Bitch punch

[Buff]

In boxing the fight stopper is the shot that lands flush with the side of the jaw, torquing the head to the side and throwing it back simultaneously.

But the the bitch punch, the punch that signals total domination... When one of the fighters is already on his way to the floor, or perhaps attempting to duck a blow, and the other fires a downward shot to the back of his skull.

Christopher Hitchens just bitch punched Michael Moore.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture.

[RawAlex]

Buff, talk about typical debate club bullshit.

if someone is against the specific actions taken by bush, then they have to be "for the bad guy". Not liking Bush's personal war on Saddam doesn't mean we were all going to go over and give him a hug and tell him how nice of a dictator he is.

It's stupid.

When you want to talk about re-writing history, let's talk about Chenney still talking about how Saddam and BinLadin were best buddies and they were both working together to get the US. Let's talk about how the Bush administration has managed to make the US public believe that the war in Iraq is as a result of the 9/11 attacks, that Saddam is somehow personally responsible. Let's talk about how the whole WMD thing just sort of disappeared into the wind... and how suddenly that wasn't the justification for war.

No movie in the world can be as bad as the reality that is Bushworld.

Alex

[Winetalk.com]

Buff,
there is not enough "256 shades of grey" in either Moore or his opponents.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 22 2004, 09:04 AM
Buff, talk about typical debate club bullshit.

if someone is against the specific actions taken by bush, then they have to be "for the bad guy". Not liking Bush's personal war on Saddam doesn't mean we were all going to go over and give him a hug and tell him how nice of a dictator he is.

It's stupid.

When you want to talk about re-writing history, let's talk about Chenney still talking about how Saddam and BinLadin were best buddies and they were both working together to get the US. Let's talk about how the Bush administration has managed to make the US public believe that the war in Iraq is as a result of the 9/11 attacks, that Saddam is somehow personally responsible. Let's talk about how the whole WMD thing just sort of disappeared into the wind... and how suddenly that wasn't the justification for war.

No movie in the world can be as bad as the reality that is Bushworld.

Alex

Alkex,
your zest for "Paint me anti-Bush" is lacking those "256 shades of grey": either.

One will NEVER become an analytical mind using only black and white colors.

Looking at two of you squabling gives me more appreciation for my own brain.

[Buff]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 22 2004, 08:04 AM
Buff, talk about typical debate club bullshit.

if someone is against the specific actions taken by bush, then they have to be "for the bad guy". Not liking Bush's personal war on Saddam doesn't mean we were all going to go over and give him a hug and tell him how nice of a dictator he is.

It's stupid.

When you want to talk about re-writing history, let's talk about Chenney still talking about how Saddam and BinLadin were best buddies and they were both working together to get the US. Let's talk about how the Bush administration has managed to make the US public believe that the war in Iraq is as a result of the 9/11 attacks, that Saddam is somehow personally responsible. Let's talk about how the whole WMD thing just sort of disappeared into the wind... and how suddenly that wasn't the justification for war.

No movie in the world can be as bad as the reality that is Bushworld.

Alex

Did You see the movie or read the rest of what Hitchens wrote? Obviously not. See, you're stupid, because that's exactly what Moore does, you idiot!

We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003.

Face it, Alex, many of the people who are on YOUR side DO think Hussein is the good guy and Bush is the bad guy.

[Winetalk.com]

you are BOTH idiots, and remain so,
'til you understand ONE day that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys,
there are ONLY
good guys who do the bad deeds
and
bad guys who do the good deeds.

The world in humanity is NOT black and white,
regardless of your abilities ONLY use those 2 colors.

[RawAlex]

Buff, "my side?" heh? I don't have people on my side. Unlike y'all down there, we are actually allowed to have more than 2 choices. It ain't Donkey or Elephant... we have a whole zoo to work from.

Serge, my point exactly - there are way more than two colors. The world according to Bush is only one of those colors, yet there are many on this board that think the man should be made a saint, he can do no wrong, and is always correct. There is so much grey that cannot even be covered here.

Just can't leave Buff to post his one sided hatchet jobs without putting something back. What is funnier is that Buff actually buys into this stuff.

Buff: Hint, you sound exactly like the "anti-Meni". How special!

Alex



Last edited by RawAlex at Jun 22 2004, 09:22 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Jun 22 2004, 09:04 AM
When you want to talk about re-writing history, let's talk about Chenney still talking about how Saddam and BinLadin were best buddies and they were both working together to get the US. Let's talk about how the Bush administration has managed to make the US public believe that the war in Iraq is as a result of the 9/11 attacks, that Saddam is somehow personally responsible. Let's talk about how the whole WMD thing just sort of disappeared into the wind... and how suddenly that wasn't the justification for war.

Are you saying that the US intelligence community didn't really believe that Iraq had WMD's? Are you saying that 9-11 didn't legitimately increase the concern within the United States defense establishment that WMDs in the hands of state actors such as Saddam were a clear and present danger to the United States? On what do you base that?

What were Bush's reasons for going to war? Not just "WMDs". Not just "9-11". Bush didn't concoct WMD intelligence. It was there before he even took office. The belief was prevalent among many in the highest echelons of the US intelligence services that Saddam had WMDs going well back into the 1990s.

These are the reasons given in the ultimatum to Saddam in the order that they appear.

1. Bad faith and violation of 12 years of UN resolutions
2. WMD intelligence
3. history of Saddam's actions in the Middle East
4. harboring and supporting terrorists including Al Qaeda
5. Danger that Iraq could continue to support terrorists elevating to WMDs.

Why do you not believe that he and many others didn't honestly believed these things? The evidence for an al Qaeda/Iraq connection may be weak but it is there. It certainly leads some people to believe there is one (not me). Why not Tenet? Why not Bush? Why not Clinton or Kerry?

What indication, if any, did Bush give before 9-11 that he was anything but an isolationist? Prior to 9-11, Bush was accused of being isolationist and creating a "Fortress America". What changed him?



Last edited by Colin at Jun 22 2004, 09:30 AM

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Jun 22 2004, 08:15 AM
you are BOTH idiots, and remain so,
'til you understand ONE day that there are no good guys, there are no bad guys,
there are ONLY
good guys who do the bad deeds
and
bad guys who do the good deeds.

The world in humanity is NOT black and white,
regardless of your abilities ONLY use those 2 colors.

I'd like to read your essay on the great guy Lenin was.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Buff+Jun 22 2004, 09:31 AM-->