Sorry - I got the impression that you thought the attacks justified their actions because you said, in reference to those attacks, “he left out two things that might have made a difference.”
Zoff I still haven’t seen anyone questioning the actual part of the movie that the OP is talking about.
If I tell 3 lies and 1 truth. I still telling the truth about 1 thing.
Yes, but the three lies should be considered when the liar presents a purported truth.
The fact is, there is no objective truth on whether US interventions have been right or wrong (though we all have our opinions), and nobody’s arguing the fact that it happened. Since Moore has shown that he is willing to misrepresent things it is reasonable to be cautious in accepting his version of the “facts” – which are actually opinions.
Frankly, I’m more disturbed by the fundamentally dishonest editing that Moore used to discredit those whom he disagrees with politically (skip to item #2).
I kinda like the guy, but last night backstage after he won his oscar , he said war teaches kids to solve things by violence.
Good God Michael, Hollywood promotes violence in order to fill seats in theatres. They produce it and sanitize it so that we will go back for more. If you wanted to make a statement, you should have refused to accept an award from an industry that glamorizes death and other “realistic” violence. Kids seeing hollywood violence are taught that it really isn’t all that bad.
I don’t remember the specific words that go with that sequence, but my recollection is that they didn’t contradict anything I know about those events. It is true that the US has helped to overthrow a number of democratic regimes, and substitute them with friendly dictators. You can find the declassified documents on some of those operations in the National Security Archives. For instance, Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973)…
For the Iran affair, there is also a New York Times special report here.
Big deal, so do we . . .
(c & p’ed from This post.)
On average - from Nov 2001 to Oct 2002 our purchasing accounted for 25% of Iraq’s exported oil.
That’s on average, granted, and since May it’s tapered off to about 8%. But still - in Dec 2001 we were purchasing over 50% of their exported oil - 10 years since desert storm, and a year into the Dubya Administration.
Full Disclaimer: I’m not an expert on oil economics, I’m just taking figures out of spreadsheets off the DOE site and running basic average/percentage calculations. I welcome someone with better economics skills than I to draw different conclusions. I just wanted to point out that we have an economy with Iraq. Regardless of whether or not the American public knows or acknowledges it, we do trade with them and support their economy. France and Germany are certainly NOT the only NATO nations doing so.
The seed for this knowledge is this document, though it is admittedly outdated.
The 10% figure is actually accurate. . . as of 2000!!
Here are the documents from which I peiced together the statistics I mentioned above:
My point isn’t to defend Rush Limbaugh or his oil argument – far from it. Rather, I’m addressing the issue of whether Michael Moore is a source to be trusted. My discussion of Rush Limbaugh’s argument was merely to point out that it’s not a clear-cut case of Limbaugh lying vs. Moore merely exaggerating.
There are many sources for intelligent discussions of pro-war sentiment and anti-war sentiment. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are not those sources. Both distort the truth to fit a pre-defined political vision.
Zoff
Right-o, that’s why I said I’ve no dog in this fight. I’m just knee-jerking to the notion that the French are the evil iraqi oil-guzzlers. Sorry to hijack and sorry if I didn’t make that clear - 
OK. I wasn’t sure, so I thought I’d address you just to be safe.