I'm not DEAD SET against the evidence, I'm just saying that all I've seen so far has either been idle speculation or backed up by insignificant facts like what exactly Charlton said at Littleton. What he said later is irrelevant, because the core of the matter is that what he did was wrong and the very first thing he said was wrong. I've heard the rest of that speech and it sounds to me like bullcrap. He paused for hisses at the name of the mayor, he said "We're already here" like a total git with a special enounciation reserved for someone observing the idiocy of others. Thats' possibly the only fact I've ever seen anyone use.
Also, I'm personally hurt that you think me not worth speaking to. This is a debate of opinions and facts not directly related to us, I don't think you should take it personally or say such things. I argue with Kas but I think very highly of him as a person, he's at least civil and polite.
I've discussed this issue at least three times. It's always come down to a basic sense of morals. Isstal doesn't think Moore's creative editing constitues a lie, while I do.
If I were American, I'd be really pissed, and I would have to say, I think an awful lot of people have an awful lot of explaining to do, including George W Bush.
I do remember a lot of what he showed within the programme.
Kas, I think you are getting too hung up on the 'creative editing'.
Perhaps you should see it before you judge it, that is really the only way to properly make an informed and fair assessment on something.
Arguing from a standpoint of ignorance does not help your case.
Dolash, just a sidenote, did you happen to notice he didn't refer to the British 'involvement' at all .
Now obviously it (meaning the documentary) was focused on America, fair enough, but when it came to Iraq, and especially when Micheal Moore was referring to the countries involved, he missed out the British. Which I did find...strange, especially since we were effectively the biggest contributing Coalition member!
Was this because, (when he was ridiculing the other coalition members), us Brits didn't 'fit in' with the line he was portraying?
For example; He did portray the other Coalition members as being lets face it, somewhat clueless, and not exactly having the best military assets with which to contribute.
He didn't mention the British at all.
I found that , odd.
Was this because he found us so beneath his contempt he did not even want to acknowledge that we participated?
Was it beacuse we didn't fit in with his portrayal of the Coalition members?
Was it just not important?
Or
Was there another reason?
I have heard through the grapevine that he has apparently been considering to do a programme about Tony Blair.
Maybe he's saved his best stuff for that?...heh
Who knows.
(just like to point out he missed a few more off, not just us, Italy and Poland for starters).
He explained somewhere (I read it but I can't remember where) that he had left off the bigger Coalition members because the news talks about them alot more then they do about Morroco and Ethiopia. He wanted to point out it was America mostly, followed by a handful of strong nations (out of many) which you hear about, and the vast majority of the Coalition are just countries wanting to be put down as supporting the war. Countries which Michael Moore jokingly said "Always get picked last at the UN Volleyball games."
