Disney Blocks Michael Moore's Film

Any topic that doesn't fit elsewhere.
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by 2099net »

rnrlesnar wrote:
MickeyMouseboy wrote: even if Osama is not involved I know the only reason Bush declared war on Irak was to get his hands on the Oil and for no other reason. he just used 911 as an excuse to attack. Think about it Bush's family fortune comes from oil.
If this were true we wouldnt have $2.00 a gallon oil. You are a fool if you still think this is a war for oil. I'll go on record as saying I truly hate people like you. You are a detriment to this country.
While I don't think that the war was solely for oil (because I think that, like a lot of big decisions, it was made for a ride variety of reasons of differing importance), your logic is wrong. Oil production in Iraq is nowhere near full capacity. If everything had gone according to America's plan, it would be. In addition Iraq wouldn't be part of OPEC.

Sounds to me that in a perfect world with an ideal aftermath to the war, oil prices would be much lower...

But this is all off-topic. When it comes down to it, the War either was (or was supposed to be) about bringing democracy to Iraq. Democracy means free speech, but the current govenment seem to support blocking free speech if they don't agree with it (either directly or indirectly). Sort of sends a mixed message doesn't it? And perhaps you can see why some of the rest of the world doubts America's intentions.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
User avatar
MickeyMouseboy
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3470
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:35 pm
Location: ToonTown

Post by MickeyMouseboy »

rnrlesnar wrote:If this were true we wouldnt have $2.00 a gallon oil. You are a fool if you still think this is a war for oil. I'll go on record as saying I truly hate people like you. You are a detriment to this country.
Ok then Mr. Know it all, Why did Bush attack Irak? You think killing innocent people in afghanistan was justice for what Osama did? would that make us even worst than him? If Osama was indeed behind 911 why was sadam hussein even messed with (since no proof was found)? I tell you one thing, If Bush is after the Oil he's going to encounter alot of obstacles before his get their oil. I'm sorry that you hate me :lol: nothing I can do about it, you go right ahead with the hate that's why the world is what it is thanks to people like you! :D about the Fool. don't call anyone a fool because you never know you might end up been the damned fool :)
User avatar
rnrlesnar
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 10:40 pm

Post by rnrlesnar »

MickeyMouseboy wrote:
rnrlesnar wrote:If this were true we wouldnt have $2.00 a gallon oil. You are a fool if you still think this is a war for oil. I'll go on record as saying I truly hate people like you. You are a detriment to this country.
Ok then Mr. Know it all, Why did Bush attack Irak? You think killing innocent people in afghanistan was justice for what Osama did? would that make us even worst than him? If Osama was indeed behind 911 why was sadam hussein even messed with (since no proof was found)? I tell you one thing, If Bush is after the Oil he's going to encounter alot of obstacles before his get their oil. I'm sorry that you hate me :lol: nothing I can do about it, you go right ahead with the hate that's why the world is what it is thanks to people like you! :D about the Fool. don't call anyone a fool because you never know you might end up been the damned fool :)
I'll break down your post question by question. :)
Q: Attack Iraq, not Irak: The overall reason for attacking Iraq was a pre-emptive strike to prevent the possibility of Saddam producing WMD's that would be handed over to terrorist that would be used against us in the United States. There was plenty of intelligence that supported WMD's and the entire world believed this to be true, including France though the way to deal with it was disputed. If you think Bush should have done something prior to 9-11 based on that limited intelligence, then you should have no probelem standing behind this war. This situation is no different than say if Bush adressed the nation in March 2001 and said there were plots to attack America and to stop this we need to scrutinize all arabs that are non citizens and take out the Taliban in Afghanistan. The same people that are criticizing the Iraq war would have gone even more nuts over that because we hadn't even been attacked by then unless you count the first WTC bombing.

Q: Innocent in Afghanistan: It's a bad side effect of a war, but its unavoidable. It's a shame, but its fact of life. Innocents will die in a war but you can't let that stop you from doing what needs to be done. Look at the thousands of innocent Germans killed WWII. The war couldnt have been won if preventing civilian casuatlies was a priority.

Q: messing with Saddam- I answered this one in the first question.

About hating you, how about I lower it a notch and just hate your way of thinking? :D
User avatar
MickeyMouseboy
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3470
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:35 pm
Location: ToonTown

Post by MickeyMouseboy »

If we're going to talk about WMD then North Korea has alot of them. :D
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Disney Finally does something right!

Post by 2099net »

rnrlesnar wrote:
Son of the Morning wrote: AHAHAH. Wait a minute... you're glad they're refusing to distribute it, but it's because you don't want to hear about the links to "Al Qaeda" (really, you're thinking of rich Saudi families, notably the Bin Ladens)... ?

I thought Moore did documentaries, not left wing fantasies.
It's not a fantasy. It's a fact. There are untold number of books and articles on the matter. Nobody is saying he has links to "Al Qaeda", but links to the ruling Saudi families. Even FOX News admits it (to an extent)! There is debate is these families (still) have ties to Osama Bin Laden.

Given the Bush's family history, it not really that unexpected. They made money in oil, and have two American Presidents, who in the course of duty need intimate contact with the Middle East. It's possible that they don't have anything to hide, but the information should be made available for the people to see. The first link below seems to aggrate informaiton from various respectable sources.

I urge you to read the contents of that link. You have the good fortune to live in a free country. I suggest to take advantage of that freedom to investigate for yourself, rather than just accepting everything you are told (or not told) by the mass media. Once you've read it, make your own mind up.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... udis,_bush

check out the oil filter (no pun intended) too

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... &theme=oil



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04088/292170.stm
http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/o ... our25.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
User avatar
rnrlesnar
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 10:40 pm

Re: Disney Finally does something right!

Post by rnrlesnar »

Since I'm in a free country, I am choosing not to waste my time looking at those links.
User avatar
Luke
Site Admin
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:57 pm
Location: Dinosaur World
Contact:

Post by Luke »

Just a friendly reminder to remain civil in these types of discussions and not to attack your fellow posters, but their arguments, if you so disagree.
"Fifteen years from now, when people are talking about 3-D, they will talk about the business before 'Monsters vs. Aliens' and the business after 'Monsters vs. Aliens.' It's the line in the sand." - Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president
User avatar
Rebel
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:59 pm
Location: Bowling Green

Post by Rebel »

I am confused. Why do so many people believe Michael Moore's ridiculous accusation that Disney is rejecting this movie out of fear of retribution from Jeb Bush?

It is normal for Disney to reject highly controversial films like this one. ie Dogma

Eisner is a Democrat and Disney is non-partisan. There is no pro-Republican agenda here.

The idea that George Bush or Jeb Bush have used strong arm tactics to influence Disney's decision is simply absurd.

Florida has state statutes which dictate which companies receive tax incentives. Jeb Bush could not take away Disney's tax incentives even if he wanted to do so.

A year ago Disney informed Miramax and Moore that they did not want to distribute the film. However Miramax and Moore decided to go forward with the production and ignore Disney's decision. Now a year later, the week before Cannes, they have reintroduced the controversy by acting like Disney just now rejected the movie and attached silly conspiracy theory to it. It is an obvious ploy for free publicity.

This is not the first time that Disney has refused to distribute a Miramax film. Miramax has never had any difficulty finding an alternate distributor. Yet for some reason, people are trying to make it seem like Disney was somehow Moore's only opportunity to get the movie into theaters.

My guess is that Miramax and Moore already have their distributor lined up and as soon as all of the media hype dies down, they will announce that they have "found" a distributor and that the movie will be released on schedule.
User avatar
Son of the Morning
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Disney Finally does something right!

Post by Son of the Morning »

rnrlesnar wrote:Since I'm in a free country, I am choosing not to waste my time looking at those links.
Since you're not taking the opportunity to correct your own mistakes, then I would trust that you will stop throwing around assertions that you've chosen not to check for validity.
User avatar
Son of the Morning
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:46 pm
Contact:

Post by Son of the Morning »

rnrlesnar wrote:I compare Moore to Bin Laden in that they both obviously hate America and everything it stands for. Moore would be glad to model our government after communist Russia.
Uh. You do realize that Communism, by nature, is social authoritarianism and economic socialism?

That has the same weight as me saying that conservatives such as yourself are fascists, because they believe that the government should take a stronger role in regulating social liberties, be less hesitant to start pre-emptive wars where there is no direct threat to any nation, and try to instill a strong degree of nationalism to galvanize people to their cause and polarize the population into two opposing factions, where the people who support YOU by proxy support the government and by proxy support the nation and are patriotic, where the critics are anything but...

Oh, wait a minute...
User avatar
Son of the Morning
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:46 pm
Contact:

Post by Son of the Morning »

rnrlesnar wrote: I'm not saying what the soldiers did was right, but compared to what other POWS have dealt with, it's nothing. Would you rather be on a death march to build a bridge, or be stripped naked and have women's underwear put on your head? The outcry over this is 100x louder than protests against what Saddam did to prisoners.
How can you say what the soldiers are doing is slightly worse than what Saddam did?
My my, have we lowered our standards over the course of the past year. We're not as bad as Saddam Hussein when it comes to our treatment of prisoners. Score one for liberty, and gawd blezz 'merica.

The condition that the country WAS in, is frankly, irrelevant, if our usurpation of that will lead to greater instability in the long run, and greater violence both in the nation and against America as a result of the increase in anti-Americanism that has come as a result.
User avatar
karlsen
Special Edition
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: Norway

Post by karlsen »

rnrlesnar wrote:There was plenty of intelligence that supported WMD's and the entire world believed this to be true, including France though the way to deal with it was disputed.
This is not true at all. England was one of the few that trusted this "intelligence" and countryes like Norway, Germany and France did not belive that there was any WMD in Iraq. The inspectors that was down there found no evidence at all, and the leader of the inspectors even critisised America for always giving new information on where this should be and every time it was proven wrong by the inspectors. So in this case I belive the American and British "intelligence" was using bad info on purpose so they would be able to go to war.
rnrlesnar wrote:Q: Innocent in Afghanistan: It's a bad side effect of a war, but its unavoidable. It's a shame, but its fact of life. Innocents will die in a war but you can't let that stop you from doing what needs to be done. Look at the thousands of innocent Germans killed WWII. The war couldnt have been won if preventing civilian casuatlies was a priority.
The big diffrence between Germany in WWII and Iraq today was that Germany ocupying large parts of Europe and it was them that started the war. Iraq did not have any WMD and they had not started any war between them and America. This war was not justifyed in any world rules, and America just did what they wanted to do. (I am not implying what their reasons were, but the ones that they gave where not real).

I agree with you that the reason was not oil as somebody likes to belive but I am sadened that the American goverment has been so fantastic in their propaganda to the American people that almost everybody belive things that are not true.

There was a question for people in America after Iraq was taken, and it was if they belived that the world where on their side in this. I was amazed that almost everybody thought that the entire world was on their side in this, when in fact it only was England and America.
User avatar
Rebel
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:59 pm
Location: Bowling Green

Post by Rebel »

karlsen wrote:Germany and France did not belive that there was any WMD in Iraq.
Although they were opposed to the war, I do not recall either country ever claiming that Iraq did not have WMDs. In 2002, every country on the UN Security Council agreed that Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions regarding Iraqi WMDs. In February 2003, Hans Blix oversaw the destruction of several Iraqi missiles which were in violation of the UN resolutions.


Isn't this thread supposed to be about Michael Moore vs Disney though?
User avatar
karlsen
Special Edition
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: Norway

Post by karlsen »

Rebel wrote:
karlsen wrote:Germany and France did not belive that there was any WMD in Iraq.
Although they were opposed to the war, I do not recall either country ever claiming that Iraq did not have WMDs. In 2002, every country on the UN Security Council agreed that Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions regarding Iraqi WMDs. In February 2003, Hans Blix oversaw the destruction of several Iraqi missiles which were in violation of the UN resolutions.
If there had been any profe at all that Iraq had WMD then UN would have aproved the war and everybody would have aproved it (exept Mr. Moore, I guess)

What everybody "thought" a couple of years ago was one thing, but nobody could prove anything, neither could the inspectors. It is true that Hans Blix oversaw the destruction of some Iraqi missils but they were just small once and of no danger to America at all. Iraq was alowed to have missils, but they were not alowed to have missils that could go further then a certain amount of miles. The missils that Hans Blix oversaw the distruction of was desputed by Iraq because they belived them to be within the amount of miles but America thought diffrent so they destroied them to prevent a war.

I belive America was already ready for war, and wanted those missils destroid before they went in so they would not face the problems with short range missils.
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by 2099net »

Well, there's two issues with this talk of going to war.

Firstly, while our govenment may have supported the War, a slight majority of the English public did not. While a few percentage points may seem trivial in the case of Britain (after all you elect a govenment to lead the country, not to defer to the people all the time), I believe 90% (give or take) of the Spanish public didn't support the War, but their leader still commited troops to the cause. So saying Britain and, especially Spain supported the War could be seen as a distortion of the facts.

Secondly, if I remember correctly, lots of countries suspected Iraq had WMD, but not every country, including France and Germany considered the evidence conclusive enough - especially when Blix's inspections, including sites he was told to visit by American and British inteligence were finding nothing of enough importance. They took the, not unreasonable view, that the inteligence was flawed because of this and argued for more time as a result. As it happens, it turns out that they were right. Lots of countries didn't see any relationship between Iraq and international terrorism at all.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
User avatar
AwallaceUNC
Signature Collection
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
Contact:

Post by AwallaceUNC »

I don't want to debate Rep vs. Dem or the war in Iraq, so I'll move back to the topic :wink:.

This is an issue that involves Disney and Michael Moore- not the administration. I'm shocked that in reading 3 pages of posts here, only one mention of the fact that this tax break from Jeb to Disney was a complete fabrication. I believe it was the Orlando Sentinel that first published (and the majority of news sources have since followed with) that Disney doesn't receive any tax breaks from Jeb Bush or Florida government. But even before that, I thought it sounded a bit far-fetched. If anyone controls Florida's economy, it's Michael Eisner (not Jeb Bush). Any economic harm done to Disney World is economic harm done to the whole state. Therefore, it made sense when it turned out not to be true.

In reality, it was just a stunt to hype up the film. Hey, it worked! Can you blame him? Well, I guess that's up to you. Plenty of filmmakers do it, and it's certainly not un-Mooreish (for the sake of full disclosure, I'm not a Michael Moore fan at all, but that's slightly beside the issue). He's successfully attracted the attention of other distributors, which was something he knew he must do, so it was smart. But I have to feel bad for the name of Disney in the process.

But that raises another very important point. Moore knew this wouldn't be distributed by Disney/Miramax a year ago, when intentions of funding were first announced. I can remember back when that news broke, before I was even a member here. Most news sources have begun to bring that up as well. He had fair warning, so that's more evidence that this is a publicity stunt. Again, make of that what you will.

Now, you can agree or disagree with Eisner's decision, but it is not an issue of Constitutional free speech. Disney is a corporation, not a governmental distribution. Not only is it not illegal for them to turn down the movie, it is their right to do so (contracts b/w Disney & Miramax notwithstanding, since the exact details of that contract aren't all out in the public, so we can't fully debate that... but that's sort of a red herring anyways). Eisner's letter to the New York Times summed it up best (I hate agreeing with Eisner, but I do so adamantly on this issue). It's a short letter, so here's the full text:
To the Editor:

You accuse the Walt Disney Company of cowardice and censorship because of its decision a year ago not to distribute Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (editorial, May 6). In fact, the cowardly thing would have been to be intimidated into distributing the film. We did not block its distribution. There are many avenues for Mr. Moore to pursue to get his film distributed.

Your accusations of stifling free expression are misplaced. The First Amendment does not say that The New York Times must print every article presented to it or that the Walt Disney Company must distribute every movie. If a government entity had blocked Mr. Moore's film from being released, that would have violated the First Amendment, and we would have quickly signed up to join any protest.

In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," we chose a path that was right for the company and its stakeholders.

The creation of intellectual product rises and falls on similar judgments by creative people and executives across America. We would hope that The Times would recognize that the Walt Disney Company has the same right of freedom of expression that it is advocating for Mr. Moore.

MICHAEL D. EISNER
Chief Exec., Walt Disney Company
Burbank, Calif., May 7, 2004
.

Not particularly well-written, but to the point. (You've gotta love that it doesn't say Chairman there. Too bad he's not a little more credible in the world's eyes :roll:).

Personally, I feel that Disney shouldn't be involved with admittedly politically charged and partisan (for lack of a better term, I realize it's more an issue of ideaology than political party) films. There's a place for that, but it's not with them. Right now, being in the center of a political firestorm is the last thing Disney needs, and for once, Eisner is looking out for the company's interest. (I'm pretty sure that he himself is a liberal, though not sure, so it's probably not an issue of personal disagreement).

But perhaps the bigger problem lies not with the film, but with the distributor. As one of the panel members of "Media Watch" (a show that doesn't debate the issues so much as they debate how the media covers the issues) put it, "Disney should have their head examined for being involved with Miramax that puts out movies like 'Kill Bill' and 'Dogma' and this. This is a company with a family-oriented image, what are they doing with them?" (appx. quotation). The other panelists almost simultaneously responded, "money."
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by 2099net »

Being as you won't read some of the links rnrlesnar, I'll take a few extracts and put them on this page:

The first is perhaps the most important over the whole affair, as it sets the tone for all the mainstream reports you may see, hear or read (or alternatively do not see, hear or read).
Rena Golden, the executive vice-president and general manager of CNN International, claims that the press has censored itself over 9/11 and the Afghanistan war. “Anyone who claims the US media didn't censor itself is kidding you. It wasn't a matter of government pressure but a reluctance to criticize anything in a war that was obviously supported by the vast majority of the people. And this isn't just a CNN issue—every journalist who was in any way involved in 9/11 is partly responsible.” [Press Gazette, 8/15/02]
As for Bush and Saudis some of the information is
Prior to this year, George Bush Jr. is a failed oil man. Three times friends and investors have bailed him out to keep him from going bankrupt. But in this year, the same year his father becomes President, some Saudis buy a portion of his small company, Harken, which has never worked outside of Texas. Later in the year, Harken wins a contract in the Persian Gulf and starts doing well financially. These transactions seem so suspicious that the Wall Street Journal in 1991 states it “raises the question of … an effort to cozy up to a presidential son.” Two major investors in Bush's company during this time are Salem bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's oldest brother, and Khaled bin Mahfouz. [Salon, 11/19/01, Intelligence Newsletter, 3/2/00]
It is reported that the FBI is investigating the connections between James Bath and George Bush Jr. Bath is Salem bin Laden's official representative in the US. “Documents indicate that the Saudis were using Bath and their huge financial resources to influence US policy,” since Bush Jr.'s father is president. Bush denies any connections to Saudi money. What became of this investigation is unclear. [Houston Chronicle 6/4/92]
The US has not frozen the accounts of bin Mahfouz, and he continues to engage in major oil deals with US corporations (see Early December 2001 (B)). Forbes Magazine claims his family fortune is worth more than $4 billion. [Boston Herald, 10/14/01, Boston Herald, 12/10/01] Bin Mahfouz had invested in George Bush Jr.'s businesses starting in 1988 (see 1988). He is later sued for his role in funding terrorism (see August 15, 2002).
Jan 2000: Former President George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He had also met with them in 1998 (see November 1998 (B)), but it's not known if he met with them after this. Bush denied this meeting took place until a thank you note was found confirming it. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01] FTW
Late Jan 2001: The BBC later reports, “After the elections, [US intelligence] agencies [are] told to ‘back off’ investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that anger[s] agents.” This follows previous orders to abandon an investigation of bin Laden relatives (see September 11, 1996), and difficulties in investigating Saudi royalty. [BBC, 11/6/01]
Mid July 2001: John O'Neill, FBI counter-terrorism expert, privately discusses White House obstruction in his bin Laden investigation. O'Neill says: “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” He adds: “All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.” O'Neill also believes the White House is obstructing his investigation of bin Laden because they are still keeping the idea of a pipeline deal with the Taliban open. [CNN 1/8/02; CNN 1/9/02; Irish Times 11/19/01; Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth]
Sep 11 2001: The Carlyle Group is a company closely associated with officials of the Bush and Reagan administrations, and has considerable ties to Saudi oil money, including ties to the bin Laden family (see September 27, 2001). Those ties are well illustrated by the fact that on this day the Carlyle Group is hosting a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honor is investor Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama. [Observer 6/16/02]
Sep 13 2001: After a complete airflight ban in the US begun during the 9/11 attacks, some commercial flights begin resuming this day. However, all private flights are still banned from flying. Nonetheless, some private flights do take place, carrying Saudi royalty and members of the bin Laden family to transit points so they can leave the country. These flights take place even as fighters escort down three other private planes attempting to fly. Most of the Saudi royals and bin Ladens in the US at the time are high school or college students and young professionals. New York Times, 9/30/01, Vanity Fair, 10/03] One of the flights is a Lear Jet that leaves from a private Raytheon hangar in Tampa, Florida (see also September 25, 2001) and takes three Saudis to Lexington, Kentucky. [Tampa Tribune, 10/5/01] Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US who is so close to the Bush family that he is nicknamed “Bandar Bush,” pushes for and helps arrange the flights at the request of frightened Saudis. Vanity Fair, 10/03, CBC, 10/29/03 (D)] For two years, a violation of the air ban is denied by the FAA, FBI, and White House, and decried as an urban legend except for one article detailing them in a Tampa newspaper (Tampa Tribune, 10/5/01). Finally in 2003, Richard Clarke, National Security Council Chief of Counterterrorism confirms the existence of these flights, and Secretary of State Powell confirms them as well. [Vanity Fair, 10/03, MSNBC, 9/7/03] But the White House is still silent on the matter. [New York Times 9/4/03] The Saudis are evacuated to Saudi Arabia over the next several days (see September 14-19, 2001).
There's a lot more, but you'll have to follow the link for the information, just as you'll have to follow the link so get clickable links to the sources (from, as you can see reputable news agencies)

As for Oil, I personally don't think it was for oil - but check out:
September 2000: The neoconservative think-tank Project for the New American Century writes a “blueprint” for the “creation of a ‘global Pax Americana’” (see also June 3, 1997). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, was written for the Bush team even before the 2000 Presidential election. It was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and President Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. The report calls itself a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.” The plan shows Bush intended to take military control of Persian Gulf oil whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. It says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” The report calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the internet, the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and other countries. It also mentions that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” A British Member of Parliament says of the report, “This is a blueprint for US world domination—a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world” (see also Spring 2001 and April 2001 (D)). [Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, click to download the think tank report] However, the report complains that these changes are likely to take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Los Angeles Times 1/12/03] In an NBC interview at about the same time, Vice Presidential candidate Cheney defends Bush Jr.'s position of maintaining Clinton's policy not to attack Iraq because the US should not act as though “we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments.” [Washington Post 1/12/02] This report and the Project for the New American Century generally are mostly ignored until a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war (see February-March 20, 2003).
Now, seeing that, and the names on the list who comissioned the report, and the conclustion to the report "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." it sort of explains why the rest of the world may have been against the War. As for “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”, well, that's just scary. And that's coming from a think-tank supported by the current administration. Not only does it support a permament American force in the area, but it seems to be supporting experiments with WMD, as long as its done by Americans and the results would suit America "politically". Do you not think such a report encourages suspicion? Or are we all being paranoid?

Just because the bulk of America is more interested in Brad and Jeniffer's marriage or Michael Jackson's underwear, don't assume the rest of the world are as ignorant about your leaders as you appear to be.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
User avatar
Son of the Morning
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:46 pm
Contact:

Post by Son of the Morning »

Oh, and to whoever said that Eisner is a Democrat:

Could you show me some evidence of that? It's not that I don't believe you, I just find it a little strange.

If it is true, I guess the man has SOME good qualities...
User avatar
AwallaceUNC
Signature Collection
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
Contact:

Post by AwallaceUNC »

I said I thought he was a liberal (not nec. a Democrat), but that I wasn't sure. And that's exactly it, I'm not sure, lol. I've been told in the past that he was, but of course have no confirmation of that. I'm not sure there would be any way to confirm that.

-Aaron
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
User avatar
Rebel
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:59 pm
Location: Bowling Green

Post by Rebel »

Son of the Morning wrote:Oh, and to whoever said that Eisner is a Democrat:

Could you show me some evidence of that? It's not that I don't believe you, I just find it a little strange.

If it is true, I guess the man has SOME good qualities...

I do not understand why anyone would be surprised to hear that Eisner is a Democrat.

I have known it for a long time, but I had to do a few searches to find the following quote :

"Although Eisner is a Democrat, Disney contributes to Democratic and Republican candidates."

Source : http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/yahoo/orl-asecmdisney06050604may06,0,5725897.story
Post Reply