[KaBlooey]

For those who have the Sundance channel, Robert Greenwald's "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" starts showing tonight, 9 pm PST.

Filmmaker Robert Greenwald, creator of the 2000 election expose Unprecedented, considers the Bush administration's case for the Iraq War and finds among the alarmist rhetoric little supporting evidence to back it up. Revealing news clips and interviews with intelligence veterans - including Scott Ritter, Clare Short and Joseph Wilson - make the case that the Bush administration misled the world with dubious statements, empty innuendoes and unchallenged untruth

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
For those who have the Sundance channel, Robert Greenwald's "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" starts showing tonight, 9 pm PST.

Scott (Saddam's payroll) Ritter, Claire (loonie left) Short and Joseph (I sipped mint tea) Wilson.

Great cast.

[OldManMac]

I figured out a long time ago that Bush misled us with lies, innuendos, and half-truths.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I figured out a long time ago that Bush misled us with lies, innuendos, and half-truths.

Me too. Don't need a film to tell me that.

[Chinasaur]

Besides, the RWNJ's here have closed their minds so they won't watch or discuss or debate the movie.

[Chinasaur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Scott (Saddam's payroll) Ritter, Claire (loonie left) Short and Joseph (I sipped mint tea) Wilson.

Great cast.

Let's dissect this post.

Historicaly, when groups want to disenfranchise/overpower/destroy another group they "demonize" them.

The US did it with racial slander in WWII which allowed them to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps (euphemisticaly called "internment camps"). The Nazi's did it to the Jews prior to killing 6Million of them before and during WWII.

The prolonged and constant "demonization" of people or groups ultimately leads (I'm assuming some knowledge of Psychology and Sociology here) to a perception by the general populace that what is said about a particular group is true. As is more than evident by most posts here, most people react rather than think and discuss. They are susceptible to "peer pressue" and "groupthink".

So by demonizing "Scott (Saddam's payroll) Ritter, Claire (loonie left) Short and Joseph (I sipped mint tea) Wilson" what is really being done here? Is the desired effect that they be silenced? Does the poster really believe Scott Ritter was on Husseins payroll? Or that the lady is a loonie? Does the poster wish for laws to be passed to make it illegal to make a movie critical of the government?

You have to stand up to this sort of thing because as you can see..it's not an attack on the veracity of the film, but rather simply on the people involved in it. And by demonizing them, you marginalize them. And if a group or person is marginalized, it is easier to take away their rights.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

--Republican President Theodore Roosevelt

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Besides, the RWNJ's here have closed their minds so they won't watch or discuss or debate the movie.

Revisit the last 2+ years of posts in here... all these issues have been debated extensively.

[Chinasaur]

If by debated you mean:

Left: Let's talk about the issues
Right: You're all liars! You attack! You want to dismantle the Military! You French lovers!!

Then yes, by YOUR definition of debate, the issues have been debated.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
So by demonizing "Scott (Saddam's payroll) Ritter, Claire (loonie left) Short and Joseph (I sipped mint tea) Wilson" what is really being done here? Is the desired effect that they be silenced? Does the poster really believe Scott Ritter was on Husseins payroll? Or that the lady is a loonie? Does the poster wish for laws to be passed to make it illegal to make a movie critical of the government?

Simey called Claire Short a loon, and you equate that with the Nazi's demonization of the Jews?

Maybe Simey should have called you a loon.

[Chinasaur]

I'm not equating it..Im discussing the verbal technique.

1. You did not respond to the article but went straight to calling me a loon.

2. That is typical. Instead of discussing, you attack.

3. Instead of discussing whether the gentlemen was on Husseins payroll, you attack me rather than deal with the topic.

4. He infers someone is one Husseins payroll and you say he should call me a loon. Interesting thought pattern there. I don't know what it is, but it sure is interesting.

Next.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
1. You did not respond to the article but went straight to calling me a loon.

It was a friendly suggestion.

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
2. That is typical. Instead of discussing, you attack.

Typical? Of what? You sound like a bigot.

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
3. Instead of discussing whether the gentlemen was on Husseins payroll, you attack me rather than deal with the topic.

Ah, the hypocrisy: without refuting any of Simey’s accusations first, you attack him for demonizing the “gentlemen.”

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
4. He infers someone is one Husseins payroll and you say he should call me a loon. Interesting thought pattern there. I don't know what it is, but it sure is interesting.

I think your quick defense of someone who may have taken money from a mass murderer says more about your thought pattern.

[Chinasaur]

Ok..lets see..it's still pretty much AttackTV™ "All Attack, No Substance, All The Time". Karl would be pleased at your success young apprentice.

1. You contiinue the loon theme.
2. You say I sound like a bigot.
3. I'm a hypocrite
4. Somehow interact with mass murderers.

You're still not discussing the technique but you're doing a good job at what the GOP does best. Using negative trigger words in a seemingly benign context yet inferring something entirely different.

Next.

As for Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld was Ronald Reagans emissary to Baghdad to provide Saddam Hussein with Weapons of Mass Destruction AND the CIA put Hussein in power. So who's the mass murderer again?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by f1000:
Simey called Claire Short a loon,

Actually, I was referring to her description in British politics. It's not something I made up. The term I used dates back a bit to the early 80s (when I first became aware of her) but is accurate. She has a long history as part of the "Loonie Left" and unlike some in the Labour Party, I don't think she has changed a lot. Frankly, I was surprised to see she was ever in Blair's cabinet. I guess he had to have a couple of token leftists and must have thought that she was safely out of the way of anything critical with her foreign aid position.

Chinasour leapt straight to the Hitler analogy just because I don't think much of his cast of characters based on what I know about their backgrounds and biases. That's absurd. If the right touted a movie starring Pat Buchanan, John Derbyshire and Anne Coulter the rest of America would be justified in jumping to the conclusion that the movie isn't exactly an objective documentary. It's a screed. Go enjoy it if your minds are already made up. But don't expect to convince many others.

[Chinasaur]

1. Ok. So it's ok for you. "I was just repeating something". Right?
2. I never mentioned Hitler. I discussed the technique of demonizing people as the Nazi's used it on the Jews. It's called Marginalization. You just used it again when you called them Loonies.
3. YOU mentioned Hitler.

What is it with the right and everytime someone questions they immediately claim in loud injured tones they are being compared to Hitler?

Fascinating.

Oh and BTW, in case you missed it above, the US Govt gave Hussein his weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranians. See Donald Rumsfeld if you want to know what he and Saddam had for supper that night.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
What is it with the right and everytime someone questions they immediately claim in loud injured tones they are being compared to Hitler?

Stop with the hysterical (and laughable) Nazi references and it won't happen. Live a little, broaden your analogies. Show a little originality.

[Chinasaur]

Notice how that's all you replied to? Notice how your other reference to the gentlemen being on Husseins payroll has gone missing? See how you don't admit YOU mentioned Hitler?

Ignore the fact the US gave WMD's to Iraq. The rest of the world hasn't.

Debate here is pointless. You just attack.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Notice how that's all you replied to? Notice how your other reference to the gentlemen being on Husseins payroll has gone missing? See how you don't admit YOU mentioned Hitler?

Ignore the fact the US gave WMD's to Iraq. The rest of the world hasn't.

Debate here is pointless. You just attack.

Yeah, I mentioned Hitler, referring to your reference to Nazis. I guess you see a big distinction between "Hitler" and "Nazis." Then again, if Nazis is your only comparison, maybe you really do see a difference. But most people see such references as over the top -- which is why I laugh at it.

Most people are probably also aware of Ritter's questionable relationship to a certain $400,000 that went his way as a "consultant" for a movie -- right about the time he went from being anti-Saddam to one of Saddam's defenders. He isn't a terribly credible spokesperson.

As for who gave WMD to Iraq, it is well documented. Some of the technology came from American companies. Rather more came from Western Europe. We have discussed that repeatedly and I don't really feel like rehashing it again.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Ok..lets see..it's still pretty much AttackTV™ "All Attack, No Substance, All The Time". Karl would be pleased at your success young apprentice.

1. You contiinue the loon theme.
2. You say I sound like a bigot.
3. I'm a hypocrite
4. Somehow interact with mass murderers.

That's pretty good. Can you say "Polly wants a cracker?"

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
You're still not discussing the technique but you're doing a good job at what the GOP does best. Using negative trigger words in a seemingly benign context yet inferring something entirely different.

Please tell me what I'm inferring. By the way, I voted for Gore last election.

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
So who's the mass murderer again?

Saddam Hussein.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Chinasaur:
What is it with the right and everytime someone questions they immediately claim in loud injured tones they are being compared to Hitler?

Comparing someone to a Nazi IS comparing them to Hitler.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
For those who have the Sundance channel, Robert Greenwald's "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" starts showing tonight, 9 pm PST.

Oh I'm sure he is just some wacky liberal
I have come to the point where I have only things to say about the Iraq war.

#1. How much is it costing me?
#2. I'm glad I don't have to fight.