Fahrenheit 9/11
Moderator: enderzero
-
SpeedCricket
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: China
Moore's work should not be label "one-sided," it should be labeled as the "hidden-side." This is the side of the wars and administration that the mainstream media has ignored or glossed over. Moore doesn't need to present the other side per se; the other side has oversaturated the discourse for years now!
-
SpeedCricket
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: China
Sparkle brought up four very good points that were ridiculed as falicious. I can shed some light on the first point: "illegal by any standard" (for the record, I am studying to be a lawyer in international law). Warning: this is a little long, but I number/underlined main points.
---Illegal by any standard---
The US military action against Iraq deviated enormously from accepted international practice as an attack against a sovereign state, aimed explicitly at removing its internationally recognized government, without specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council, not in response to a prior act of aggression, and carried out not by a multilateral organization but by the world’s greatest military power, acting alone or with the backing only of a few loyal allies.
So, did the Bush administration make the legal cut? I would have to say no based on the following:
1)Security Council Resolution 687, which established a ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, did not make the ceasefire conditional on Iraq’s future cooperation with inspections, but implied another Security Council resolution would be needed to authorize further military action, thus rendering this Resolution unusable in justifying the Bush administration attack on Iraq.
I think the Bush administration realized this wouldn't work and came up with the:
2)Pre-emptive self-defense argument derived from:
UN Charter Article 51 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art51:
The right of self-defense is generated when an attack occurs (the attack must be occurring before the use of force in self-defense is legitimate).
2A) Flexibility permitted in the interpretation of Article 51:
The UN has granted leeway where there is very clear evidence that an armed attack, having not yet occurred, is nevertheless imminent and would be overwhelming, and would make the awaiting of the armed attack disastrous for the attacked country. A state that felt its sovereignty and independence to be threatened by the actions of another country, might be entitled to use force against that country, even if the country’s hostile actions had not yet risen to the level of an actual armed attack.
If one accepts that some right of pre-emptive self-defense might exist under international law (and I do), the next question is how far it extends and whether the criteria were met to justify the Bush administration attack on Iraq.
1. Under the wording of Article 51, it’s implied that if you have the time to deliberate and to go to the Council before you take pre-emptive action, then you have to go to the Council.
This would clearly make the Bush action against Iraq illegal.
2. If the Security Council failed to take action that was sufficient to meet the threat, and the security of the threatened state continued to be at risk, then the right of self-defense would still exist.
What might indicate a sufficient threat: a) evidence that the Iraqi leadership was in possession of some sort of weapon b) possessed a means to get it to the United States c) actually intend imminently to do take such action.
The Bush administration harped up criteria (a), but failed to even open discourse to prove (b) or (c). Iraqi actions did not pose a severe enough threat to the United States to justify a pre-emptive attack, further rendering the Bush action illegal.
3. The legitimacy of an act of pre-emptive self-defense depends on whether there were means other than actual fighting attempted to prevent the threatened attack. (ie; you had no other choice). The Bush administration clearly did not sufficiently attempt other means to resolve the issue with Iraq.
Also: UN charter articles 41 and 42 make it clear war is a matter of last resort. International law traditionally allows for pre-emptive strikes but only in the event of an imminent threat. Few agree Iraq posed such a threat, particularly with the presence of UN weapons inspectors in the country.
Law which dictates that any country feeling threatened is free to attack any country from which it feels the threat is originating, leads to a world where you don’t have any law at all.
---Illegal by any standard---
The US military action against Iraq deviated enormously from accepted international practice as an attack against a sovereign state, aimed explicitly at removing its internationally recognized government, without specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council, not in response to a prior act of aggression, and carried out not by a multilateral organization but by the world’s greatest military power, acting alone or with the backing only of a few loyal allies.
So, did the Bush administration make the legal cut? I would have to say no based on the following:
1)Security Council Resolution 687, which established a ceasefire at the end of the Gulf War in 1991, did not make the ceasefire conditional on Iraq’s future cooperation with inspections, but implied another Security Council resolution would be needed to authorize further military action, thus rendering this Resolution unusable in justifying the Bush administration attack on Iraq.
I think the Bush administration realized this wouldn't work and came up with the:
2)Pre-emptive self-defense argument derived from:
UN Charter Article 51 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art51:
The right of self-defense is generated when an attack occurs (the attack must be occurring before the use of force in self-defense is legitimate).
2A) Flexibility permitted in the interpretation of Article 51:
The UN has granted leeway where there is very clear evidence that an armed attack, having not yet occurred, is nevertheless imminent and would be overwhelming, and would make the awaiting of the armed attack disastrous for the attacked country. A state that felt its sovereignty and independence to be threatened by the actions of another country, might be entitled to use force against that country, even if the country’s hostile actions had not yet risen to the level of an actual armed attack.
If one accepts that some right of pre-emptive self-defense might exist under international law (and I do), the next question is how far it extends and whether the criteria were met to justify the Bush administration attack on Iraq.
1. Under the wording of Article 51, it’s implied that if you have the time to deliberate and to go to the Council before you take pre-emptive action, then you have to go to the Council.
This would clearly make the Bush action against Iraq illegal.
2. If the Security Council failed to take action that was sufficient to meet the threat, and the security of the threatened state continued to be at risk, then the right of self-defense would still exist.
What might indicate a sufficient threat: a) evidence that the Iraqi leadership was in possession of some sort of weapon b) possessed a means to get it to the United States c) actually intend imminently to do take such action.
The Bush administration harped up criteria (a), but failed to even open discourse to prove (b) or (c). Iraqi actions did not pose a severe enough threat to the United States to justify a pre-emptive attack, further rendering the Bush action illegal.
3. The legitimacy of an act of pre-emptive self-defense depends on whether there were means other than actual fighting attempted to prevent the threatened attack. (ie; you had no other choice). The Bush administration clearly did not sufficiently attempt other means to resolve the issue with Iraq.
Also: UN charter articles 41 and 42 make it clear war is a matter of last resort. International law traditionally allows for pre-emptive strikes but only in the event of an imminent threat. Few agree Iraq posed such a threat, particularly with the presence of UN weapons inspectors in the country.
Law which dictates that any country feeling threatened is free to attack any country from which it feels the threat is originating, leads to a world where you don’t have any law at all.
ED21N and I saw this movie on Sunday
And there's nothing more that I have to add to this convo that hasn't already been said.......
It was something that Erin had to see though....It really struck a chord for her. She's usually been one of those "follow and don't question" people, and the footage of W seemed to startle her..........
Good flick though.......
It was something that Erin had to see though....It really struck a chord for her. She's usually been one of those "follow and don't question" people, and the footage of W seemed to startle her..........
Good flick though.......
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
-
dirtyprettylittlething
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:00 pm
- Location: Reality
Yeah, it's not one sided- Oh, Look! did you just see that? Jesus, i never thought i'd live to see a pig fly, no? but stranger things can happen.Moore's work should not be label "one-sided," it should be labeled as the "hidden-side." This is the side of the wars and administration that the mainstream media has ignored or glossed over. Moore doesn't need to present the other side per se; the other side has oversaturated the discourse for years now!
For a very good example of being one-sided, for people who aren't clear, i recommend reading the post on this thread.
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
Noone is saying it's not one sided, but would you at least concede that it's a side that hasn't been shown by major media outlets?dirtyprettylittlething wrote:Yeah, it's not one sided- Oh, Look! did you just see that? Jesus, i never thought i'd live to see a pig fly, no? but stranger things can happen.
For a very good example of being one-sided, for people who aren't clear, i recommend reading the post on this thread.
-
SpeedCricket
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: China
Dirty is confusing me, or maybe I am too drunk to be reading right now... either way,
are you quoting me and calling me one-sided?
Everyone in this forum is more intelligent than average, and as such, I don't think that any of us can be pigeon-holed too much politically. Hell, BEEEPH is made out to be this mad right wing social conservative, but I would bet even he isn't behind the right's drug policies. That's just one example, I'm not picking on BEEEPH, I think that everyone here has similar contradictions based upon intelligent deductions. I'm a social liberal/small government fiscal conservative who supports gun rights. We've all got contradictions here that defy definitive labels, makes it more fun....must go pass out now...
Oh, and sorry for assigning cred for the four points to Sparkle instead of Ocean, and congrats to anyone who actually read all of my legalese last post.
are you quoting me and calling me one-sided?
Everyone in this forum is more intelligent than average, and as such, I don't think that any of us can be pigeon-holed too much politically. Hell, BEEEPH is made out to be this mad right wing social conservative, but I would bet even he isn't behind the right's drug policies. That's just one example, I'm not picking on BEEEPH, I think that everyone here has similar contradictions based upon intelligent deductions. I'm a social liberal/small government fiscal conservative who supports gun rights. We've all got contradictions here that defy definitive labels, makes it more fun....must go pass out now...
Oh, and sorry for assigning cred for the four points to Sparkle instead of Ocean, and congrats to anyone who actually read all of my legalese last post.
Just a quick background. I am conservative, and so is my family and lots of my friends. I am really new to the polotics scene which I think many conservatives are. I am definetly fiscally, and socially conservative. I dont know my contradictions yet. Except for my opinions on Intelectual property rights. Like software piracy, MP3's etc... Which are constantly changing. (usually when I start feeling guilty)
I think I need to add a little variety to this forum.
I brought up Fahrenheit 9/11 with my Mom. I was curious to see what she would say. I dont like to speak for her but I have to. She doesnt want to see the film, basically because she doesnt want to support Moore. Which I cant argue with. I think she had some very good points.
First, in a way he is exploiting the war and columbine for his own gain.
Second, I am personally afraid for our soldiers. I am afraid of this ending up like vietnam. The reasons we are there are different but its the same for our soldiers, I dont want them to return to a country that hates them. I think thats awful. I think MM and other extremists are encubating these feelings in many people world wide. Which is very very dangerous.
Third, Disregarding Bush's supposed personal agenda. I think taking Saddam out of power is a good thing. He is not a good man. The citizens of Iraq deserve freedom and the Happiness associated with it. I think Bush deserves some credit for sticking to it. He has not deviated from his path no matter the huge oppression.
Sure you can argue most of these and grind them into the dirt. I totally forgot what else I was going to say. I am going to blame that on 8 hours of accumulated nap time, as my only sleep in the past the past 2.5 days from my return from china. Yeah we are back from china now. Decided not to stay for the whole year. We got ancy to get on with our life.
I think I need to add a little variety to this forum.
I brought up Fahrenheit 9/11 with my Mom. I was curious to see what she would say. I dont like to speak for her but I have to. She doesnt want to see the film, basically because she doesnt want to support Moore. Which I cant argue with. I think she had some very good points.
First, in a way he is exploiting the war and columbine for his own gain.
Second, I am personally afraid for our soldiers. I am afraid of this ending up like vietnam. The reasons we are there are different but its the same for our soldiers, I dont want them to return to a country that hates them. I think thats awful. I think MM and other extremists are encubating these feelings in many people world wide. Which is very very dangerous.
Third, Disregarding Bush's supposed personal agenda. I think taking Saddam out of power is a good thing. He is not a good man. The citizens of Iraq deserve freedom and the Happiness associated with it. I think Bush deserves some credit for sticking to it. He has not deviated from his path no matter the huge oppression.
Sure you can argue most of these and grind them into the dirt. I totally forgot what else I was going to say. I am going to blame that on 8 hours of accumulated nap time, as my only sleep in the past the past 2.5 days from my return from china. Yeah we are back from china now. Decided not to stay for the whole year. We got ancy to get on with our life.
-
Roger Ramjet
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
Ummm, No, unless you have been living with your head up your own arse (not you personally Beeeph) I think you will find that points 2-4 are repeatedly substancated FACTS. If you are arguing against these points then you are simply in denial and lose all credibilty.Beeeph wrote:did you come up with those yourself, or did you read that in a book somewhere?Good reasons for not covering the downsides to a war that was
- illegal by any standard
- based on flawed intelligence
- ill-planned and undermanned
- lacking an exit scenario
I am not sure if you support the war Beeeph, but if you do I am very interested to hear your reasons why. Please don't get defensive, just a clear a coherient agruement detailing why america had to invade Iraq. I really am interested and promise this will not degenerate into a flame war.
Roger Ramjet - Popping pucka E's since 81
-
Roger Ramjet
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
And why is it that the people on this thread that are against the war have brought up logical and well-researched arguments, while the pro-war camp have resorted to infantile (and not even very amusing) sarcasm.
Is attack the best form of defence? Hang on, that sounds familar.........I think George W would like the sound of that.
Is attack the best form of defence? Hang on, that sounds familar.........I think George W would like the sound of that.
Roger Ramjet - Popping pucka E's since 81
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
Came across this article today:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/159301-1578-021.html
http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/159301-1578-021.html
Ted Mandell
Watch film yourself, then decide and vote
July 2, 2004
My neighbors will not see "Fahrenheit 9/11." "It's just a bunch of lies."
Really? You know that without seeing it?
"I heard he twists all the facts and just wants to get Bush out of office. None of it's true."
Hmm. I didn't know that.
If you ever see Jennifer Lopez in person, she's not that attractive. My sister's best friend told me.
Expectations shape perception. We have expectations from our TV set. We have expectations from the movie screen. We have expectations that TV news should be factual. We have expectations that films described as "documentaries" should be presented like the news. Objectively.
Why? Because that's how we first experience documentaries in elementary school.
But in reality, documentaries are films, not facts. No one taught us that in social studies class.
No one in my eighth-grade class ever questioned the accuracy of the portrayal of Christopher Columbus in the yawn-filled documentary we endured one sticky spring afternoon. Our teacher, Mr. Jones, had the flu. We passed notes while the substitute read a magazine. Maybe that movie was just a bunch of lies.
Whatever you do, don't eat at Papa Giannetto's. The pizza is terrible. Haven't been there myself, but my friend got sick after eating at one.
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the first documentary many Americans have ever seen in a movie theater. It may not; they may be doc savvy. But walking into the theater saddled with typical documentary expectations of "Fahrenheit 9/11," is like turning on "The O'Reilly Factor" and thinking you'll be watching a reality TV show. Well, I guess they are related about as much as I'm related to my sister-in-law's husband's step-brother.
Does that mean "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not a documentary? No. Does that mean it's full of lies? No. Does that mean "Fahrenheit 9/11" distorts reality? No.
It means that "Fahrenheit 9/11" has a point of view. A distinct point of view. An unrelenting argument. One rarely seen in films described as documentaries. One never seen on anything left of Laura Ingraham. In Michael Moore, Ingraham, the snide right radio host, has met her long-lost leftist fraternal twin. They both twist sound bites silly to make a point. They cleverly select statistics favorable to their political cause. They sarcastically skewer opponents.
But with "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore the filmmaker trumps Ingraham the radio host. He presents the original goods, the real stories of average citizens both here and over there.
For those who see the film, ignore his biting sarcasm. Even ignore his connect-the-dots argument placing President Bush's hand deep in the Saudi cookie jar.
But ignore Moore's captivating, previously unseen footage both from Iraq and the United States, and you're ignoring what's happening in our country and in the world. It's difficult to watch the carnage of war. It's chilling to see Iraqi women and children in utter horror. It's heartbreaking to see an American mother read the final letter from her soldier son, killed in the line of duty. You can discredit Moore's footage as not being representative of the war as a whole. But you can't say it's not representative of each sad, gut-wrenching event.
To ignore that is truly sad.
As a voting American citizen, to discard "Fahrenheit 9/11" based upon the comments of those who haven't seen the film is even more tragic. Every American casting a vote in November should take the two hours to watch "Fahrenheit 9/11." They should also watch Fox News. Check out CNN. Read The Washington Post. Read The Washington Times. Watch the presidential debates. Get both sides of each argument.
Then vote based on what you've experienced and believe, not heard from a neighbor or a talk-show host.
First, I was making fun of Ocean11, I wasn't claiming those facts are untrue, although you shouldn't go believing everything you read and see in a movie just because you want to believe it is true. I think to a large degree, they're all very true facts. Second, I actually do think those are good reasons for not covering the downsides of the war, even though Ocean11 was being sarcastic. You can't be so fuckin stupid as to not think doing that would completely kill morale ultimately causing far more death and damage. Good job Moore! The war is happening, there's no stopping it no matter how much whining and crying you guys can muster, so why not make it as painless as possible?Ummm, No, unless you have been living with your head up your own arse (not you personally Beeeph) I think you will find that points 2-4 are repeatedly substancated FACTS.
I think all you democrats are a bunch of whiney little bitches, pist because your side's not callin the shots. Get a fucking life and stop calling Micheal Moore brilliant, the dude's a fucking clown and nothing more. And I think all you republicans are the most hard headed, ignorant fools on the planet. Lay off the fox news channel, put on some chappelle. I think all you peole who don't take poltics all that seriously are normal human beings. You can think of me as one of those people who don't vote because they genuinly don't care about government politics. I have more immediate issues in life to think about, like why is my girlfriend pist at me again, and why is there a cheeseburger on top of my TV, where did that come from? So to answer any and all of your questions in the past, present, and future...i support what you support.
As I read through this again, I think it sounds as though i'm being defensive, or I'm pist at something...and just to let you know, I'm really not.
Yeah, you can see why Michael Moore's carefully constructed sentences would not appeal to someone like Beeeph, whereas an incoherent yahoo burbling "peance freeance" with his face twisted up like someone who just let go a wet fart would win him over.
What you're saying is "don't tell the truth because it's bad for morale". Tell me Beeeph, at which point is it OK to start recognizing the truth again? Would it have been a good idea to recognize the truth when the inspectors were saying loudly and clearly "There are no WMD in Iraq" before the build-up? Or which reason will you pull out of your arse for not having recognized the truth then?
What you're saying is "don't tell the truth because it's bad for morale". Tell me Beeeph, at which point is it OK to start recognizing the truth again? Would it have been a good idea to recognize the truth when the inspectors were saying loudly and clearly "There are no WMD in Iraq" before the build-up? Or which reason will you pull out of your arse for not having recognized the truth then?
Oh shit
-
Roger Ramjet
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
Yeah nice distraction tactic there Beeeeeph but Ocean has raised a very good point. This "the truth is bad for morale" arguement is rather scary. How far are you willing to extend that line of thinking? You are skating on thin ice there mate. 
. As painless as possible? That would be listening to the rest of the world BEFORE going into a conflict with no clear exit stragegy. If you are going to have these opinions of the war that is fine by me, as long as you have thought logically about your beliefs and question the overwhealming propaganda that saturated most american media outlets. If you believe the before-mentiolned facts are largely true, I cannot see how you can support the war and be disapointed about the content or apparent one-sideness of Moore's movie. It's as simple as that, and all the quircky Saddam pictures and I don't really care statments don't cover up the fact the your logic has a whole in it big enough to fly a B-52 though.
Also I for one certainly have a heavy dose of scepticism about the unbiased nature of media, therefore I go out of my way to get both sides of the story. So basically I don't believe "everything I see and hear" but when the overwhealming majority of reports from reputable sources suggest this was a illegal and unjustified attack on another country that has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of civilians not to mention hundreds of american soldiers, I am convinced.
Lying to your soldiers to send them to war is not supporting your military, its putting them in the line of fire for no reason, and that is criminal and totally fucked. Especially from a guy that was too gutless to fight in Vietnam (fair enough) and then skipped out of the cushy service that Daddy had fixed up for him as well. The political situation in America at teh moment is FUCKED UP
. As painless as possible? That would be listening to the rest of the world BEFORE going into a conflict with no clear exit stragegy. If you are going to have these opinions of the war that is fine by me, as long as you have thought logically about your beliefs and question the overwhealming propaganda that saturated most american media outlets. If you believe the before-mentiolned facts are largely true, I cannot see how you can support the war and be disapointed about the content or apparent one-sideness of Moore's movie. It's as simple as that, and all the quircky Saddam pictures and I don't really care statments don't cover up the fact the your logic has a whole in it big enough to fly a B-52 though. Also I for one certainly have a heavy dose of scepticism about the unbiased nature of media, therefore I go out of my way to get both sides of the story. So basically I don't believe "everything I see and hear" but when the overwhealming majority of reports from reputable sources suggest this was a illegal and unjustified attack on another country that has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of civilians not to mention hundreds of american soldiers, I am convinced.
Lying to your soldiers to send them to war is not supporting your military, its putting them in the line of fire for no reason, and that is criminal and totally fucked. Especially from a guy that was too gutless to fight in Vietnam (fair enough) and then skipped out of the cushy service that Daddy had fixed up for him as well. The political situation in America at teh moment is FUCKED UP
Roger Ramjet - Popping pucka E's since 81
> Especially from a guy that was too gutless to fight in Vietnam
Make that 'guys' - Cheney had more important things to do at the time too.
BTW Beeeph, if the people in charge in the US had done their homework, they would have had some Iraqis pump Saddam's hole full of water, then 'found' him a couple of days later looking and otherwise making like a drowned rat. That would have been the smart thing to do. Then they could put Chemical Ali on trial and nobody would have given a shit. But we know that the US finds it easier simply to lie than to do their homework, with the full support of supposedly intelligent voters.
I figure that now they're going to have a devil of a time stopping him talking about when they were good friends "How's my friend Rummy? Does he still have that hearty handshake that I came to love in Baghdad?" I think the people in the ME will probably notice that the video footage doesn't come with any sound.
Make that 'guys' - Cheney had more important things to do at the time too.
BTW Beeeph, if the people in charge in the US had done their homework, they would have had some Iraqis pump Saddam's hole full of water, then 'found' him a couple of days later looking and otherwise making like a drowned rat. That would have been the smart thing to do. Then they could put Chemical Ali on trial and nobody would have given a shit. But we know that the US finds it easier simply to lie than to do their homework, with the full support of supposedly intelligent voters.
I figure that now they're going to have a devil of a time stopping him talking about when they were good friends "How's my friend Rummy? Does he still have that hearty handshake that I came to love in Baghdad?" I think the people in the ME will probably notice that the video footage doesn't come with any sound.
Oh shit
You think I'm avoiding his question? I think what you both just said is completely flippin rediculous and it's the same shit you're saying over and over and over and over again. And I'm not even gonna try to argue with you hard headed freaks about it. There would simply be no end to it. You don't agree with anything I say, and I don't agree with anything you say. So whats the point? Lets end it with some funny pictures of saddam. And as far as me skating on thin ice Roger...well you can suck a fart out of my ass you slave driving facist. If you fools haven't yet figured it out, I say alot of the shit I say to get a rise out of you guys, and you make it so easy. You really wanna know how I feel about the war...NUKE THEIR ASS AND TAKE THEIR GAS! I gotta worry about gettin laid, not what some crooked politician or president is up to. Who really fuckin cares, stop your crying and get on with your lives.Yeah nice distraction tactic there Beeeeeph
-
Roger Ramjet
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
You have made lame points that you can't back up with any reasoned argument and have been shot down in flames, so now your raising the white flag. Fair enough 
And as for getting as rise, you seem to be the only one here that is getting fired up, so follow your own advice, fool.
And as for getting as rise, you seem to be the only one here that is getting fired up, so follow your own advice, fool.
Roger Ramjet - Popping pucka E's since 81
-
Roger Ramjet
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
-
Roger Ramjet
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
well here's what happened with this mess, in the midst of giving my opinion of the movie, I suddenly realized I didn't wanna get caught up in another political debate with me on one side and the whole rest of the forum on the other. My every last word strikes major concern and it becomes hard to answer everyone's question in a way to try to get them to understand why I stand where I do, and it QUICKLY becomes alotta work. So instead of putting forth all that effort, I tried to quickly kill it with bogus remarks and excuses. And that resulted in people thinking I was avoiding the discussion because I lacked logic in my reasoning and didn't have any real answers to their questions. I actually meant everything I've said before the last 10 or so posts when I started acting like I don't care. It's my fault for butting into a discussion with somewhat controversial statements, only to so quickly become lazy to the point of not wanting to discuss anymore. In doing so, I only ended up discussing more than I probably would have had I just explained myself a little more honestly in the first place. I easily become defensive when asked to explain myself, especially with Ocean's ability to piss people off, which is why I really need to keep my mouth shut when it comes to politics on this forum.
-
Roger Ramjet
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:46 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
Cool,
I am bailing out of this one, and I'll try to avoid this subject in future as I too am sick to teh bags of discussing it as well.
And of course I would never want to bore the paragon of all that is interesting, Mistar endarzero.............
(sound of rip cord being pulled and parachute opening)
I am bailing out of this one, and I'll try to avoid this subject in future as I too am sick to teh bags of discussing it as well.
And of course I would never want to bore the paragon of all that is interesting, Mistar endarzero.............
(sound of rip cord being pulled and parachute opening)
Roger Ramjet - Popping pucka E's since 81