 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: speaking of Michael Moore.....
Original Message Date: 05-May-04 @ 04:50 AM - speaking of Michael Moore.....
May 5, 2004
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG
ASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies.
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's studio, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many.
"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, although such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "
Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as he sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore initially planned on producing the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but last May it pulled out.
"The project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Icon, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.
Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had previously produced one of Mr. Moore's films, 1997's "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute the film.
While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution -— which would ideally hoping happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG
ASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies.
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's studio, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many.
"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, although such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "
Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as he sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore initially planned on producing the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but last May it pulled out.
"The project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Icon, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.
Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had previously produced one of Mr. Moore's films, 1997's "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute the film.
While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution -— which would ideally hoping happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
Message 41/69 15-May-04 @ 03:06 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
pict
Posts: 1005
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Big bugs have little bugs upon their backs to bite 'em
and little bugs have littler bugs and so ad infinitum.
and little bugs have littler bugs and so ad infinitum.
Message 42/69 15-May-04 @ 03:14 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
but it's really not moore's credibility-rating you're worried about....is it?
lol>
lol>
Message 43/69 15-May-04 @ 03:33 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
pizza-man....instead of worrying about moore....this the kind of credibility-rating
you should be worried about (read on):
"After three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a president with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement," IBPO President David Holway said in a statement provided by the Kerry campaign.
. ...the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which honors more than 16,000 killed in the line of duty. The endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers is a switch from 2000 when they backed President Bush.
you should be worried about (read on):
"After three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a president with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement," IBPO President David Holway said in a statement provided by the Kerry campaign.
. ...the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which honors more than 16,000 killed in the line of duty. The endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers is a switch from 2000 when they backed President Bush.
Message 44/69 18-May-04 @ 01:08 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
MOORE BRINGS DOWN HOUSE: LONGEST STANDING OVATION 'IN HISTORY OF CANNES':
20 mins standing ovation for FAHRENHEIT 9-11, yelling, screaming, cheering... 'This is the longest standing ovation in the history of the festival! Unbelievable!' declared Cannes stalwart Thierry Fremaux. Moore, raising fist, unable to speak over crowd, vows to fight... Controversial scene in film shows wounded American GI in Iraq talking about how Democrats must win election... Movie shows video of U.S. soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi detainees, with one of them grabbing a prisoner's genitals through a blanket...
20 mins standing ovation for FAHRENHEIT 9-11, yelling, screaming, cheering... 'This is the longest standing ovation in the history of the festival! Unbelievable!' declared Cannes stalwart Thierry Fremaux. Moore, raising fist, unable to speak over crowd, vows to fight... Controversial scene in film shows wounded American GI in Iraq talking about how Democrats must win election... Movie shows video of U.S. soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi detainees, with one of them grabbing a prisoner's genitals through a blanket...
Message 45/69 18-May-04 @ 04:47 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
DAMN......
A FAT MAN DID THAT?
Holy shit.. maybe since the sheep in Cannes clapped... we should all listen?!?!
A FAT MAN DID THAT?
Holy shit.. maybe since the sheep in Cannes clapped... we should all listen?!?!
Message 46/69 18-May-04 @ 07:14 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
i never really know or care about what goes down at the cannes
but
it's good to know a film such as this can get this kind of mad respect there.
when harvey weinstein was asked whether he thought he could get a distributor...
he answered "have i let you down yet?"
it's always weird to see a loser who thinks he's a winner (aka george w bush)
go down finally......and in so losing you get to see what an actual loser
he was ALL along.
but
it's good to know a film such as this can get this kind of mad respect there.
when harvey weinstein was asked whether he thought he could get a distributor...
he answered "have i let you down yet?"
it's always weird to see a loser who thinks he's a winner (aka george w bush)
go down finally......and in so losing you get to see what an actual loser
he was ALL along.
Message 47/69 18-May-04 @ 09:44 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
Who is loosing Clay? GWB and his friends and relations have all moved their decimal points at least 1 to the right, US politics is still controlled by campaign contributions, the concept of a never ending 'war on terror' has not been exposed as a mechanism, the media (more than ever) continue to backscratch rather than report and personal freedom has been usurped by the need for security.
Who has lost Clay?
Who has lost Clay?
Message 48/69 18-May-04 @ 04:10 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
cheds....so you know math.
good for you.
one day i'd like to shake that hand of yours.
spend a little less time stating the obvious and spend more time constructing
a manner by which you might....we all might speak in ammner which actually amounts to something.
of course the vaults have been raided and looted from day 1.....
just as planning and implementing blood-spillage has been given top priority.
that and making sure gays don't marry.
coherent social consciousness is hardly achievable in an environment of pettiness.
everything has to occur in stages.
try to maintain some degree hope...will you?
can you?
good for you.
one day i'd like to shake that hand of yours.
spend a little less time stating the obvious and spend more time constructing
a manner by which you might....we all might speak in ammner which actually amounts to something.
of course the vaults have been raided and looted from day 1.....
just as planning and implementing blood-spillage has been given top priority.
that and making sure gays don't marry.
coherent social consciousness is hardly achievable in an environment of pettiness.
everything has to occur in stages.
try to maintain some degree hope...will you?
can you?
Message 49/69 18-May-04 @ 05:41 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
having missed the clay/cheddar schism, my best guess from what i've caught is that it hinges on this concept of hope.
i think the kind of hope you're talking about is the kind of hope that keeps sucking people back into obeisance.. hope that 'a system' is viable, hope that this next president might actually be a good one..
from my modest perspective, the only viable 'system' is one in which everyone will hope only to represent themselves :p beyond that, i would suggest that hope is an extremely dangerous thing.
i am not willing or prepared to accept other people delineating their identity as less than artists capable of manufacturing what they require (eg. in terms of procedure) in the moment. if the animal becomes less than this, it does not serve itself, and that is where the real issue in the dispension of power lies.
i think the kind of hope you're talking about is the kind of hope that keeps sucking people back into obeisance.. hope that 'a system' is viable, hope that this next president might actually be a good one..
from my modest perspective, the only viable 'system' is one in which everyone will hope only to represent themselves :p beyond that, i would suggest that hope is an extremely dangerous thing.
i am not willing or prepared to accept other people delineating their identity as less than artists capable of manufacturing what they require (eg. in terms of procedure) in the moment. if the animal becomes less than this, it does not serve itself, and that is where the real issue in the dispension of power lies.
Message 50/69 18-May-04 @ 07:38 PM Edit: 18-May-04 | 07:42 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
"GWB and his friends and relations have all moved their decimal points at least 1 to the right, US politics is still controlled by campaign contributions, the concept of a never ending 'war on terror' has not been exposed as a mechanism, the media (more than ever) continue to backscratch rather than report and personal freedom has been usurped by the need for security."
=====================================
I'll agree to that.
In regards to this idea called "hope"; I’ll leave it to you guys to discuss the current applications of such an idea. For me, hope plays no role in how things get done. Hope is analogous to "wishing". Like wishing it would snow tomorrow so you didn't have to go to school, or wishing that someone may choke on a pretzel...
I find it more important to put my energy behind action. Dreamers can dream all day, but they don't get the same shit done as a person who does.
And everyday I watch the news, I see these fucking neoconservative assholes pushing their agenda through Washington, I learn from their mistakes (which are few and far between, but when they occur, are very telling) and the things that they do well. But, they act. they don't hope, they most likely PRAY...but that's a whole different topic.
We really are seeing "the Prince" being played out before us on a global scale. Look around you! A Project for a New American Century
first point to consider; the name of the group. "A Project for a New American Century" Just think about all of the different things that name implies. You can see it blurring up off the hot pavement, that's hubris my friends. They think they are hot fucking shit... and can rub it in the face of any and everyone. And, for the most part...they do, and get away with it.
lets look at a few parts from their statement of principles.
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"
Well, isn't that just twisted? "victory in the Cold War"? What war? more like a 45 year PR campaign. And to suggest that the US should "build upon achievements of past decades" is just disgusting. Does that mean more; war by proxy, the propping up of despots, supporting the violent overthrow of socialist and communist governments by "popular" (as reported by US media) movements which in fact are mainly supported by corporate entities?
Do I need to even go into the last statement seeing the way things are already; go into the things accomplished by this group, who now, and I'm not kidding, run this government?
"Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world."
this list of things are the reason why the US can't sustain influence around the world. notice the second thing mentioned? "defense spending". which we can see clearly is not so defensive. I mean sending money to Israel is considered defense spending?!?!?! so really that is offense spending. they feel that its is in part because of not enough weapons and means to inflict your will upon other countries (thus the inclusion of the idea of foreign affairs) and not enough crafty statesmen to play the world politick chess match, and that we need to change in the direction that things have been headed shortly before 2001.
" We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities."
the Reagan years??? HOLY SHIT! you guys aren't dolts... I'm not even going to go into it... ohh wait... Iran/Contra... the release of the hostages to win the presidency? sorry, I had to.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."
This I believe to be the most blatantly Machiavellian of all the paragraphs within this statement of principles. of course the US should be prudent. That's a hallmark of the teachings in the Prince. Prudent use of ones power must be exercised or people take notice. But most see that they have abandoned that principle.
"But we cannot safely avoid" the "costs that are associated with" imposing your will by bombs. That's how I read that statement.
"If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests." what exactly are our "fundamental interests"? I'm curious to find out. After reading this statement of principles, I leave with the distinct feeling that "fundamental interests" means to this group of men, that the US should be the only country on the face of the planet with the right to determine how things work, while making it seem like everything is fair and square, and if you can't make it work in your third world nation, and the privatization of the water system has made water as expensive as your rent, then you as a people, just aren't working hard enough at capitalism.
And you see what happens in places like Venezuela, where there is a strong Socialist workers movement, but big business wants more profits...so the companies hire people like this....Columbian Paramilitaries ,who were most likely trained right here in america at the School of America's, or at least trained by a graduate of that fine academy.
The initial, attempted overthrow of Chavez was coordinated by US forces floating off the cost.
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
lets bring our plans to a nicely sharpened point. some of its bullshit and just a device to steal shit from you. promoting freedom abroad? you can see in Iraq what kind of freedom you get. the turn over of power...June 30...if it happens on time, they government that takes over is a theocracy. where's the freedom in that?
but the last one. that's the kicker. that's another example of the hubris of these people. "an international order friendly...." I really don't like the sound of that. and the audacity of them to include prosperity in the statement. like there's some Devine right to amass wealth like no one has ever done before.
"we have a right to rule the world with a sword(or nukes in this case) and amass cash. try to stop me and you don't love freedom and democracy."
=====================================
I'll agree to that.
In regards to this idea called "hope"; I’ll leave it to you guys to discuss the current applications of such an idea. For me, hope plays no role in how things get done. Hope is analogous to "wishing". Like wishing it would snow tomorrow so you didn't have to go to school, or wishing that someone may choke on a pretzel...
I find it more important to put my energy behind action. Dreamers can dream all day, but they don't get the same shit done as a person who does.
And everyday I watch the news, I see these fucking neoconservative assholes pushing their agenda through Washington, I learn from their mistakes (which are few and far between, but when they occur, are very telling) and the things that they do well. But, they act. they don't hope, they most likely PRAY...but that's a whole different topic.
We really are seeing "the Prince" being played out before us on a global scale. Look around you! A Project for a New American Century
first point to consider; the name of the group. "A Project for a New American Century" Just think about all of the different things that name implies. You can see it blurring up off the hot pavement, that's hubris my friends. They think they are hot fucking shit... and can rub it in the face of any and everyone. And, for the most part...they do, and get away with it.
lets look at a few parts from their statement of principles.
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"
Well, isn't that just twisted? "victory in the Cold War"? What war? more like a 45 year PR campaign. And to suggest that the US should "build upon achievements of past decades" is just disgusting. Does that mean more; war by proxy, the propping up of despots, supporting the violent overthrow of socialist and communist governments by "popular" (as reported by US media) movements which in fact are mainly supported by corporate entities?
Do I need to even go into the last statement seeing the way things are already; go into the things accomplished by this group, who now, and I'm not kidding, run this government?
"Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world."
this list of things are the reason why the US can't sustain influence around the world. notice the second thing mentioned? "defense spending". which we can see clearly is not so defensive. I mean sending money to Israel is considered defense spending?!?!?! so really that is offense spending. they feel that its is in part because of not enough weapons and means to inflict your will upon other countries (thus the inclusion of the idea of foreign affairs) and not enough crafty statesmen to play the world politick chess match, and that we need to change in the direction that things have been headed shortly before 2001.
" We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities."
the Reagan years??? HOLY SHIT! you guys aren't dolts... I'm not even going to go into it... ohh wait... Iran/Contra... the release of the hostages to win the presidency? sorry, I had to.
"Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."
This I believe to be the most blatantly Machiavellian of all the paragraphs within this statement of principles. of course the US should be prudent. That's a hallmark of the teachings in the Prince. Prudent use of ones power must be exercised or people take notice. But most see that they have abandoned that principle.
"But we cannot safely avoid" the "costs that are associated with" imposing your will by bombs. That's how I read that statement.
"If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests." what exactly are our "fundamental interests"? I'm curious to find out. After reading this statement of principles, I leave with the distinct feeling that "fundamental interests" means to this group of men, that the US should be the only country on the face of the planet with the right to determine how things work, while making it seem like everything is fair and square, and if you can't make it work in your third world nation, and the privatization of the water system has made water as expensive as your rent, then you as a people, just aren't working hard enough at capitalism.
And you see what happens in places like Venezuela, where there is a strong Socialist workers movement, but big business wants more profits...so the companies hire people like this....Columbian Paramilitaries ,who were most likely trained right here in america at the School of America's, or at least trained by a graduate of that fine academy.
The initial, attempted overthrow of Chavez was coordinated by US forces floating off the cost.
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
lets bring our plans to a nicely sharpened point. some of its bullshit and just a device to steal shit from you. promoting freedom abroad? you can see in Iraq what kind of freedom you get. the turn over of power...June 30...if it happens on time, they government that takes over is a theocracy. where's the freedom in that?
but the last one. that's the kicker. that's another example of the hubris of these people. "an international order friendly...." I really don't like the sound of that. and the audacity of them to include prosperity in the statement. like there's some Devine right to amass wealth like no one has ever done before.
"we have a right to rule the world with a sword(or nukes in this case) and amass cash. try to stop me and you don't love freedom and democracy."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There are 69 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
