Movies

[IamMaiC]

Axel- if I recall Kerry used one of his swift boats and had Christmas in Thailand. (however the military says he never was in Thailand)

How is that for thailand related?? (might be Cambodia, but close enuf right?)

is that aloud to use goverment property to travel for R@R?

[Axel]

Axel- if I recall Kerry used one of his swift boats and had Christmas in Thailand. (however the military says he never was in Thailand)

How is that for thailand related?? (might be Cambodia, but close enuf right?) 

is that aloud to use goverment property to travel for R@R?

I believe for R&R, Pattaya and Pat Pong have been very popular, you can use government property as R&R is to re-establish your combat form. This is only a guess as I am no expert.

Kerry left Vietnam in '69 and I have been to Pattaya in '73. Must have missed him, but hundreds of others have been there. Everybody did enjoy Thailand at that time. So britmaveric you might have something there.

Must have somewhere old pictures, me paragliding over Pattaya bay. If I find them will check what boat was used to pull me.

[IamMaiC]

Axel- if I recall Kerry used one of his swift boats and had Christmas in Thailand. (however the military says he never was in Thailand)

How is that for thailand related?? (might be Cambodia, but close enuf right?) 

is that aloud to use goverment property to travel for R@R?

I believe for R&R, Pattaya and Pat Pong have been very popular, you can use government property as R&R is to re-establish your combat form. This is only a guess as I am no expert.

Kerry left Vietnam in '69 and I have been to Pattaya in '73. Must have missed him, but hundreds of others have been there. Everybody did enjoy Thailand at that time. So britmaveric you might have something there.

Must have somewhere old pictures, me paragliding over Pattaya bay. If I find them will check what boat was used to pull me.

He left when i was born I wonder if he's my dad??

[sleir]

back to the topic : sad thais and expats living in thailand can't see it and make their own judgement...

personally i did not like the movie as i dislike all forms of propaganda and propaganda it clearly is.

about the facts; mr. moore is very proud that none of his "facts" could be proven wrong, he is employing a whole team of lawyers to ensure nobody claims he is lying. as he is not, mostly

the point is that he's not clearly stating anything but the most abvious things you can read in any history book or find out with a bit of investigation yourself.

but he indicates a lot more, he asks a lot of rhetoric questions, he tries to clearly draw a picture of a world that is just as stupid, wrong and instrumentalised as that of mr. bush. he tries to force people to only have his viewpoint by strong pictures, strong indications and mostly emotions... and that is a very dangerous thing. personally i do agree that bush has to be voted off, is kerry my personal hero because of that ? most certainly not, the smaller evil i'd say. so is the movie a bad mean for a good purpose ? maybe.. but it serves no good if the americans get influenced by one-dimensional pictures from one extreme pole to the other... to not be able to think and realise that reality is not what they are told.

so very mixed feelings here..

sleir

[Coffee Dude]

So oil is why we are in iraq??  You have go to be joking!!!  People said that last time in 1991  cmon give me a break.  I was in iraq with the national guard and the iraqi people want us there,  One man i knew asked me if i was coming back!!!  I said more soldiers will be here to take my place.  what you see on the news all the attacks  they are happening in a small area of the country.

The attacks are by men that want to rule the country sir nothing more  now that saddam hussien is out of the picture  They want to take his place.  and you believe what the american media is saying??

Well said!!

The violence is about oil money all right. The billions and billions of $ paid to the government of Iraq for purchase of their state owned crude. These "insurgents" would like nothing more than to take control of one of wealthiest petrolium producing counties in the world and make it's people among the poorest because of personal greed and power lust. If this is allowed to happen (because it's not our concern), it would only be a matter of time before the UN steps in and initiates sanctions for human rights violations. That would further hurt the people of Iraq* and shorten the supply of oil to the rest of the world causing uncontrolable inflation which of course leads to unemployment and loss of benefits to people living in any country that depends on petrolium products.

*Under Saddam Hussein, sanctions were lessened by the UN to allow the export of oil to purchase medical and food supplies. Medical and food supplies weren't purchased in sufficient supply, but somehow he managed to purchase over 120 outlawed Al-samud missles.

I know this is off topic but "Not all that glitters is gold and not all that smells is poo poo".

Coffee!!!

[sleir]

as far as i know it was the us. that enforced the embargo on the iraq thru the united nations ? and as we all know this embargo mostly hurt the small people, as the reigning elite still had all its luxuries but could in turn blame the usa for their people's poverty ? so cleary quite the opposite happened of what the un/usa's stated intention was.

and let us not see this thing in the "modern" usa vs. un scheme... the usa was for many years the leading force behind the united nations and used/enjoyed a great influence. the security council was only a mean for the "worldpowers" to put a veto on issues they did not like..

so smaller or financially dependant countries (including udssr/russia and china)votes often were and still are "bought" by the us (not only ofc... is valid for all countries in a certain scale) quite openly either by financial, political or material support, often a combination of the three, or by indicating that these supports would be cut down. so a good geo-political environment was needed to get these sanctions in order and ALSO to lessen it, with the named oil-for-food-program... for entirely econimical reasons, as far as i know there was and is no real chance that anyone not completely stupid would think that the saddam regime would not find a way to use the money it earned with the exported oil to use it for their own purpose... and so they did as stated above.

so if we look at what the un. does we always have to look at what country or countries are behind it... and in your cases it was the u.s.a.

especially in politics we need to be extremely careful on so-called facts and should try to entirely get rid or distrust information from people, parties, media that are directly involved...

ps : as far as i know the sold oil was not purchased on the normal market price but rather on a fixed price on a fixed contigency that should lessen the inflationary pressure on the oil price, anyone got sources/infos about that ? (sry i am lazy ) it would be interesting to see who profited on that "humanitarian" oil-for-food program entierely interested in the well-fare of the iraqi people ..

[Spee]

as far as i know it was the us. that enforced the embargo on the iraq thru the united nations ? and as we all know this embargo mostly hurt the small people, as the reigning elite still had all its luxuries but could in turn blame the usa for their people's poverty ?

Forgive me, but this is crapola.

People were impoverished under Hussein's control of the country's resources. He had no established means of distributing the country's wealth, other than to his family and cronies.

Under the control of the interim government (and eventually the long term government), at least people will have a chance to be included. Furthermore, businessmen and merchants are able to ply their trade relatively freely, rather than under the thumb and bribes of Hussein's henchmen.

And with respect to the other posts about whether or not it is all about oil, I most certainly do not agree with that point entirely. But let's say it is all about oil, more specifically ensuring there is an assured flow of oil to western countries.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? A steady flow of oil to western countries helps to form a stable economy. A stable economy contributes to a lot of things, one of those being charitable grants and donations to various country's around the world. The US gives more financial aid around the world than many country's own gnp. Is that necessarily a bad thing? How much worse off would these countries be without this aid.

[chuchok]

Spee,

I do not disagree with you entirley,but I still think that Bush was out of line going into Iraq.Sadam was a complete Prxck,but there has been many like him in history..What did the world do when Polpot was doing his stuff?Where was/is the world/USA doing about Burma etc.

You say you were there in the last conflict..and I say good on you! I guarantee if you ask the average man/women on the street in Iraq if everything is ok, they will tell you otherwise. So what if the trouble is coming from outsiders...it still makes the average Iraq citizen foul his/her trou every time they go out for afternoon tea in Basra.

All of the Arab countries as far as I know are under some form of dictatorship..and as far as I know it works in that part of the world.

If America wants a steady flow of oil...then why don't they just say it.I have no problem with the truth.Michlael Moores movie..was obviously one sided,but you cannot deny the link betweem GWB and the USA oil industry.

[sleir]

@Spree : forgive me, but i think i have either written my point unclearly or you

have missunderstood me : I was talking about (pre-Bush) US-policy on Iraq and about the hard embargo that was set upon the country.

I absolutely agree that people were kept poor under Hussein and I thought i have not written anything contradictive.

I was not going to start another "war for oil" discussion but rather wanted to

point out that, very unfortunately, the oil exports the UN decided to allow under the reign of saddam hussein in exchange of medical products (v limited) and food did not have the desired effect as the people did not benefit of it at all.

and i also raised the question if it was intended by international and mainly us politics at all or not just a comfortable way to bring cheap oil to the market to prevent heavy inflation.

As i stated before : i do not want to further discuss the issue about the war on iraq because i think all possible viewpoints have already been made on this forum in another thread and in a multitude of open media too.

All i wanted is to try to correct the statement made by Coffeedude that UN politics somehow opposed or contradicted US politics in that time while the thriving force between the named embargo and the later following limited oil exports was the USA.

Thanks for reading

sleir

[Tornado]

The Documentary/movie is available in Thailand everywhere - a must see for everyone on the planet. Yes ofcourse it is biased and slanted, but when dealing with actual people involved, television film and checkable sources, it will make you cringe at what this drip has got away with. If he wins the next election, it says a lot about the USA.

[SoCal]

a must see for everyone on the planet.

Most people in the world have better things to do, I hope, than follow American politics.

Glad you are all so riveted by our nonsense.

You are hereby awarded a second showing- four more years.

[Spee]

The Documentary/movie is available in Thailand everywhere

You mean the "crock-u-mentary" as in crock of you-know-what?

[Spee]

You say you were there in the last conflict..

If America wants a steady flow of oil...then why don't they just say it.

For the first part ...

I never said that I was involved in "the last conflict."

For the second part ...

"America" does "just say it." It's called supply and demand, a concept that is all but foreign in many parts of the world where there is no such thing as a market economy.

[JGV]

In Pattaya I bought a poor DVD copy on Beach Rd for 150. It is OK to watch but quality is lacking a bit.

Point 2 To those who moke Moore as a propogandist or comedian all I suggest is answer this Why hasn't he beens sued in a civil court for defamation bu either Bush, The Saudi Royal Family or any other right wing supporters. The reason is that most of the documentary is factually correct

Answer this how could Moore supply air traffic control logs of Saudi planes leaving the USA on days following 9/11 when there was an air embargo.

Magik

[Spee]

Why hasn't he beens sued in a civil court for defamation bu either Bush, The Saudi Royal Family or any other right wing supporters. The reason is that most of the documentary is factually correct

Answer this how could Moore supply air traffic control logs of Saudi planes leaving the USA on days following 9/11 when there was an air embargo.

On the first part, he won't be sued because the suit would do nothing other than bring him more publicity. Why should his opponents want to do that?

On the second part, you just contradicted your first statement about the documentary being correct. The Saudi's and other people were flying only after air traffic had been legally resumed.

This is one of many examples throughout the "crock-u-mentary" where Moore is either just plain misleading the audience through spin or flat-out lying to them. The movie is a joke.

IMHO, anyone who honestly believes this movie as scripture is either too lazy to read about all sides of the story, or too stupid to be able to separate obvious facts from obvious fiction.

Here is a related point about how far people will go to try to stretch the truth, if not flat out lie about the current adminstration and the events of nine-one-one.

Last week the BBC broadcasted a lengthy documentary on various conspiracy theories about how the administration caused the day's events to happen. While they broadcasted some really wacky stuff, at least they did the right thing as showed the other side of the coin as well (something the Moore fails to even attempt).

One of the segments was about a group of people who believed that what actually hit the pentagon was a missle fired from a military helicopter, as part of the conspiracy. This is all because the only surveillance footage available was a slow scan image that didn't capture a frame with the aircraft hitting the building.

However, there were over 600 eyewitnesses interviewed who validated seeing the airliner hit the building. Several of these eyewitnesses were so close to the plane that they could describe sounds, angle of attack, speed, writing, paint colors, and so on.

Yet all of this evidence is not good enough to dissuade people who truly want to believe something else. Your and other people's beliefs in the Moore doctrine are no different. You don't happen to agree with the current administration and you look for any excuse to validate your sentiments, regardless of whether or not there is any basis in fact.

It all boils down to whether or not you want to do your own thinking or you want to have someone else do your thinking for you.

In some ways, it reminds me of something I read a long time ago, in a very good book about how very small groups of people can control very large groups of people. The statement was "A confused society is a controllable society." Your willingness to believe Moore's nonsense allows you to be "controlled" because your thoughts are very predictable.

[Tornado]

The Documentary/movie is available in Thailand everywhere

You mean the "crock-u-mentary" as in crock of you-know-what?

No I do not mean that at all

How can say that it is a "crock of <deleted>"?, which part are you referring to?

Surely it could not be how he won/stole the election?

Were those soldiers in Iraq grabbing a dead mans penis - actors?

Maybe you mean that Osamas family wasnt flown out of the US 24 hours after the attacks?

what part was a crock?

[kat]

So who are your thoughts controlled by, Spee? The Bush-Cheney Halliburton dynasty that has put an executive order lock on documents related to W.'s past and his father's administration? You know what, I'm not even interested in your answer because your arguments are not honest.

[britmaveric]

Kat- lets be faire John Kerry has locked his military records! What is he hiding?

My point is each side is spinning what their supporters want to hear.. who knows what the actual truth really is?

[kat]

I haven't heard that one Britmaveric. Where did you hear it?

and BTW, I want to be fair, but I think it is fundamentally unfair to take the stance that anyone who doesn't share your analysis of the current state of American politics is stupid.

[britmaveric]

I want to be fair, but I think it is fundamentally unfair to take the stance that anyone who doesn't share your analysis of the current state of American politics is stupid.

Very strange Kat- you are putting words in my mouth- I've never said that!

As for Kerry AP/Wash Times/ and few other news organizations wanted a full release of all of Kerry's military records. (think it was brought on by the swift boat rubbish) Regardless a cynical person would wonder why?

I just find it all amusing mind you- we have had a few embarrassing gaffs lately ourself- we can't even secure our palace from Batman nor our House of Commons from rabid Fox Hunting protesters!

[bartender100]

Would not surprise me one bit if the American people voted that lunatic back in.

Then it will be Iran's turn to be slaughted in their thousands.

[IamMaiC]

I heard the same kat I don't remember where. I am just upset at him Kerry, He comes back from a war and degrades the other soldiers who fought it!!!! That's not right. He also threw his medals away. I know Vietnam was a mess but Brave soldiers were over there none the less.

Now I have seen news reports that show him not talking to reporters when boarding his plane for another campaign stop. What's he got to hide?? Or is he to good to talk to anyone?

[Nemesis]

[britmaveric]

I am just upset at him Kerry, He comes back from a war and degrades the other soldiers who fought it!!!!

IamMaiC- actually Kerry kept his medals- he threw other soldiers medals away and claimed them as his own at the time.

[IamMaiC]

Would not surprise me one bit if the American people voted that lunatic back in.

Then it will be Iran's turn to be slaughted in their thousands.

Sir They had an earthquake not too long ago and the US sent people to help. A friend of mine went He is with a search and rescue squad, He had an iranian woman come up to him and say "What you do now YOU KIll US??" Does my friend deserve to hear this?? He only went to help.

I have heard everyone trouncing the US Ohhh don't vote that lunatic back in Are we to replace him with an even worse Lunatic? (Kerry)

[Nemesis]

In an interview with Time magazine, President Bush declared the war in Iraq a "catastrophic success."

How's that for a bon mot paradoxial oxymoron?

Catastrophy for Iraq and the US taxpayer / soldier, a success for Haliburton / Cheney.

Boy are Americans dumb. Now they get to vote for one of two evils. LMFHO

[IamMaiC]

I am just upset at him Kerry, He comes back from a war and degrades the other soldiers who fought it!!!!

IamMaiC- actually Kerry kept his medals- he threw other soldiers medals away and claimed them as his own at the time.

Regardless who ever's medals they were He degraded men that fought for their country, Sure they were made to fight But they did fight. He's the one in the first place that brought up his military service and started this whole mud slinging mess!!!

[kat]

Britmaveric:

Yeah, I enjoyed the fox hunters today on CNN clips. I didn't know what all the fuss was about, as I thought this sort of head bashing went on all the time in pubs I think Batman was just jealous because there was a recent report released in England that more than half of new fathers don't share the responsibility of caring for their crying infants at night. Aparrently, this has sown a great deal of contention and strife in young British marriages. Funny, not a peep of this report in these parts.

BTW, I was aiming my "fundamentally unfair" comment at Spee, who seems to believe that everyone who has more faith in Moore's imperfect arguments over the current administration's imperfect arguments are stupid.

The thing is, it's not just Moore. It's an avalanche.

[Nemesis]

He degraded men that fought for their country,

Fought for their country? How was going half-way around the world to fight the "yellow man" (Springsteen) fighting for their country? Fighting for their corrupt lying government yes, but fighting for their country?

[IamMaiC]

In an interview with Time magazine, President Bush declared the war in Iraq a "catastrophic success."

How's that for a bon mot paradoxial oxymoron?

Catrastrophy for Iraq and the US taxpayer / soldier, a success for Haliburton / Cheney.

Boy are Americans dumb.

Yeah you moron it was a Catastrophic Success All wars are!!! You have people dying That's what's Catastrophic have you been to Iraq Sir?? I have I been in a few firefights I was about to go to the big one in najaf, The insurgents run and hid in that ###### mosque they have because they know the US will not attack it.

And what you see on the news!! You ever see the good things going on in iraq No of course not only the bad I was north of baghdad Iraqi people want the US in there, Iraqi People are joing the Army and sercurity forces because they want to have a better country.

I am proud of what I have done and so are the soldiers i served with