Thank you for this post.
 

Hi southcon, I also wrote an article on Michael Moore. Here it is:

Three Questions for Michael Moore
Rodrigo Szüecs

In a recent interview with the commentator of Fox News channel, Bill O´Reilley, Michael Moore said the Iraqi people should have rebelled against Saddam, as Americans did against England. This is the way for people to get free of heavy-handed dictatorships and to conquer their democracy legitimately. However, Mr. Moore is also a notorious defender of the gun control for citizens. In his opinion, the government must control the right of carrying guns. Yet, if the government controls such right by assuring the state monopoly over arms, how can citizens rise up against it? Using forks and wood spoons? How can they fight against a dictatorship when they don’t have the required means to do that? For Michael Moore, the only legitimate way for a people to conquer democracy is by going up against their dictatorial government, but at the same time he denies the necessary tools to rebel or to impede a dictatorship, giving the first step so that a government imbued with totalitarian ambitions can be free of any difficulties in taking over the power without any reaction on the part of a disarmed society. The gun ownership is not a consequence of the democracy, on the contrary, it is its cause. To defend the gun control is to defend the impossibility of rising up against a dictatorship. So, how can Michael Moore stand up for the legitimate uprising of an oppressed people if at the same time he defends the gun control by the state? How can one go against a basic principle of democracy and say that one is a supporter of democracy?

In Farenheit 9/11, Michael Moore says USA invaded the “Sovereign Nation of Iraq”. A sovereign nation is one where its people is sovereign, that is, one where citizens own the right to decide on politics since they are the very cause of government’s existence. Government only exists because people decided so, and it serves as nothing more than a public means to guarantee the rights of this same people. A nation can only be sovereign if its population is sovereign. This is another basic principle of democracy. To say that Iraq is sovereign is not possible for its people wasn’t. The power of Saddam’s government didn’t emanate from people but rather from Saddam himself. There was only a sovereign in Iraq and that was Saddam Hussein. To say that the nation of Iraq was sovereign is the same of saying that Iraqi dictatorship was sovereign, since there wasn’t power in Iraq which emanated from people. Thus, Michael Moore denies Iraqi people the pillar of democratic system and legitimates the sovereignty of a tyranny. The American military action wasn’t aimed against a nation but a dictatorship. How can Michael Moore declares himself an advocate of democracy if he refuses the sovereignty of Iraqi people, such being the essential right upon which a democracy is founded?

Michael Moore says as well that Iraq was not linked to the Al-Quaeda or other terrorist groups. What are then those islamic brigades slaying innocent victims day after day, detonating bombs with their own bodies and assailing the Iraqi interim government and the American troops? What are these groups which give their lives to restore Saddam’s former dictatorship and strive for pulling the plug on the military occupation and the possible formation of an Iraqi democratic system? If Saddam’s tyranny were not beneficious to these groups, they wouldn’t be giving their lives away and taking so many others in order to defend or protect the former dictatorial system. This is not a war aimed only at Al-Quaeda; this is a war against terror. And terror is what does the Islamic Terrorism, as defined by the Inquiry Commission with respect to Sept. 11. The end of Saddam’s tyranny is so terrible for the plans of these terrorist groups that they’d rather die than have to think of a Middle East without governments covering them. How then can one deny that Saddam’s government wasn’t involved with the Islamic terror when terrorism confirms this linkage in each car bomb exploding right on the streets of Bagdah?

Maybe all of this is too much for Mr. Moore. The contradictions around his thoughts are so loud that maybe he has let them pass as they are much bigger than his liberal mentality allows him to conceive. After all, to deny the basic principles of democracy to the citizens and deceive them by means of mass communication has always been a Leftist strategy to conquer power. In this sense, Michael Moore can boast himself of being one of the perpetrators of this tragic hoax.
 

for Rodrigo--your definition of sovereign nation is way off base. Sovereign and democratic are two different things.

As for the terrorists in Iraq--if you watch, the news, read, or listen to the US Government at all, you will hear that these terrorists showed up only after the US did. Hussein and Bin Laden were enemies before the war because of Hussein's actions against Kuwait, and threats to Saudi Arabia.

It is ignorance of the facts that makes posts and comments like yours laughable and gives a bad name to all who back you up.