leader is making mistakes.

And when your own people start showing descent, it snowballs quickly (i.e. many people jump on the bash Bush bandwagon).


Its dissent, but other than that I think you hit the nail right on the head......;)

Now that Clinton is all dolled up and weathered the whole blowjob impeachment fiasco, and theres other things in the news, and he's gone on Larry King and Leno with these big long nicely grammatically correct speeches, everyone wishes he was still in office, even though he would have probably done pretty near thhe exact same things as Bush, he just wouldn't have come off as sounding like a Texan gunslinger.




:)d
 

bitchass

TRIBE Member
Moore is setting himself up to be the winner, even if he doesn't win the Oscar.

There's always seomthign to complain about, Michael!

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix.htm

PORCINE provocateur Michael Moore is howling that the Oscars are fixed.

Moore - whose popular anti-gun movie "Bowling for Columbine" has been nominated in the Best Documentary category - is lashing out at Sony Pictures Classics for allegedly rigging the contest so he's destined to lose.

The wide-bottomed windbag claims Sony, which is distributing rival documentary prize contender "Winged Migration," a boring French bird flick, is exploiting Academy rules to ensure "Columbine" strikes out.

The Academy requires that all voters in the documentary category must prove that they've seen every film nominated. As a result, fewer than 400 of the 5,600 Academy members bother to vote on the docu prize, only the hard-core documentary fans who tend to turn their noses up at populist tripe like "Columbine," which isn't nearly high-brow enough for their tastes.

Moore is upset because he knows that most of the members who saw and liked his film won't be able to vote for it because of the arcane rules. And he claims Sony has intentionally made it difficult to see "Migration" to ensure the voting goes in their favor, noting Academy members who want to vote for him have complained they were able to see everything but "Migration."

Moore claims that he asked Sony Classics co-president Michael Barker to make a print of "Migration" available for extra screenings to level the playing field, and that Barker refused.

"He said no," Moore told the L.A. Times. "He said in so many words that this is what's best for them . . . I told him we should all be supportive of each other's films. Especially in this category, which has a history of embarrassment" for overlooking popular films.

"It really limits the number of people who can vote," echoes Dennis O'Connor, vice president of marketing at United Artists, which is distributing "Columbine."

"Sony does it all the time."

"I told him that people wouldn't come," Barker counters. "We've had a lot of screenings . . . Every year, whoever the favorite is complains about not enough screenings."

Moore complained to the Academy itself, to no avail. "It's not about winning," Moore insists. "It's about democracy . . . Let's let people vote. I'm more than happy to live with a vote that reflects the will of the majority."
 

The Watcher

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by simple10
really? why not? where have you gone before?
Detroit
New York City
Maine
Baltimore
Cleveland
Virginia Beach
Washington DC
Myrtle Beach
Daytona
Miami
Orlando
Clearwater

Honestly,... I dont like dealing with the border, I dont like the idea that if I'm on the other side, I might have trouble getting back to Canada. I feel Safe here, I feel Good here, and most of all I feel happy here. No need to go to America, we got all the same stuff, but with nicer people, less crime and much less propaganda.
 

simple10

TRIBE Member
huh... my bf comes down about once a month and hasn't had any problems with borders.

i like it here, we have more cities to choose from at least. it gives you more options. if you want friendly try the west coast. our east coast isn't known for being terribly hospitable.

;)
 

Magnolia Fan

TRIBE Member
When you lead a country, you have to make choices. This is what leading entails. When you make a choice, you have an equal chance of that choice being wrong in the long run, than right. World War II started because of too much diplomacy, too many concessions. "peace in our time" didn't pan out. But they thought it was what was best.

When we look back on that, what do people think? Neville was stupid? Hitler was overly aggressive? Both prolly.

You talk about Rwanda, like the US admin is terrible. Fuck that. The whole world didn't respond to that situation. It was discussed in CONGRESS for what, 8 months, by which point it was pretty much too late to do anything anyways. Later, upon going to Rwanda, Clinton was quoted as saying something along the lines of "it is clear that what happened here was genocide, it should have been clear from the start." He made a mistake. But it wasn't simply HIS will that caused the US involvement. CONGRESS is needed to get soldiers moving (I'm aware of the presidents ability to deploy troups... with a 60 period to legitimize it).

Lets talk about Iraq. So we have these plans taking off and bombing Iraq for about 10 years following the "end" of the Gulf war. These plans are targetting power stations, and water plants. Of course, the US did this. SO DID BRITAIN! And where are these plans taking off from? So now, planes bomb things in Iraq for 10 years, essentially causing the starvation and death of more than half a million people. And for what? Weapons!

Ok, let me get this straight. The country with the best equipt military, the most nucular bombs, and prolly what amounts to the largest military budget... not to mention the only country to ever USE such weapons... is going to fight a country thats trying to get them. When an adult strikes a small child, do we call this a fight? Theres no fight here, its not equal. Its beating up on someone that can't defend themselves. But, thats ok, because Sadam is EVIL.

Lets talk about EVIL. Theres a leader who was pretty evil. He sought and created weapons of mass destruction. He killed THOUSANDS of his OWN people. His name was Stalin. But guess what kids. He never used nucular bombs! Thats right, a wacko who hated the US, killed his own people, and had weapons of mass destruction has existed, and we're still here.

Now lets take a look at Bush.

He doesn't win the election. He doesn't have popular support. His country is attacked, and all of a sudden, he's a hero. I'm not saying Bush made 9-11 happen, people who say that are retarded really. At most he may have let it happen, in the same way Pearl Harbour was reportedly "allowed" to happen. It was a means to an end, if that. Still, I'd like to give that fucknut at least a little credit, and say that he couldn't have wanted it to happen.

After being attacked, we need vengence right? Americans esspecially. They're warlike. Any problem they see, they declare war on it. Poverty, Homelessness, Drugs, and now, Terrorism. The war on terrorism is really just a clever ruse. Its a way to say, anything we don't like, is going to change. Of course, we all remember Bush sr saying "what we say goes." Well, I guess its an inherited thought. Or is it? After all, Bush's administration is really just Bush sr's. So America gets attacked, they go to war on terror, and they kill a whole bunch of people (guilty or not).

What is this going to solve? Victims tend to have family. Family members being murdered is normally cause for dislike or hate. How many of you would smile if the US bombed your house while you were away and killed your family? Not many of you, if any, I'd hope. I guess its called collateral damage? I call it bullshit.

My solution. Take the 355 billion dollars you spend on building more weapons (even though you have enough to blow the entire world up... well over 50 times), and invest it in positive solutions to actual world problems.

heres my last thought.

At what point did Oklahoma get bombed by the military following the terrorist attack there? Oh, its not the same right? Why? Because those terrorists were declaring war on the US? I don't think so. You need a country to do that. They're just fucknuts who want to kill people they don't like.

So heres my thought then. Why would you let some random assholes in a plane, ruin all the achievement you've had in solving world issues. Why not call it what it is, and keep fixing problems. As the problems get fixed, the amount of people who hate you and want to hurt you HAS to decrease. Its simple logic. But it would work.
 

kerouacdude

TRIBE Member
for the record, Bill Maher's a libertarian - he criticized both parties when the occasion called for it. Since his show was on mostly during Clinton's term, he usually had Republican voices on it moreso than Democrats (I'm talking the politicians, not performers). I think some of you saw him arguing the other side against those Republicans and jumped to the conclusion that he was a Democrat.
 

Sleepy Giant

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by silver1
And when your own people start showing descent, it snowballs quickly (i.e. many people jump on the bash Bush bandwagon).
I really wonder what would happen if Clinton was in charge and gave the same ultimadum under the same circumstances. I wonder if he would be experiencing a similar backlash?

Kyle
 

simple10

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Magnolia Fan

You talk about Rwanda, like the US admin is terrible. Fuck that. The whole world didn't respond to that situation. It was discussed in CONGRESS for what, 8 months, by which point it was pretty much too late to do anything anyways. Later, upon going to Rwanda, Clinton was quoted as saying something along the lines of "it is clear that what happened here was genocide, it should have been clear from the start." He made a mistake. But it wasn't simply HIS will that caused the US involvement. CONGRESS is needed to get soldiers moving (I'm aware of the presidents ability to deploy troups... with a 60 period to legitimize it).
the UN backed out with the urging of the US. but yes, the whole world fucked that one up.

Lets talk about Iraq. So we have these plans taking off and bombing Iraq for about 10 years following the "end" of the Gulf war. These plans are targetting power stations, and water plants. Of course, the US did this. SO DID BRITAIN! And where are these plans taking off from? So now, planes bomb things in Iraq for 10 years, essentially causing the starvation and death of more than half a million people. And for what? Weapons!


actually the starvation and death is being caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with a UN resolution and extending the sanctions placed on it by the UN. when medicine and food are offered by international entities, they are either refused or taken and not distributed (in other words used by and for the people in power).

When an adult strikes a small child, do we call this a fight? Theres no fight here, its not equal. Its beating up on someone that can't defend themselves. But, thats ok, because Sadam is EVIL.


when a small child kills 300,000 people then we'll talk.

Lets talk about EVIL. Theres a leader who was pretty evil. He sought and created weapons of mass destruction. He killed THOUSANDS of his OWN people. His name was Stalin. But guess what kids. He never used nucular bombs! Thats right, a wacko who hated the US, killed his own people, and had weapons of mass destruction has existed, and we're still here.


so........ we should allow a leader that acts in this manner to stay in power because he hasn't dropped a nuke yet? (and it's nuclear, not nucular.)


He doesn't win the election. He doesn't have popular support. His country is attacked, and all of a sudden, he's a hero.


he's a hero? :confused:

After being attacked, we need vengence right? Americans esspecially. They're warlike. Any problem they see, they declare war on it. Poverty, Homelessness, Drugs, and now, Terrorism. The war on terrorism is really just a clever ruse. Its a way to say, anything we don't like, is going to change. Of course, we all remember Bush sr saying "what we say goes." Well, I guess its an inherited thought. Or is it? After all, Bush's administration is really just Bush sr's. So America gets attacked, they go to war on terror, and they kill a whole bunch of people (guilty or not).


we love war. all of us. because we're not really human, you see, we're American. and that means we're born with an innate sense to kill. we have an undying bloodlust. all of us.
just today i kicked an old homeless lady as i was walking down the street to my high paying job exploiting underage factory workers.
this weekend i plan on clubbing baby seals.

What is this going to solve? Victims tend to have family. Family members being murdered is normally cause for dislike or hate. How many of you would smile if the US bombed your house while you were away and killed your family? Not many of you, if any, I'd hope. I guess its called collateral damage? I call it bullshit.


yes, i suppose all the families of the people Saddam has killed don't mind at all.

My solution. Take the 355 billion dollars you spend on building more weapons (even though you have enough to blow the entire world up... well over 50 times), and invest it in positive solutions to actual world problems.


not a bad idea. what would the solutions to proposed world problems be?

At what point did Oklahoma get bombed by the military following the terrorist attack there? Oh, its not the same right? Why? Because those terrorists were declaring war on the US? I don't think so. You need a country to do that. They're just fucknuts who want to kill people they don't like.


no, they just executed the guys responsible. see, we knew who they were and we knew where to find them. i'm all for a sniper putting a bulet to the back of Saddam's head (and his son's too).

So heres my thought then. Why would you let some random assholes in a plane, ruin all the achievement you've had in solving world issues. Why not call it what it is, and keep fixing problems. As the problems get fixed, the amount of people who hate you and want to hurt you HAS to decrease. Its simple logic. But it would work.
since when has the US had acheivement in solving any world issues? when we get involved we're told we're trying to spread capitalism and westernize the world. when we stay out we're isolationist and self serving greedy bastards.
 

simple10

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Sleepy Giant
I really wonder what would happen if Clinton was in charge and gave the same ultimadum under the same circumstances. I wonder if he would be experiencing a similar backlash?

Kyle
he wouldn't have given an ultimatum. he would have gone in already like he did in the Balkans, without UN support (until after the mass graves were found).
 

zee

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by simple10

since when has the US had acheivement in solving any world issues? when we get involved we're told we're trying to spread capitalism and westernize the world. when we stay out we're isolationist and self serving greedy bastards.
actually surveys show that globally, many people see the world as a safer place with America "policing" it. the problem is that America doesn't just police it, it often oversteps its bounds, enforces its own policies, manipulates situations to its own benefit and just pisses people off in general.
 

Sleepy Giant

TRIBE Member
Does anyone think that he will actually go into exile??? I am dismayed that it has come to this, but part of me is very interested to see how this will all play out.

It's sort of the same feeling I got when I saw the first images of 9/11... Sad at first, but then amazed by the amount of planning that had to go into such an act.

Kyle
 

Eclipze

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


thats a pretty lame fact to bring up.. the military is usually made up of lower class citzens.. always has been.
 

Hal-9000

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Eclipze

thats a pretty lame fact to bring up.. the military is usually made up of lower class citzens.. always has been.
I think that was the point of saying that. A reminder that those in power are rarely the ones making the sacrifices of war they wax poetically on.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Eclipze



thats a pretty lame fact to bring up.. the military is usually made up of lower class citzens.. always has been.
Whats even more humouress is that a large number of the troupes currently in the gulf and on there way are actually in the reserves. meaning that they're taking people out of there jobs during a bad economic season and sending them away to a desert in the middle of nowhere.
 
Top