Search results

Or the movies.

I don't think "I do X because I feel it in my heart" is a sound basis for national policy.

If so, then why show characteristic X (which is a given of all such activity), instead of of concentrating on why activity A is wrong?

Yes, but more than that, it isn't a logical basis for opposing this particular war. He's saying "activity A is bad because it has characteristic X". But activities B, C, and D of the same type have the same characteristic (it's a given of such activities). So unless he is showing opposition to...

Your post does exactly what the "look how bad we Americans are for dropping bombs on 'happy' people" scene didn't do: make a nonemotional case for distinguishing between the Iraq war and others.

It wasn't my intent to compare the merits of the Iraq war vs. WWII. I made the comparison to show that it's a poorly emotional and oversimplistic argument to say "see how bad we are for dropping bombs on 'happy' people", because we did exactly the same thing in WWII.

I mentioned WWII because I wanted to show that the Iraq war is not uniquely devastating (in fact, WWII was a thousand times worse). I also question whether the Iraq war has been more "sanitized" than WWII. I have trouble believing we were shown lots of images of dead German infants or happy kite...

Sincerely appreciated, Michael.

So distortion A disproves distortion B? The logic doesn't follow.

You place a big emphasis on "power". Not everyone does. I don't think it's a matter of believing "the powerful" vs. the "less powerful". More simply, does one accept one point of view or the other. Oops, just saw Jack's post. Sorry if it's off-topic.

The focus of my post was not Moore's "right" to present his point of view (or Fox or the White House press), but the fact that he does present a distorted view of life in prewar Iraq. So you are beating up on a strawman that has nothing to do with what I said.

Yes, and of course you could have found instances of Jewish children happily playing in Nazi-occupied Europe (which was also subject to the ravages of war), but that would not have been an accurate portrayal of life under the Nazis. Of course, accuracy wasn't Moore's intent. Promoting a certain...

Moore would have "spun" it negative for Bush no matter how he reacted. If he sprang into immediate action, this would be shown as evidence that he knew about the attacks beforehand (no "getting over the shock" period needed).

Thanks for your review, Chris. It closely coincides with my views in general and of the film and Moore in particular.