You said:
"I don't think any conservative would agree with MM's portrayal as Saddam's Iraq as a nice place to live as has been reported."
--Have you SEEN the movie?
--If you had bothered to SEE the movie, you'd realize that Moore wasn't portraying Saddam's Iraq as "a nice place to live" so much as he was showing what daily life was like in Baghdad before the war began. He had several images of people going about their daily business: children playing; people congregating in public places; people living their daily lives WITHOUT WAR AND WITHOUT BOMBS DROPPING ALL AROUND THEM.
--THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MOORE'S IMAGES. He wasn't praising Saddam's Iraq as being a "nice place to live" or making a statement about the virtue of Saddam's regime, as much as he was showing that ordinary people live ordinary lives, and that those ordinary lives will be interrupted with incredible turmoil and perhaps even destroyed when and if a war comes, whether or not that war is "justified" or "righteous" or for some supposedly "better cause." The whole point was that Moore was showing that wars take their tolls upon innocent civilians who are caught in the cross fire.
--Only a rabidly partisan and paranoid wacko who has some screws loose would interpret those scenes in Moore's film as an endorsement of Saddam or the "wonderfulness" of Saddam's Iraq. That wasn't what Moore was saying, and those who assert such, in my opinion, are either complete idiots or liars.
--Next time, see the film before you form any opinions about it. Either that, or say, "I don't want to see the film. And because I refuse to see the film, I'm REALLY NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT UPON IT."
--Otherwise, to those people who are in-the-know, you will come off clearly as someone who really is speaking out of his ignorance, and really doesn't know what he is talking about, and your opinions will be discounted as such by them . . . especially when you comment upon Mel Gibson's "conservatism" or supposed lack of it because he may have said something about Moore's film.
Those scenes were deliberately juxtaposed with the "shock and awe" bombing bits to make Iraq appear as kind of a middle-eastern version of Belgium--a peaceful, prosperous country just going about it's business until the wicked old United States showed up raining death from the skies at the behest of an ignorant, warmongering administration. So the next time you want to make ridiculous claims of this sort, I'd recommend you at least clean up the blatant falsehoods.
By-the-by: "Estes Kefauver"? The late liberal Dimocrat Senator, publicity-hound, and professional idiot? Ha, ha. Surely you jest...
You said:
"I don't think any conservative would agree with MM's portrayal as Saddam's Iraq as a nice place to live as has been reported."
--Have you SEEN the movie?
--If you had bothered to SEE the movie, you'd realize that Moore wasn't portraying Saddam's Iraq as "a nice place to live" so much as he was showing what daily life was like in Baghdad before the war began. He had several images of people going about their daily business: children playing; people congregating in public places; people living their daily lives WITHOUT WAR AND WITHOUT BOMBS DROPPING ALL AROUND THEM.
--THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MOORE'S IMAGES. He wasn't praising Saddam's Iraq as being a "nice place to live" or making a statement about the virtue of Saddam's regime, as much as he was showing that ordinary people live ordinary lives, and that those ordinary lives will be interrupted with incredible turmoil and perhaps even destroyed when and if a war comes, whether or not that war is "justified" or "righteous" or for some supposedly "better cause." The whole point was that Moore was showing that wars take their tolls upon innocent civilians who are caught in the cross fire.
--Only a rabidly partisan and paranoid wacko who has some screws loose would interpret those scenes in Moore's film as an endorsement of Saddam or the "wonderfulness" of Saddam's Iraq. That wasn't what Moore was saying, and those who assert such, in my opinion, are either complete idiots or liars.
--Next time, see the film before you form any opinions about it. Either that, or say, "I don't want to see the film. And because I refuse to see the film, I'm REALLY NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT UPON IT."
--Otherwise, to those people who are in-the-know, you will come off clearly as someone who really is speaking out of his ignorance, and really doesn't know what he is talking about, and your opinions will be discounted as such by them . . . especially when you comment upon Mel Gibson's "conservatism" or supposed lack of it because he may have said something about Moore's film.
I've watched that overhyped piece of turd, so I feel at least somewhat qualified to comment on it.
If Moore-on was so intent on accurately portraying Iraqi life before the war, then why didn't he show the jailed/tortured/murdered dissidents? Or the rape rooms? Speaking of which, why didn't he interview any of the women who were unfortunate enough to catch Uday or Qusay's eye -- and live to tell about it ("it" being the brutal rapes they endured)?
What about those who spoke out -- or were just believed to have spoken out -- against Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, and got stuffed into plastic shredders, feet first?
Sheah, Saddam's Iraq was Disneyland on the Euphrates...