Celsius 41.11

[CptStern]

Look at the links he provided....

I did it's still inconclusive

Untrue. If you need to reread my answers to see evidence of this, then go for it.

all you said was that the climate warrented the actions which I in turn said: "hypocrite"

And it was the intel given to Bush, blame the CIA for this, not Bush. Hopefully the new intel. reform that Bush helped to pass will help to prevent these kinds of mistakes in the future.

Hogwash, are you trying to tell me the entire might on the US army was mobalised on the word of a terrorist?
look I dont care who in the administration is responsible (they all are IMO) the fact is they supported a terrorist and took his word on something that led to the invasion of an entire country.

Again, you were arguing about something that happened in 1983, when the bulk of the Kurdish genocide campaign began in 1988. It was referred to as the Anfal Campaign.

wrong, the Iran resolution dates from 1988

So you're basically saying its OK for Moore to lie/distort/deceive because it is against Bush?

his "distortion" didnt lead to the invasion of a country and the subsequent deaths of over 14,000 civilians now did it?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I did it's still inconclusive

And what is everything Moore reported?...

Kopel used at least 10 sources for that single point, yet you claim it to be shaky. Do you need each person in the world to write you an article on the topic?

all you said was that the climate warrented the actions which I in turn said: "hypocrite"

Yeah, maybe the US should have helped the USSR fight the Afghans. That would have made a lot of sense. Think now stern, I know it may be difficult.

Hogwash, are you trying to tell me the entire might on the US army was mobalised on the word of a terrorist?
look I dont care who in the administration is responsible (they all are IMO) the fact is they supported a terrorist and took his word on something that led to the invasion of an entire country.

We dont know what else the CIA based their claims on. I thought even you would realize that stern, to assume that it was solely because of this singular piece of evidence would be foolish.

his "distortion" didnt lead to the invasion of a country and the subsequent deaths of over 14,000 civilians now did it?

No, but it may have supported a regime which killed at least 135,000 Kurds in the same amount of time.

 

[CptStern]

And what is everything Moore reported?...

Kopel used at least 10 sources for that single point, yet you claim it to be shaky.

and so does moore

Yeah, maybe the US should have helped the USSR fight the Afghans.

careful now, you could end up justifying 9/11 going down that road. I was refering to the Iranian UN resolution

"Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain."

We dont know what else the CIA based their claims on. I thought even you would realize that stern, to assume that it was solely because of this singular piece of evidence would be foolish.

it would seem so

this one too

and this one

and lets not forget this one

No, but it may have supported a regime which killed at least 135,000 Kurds in the same amount of time.

"Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain."

I'd call that support

 

[seinfeldrules]

Stern, in that source he forgets that FOX also called FLA for Gore at 7:52. Exactly like we have been saying, he distorts. FOX also didnt recall that presumption until their call for Bush at 2AM, the other networks had pulled it a long time earlier.

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore.

careful now, you could end up justifying 9/11 going down that road. I was refering to the Iranian UN resolution

Yes, and I agreed this was the wrong thing to do. You then went on to throw it in my face and ask how the US could do something of this magnitude with Iraq's treatment of the Kurds. I then posted the information that pointed to the bulk of the genocide occuring in 1988. You then left the topic, I have no idea why quite honestly.

it would seem so

this one too

and this one

and lets not forget this one

Are you in the CIA? No.
Do you know what other information they had to back up their claim? No.

I'd call that support

The campaign against the Kurds was mainly carried out in 1988, you are talking about 1983. The situation at the time pointed the US to side with Iraq, after a string of disputes with Iran. Its politics bud. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, if that makes sense. We were using Iraq back then pretty much. We screwed up, now we are righting our wrongs. Providing freedom to the Iraqi people, in my view, is better than passing a UN Resolution. Do you not agree with that? From your link it seems France and GB were asking us to restrain from voting as well, am I missing something?

Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain."

???

 

[falconwind]

What is the significance of the name Celsius 41.11?

41.11 degrees celsius is about 106 degrees farenheit.

I don't get it.

 

[Hiji]

What is the significance of the name Celsius 41.11?

41.11 degrees celsius is about 106 degrees farenheit.

I don't get it.

Look here:
http://www.celsius4111.com/

 

[CptStern]

Stern, in that source he forgets that FOX also called FLA for Gore at 7:52. Exactly like we have been saying, he distorts. FOX also didnt recall that presumption until their call for Bush at 2AM, the other networks had pulled it a long time earlier.

“With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. "

disprove CNN's sources

Yes, and I agreed this was the wrong thing to do.

no, you cant possibly see it was the wrong thing to do, if you did there's no way you would have supported the current occupation which is built on hypocracy. You harbour and protect a madman when he does his worst yet years later you invade his country for those same reasons? Hyprocacy at it's finest

You then went on to throw it in my face and ask how the US could do something of this magnitude with Iraq's treatment of the Kurds. I then posted the information that pointed to the bulk of the genocide occuring in 1988. You then left the topic, I have no idea why quite honestly.

wrong, the war lasted from 1980-1988, it wasnt untill 1988 that Iran attempted to bring WMD charges on iraq as part of the peace treaty ..oh btw the US was actively engaged in the war. July 3, 1988 US warship shoots down passenger jet Iran Air Flight 655 killing all 290 civilians aboard

Are you in the CIA? No.
Do you know what other information they had to back up their claim? No.

it doesnt matter, they still took the word of a terrorist who was working for them

The campaign against the Kurds was mainly carried out in 1988, you are talking about 1983. The situation at the time pointed the US to side with Iraq, after a string of disputes with Iran. Its politics bud. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, if that makes sense. We were using Iraq back then pretty much. We screwed up, now we are righting our wrongs. Providing freedom to the Iraqi people, in my view, is better than passing a UN Resolution. Do you not agree with that? From your link it seems France and GB were asking us to restrain from voting as well, am I missing something?

???

nice way of attempting to justify arming and protecting a madman responsible for over 800,000 deaths. Enemy or not, human decency should tell you that arming a madman with chemical weapons is not a solution

 

[Mechagodzilla]

www.dictionary.com
Documentary- Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

If it hasn't been pointed out already, Moore himself considers his movie to be more of an editorial piece.
So complaining that he does too much editorialising doesn't make much sense.
The movie is documentary of Moore's leftist view of the American politics, not of the politics themselves.

Moore did jump to a few conclusions, made assumptions based on misinterpreted facts in the cases of the "Fox rigged the election" segment and another I don't remember. But overall, those conclusions are mostly implied and whatever clear conclusions he presents are valid based on the evidence at the time.

Moore said: "President Bush repeatedly phoned his brother, the head of Fox news, immediately before Fox news declared him the winner of the inconclusive election. That looks awfully suspicious."

The 'conclusion' is just an offhand comment. And, offhand, it did look awfully suspicious. It's only once you review the intricacies of how the vote counts were relayed to the news stations that you see that it really wasn't a conspiracy because it only took like two minutes for CBS to independantly make the same decision.
This biggest mistake in the entire movie is simply a result of Moore making an assumption based on the facts he had.
Just because a quick conclusion he made turned out to be wrong, you can't just assume there's malicious intent.
If I say there are five apples, but I missed the one behind the tree, that doesn't make me a communist.

After all, any Moore detractor should be well versed in excusing mistakes based on factually weak assumptions.*
Moore did make mistakes, undoubtedly, but I can't understand why everyone's holding him to a higher standard than GW himself, just because he made an op-ed movie.
I mean, it's not like Moore's the president. But some people have spent more time analysing this fat guy's editorial then they have analysing the motives behind the most powerful man in the known galaxy.

I would personally pay 100$ to see Bush make a movie portraying the facts he used to make his conclusions about Iraq. With all the fact-checking, it'd probably get clubbed to death like a baby seal.


*The war in Iraq, get it? I'm a funnyman!

 

[seinfeldrules]

“With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well.” By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. "

All five networks, including FOX. Moore neglects to mention FOX. His own source mentions it, yet he ignores it...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248524.shtml

Between 7:49 p.m. and 8 p.m. EST Tuesday, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and ABC all called Florida for Gore. Some two hours later the networks began pulling back that projection as actual vote counts revealed how close the race was.

no, you cant possibly see it was the wrong thing to do, if you did there's no way you would have supported the current occupation which is built on hypocracy. You harbour and protect a madman when he does his worst yet years later you invade his country for those same reasons? Hyprocacy at it's finest

OK, you can read my mind and make my decisions now. That is a solid argument. I have my own reasons for supporting the effort and have stated them too many times to count.

wrong, the war lasted from 1980-1988, it wasnt untill 1988 that Iran attempted to bring WMD charges on iraq as part of the peace treaty ..oh btw the US was actively engaged in the war. July 3, 1988 US warship shoots down passenger jet Iran Air Flight 655 killing all 290 civilians aboard

And we also sold weapons to Iran for some strange reason. Nobody is saying the US is perfect. The circumstances that led to this shooting are sketchy at best.

it doesnt matter, they still took the word of a terrorist who was working for them

It was on two instances and this was a terrorist who was acting under CIA orders to terrorize... Another example of why there is reform needed in the CIA.

nice way of attempting to justify arming and protecting a madman responsible for over 800,000 deaths. Enemy or not, human decency should tell you that arming a madman with chemical weapons is not a solution

Again, we are attempting to right our wrong currently.

An interesting find from Wilkepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld

During this period, US policy supported Iraq, believing it to be a useful buffer against Iran's new religious government, although the United States had originally been hesitant to work with a Soviet client state. When he visited on December 19-20, 1983, he and Saddam Hussein had a 90 minute discussion which covered Syria's occupation of Lebanon, preventing Syrian and Iranian expansion, preventing arms sales to Iran by foreign countries, increasing Iraqi oil production via a possible new oil pipeline across Jordan. Not mentioned was Iraqi production and use of chemical weapons.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s88/6

Having considered the report of 25 April 1988 (S/19823) of the
Mission dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations
of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic
Republic of Iran and Iraq,

Dismayed by the Mission's conclusions that chemical weapons
continue to be used in the conflict and that their use has been on an
even more intensive scale than before,

1. Affirms the urgent necessity of strict observance of the
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating,
Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925;

2. Condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons in
the conflict between Iran and Iraq contrary to the obligations under
the Geneva Protocol;

3. Expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical
weapons in accordance with their obligations under the Geneva Protocol;

4. Calls upon all States to continue to apply or to establish
strict control of the export to the parties to the conflict of chemical
products serving for the production of chemical weapons;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter and expresses its
determination to review the implementation of this resolution.

Passed by the UN... aka the US didnt veto it. I cant find whether or not they abstained from the vote.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If it hasn't been pointed out already, Moore himself considers his movie to be more of an editorial piece.
So complaining that he does too much editorialising doesn't make much sense.

I was referring to Stern's comments that I shall quote below.

F9/11 is a documentary it's supposed to be an emotional one-sided look at a particular subject.

Do you now see why I disagree with it?

You seem to agree that Moore jumped the gun regarding FOX. What about the other points that Kopel brings up? What of the 'interview' Moore had with the Senator who actually had relatives in Iraq? Moore cut that and made him seem like a fool, it was a dirty, dirty thing to do. I am truly interested in your response because you do seem to hold this movie in a semi objective stance, unlike others. To meet you halfway I am in no way saying this movie is all wrong, or is made up of complete lies.

 

[CptStern]

You seem to agree that Moore jumped the gun regarding FOX. What about the other points that Kopel brings up? What of the 'interview' Moore had with the Senator who actually had relatives in Iraq? Moore cut that and made him seem like a fool, it was a dirty, dirty thing to do. I am truly interested in your response because you do seem to hold this movie in a semi objective stance, unlike others. To meet you halfway I am in no way saying this movie is all wrong, or is made up of complete lies.

you mean the senator who said relatives when moore clearly said sons and daughters?

 

[Hiji]

Cpt. Stern, I wish you would watch celsius 41.11. You might learn something. It accurately explains how the left tried to steal the election.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Deceits 53-56:

Early in this segment, Moore states that "out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." The action of the segment consists of Moore accosting Congressmen to try to convince them to have their children enlist in the military. At the end, Moore declares, "Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq."



Moore’s second statement is technically true, but duplicitous. Of course no-one would want to "sacrifice" his child in any way. But the fact is, Moore's opening ("only one") and his conclusion ("not a single member") are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden's son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not "count" for Moore's purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.



How about Cabinet members? Fahrenheit never raises the issue, because the answer would not fit Moore’s thesis. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf.



Why not count Duncan Hunter's son? Note the phrasing: "only one had an enlisted son in Iraq." Although Hunter's son "enlisted" in the Marines, he is a Second Lieutenant, which means that he is above the rank of an "enlisted man." But why hide from the viewers how many Congressmen really have sons serving in the military in Iraq?



The editing of the Congressional scenes borders on the fraudulent:

….Representative Kennedy (R-MN), one of the lawmakers accosted in Fahrenheit 9/11, was censored by Michael Moore.
According to the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune, Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive.

What was Michael’s excuse for trimming the key segment? Kennedy’s remarks didn’t help his thesis: "He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan," Moore recounted. "So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’"

Kennedy lambasted Moore as a "master of the misleading" after viewing the interview in question.

Fahrenheit Fact.



George Stephanopoulos, of ABC News, asked Moore about the selective cuts in the Kennedy footage:

Stephanopoulos: You have a scene when you’re up on Capitol Hill encountering members of Congress, asking them if they would ask their sons and daughters to enlist … in the military. And one of those members of Congress who appears in the trailer, Mark Kennedy, said you left out what he told you, which is that he has two nephews serving in the military, one in Afghanistan. And he went on to say that, "Michael Moore doesn’t always give the whole truth. He’s a master of the misleading."

Moore: Well, at the time, when we interviewed him, he didn’t have any family members in Afghanistan. And when he saw the trailer for this movie, he issued a report to the press saying that he said that he had a kid in—

Stephanopoulos: He said he told you he had two nephews.

Moore:… No, he didn’t. And we released the transcript and we put it on our Web site. This is what I mean by our war room. Any time a guy like this comes along and says, "I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan," he’s lying. And I’ve got the raw footage and the transcript to prove it. So any time these Republicans come at me like this, this is exactly what they’re going to get. And people can go to my Web site and read the transcript and read the truth. What he just said there, what you just quoted, is not true.



This Week followed up with the office of Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, "Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq." But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

This Week, ABC News, June 20, 2004.



So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.



Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: "Any time a guy like this comes along and says, 'I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,' he’s lying." But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.



Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.



Are Congressional children less likely to serve in Iraq than children from other families? Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.



We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1.



In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.



Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

Of course my statistical methodology is very simple. A more sophisticated analysis would look only at Congressional and U.S. households from which at least one child is legally eligible to enlist in the military. Moore, obviously, never attempted such a comparison; instead, he deceived viewers into believing that Congressional families were extremely different from other families in enlistment rates.



Moore ignores the fact that there are 101 veterans currently serving in the House of Representatives and 36 in the Senate. Regardless of whether they have children who could join the military, all of the veterans in Congress have personally put themselves at risk to protect their country.



During the segment, Moore is accompanied by Corporal Abdul Henderson, a Marine Corps Reservist. Corporal Henderson wears several ribbons and medals on his uniform; interestingly, a Good Conduct ribbon or medal, which is awarded "for the successful completion of a prescribed period of time of service without incident," is not among them.



(Deceits: 1. number of Congressional children in Iraq, 2. Mark Kennedy, 3. Michael Castle, 4. False impression that Congressional families are especially unlikely to serve in Iraq.)



[Moore response: Cites a May 11, 2003 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that only Brooks Johnson had a son who had fought in Iraq. The article was accurate at the time, since Duncan Hunter's son, who had already enlisted, had not yet been sent to Iraq. But Fahrenheit premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2004--two months after it had been reported that Duncan Hunter's son had been sent to Iraq. At the least, Moore could apologize that his claim about "only one" child is inaccurate, and blame the error on his having not noticed the news about Hunter while the movie was in its final production stages. But instead, Moore continues to repeat the "only one" claim, which is indisputably false. Moore offers no defense for the other falsehoods in this section.]

 

[CptStern]

Cpt. Stern, I wish you would watch celsius 41.11. You might learn something. It accurately explains how the left tried to steal the election.

I'll watch it as soon as you read 9/11 by Noam chomsky, deal?

seinfeldrules: I'll look into it (when I have time) but we dont know exactly when Moore said those statements, we dont know if any of them were deployed at the time ..btw how many of those who are sons/daughters of politicians actually saw battle?

 

[Calgar]

I love michael moore, and after whatching his films I can't understand how anybody coul'd call themselves an american in public.

And seriusly how on earth could you peaople elect Bush AGAIN?!?!?!
I guess soon he will invade Sweden, I mean we have a communist in our goverment after all.
Well just bring it b**sh!! As they would say over there.
We would win easy whit our JAS 39 Gripen.
But hey what do I know?

 

[Tr0n]

But hey what do I know?

Not a damn thing obviously.

 

[seinfeldrules]

..btw how many of those who are sons/daughters of politicians actually saw battle?

Thats up to the army, not the Senators.

 

[SAJ]

Quote: "I'll watch it as soon as you read 9/11 by Noam chomsky, deal"

Stern, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
You would equate the writings of Chomsky with that slanted ,reactionary ,(ultra)right-wing bag o`shite?
For shame.

Sorry to see this nonsense film raising its head again, but I guess in this present climate it was kind of inevitable.
I would like to point out(again) that the footage of an execution of a woman in a burka(a bit of a give-away) is in fact from Afghanistan. It is used in a context that leaves the viewer with the impression that it represents an example of Saddams brutality.
This alone should give one an accurate idea of the level of journalistic honesty that the makers aspire/stoop to.