Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Fahrenheit continued... ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    On the whole swift boat thing. Bush should be careful with this button people seem to want to push. Even if all of these negative claims are true, does Bush really want to make service in Vietnam an issue? Even at its worst, Kerry's record would seem magnificent compared to W's.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bill
      "Where is the money going to come from? [SNIPPED FOR SPACE]...operating under the notion: "I serve my country proudly!" "

      What's the point? You know full well it isn't just the 1% that are going to pay. It is you that is going to pay. YOU. But you didn't need all that spare cash lying around, right?

      .
      Exactly. That's why I ask the question. Why do people support Bush at all? Is that what the Republican party is all about? spend spend spend? I guess it's fine when you're stinkin rich!
      The problem is the ideology. The supposed end justifies everything.
      We, the common people, are getting screwed in the ass. Sadly, I don't think a lot of us even see it.
      Go out on the street and ask people any damn question about current events or politics.

      Jer: "Hello sir and maam! I'm doing a poll. So what do you think about the comments made by Howard Dean the other day?"

      sir or maam: "Who's Howard Dean?"

      Jer drops the clipboard and walks off, rubbing his head.

      ____________
      SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!
      \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
      Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

      Comment


      • #33
        To be fair to the sheepish masses,
        I'd say it's kind of hard to pay attention to
        current events if you're one of those who work
        two or more slave wage kind of jobs and
        have mouths to feed, muchkins to raise.

        I think the Bush admin. needs these kind
        of people to stay in power
        because it's easy to convince people
        SUPPORT THE TROOPS! They are fighting the evil-doers!
        is the right thing to do, and
        they don't know much of anything about
        what's going on.
        Then those ads come on during what
        they normally like to do, like
        watching the latest episode of Survivor.
        "John Kerry missed out on 2/3 of the vote..."
        "I'm President Bush and I approve this message!"

        "Oh look. It's President Bush!"
        "What's good to watch next after Survivor?"
        -----------------
        Sadly, i think there are plenty of people that sit at home
        all day, can do the hell they want as they see fit with their
        time, and still don't know, don't give a rat's ass about what's
        going on.
        And they are prone to accept what they are told.. like
        "Kerry is a flip-flopper. Bush wants to improve education.
        Kerry is unfit to be president." [Bush is? Look at what he's accomplished.]
        ---------
        Bush says the economy is good. "There's only 5% unemployment now."
        Excellent!
        Thank God for McDonalds and Walmart.
        I guess working at Denny's during the day and Kickers! bar at night is better than starving!

        Plus it's their own fault right? They should be getting an education so they can get "good jobs" [whatever that means]
        Oh well, not everyone can be well-to-do right?
        What if everyone were rich? Who cares, that will never happen.
        Why can't everyone have healthcare? Socialism? bah! Goddamn bleeding heart.
        Survival of the Fittest, baby!!
        Jesus loves you!

        Sad that I can use the words "sad" and "sadly" so many times.

        ______________
        SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!
        \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
        Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

        Comment


        • #34
          Fahrenheit 9/11 now premiered in Denmark... most reviewers here have a grade system with six "stars", and most of them gave the flick 5 out of 6.

          I don't completely trust reviewers myself (except for one very reliable one -- I can always trust that I'll think the complete opposite of a move from what he writes, which is more reliable information than so many others). But I guess I'll have to go and see 911... after all, if it can get the world rid of Bush, it can't be all bad.
          "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jagged
            Fahrenheit 9/11 now premiered in Denmark... most reviewers here have a grade system with six "stars", and most of them gave the flick 5 out of 6.
            Hmmm, let us know what you think of it, and how it is received in view of the fact Denmark has troops out there. My distant Copenhagen cousin's fiancee is a Lieutenant with a degree in Arabic ...
            L'Etranger
            Google ergo sum

            Comment


            • #36
              Enjoy the movie in Denmark.

              Enjoy the movie in Denmark. I am always curious to hear from non-USAmericans think of our squabbles.

              Comment


              • #37
                Some thoughts on the campaign as of August

                Originally posted by Doc
                On the whole swift boat thing. Bush should be careful with this button people seem to want to push. Even if all of these negative claims are true, does Bush really want to make service in Vietnam an issue? Even at its worst, Kerry's record would seem magnificent compared to W's.
                I've heard others say the same. It's a huge tactical error for Bush to attack Kerry's Vietnam record. I think they may have lost control of some of their ground troops (3rd party ads), since Rove's people are usually a disciplined lot. This explains the distancing, if not outright apology, that's going on now.

                Here's what I think will happen:

                3rd party forces will try hammer at Kerry and portray him as a waffler
                3rd party forces will mobilize church groups around abortion and gay marriage issues
                Bush Team will continue to portray the President as a decisive wartime leader and try to make as much hay of any positive economic indicators (if any) that come along

                Kerry will pound Bush for his poor performance in the economy, the dissatisfaction over the results of the war, and ties to Big Industry at the expense of ordinary Americans (health, military, etc.)
                3rd party forces for Kerry will mobilize anti-Bush forces in ads, concerts, and film/book campaigns to point out Bush family ties to the Bin Ladens, the Saudis, and Get Out the Vote (GOTV) on election day

                If the economy improves, the uprising in Iraq quiets down, and Bin Laden is captured, Bush has a better than even chance of winning, thanks to the momentum of incumbency (40% base chance).

                If the economy continues on its downward spiral, the uprising in Iraq gets worse, no end is in sight, and Kerry gains more undecided votes and steels his base to vote on election day (Democrats have a lower voting rate than Republicans), by the Gods of Law, he will win!

                Interesting highlights:

                Minority voters making decisions in swing states.
                College-age voters making decisions in swing states.
                Military families making decisions in swing states.
                Senior citizen voters making decisions in swing states.
                Rudolph Giuliani campaigning for Bush.
                Bill Clinton campaigning for Bush.
                John Kerry vs. George W. Bush, Jr., in a debate(s)
                John Edwards after his debate with Cheney.
                Rove's positioning Laura Bush as an asset and a symbol to rally around.
                Ralph Nader floundering.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Who are the "Terrorists" in the Middle East ? 12:03 PM
                  Do you have to TORTURE prisoners to find out why they don't like you?
                  WHO are the terrorists?
                  The Fathers of Children defending their family?
                  The Inhabitants of Villages defending their country?

                  WHO has been peddling their "Saint or else Satan" religions to the War Orphans of the world? Arming them and turning children against their families by calling God's Creation, "Sinners"?

                  WHO STOLE the diamonds from Africa and left the children there to bleed, starve and die.

                  Did Muslims invade Morrocco and name it,"French Morroco"?
                  Did muslims bomb Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki?
                  Did Muslims invade Europe in world war one and two?

                  WHO Proliferated the guns to "Maintain the balance of power" (and destruction) between those they have corrupted and turned against each other?

                  WHO put Israel into Palestine in 1948?

                  WHO put Israeli tanks, gunships and nuclear missles into Palestine?

                  WHO Put the Shah in Iran (a dictator) to replace their democracy?

                  WHO built christian missions in Iran and Iraq to turn war orphans against their Muslim populations?

                  WHO bought the oil and put Saddam in power?

                  WHO armed the Taliban with rocket launchers and land mines?

                  WHO does Iran own American tanks, planes and gunships?

                  WHO armed Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq JUST ENOUGH to maintain the destruction and sustain their wars?

                  WHO turned Kuwait against the Arabs during the oil embargo of Iran?

                  WHO buys the Drugs and sells weapons to BOTH the Drug Czars AND the governments they fight?

                  WHO puts our military into foreign lands to fight those SAME Drug Czars that WE fund AND arm?

                  WHO turned North against South in Viet-Nam and Korea in OUR war with communism at the expense of THIER Lives?.

                  WHO uses you as a Guinea Pig to test Thalidimide, HRT, Fenphen, Baycol AND tells you that you NEED to buy it, then refuses to fund your medical bills?

                  WHO sells you STARCH and SUGAR for $2.00 a pound, claiming it is food, then refuses to pay your Health care?

                  WHO pays for medical research by mortgaging your grandmothers house?

                  WHO have bombed and starved the people of Iraq for 12 years and blame Saddam for worn out powerplants and poor security between the tribes?

                  WHO sends the CIA to asasinate and disrupt the progress of the third world.

                  WHO has been arming and dividing the world since WW2?

                  WHO has peddled religions of Hate in foreign lands, turning nation against nation?

                  WHO Finances wars around the world?

                  WHO armed the ATTACKERS that have CREATED the Defenders?


                  Guess Who.
                  You are the 'Terrorists'. Not the children around the world who are throwing rocks at your tanks.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    "Exactly. That's why I ask the question. Why do people support Bush at all? Is that what the Republican party is all about? spend spend spend? I guess it's fine when you're stinkin rich! ... The supposed end justifies everything. We, the common people, are getting screwed in the ass."

                    This makes no sense... The Dems and the Reps are no different in that they BOTH spend; the difference is that for the Reps it is on promoting a free economy, on the government's nickel (with the idea that an increase in the economy will then help cover the cost) and the Dems it is on bigger government, more government programs (which work oh so well) on your nickel in the form of higher taxes.

                    Kind of answers the "why do people vote for Bush" question to me...

                    "I think the Bush admin. needs these kind of people to stay in power..."

                    HUH?? These are the very people that are voting for Democrats!! Have you even been to Florida? To the counties that were so adamantly pro-Gore? The EXACT people you call "sheepich masses".

                    "And they are prone to accept what they are told.. like "Kerry is a flip-flopper. Bush wants to improve education. Kerry is unfit to be president." [Bush is? Look at what he's accomplished.]"

                    Or like Bush is a liar, and Cheney is in bed with Halliburton, and Bush dodged the war, etc. Please. This is a two-way street, and it is hypocrititical to say or think otherwise.

                    "I guess working at Denny's during the day and Kickers! bar at night is better than starving! Plus it's their own fault right? They should be getting an education so they can get "good jobs" [whatever that means]
                    Oh well, not everyone can be well-to-do right?"

                    You're bordering on offensive now. Like everyone should be CEO for a day? You need not be rich to be successful; the only thing being rich does is take away the excuses. I am very successful, coupla degrees, officer in my company, beautiful wife, lovely daughter, and NO RICHNESS HERE. State school on loans, working through school. Hard jobs with lots of travel. Didn't come easy or free. Godforbid it didn't land in my lap. PLEASE. There are other examples here, too (dare I say Michael?)

                    Once again I will say rheotoric and spin are not only the tools of the Republican party...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Who are the "Terrorists" in the Middle East ? 12:03 PM

                      Do you have to TORTURE prisoners to find out why they don't like you?
                      WHO are the terrorists? The Fathers of Children defending their family?
                      The Inhabitants of Villages defending their country?

                      No, people like Saddam don't HAVE to, they seem to like it. That's why they don't stop even after they find out why they aren't liked. World Religions for $200, Alex.

                      WHO has been peddling their "Saint or else Satan" religions to the War Orphans of the world? Arming them and turning children against their families by calling God's Creation, "Sinners"?

                      Well, that would be the Islamic Fundamentalists. Can you say "suicide bomber"? Africa for $200.

                      "WHO STOLE the diamonds from Africa and left the children there to bleed, starve and die."

                      The white South African elite? World History for $200, Alex.

                      "Did Muslims invade Morrocco and name it,"French Morroco"?" Nope, let's guess: The French? I'll take World History for $400, Alex.
                      Did muslims bomb Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki? The Japanese? World History for $600.
                      "Did Muslims invade Europe in world war one and two?" The Germans?

                      "WHO Proliferated the guns to "Maintain the balance of power" (and destruction) between those they have corrupted and turned against each other?"

                      The Soviets?

                      "WHO put Israel into Palestine in 1948?" The British, French, and Americans.

                      "WHO put Israeli tanks, gunships and nuclear missles into Palestine?" Israel? Is this a trick question?

                      "WHO Put the Shah in Iran (a dictator) to replace their democracy?" No one; there was not a democracy in place before the Shah.

                      "WHO built christian missions in Iran and Iraq to turn war orphans against their Muslim populations?" the Christians!! This is getting easy!

                      "WHO bought the oil and put Saddam in power?" The entire western world? Including France, who put their oil contract ahead of the safety of the Iraqi population.

                      "WHO armed the Taliban with rocket launchers and land mines?" The Mujahadeen.

                      "WHO does Iran own American tanks, planes and gunships?" None of which were bought from thrid parties on the black market. Nope.

                      "WHO armed Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq JUST ENOUGH to maintain the destruction and sustain their wars?" The Soviets, the Indians, the Americans, the British?

                      "WHO turned Kuwait against the Arabs during the oil embargo of Iran?" Beats me.

                      "WHO buys the Drugs and sells weapons to BOTH the Drug Czars AND the governments they fight?" Crack whores?

                      "WHO puts our military into foreign lands to fight those SAME Drug Czars that WE fund AND arm?" The US, the Soviets, Mexico, Canada, and I am sure some of Europe.

                      "WHO turned North against South in Viet-Nam and Korea in OUR war with communism at the expense of THIER Lives?." The Chinese, but there is some evidence that the Soviets were behind that and the whole "Sino-Soviet" split was Cold War propaganda.

                      "WHO uses you as a Guinea Pig to test Thalidimide, HRT, Fenphen, Baycol AND tells you that you NEED to buy it, then refuses to fund your medical bills?" Oh, but there is absolutelt no free will in this world at all. Can't be the user's fault, can it???

                      "WHO sells you STARCH and SUGAR for $2.00 a pound, claiming it is food, then refuses to pay your Health care?" Castro?

                      "WHO pays for medical research by mortgaging your grandmothers house?" Let me guess. Your grandmother? Who else could mortgage her house? This is idiotic.

                      "WHO have bombed and starved the people of Iraq for 12 years and blame Saddam for worn out powerplants and poor security between the tribes?" That would be the US.

                      "WHO sends the CIA to asasinate and disrupt the progress of the third world." Um, that's illegal.

                      "WHO has been arming and dividing the world since WW2?" The Soviets and the Chinese.

                      "WHO has peddled religions of Hate in foreign lands, turning nation against nation?" Islamic Fundamentalists?

                      "WHO Finances wars around the world?" You tell me. The Soviets?

                      "WHO armed the ATTACKERS that have CREATED the Defenders?" If a train leaves a station and 5:15 and goes 60 miles per hour and a second train leaves a second station at 7:05 and goes 75 miles per hour, what is the Engineer's middle name???


                      "Guess Who.". Idid. Great band, by the way.

                      "You are the 'Terrorists'. Not the children around the world who are throwing rocks at your tanks."

                      With this insane, possibly drug-fueled logic, we are looking at Saddam Hussein, Islamic Fundamentalists, South African power elite, the French (a boat load of times), the Japanese, the Germans, the Soviets (a boat load of times), the British, the Americans, Israel, No one, the Christians, the Mujahadeen, third parties on the black market, the Indians, the British (Part II), crack whores, the Mexicans, the Canadians, the Europeans, the Chinese with Soviet help (a boat load of times), Castro, your grandmother, Islamic Fundamentalists, a train Engineer, and the Canadian rock band the Guess Who as our terrorists.

                      No WONDER the war on terror is so hard to fight!!!

                      God love disinformation.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by LEtranger
                        mmm, let us know what you think of it, and how it is received in view of the fact Denmark has troops out there. My distant Copenhagen cousin's fiancee is a Lieutenant with a degree in Arabic ...
                        Funny, Etranger ... You're alluding to the Danish small scale Abu Ghraib parallel, I suppose. If so, let's share it with the others.

                        Denmark all along has had troops in the Iraq war, under no less controversial circumstances than those under which America started the thing. For example, prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen made the startling decision to enter the war against the wishes of the majority of the parliament. Not that such criticism (or any other) seems to have great effect on Rasmussen who is a great admirer of Bush and shares many of his infantile cowboy dreams. I can't help seeing Rasmussen a bit like a kid who'll support the schoolyard bully out of admiration for sheer brutal strength. Not that the Danish troops are large enough in numbers to have such a great impact (although it's a standing joke here that Rasmussen probably thinks that his submarine and snow scrapers won the desert war), but Rasmussen is of course right on the one point that it's the principle that's important here.

                        This July, some translators filed complaints about interrogations made in Iraq by the Danish military (your cousin's fiancee? :P ). The atrocities in question are not on the same scale as the American ones; it seems that some prisoners have been interrogated for an hour fixed in painful positions, denied water for that hour, and called things like "stupid swine" (being compared to a swine being, of course, one of the harshest verbal attacks a muslem can experience); but again, the principle is the important thing here. The officer directly responsible was called home, and a little later her superior, and we know see the same kind of avoidance of responsibility, with the two officers pointing to each others as the culprit. And, with Rasmussen taking steps to wash his hands of the matter, claiming ignorance, although not explicitly incompetence. Once again, shades of Bush.

                        Our prime minister a wannabe Bush? Denmark a wannabe USA? How pathetic and embarrassing.
                        "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Noble Jagged, I wasn't alluding to those events, although I was aware of them. No, I just wanted to know what reactions you get in a smaller country which has sent a contingent to Iraq. I will also ask my cousin how his fiancee copes with the situation of suddenly being in cahouts with the "bad guys" . I think the Danes are a pretty self-assured lot on the whole and I suppose one shouldn't mistake the government's decision to join the wierd "Coalition of the Willing" for a permanent and truly representative utterance that is representative of your people's will.
                          Google ergo sum

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jagged
                            ...

                            Denmark all along has had troops in the Iraq war, under no less controversial circumstances than those under which America started the thing. For example, prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen made the startling decision to enter the war against the wishes of the majority of the parliament. Not that such criticism (or any other) seems to have great effect on Rasmussen who is a great admirer of Bush and shares many of his infantile cowboy dreams. I can't help seeing Rasmussen a bit like a kid who'll support the schoolyard bully out of admiration for sheer brutal strength.
                            Perhaps he's a would-be Nietzschean? ;-]

                            Really, I've been wondering for some time what's going
                            on here with Danemark.


                            Originally posted by Jagged
                            Not that the Danish troops are large enough in numbers to have such a great impact (although it's a standing joke here that Rasmussen probably thinks that his submarine and snow scrapers won the desert war), but Rasmussen is of course right on the one point that it's the principle that's important here.

                            ...

                            Our prime minister a wannabe Bush? Denmark a wannabe USA? How pathetic and embarrassing.
                            Just curious, but has there been any attempt to justify Denmark's participation
                            in this war on the basis of national interest?

                            It's all very well to argue that this or that government lacks what we perceive as
                            "virtue," but ultimately there must be some rational reason to take the next step
                            of actually getting involved in an invasion/war/occupation. It's not something
                            one should undertake lightly.

                            So has Rasmussen (or any of his surrogates) attempted to make any sort of
                            rational defense of his actions in this activity? This has perplexed me for some
                            time now. When I first heard of Denmark's participation, my reaction was basically,
                            "What the f*ck?" It seems to make even less sense than the American involvment.

                            LSN

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
                              Really, I've been wondering for some time what's going on here with Danemark.
                              You're not the only one...

                              Originally posted by L_Stearns_Newburg
                              Just curious, but has there been any attempt to justify Denmark's participation in this war on the basis of national interest?

                              ... has Rasmussen (or any of his surrogates) attempted to make any sort of rational defense of his actions in this activity?
                              There has indeed. A little while ago, it became a major issue because Rasmussen has flatly refused to instigate an impartial investigation of his grounds for entering the Iraq war, along the lines of the investiations going on in both the US and the UK.

                              His argument for avoiding any scrutiny is that Denmark didn't join on the ground of possession of mass destruction weapons like Bush & Blair, but because Saddam for a prolonged time disregarded the demands of the UN. I think that he's technically right here, even if this is called into question by the opposition. And even if the weapons appeared frequently in his own less official discussions of the matter around the time the war started.

                              Fair is fair, I really do believe that Rasmussen's ultimate reason, just as he claims, were that Saddam was a cruel tyrant whom the Iraqis themselves wanted removed. After all, it's hard to hear the sounds of your neighbour beating up his wife every night for years without ever doing something about it. Because of the tradition of national sovereignty, one can't directly state one wants to intervene when witnessing serious crimes, so the point had to be made obliquely through reference to ignoring the UN. I think, however, that it's a problem if you don't state your reasons clearly and honestly when going to war.

                              And what defeats me, is how he can argue that we should wage war on somebody for disregarding the UN, thus totally disregarding the UN's decisions about how to take action on the matter.
                              "If the environment were a bank, we would already have saved it." -Graffitti.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jagged

                                And what defeats me, is how he can argue that we should wage war on somebody for disregarding the UN, thus totally disregarding the UN's decisions about how to take action on the matter.
                                Welcome to the wonderful world of contemporary American political logic. :oops: Sad that it continues to spread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X