Moore exposed as liar and fraud... AGAIN... [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

BubbaStrangelove

06-29-2004, 09:16 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
And why are we still discussing Bush?

Because the blog you posted discussed him first. His name is mentioned over 200 times.

What does Bush's ability or inability to produce a movie have to do with Moore being a liar and a fraud?

You tell me. The blog is the one that seems to be attempting to defend Bush by making aesthetic crticism about the editing in a popular documentary.

It only seems fair.

The most offensive sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s long two hours lasts only a few minutes. It's Moore's file-footage depiction of happy Iraq before the Americans began their supposedly pointless invasion. You see men sitting in cafes, kids flying kites, women shopping. Cut to bombs exploding at night.

What Moore presumably doesn't know, or simply doesn't care about, is that the building you see being blown up is the Iraqi Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. Not many children flew kites there. It was in a part of the city that ordinary Iraqis weren't allowed to visit - on pain of death.

Yeah, right. Just because Moore decideded to use the most symbolic image signifying the start of the war -- that doesn't mean there wasn't later images of car bombs exploding, or US soldiers being hung from bridges.

Okay - What the blog seems to the go on and suggest, is that RIGHT NOW, as the war is going on - children on still flying kites. The blog attempts to make Moore sound like a bad guy for saying that kids probably aren't flying kites in the streets of Iraq right now.

Did I mention this blog is a big crock of shit?

As mentioned -- It really could have done better.

SLAW

07-01-2004, 12:11 AM

Moore is doing his civic duty and is a great patriot. That's all.

bmain77

07-01-2004, 12:21 AM

I honestly gave up reading the blog about 2 entries into it, but I did notice scrolling through quickly that one of the articles cited was from the National Review which I've pointed out before is about objective about any topic as is Michael Moore. The only difference is Moore is coming from the far left and the Review from the far right. As big a fan as I am of Moore if I was writing a paper or an article depending on the topic I probably wouldn't use Moore as source nor any other person or organization with such obvious agendas.

Neesh

07-01-2004, 02:25 PM

Lets get specific.
I'll pick out a few standout "points" made by these people, which do nothing to show that Michael Moore is a liar and/or fraud.

Fahrenheit Fact no. 20: Condi doesn't think Iraq was involved in 9/11

"How about the whole quote: "
"It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

She's in a lose/lose situation. Does she support our President or not? In this particular statement, she is very vague about Saddam being involved with 9/11. In any event, she's entangled in quite the hypocritical conundrum.

Fahrenheit Fact no. 18: Bush isn't the only one in Carlyle

They go on to show (quoting Newsweek) that members of the Democratic Party are also involved in Carlyle. So we've got unscrupulous people in both parties. I don't believe Moore suggested that there werent members of the Democratic Party involved in Carlyle, he just focused on Bush. I dont see how that makes him a liar or a fraud.

Fahrenheit Fact no. 16: All Embassies Have Secret Service Protection

Oh really ? I don't see that point proven, and even if it was, it wouldnt make Moore a liar. Moore said in the movie:

MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah yeah yeah, I didn't realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies.
OFFICER: Uh, not usually, no sir.

"But the agent was wrong- Moore does not mention this."

So we should assume that Moore knew more about the officer's job than the officer himself? Thats a bit of a stretch to prove Moore to be a liar.

And then they try and prove the Secret Service does in fact guard foreign embassies, by quoting from the official Secret Service webpage which states:

"They now protect the following:

* the White House Complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and other Presidential offices;
* the President and members of the immediate family;
* the temporary official residence of the Vice President in the District of Columbia;
* the Vice President and members of the immediate family; and
* foreign diplomatic missions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and throughout the United States, and its territories and possessions, as prescribed by statute. "

"foreign diplomatic missions" doesn't explicitly show that foreign embassies are always protected. Not that it matters, because we have the Secret Service officer himself on video very clearly showing us this.

A weak attempt at making M. Moore out to be a liar.
I would love to see better attempts. I am all for disseminating truth.

Lynn7

07-01-2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by bmain77
I honestly gave up reading the blog about 2 entries into it, but I did notice scrolling through quickly that one of the articles cited was from the National Review which I've pointed out before is about objective about any topic as is Michael Moore. The only difference is Moore is coming from the far left and the Review from the far right. As big a fan as I am of Moore if I was writing a paper or an article depending on the topic I probably wouldn't use Moore as source nor any other person or organization with such obvious agendas.

There are few objective sources of info left anymore. That's why I like the Drudge report. He posts articles from left and right publications. I try to read about what both sides are saying and see what makes sense. There is so much unreported in the media these days that you kind of have to make it your own business to look up the news-the internet is great for that.

BubbaStrangelove

07-01-2004, 03:24 PM

You're right about a slant everywhere.

Sometimes, I think THE DAILY SHOW is more objective than anything else. Stewart really asks both sides equally challenging credits.

He's still liberal as hell, but I think he practices ethical journalism (especially for what that show does.)

Please don't think I'm saying it's overall a great news source -- but you can damn well quote me sticking behind the interview segments.

Lynn7

07-01-2004, 04:06 PM

I like Britt Humes Fox News show (at 6pm) and each night he ends his show with a little political skit from one of the comedians (Stewart, Leno, Letterman etc) and some of Stewart's stuff has been funny. I haven't watched him much but I wasnt aware he challnged both sides- I was under the impression he was all liberal all the time.

Anyway, polls say that most people get their political information from the comedy shows like Leno- pretty scary!!!!

countchocula

07-01-2004, 04:19 PM

Yeah, The Daily Show grills everyone. I thought it was better when it wasn't as politically charged (the Kilborn era), but it's still a fantastic show.

JCR

07-01-2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
There are few objective sources of info left anymore. That's why I like the Drudge report. He posts articles from left and right publications. I try to read about what both sides are saying and see what makes sense. There is so much unreported in the media these days that you kind of have to make it your own business to look up the news-the internet is great for that.

Oh come on Lynn. Read the book Ain't it Cool? by Harry Knowles. Knowles worked for Drudge in the early years of the net and alleges he was being fed stories by the republician party, and broke the lewinsky story on the day clinton had good news about the budget on republican party orders. Drudge is as right wing as dubya.

Ultrahumanite

07-01-2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Sometimes, I think THE DAILY SHOW is more objective than anything else. Stewart really asks both sides equally challenging credits.

He's still liberal as hell, but I think he practices ethical journalism (especially for what that show does.)

True. And it's sad when the most objective news on TV is a news parody show.

Anyway, back on topic, let's look at some F 9/11 reviews:

From the left:

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

Moore: Trying to have it three ways

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

The whole article is here -- <http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/> -- and includes a quote from George Orwell:

"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …"

Ultrahumanite

07-01-2004, 05:55 PM

Seems from the rest of the article that she's a liberal, too...
Read it all right here:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48059-2004Jun16.html

*LOL* I love the quotes from Mark Katz (former Clinton speechwriter) and Tom Baer (Kerry supporter).... Goebbels, he says.... *LOL*

Democrats Warm To 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

By Tina Brown
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page C01

It speaks to how desperate New York Democrats feel that a New York premiere audience filled not just with credulous movie stars but top-of-the-line editors, First Amendment lawyers and sober-suited Wall Street donors was so forgiving of Moore's raucous cartoon history. The blase crowd that usually races out as the credits roll listened in respectful silence as Moore lumbered to the stage in that damn Michigan State University baseball cap and hackneyed leather jacket to pontificate on the importance of getting out the vote.

Nobody raised a question about his film's wacky insinuations that Bush let Taliban thugs escape because of some previously concocted deal in Texas or let Osama bin Laden get away because of deep Bush connections to the bin Laden family. In Moore's version of Iraq nobody was hanging from a meat hook in Saddam Hussein's jails. Baghdad was a happy city where children frolicked in the streets until boom! we blew them away. The invasion of Afghanistan? That was just a cover for running an oil pipeline across the country. You can argue that conspiracy theories are redundant since the Bush administration's malfeasance on the war is all there right on the surface, but, hey, this crowd feels that they're entitled to some lefty exuberance after biting their tongues through a week of Republican mythmaking. Their Bush-loathing is so intense there is a pent-up longing for excess, a desire to be swept with emotions the cautious Democratic nominee can't arouse. They were so jazzed by Moore's ripsnorting assault, the discussion on the sidewalk afterward was about just one thing: Will it help with the swing vote?

.... Hollywood agent and Kerry supporter Tom Baer told me, "Kerry should flee Moore's movie. It's Goebbels all over again." And former Clinton speechwriter Mark Katz put it this way: "I hold my guys to a higher standard," he said quietly. "That's why they're my guys."

Ultrahumanite

07-01-2004, 06:18 PM

One more review... from filmfreakcentral.net. He also reviews a documentary called "Control Room", which I'd not heard of, but I want to see now....

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/fahrenheitcontrol.htm

Shame on Michael Moore for the sloppy, sprawling Fahrenheit 9/11, and shame on President George W. Bush for being such a reprehensible dimwit target that the existence of such a film is possible. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a long, strident preach to the choir full of misleading juxtapositions and sarcastic asides that weaken what should be die-cast condemnations.... Is Moore wrong about any of this? I don't think so. But he's not the originator of it, either, and the way that he presents it actually makes it seem less credible. He's not a thinker, he's a muckraker; he's not so much a filmmaker as someone who compiles video collages with the help of a dedicated--and gifted--crew of people who find damning clips. There's a bit in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Moore mocks the "Coalition of the Willing" by poking fun at the technology and military strength of some of the countries involved (he doesn't mention Britain, Australia, South Korea, Japan, etc.)--an unwise tactic and an unkind one, too, from a self-proclaimed champion of the little guy. There's a segment in which Moore tries to get house members to sign up their kids for war, ignoring the fact that they're not allowed to sign up their kids for war (kids have to sign up for war all on their own), thus rendering their demurrals less loathsome than helpless. There's another bit where Bush is reading to a roomful of elementary school kids on September 11, 2001 when he's told that the world has changed, and Moore, rather than letting the look on Bush's face speak for itself, inserts narration that undermines our disdain for this man and diminishes 9/11 by bending it to work for his thesis.... Though I don't like the position of not recommending a movie made from a sympathetic point of view, Fahrenheit 9/11 is manipulative and facile.

jeo4

07-02-2004, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by SLAW
Moore is doing his civic duty and is a great patriot. That's all.

Two words: BULL-SHIT.

This guy is full of it. He distorts even minute details to make himself look good! How can you call that patriotism?! It's not patriotism to lie in order to make yourself look good. In fact, it's the farthest thing from partriotism...it's fascism! I have nothing against raising points against Bush or against the handling of threats to this country (9/11, Iraq, etc.). But if he isn't going to gather facts on both sides of the argument and look at it objectively, then he isn't doing a documentary. He's doing a vanity piece about how right he is and how wrong his enemies are. And that doesn't make him a patriot. It makes him an asshole. I respect opposing views when they are backed up by objective research. And that is what a true patriot would do.

SLAW

07-02-2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Two words: BULL-SHIT.

This guy is full of it. He distorts even minute details to make himself look good! How can you call that patriotism?! It's not patriotism to lie in order to make yourself look good. In fact, it's the farthest thing from partriotism...it's fascism! I have nothing against raising points against Bush or against the handling of threats to this country (9/11, Iraq, etc.). But if he isn't going to gather facts on both sides of the argument and look at it objectively, then he isn't doing a documentary. He's doing a vanity piece about how right he is and how wrong his enemies are. And that doesn't make him a patriot. It makes him an asshole. I respect opposing views when they are backed up by objective research. And that is what a true patriot would do.

He does not do the things he does to make himself look good. :rolleyes: His politics are different from yours, therefore you think he's an asshole who doesn't give a shit. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter who makes these documentaries, if it's by a guy who may lean left-wing, righties will not like them.

BubbaStrangelove

07-02-2004, 03:44 PM

I think making a movie that suggests what is wrong with the current state of the country is a patriotic thing to do.

Right or wrong, Moore made a movie about America. How many people can say that?

Lynn7

07-02-2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think making a movie that suggests what is wrong with the current state of the country is a patriotic thing to do.

Right or wrong, Moore made a movie about America. How many people can say that?

If you take things that happen out of context or only show part of an exchange that is reported later to be half the story then that is not really fair. It's his right but it isn't right.

jeo4

07-02-2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by SLAW
He does not do the things he does to make himself look good. :rolleyes: His politics are different from yours, therefore you think he's an asshole who doesn't give a shit. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter who makes these documentaries, if it's by a guy who may lean left-wing, righties will not like them.

Uh-huh....right. :rolleyes:

Consider BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. You don't think that was a completely one-sided argument for gun control?? He paid no attention to these two dysfunctional assholes who went in and planned to murder as many of their 'enemies' as possible. "It wasn't their fault. They're just kids. We should blame Lockheed and the NRA! And never mind talking to the parents of these two twerps. They will be emotionally scarred if we even try to analyze what went wrong. Isn't senile old Charleton Heston funny on tape?"

What-the-fuck-ever.

And now, let's not focus on the previous administration and their obvious failures to admonish Iraq for a VIDEOTAPED DISCOVERY OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Let's ignore the fact that nothing was ever done to stop al Qaeda THROUGHOUT the 1990's. No...whom do we blame?? Right...the guy who has been in office for eight months as of 9/11! That way, it covers my liberal agenda and it gives my party a chance to take back the White House while earning LOADS of cash. Patriotic my ass. This scumbag might as well be writing fairy tales.

BubbaStrangelove

07-02-2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
If you take things that happen out of context or only show part of an exchange that is reported later to be half the story then that is not really fair. It's his right but it isn't right.

To me, it's like saying the guy who video taped the Rodney King beating is a liar and a fraud because he only showed one side of the story, without addressing what happened before the cops put their night sticks to the guy.

JCR

07-02-2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Uh-huh....right. :rolleyes:

Consider BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. You don't think that was a completely one-sided argument for gun control?? He paid no attention to these two dysfunctional assholes who went in and planned to murder as many of their 'enemies' as possible. "It wasn't their fault. They're just kids. We should blame Lockheed and the NRA! And never mind talking to the parents of these two twerps. They will be emotionally scarred if we even try to analyze what went wrong. Isn't senile old Charleton Heston funny on tape?"

What-the-fuck-ever.

And now, let's not focus on the previous administration and their obvious failures to admonish Iraq for a VIDEOTAPED DISCOVERY OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Let's ignore the fact that nothing was ever done to stop al Qaeda THROUGHOUT the 1990's. No...whom do we blame?? Right...the guy who has been in office for eight months as of 9/11! That way, it covers my liberal agenda and it gives my party a chance to take back the White House while earning LOADS of cash. Patriotic my ass. This scumbag might as well be writing fairy tales.

Have you even seen BFC? Moore never said it was wasn't the murders fault. He certainly didn't blame Lockheed or the NRA. If there was anything in BFC that was untrue the NRA would have sued instantly. Why didn't they? And do try to remember that moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. And if doubt anyone found "senile old Charleton Heston funny" It's one of the least funny scenes in movie history. "...gives my party a chance to take back the White House" I doubt moore is a member of the democrat party. He didn't support them at the last election, BFC criticises clinton for giving the teleban money and bombing asprin factories. He may be with 'em now but imo it's just in "an enemys enemy is my friend" type of way.

And you can go on shouting about whatever weapons Iraq had in the 90s (which BTW the usa sold to them) but the fact remains there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq in the run up to gulf war 2. And that fact my friend is more damaging to the USA than a million michael moore movies ever could be.

BubbaStrangelove

07-02-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Let's ignore the fact that nothing was ever done to stop al Qaeda THROUGHOUT the 1990's. No...whom do we blame?? Right...the guy who has been in office for eight months as of 9/11!

Point taken. It's George Bush Sr.'s fault for not finishing the job.

Neesh

07-02-2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
If you take things that happen out of context or only show part of an exchange that is reported later to be half the story then that is not really fair. It's his right but it isn't right.

Thats gotta be the saddest thing I've yet read on this forum.

A vain attempt to keep Americans from dying in a foreign land. Yeah, how unfair.

Distorted Morality, indeed.

Neesh

07-02-2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
But if he isn't going to gather facts on both sides of the argument and look at it objectively, then he isn't doing a documentary.
Oh, this isnt a documentary? Theres a revelation.
He's doing a vanity piece about how right he is and how wrong his enemies are. And that doesn't make him a patriot. It makes him an asshole.
I cant offer a comment. Just figured I'd highlight this remark, so everyone can read it again and see how silly it is.
I respect opposing views when they are backed up by objective research. And that is what a true patriot would do.
What have you done in the way of objective research that surprasses what Michael Moore did with F911? Please enlighten us, oh brother of hope.

blankpage

07-02-2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think making a movie that suggests what is wrong with the current state of the country is a patriotic thing to do.

Right or wrong, Moore made a movie about America. How many people can say that?

I honestly think that was one of the smartest things I've read.

It wasn't long, but it was, for me, the most effective arguement here.

My hat goes off to you, sir.

SLAW

07-03-2004, 12:08 AM

Jim H

07-04-2004, 02:11 AM

I'll reiterate - that blog is unimpressive.

The TV ads for Michael Moore’s “documentary” Fahrenheit 9/11 feature a mocking clip of President Bush on a golf course. Bush declares, “I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers,” and then Moore jumps to Bush adding, as he prepares to swing at a golf ball, “now watch this drive.” Tuesday night on FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how “the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists.” But Wilson disclosed that “a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber.”

.....terrorists is terrorists is terrorists. The criticisms of F 9/11 are not nearly as interesting or pointed as those of Bowling for Columbine.

Lynn7

07-04-2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
To me, it's like saying the guy who video taped the Rodney King beating is a liar and a fraud because he only showed one side of the story, without addressing what happened before the cops put their night sticks to the guy.

Rodney King ran from the police fought the police and then was captured and beaten by at least some of the police. The film was important but so was the other information about what happened before and after. You need to know the entire story before you can make a judgement. Not just the defense nd not just the prosecution. That is why it is important to debate this movie.

Lynn7

07-04-2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Neesh
Thats gotta be the saddest thing I've yet read on this forum.

A vain attempt to keep Americans from dying in a foreign land. Yeah, how unfair.

Distorted Morality, indeed.

Its a WORTHY attempt to save innocent American lives by preempting the evil intent of our enemies. Bush said "Your either with us or against us" Sadaam had the chance to commit to us many times- he chose no.

As far as the poor soldiers who are dying- they volunteered bravely to serve our country just as the police and firefighters put their lives on the line for us each day. Let's not send the poor firefighters into any more burning buildings becasue they might die. Each time a cop stops a car he is in danger of getting shot to death.

Just becasue many people are afraid to go to war and fight does not mean that is true of all. Steve Harrigan from Fox news was in a tank the other day and they were getting fired on by the enemy- he is risking his life to bring us the news. Some people are willing to die for a cause they beleive in, be they soldiers, police, firefighters, EMT's, doctors etc. Even missionaries go into areas that are unsafe and put their lives at risk. We cna't just sit here and wait for the next atack to come. We need to be proactive. We need to let people know not to go messing with us or they are buying trouble.

Tuukka

07-04-2004, 04:07 PM

"Its a WORTHY attempt to save innocent American lives by preempting the evil intent of our enemies.

RE:

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that Iraq was not a danger to USA. At least so far there has been no proof that they were a danger.

"Bush said "Your either with us or against us" Sadaam had the chance to commit to us many times- he chose no."

RE:

I'm not supporting Bush on his war against the "axis of evil". So does that mean I'm against him? Yes. Does that mean I'm against USA? Definitely no. He is using a dangerous rethoric by claiming that his conservative, intolerant, fundamentalistic christian world view is representative of USA in general. It is not. Many, many highly patriotic USA citizens oppose Bush.

That quote you took from him IMHO shows how dangerous and irresponsible his values really are. Personally I know there are many people who don't agree with my opinions, and yet I don't think that makes them my enemies. Even less I think that my opinion somehow reflects the opinions of all the people in my native country.

"As far as the poor soldiers who are dying- they volunteered bravely to serve our country just as the police and firefighters put their lives on the line for us each day. Let's not send the poor firefighters into any more burning buildings becasue they might die."

RE:

One might just as well argue that in the case of Iraq it was Bush who started the fire in the house and then sent the firemen to their death. The example you gave is not the same thing as the war in Iraq.

"Each time a cop stops a car he is in danger of getting shot to death. Just becasue many people are afraid to go to war and fight does not mean that is true of all. Steve Harrigan from Fox news was in a tank the other day and they were getting fired on by the enemy- he is risking his life to bring us the news."

RE:

This is not really important and besides your overall point, but many, many war reporters are adrenaline junkies. Meaning that they get a kick out of living on the edge. If you read some in-depth books and interviews about them, you'll notice this.

Personally I don't value them any less because of this, it takes guts to do a job like that and with no doubt they are doing important work. But it has made me change my view of them to something else than seeing them as soldiers of freedom sacrificing their lives because of the rest of us.

"Some people are willing to die for a cause they beleive in, be they soldiers, police, firefighters, EMT's, doctors etc. Even missionaries go into areas that are unsafe and put their lives at risk. We cna't just sit here and wait for the next atack to come. We need to be proactive. We need to let people know not to go messing with us or they are buying trouble."

RE:

The problem is that the war on Iraq has not lessened the amount of threat to USA. Everything we have seen so far suggest that the danger is now greater thanks to the war. A nation which IN PRACTICE was not actively hostile to USA has turned into a breeding ground for fundamentalistically religious terrorists.

In the end I guess I should mention that originally I didn't oppose the war on Iraq. And even now I really don't oppose it. But I did oppose the rhetoric which was used to justify it. All the half-truths and straight lies the Bush administration used.

But in principle I still think that the war *might* lead to good consequences. We will see it only after the war is over, which will take at least a few more years. Yes, the war is still going on, and might have not yet really even started. A potential for a full blown civil war is there.

Right now Iraq is still on war and they still don't have a real goverment on their own. It's a country conquered by USA and controlled by the iron fist of the Bush administration.

In the long run all of this might have been good for the people of Iraq. Or it might still turn into a huge disaster which they will remember for decades.

But for USA this war has done only damage. USA has gained pretty much nothing of it, and has only suffered both financially and politically, and in turns of lost american human lives. Also, the risk of future terrorist strikes in USA has greatly increased thanks to the war.

Many people who are much more knowledgeable than I am have said all the time during the Iraq war that you can't force a democracy on people. It has never worked. All you can really do with totalitarian countries is to wait until the people themselves inside that country create a revolution, overthrow the totalitarian regime and create a democratic goverment.

For the sake of Iraqi people I hope these people are wrong, but I fear they might be right. If they are right, the results of the Iraq war might become much more terrifying than anything we could have ever imagined.

Thrizzle

07-04-2004, 04:51 PM

I wrote a paper on the Iraqi threat towards the US, so the for i am an expert, and here is my expert opinion:

They posed no danger, because:

1. There missiles and WMD's (if they in fact existed) couldn't reach American borders, the longest range missile they could produce, could barely reach Israel.
2. Those Missiles and weapons were intended against Israel, Iran, and the Iraqi people, never the US. Saddam would never be dumb enough to attack the US.
3. Iraq is a moderate religious country, maybe the most moderate in the middle east. They produce probably the least amount of terrorism out of all the countries in the middle east. An Iraqi terrorist has never killed an American, Iraqi terrorism is non-existant.
4. Weapons inspectors didnt believe Iraq had weapons, or wouldnt be able to produce them if they wanted. Even if they got the materials somehow, it would take within 2-3 years.
To produce WMD's, such as nuclear bombs, they would need to purchase equipment from foreign contries. American and British intelligence moniters these sellers, and know of everyone that buys.

Jim H

07-04-2004, 05:21 PM

Bush said "Your [sic] either with us or against us"

You should realize how stupid of a thing that is to say in a world climate. That stratifies the entire world, and creates even more enemies.

Neesh

07-04-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Rodney King ran from the police fought the police and then was captured and beaten by at least some of the police. The film was important but so was the other information about what happened before and after. You need to know the entire story before you can make a judgement.

Oh my God ... I can't believe you just said that. (Well, based on everything else I've seen you say in this thread, maybe I CAN. :( ) This is even sadder than what I read before.....

We don't need to see what happened before, or after Rodney's beating to know that it was WRONG and UNJUST. Yeah, he had crack, or some other drug on him, he had been evading the police... but they beat the guy 56 times, with hard clubs and such. And here you are trying to tell us how important the "other imformation is about what happened before and after.".
They should've hit the guy 2 or 3 times, taken him down, cuffed him, and taken his sorry ass to jail.

Neesh

07-04-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Its a WORTHY attempt to save innocent American lives by preempting the evil intent of our enemies. Bush said "Your either with us or against us" Sadaam had the chance to commit to us many times- he chose no.

You are the very definition of, the epitome of, a brainwashed American. You have an extremely myopic view on things. But I dont hate you or think you are an evil person for it. We have freely elected commissar leaders, who are (quite obviously) very good at disseminating propaganda on the American people. They have put up a "tissue of lies" (as Dr. Noam Chomsky has called it), that is hard for most Americans to see through. I like to think of it as a "buffet of lies". We all like to eat, we NEED to eat, and they make this buffet look enticing - even essential for our survival. And you are eating from this buffet, with a spoon in each hand.

I dont have radical political views, I am simply in favor of disseminating TRUTH. But the reality is, you have to look for the truth. You won't see it if you are "glued to the TV"....... a "serious news junkie" as you have called yourself on this forum.

There are political dissidents who are much, much smarter and more informed than I am. I read writings by these people, because I want to learn, see all sides, and become enlightened.

Here is an excerpt from a Chomsky lecture where he answers a question:
---------------------
[Lubin:] Finally, what were the major elements of the Bush administration's successful propaganda campaign to convince the American people to support the war? How did it work?

I think the main thing that worked was frightening the population, terrorizing and intimidating the population. Make them feel their existence was threatened. The major elements of this propaganda campaign were very much like the earlier cases that I mentioned, to create an image of a demon, to create an image of a very powerful colossus about to take over the world's energy system, marching on from there to dominate the world, making us cower in fear, so under such circumstances we had no way but to support violence, cheer at the destruction of the violence that threatened our existence.

Added to that is another feature. We stand for right and justice, that is, we are the traditional guarantors of perfect order. We oppose aggression. We support peace. It worked in this case. In this case it succeeded. It definitely succeeded. Scary. And it will continue to happen if we are incapable of challenging the essential framework of those pictures that are presented. We must work to eliminate these constructions of lies that prevent recognizing reality. Look what is happening on any major issue, whether it's Indochina or terrorism or the international economic order, and whatever. Until we can bring about that situation in which people can face the reality that actually is and see through this tissue of lies, we can expect regular propaganda campaigns to frighten the population in supporting massive atrocities.
----------

Interestingly, that is from a speech he gave at UC Berkeley, March 16th, 1991. During the first Iraq war. Funny how some things never change.....

Lynn7

07-04-2004, 06:50 PM

OK -lots of points but I'll try to condense them. Regarding Rodney King- I think it's important to hear the whole story before making a judgement. After I heard the whole story I would have come t the conclusion that the policemen were guilty of beating the guy wrongfully and the people who didn't stop were accountable too. I would have also been aware that King could have avoided getting beaten in this case if he had complied in the first place. Police are people too just like King and when you beat at them they get their adrenaline pumped up too. My conclusion- throw the book at all of them, errant police and King too.

You ar either for us or against us. If you are in a fox hole, you do not want to wonder if the guys you are shooting agianst the enemy with are with you or not. At any moment they can shoot you in the back. Bush used that statement to call people to our side. Some people did not like it because it forced many to support us becasue of course they don't want to alienate us- we are the only superpower who can help defend any of these people if they come under attack.

But how mean is Bush. When France and Germany and even Russia let us down as far as helping to support us- he did not revile them. He did not stir up sentiment agaisnt them. Even when it ws later learned that the reason they did not stand with us was because they were profitting ILLEGALLY on the Iraqi oil (in bed with Hussein) he still reached out to them. Bush sure is a frightening guy!!!!

The reality is that France's continued stances against helping us in any way has shown that they are not with us- they are against us. WE were the ones that were minding our own business on 9-11. We had three thousand INNOCENT people cruelly killed on that day. We were wronged- not the other way around. I am black and white like that.

JCR

07-04-2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The reality is that France's continued stances against helping us in any way has shown that they are not with us- they are against us. WE were the ones that were minding our own business on 9-11. We had three thousand INNOCENT people cruelly killed on that day. We were wronged- not the other way around. I am black and white like that.

Repeat after me:

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

Okay I feel better. Oh and in 2001 the name of the country that traded the most oil with that evil dictator in Iraq was.... the united states of america. What a surprise.

(Figures on Iraqs oil exports to various countries comes from the energy information administration's "International Petroleum monthly" July 2003 issue. The usa's overall trade numbers with Iraq for 2001 can be found through the foreign trade division of the census bureau.)

Lynn7

07-04-2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by JCR
Repeat after me:

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

Okay I feel better. Oh and in 2001 the name of the country that traded the most oil with that evil dictator in Iraq was.... the united states of america. What a surprise.

(Figures on Iraqs oil exports to various countries comes from the energy information administration's "International Petroleum monthly" July 2003 issue. The usa's overall trade numbers with Iraq for 2001 can be found through the foreign trade division of the census bureau.)

The terrorists are all out to get us! they will ALL work together to bring us down. You cannot separate anyone out of this who hates us.

The UN is being investigated for fraud and under the table dealings with Iraq. France, Germany and Russia have had secret deals going on with Hussein. That is why they didn't want to invade Iraq. it is all coming out. If France had been attacked and lost 3,000 people we would have supported them in every way we could.

And if Sadaam wasn't bad enuf it would've been wild when Uday and Kusay came into power. They tortured their own sports people when they lost an athletic event. I'm sure they would've shunned anti-American terrorism though.

Jim H

07-05-2004, 01:51 AM

they will ALL work together to bring us down.

Do you honestly believe that? The terrorist groups have VERY VERY different aims, many of them hate each other in fact. Why do you think they will create alliances? I noticed you didn't give any reasoning for it.

The UN is being investigated for fraud and under the table dealings with Iraq.

Link?

You cannot separate anyone out of this who hates us.

Name some people in Iraq who have attacked us... I'm not aware of any.

And if Sadaam wasn't bad enuf it would've been wild when Uday and Kusay came into power. They tortured their own sports people when they lost an athletic event. I'm sure they would've shunned anti-American terrorism though.

Yes, perhaps they would have - since they wouldn't want their rules to be interrupted by a foreign invasion. Uday was borderline insane though, so I doubt it.

Neesh

07-05-2004, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
You ar either for us or against us.

Can you stop eating from the buffet of lies, just for a moment, put the spoons down, and TRY to enlighten yourself so that you can know the truth of whats going on in the world.

Do you know who was for us or against us? You mention Russia, Germany, and France. Opposition to the war was completely without historical precedent. In Europe it was so high that Secretary of “Defense” Donald Rumsfeld dismissed Germany and France as just the “old Europe,” plainly of no concern because of their disobedience.

A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine, found that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are dramatic.

Even countries whose leaders were "with us", it was AGAINST the WILL of THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Italy was on our side, that is, their leader Berlusconi, who was hoping to be 1/3 of the three B's: Bush-Blair-Berlusconi.... that is if he can stay out of jail. 80% of the Italian public though was opposed to the war.
Spain: 75% of the population was totally opposed to the war, according to a Gallop poll. Incidentally, not long after that terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain voted out that government that supported war against the will of the people.

According to the leading foreign policy analyst of Newsweek, much of the same is true for most of Europe. He reports that in Czechoslovakia, 2/3 of the population oppose participation in a war, while in Poland only 1/4 would support a war even if the UN inspectors “prove that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.” The Polish press reports 37% approval in this case, still extremely low, at the heart of the “new Europe.”

New Europe soon identified itself in an open letter in the Wall Street Journal: along with Italy, Spain, Poland and Czechoslovakia – the leaders, that is, not the people – it includes Denmark (with popular opinion on the war about the same as Germany, therefore “old Europe”), Portugal (53% opposed to war under any circumstances, 96% opposed to war by the US and its allies unilaterally), Britain (40% opposed to war under any circumstances, 90% opposed to war by the US and its allies unilaterally), and Hungary (no figures available).

Have you ever stopped to think about WHY the majority of the world is "against us"? Is it because American leaders are just that much smarter, or are genuine altruists while others aren't?
The reality is that France's continued stances against helping us in any way has shown that they are not with us- they are against us. WE were the ones that were minding our own business on 9-11. We had three thousand INNOCENT people cruelly killed on that day. We were wronged- not the other way around. I am black and white like that.
LOL... this isnt a funny issue at all, but the level of ignorance is just so absurd I had to chuckle. Black and white huh? First of all, were we really in fact "minding our own business" on the morning of 9/11? Surely someone who is a "news junkie" like yourself must be aware of the US support for terrorist states. (And there is no time to get into that issue... but the facts are quite easy to find.)
So, we were wronged (that is very true... no doubt one of the worst atrocities ever), but it doesnt work the other way around? What kind of moral code do you live by ?!?! Why do you not hold the US (our leaders that is) to the same standards that you hold others?

What is your opinion on Clinton's bombing of the pharmecutical plant in Sudan in 1998, which caused an estimated 10,000 deaths? I guess if someone had wiped out half of America's medical supplies and fertilzers, it would be a much worse crime, right?

Neesh

07-05-2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
The terrorists are all out to get us! they will ALL work together to bring us down. You cannot separate anyone out of this who hates us.

Oh my gosh, run for your lives! What color terror threat level are we at now, Lynn? I don't think you even know WHY people around the world hate us.

Do you even know the definition of the word "terrorism"? I agree with our leaders' definition of the term which is (as stated in a US Army manual):

"The calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to obtain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature."

I'm not sure what else to say that I havent said already.

JCR

07-05-2004, 07:37 PM

Lynn it also has to be said that going on about the 3000 innocent people becomes slightly hollow when you realize the minimum number of innocents slaughtered by coalition troops in Iraq currently stands at 11132. (Source www.iraqbodycount.net The actual figure is probably quite a bit higher than this, because unsurprisingly the US army is not keen to talk about this issue.)

Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

Lynn7

07-05-2004, 08:41 PM

Well with all of those great statistics about how the world hates us it just must be something we are doing wrong. I think that there is a lot of jealously regarding the US. Our lives are absolutely overflowing with blessings that otehr countries can only dream of. And we are a nation made up of ALL the other nations. People are desiring to live in our country. Our country is a represntative democracy. if you don't like the leadership, vote them out. If we have supported terrorist regimes it is usually becasue theya re ememies with one of our enemies. I don't like that but we are certainly not the only country that engages in this stuff.

Jim, after agreeing to conditions to prevent the US form finishing Iraq 1 Sadaam was shooting at our airplanes while they were patrolling. He was engaging in hostile acts. He constantly interfered with the Inspectors and finally kicked them out. When he finally allowed them back in he continued to play games.

I do realize that many of the terrorist groups do not get along and in fact many of the middle east countries do not get along. But the terrorist groups will join together to do us harm becasue they all hate us. Which terrorist group likes the US? They all hate us and will act against us whenever they can. Iran and Syria are thought to be sending over terrorists to Iraq even now. How many terrorists are on their way to the US?

I'm sorry you gyuys have a problem with going into iraq, but I am one of MILLIONS of people who beleive we did the right thing. It's different philosophies at work. You can't understand my thinking and to be honest I think you guys are all idealistic and think peace will find us if we just stay to ourselves and mind our own business. I don't beleive it for a minute- I think evil exists. It all seems so plain to me, just as your side seems plain to you. But both philosophies exist and it is good to hear the other side try to explain and maybe at some point going forward we can find some common ground.

Thrizzle

07-05-2004, 09:46 PM

I don't think the terrorists are calling for a jihad against the US because they are "jealous". Lets be real here, its got nothing to do with that. Also, just because millions believe in this war, it doesnt vaildate it. Just as many people disagree with the war, and globally, there is overwhelming majority against.

And concerning Iraqi civilian casualties, one aspect of the occupation that gets overlooked is this: The US is detaining thousands and thousands of Iraqi men. The estimated amount of innocents being detained (and apparently mistreated) is OVER 90%. A little disturbing don't you think?

But bottom line is this: When you look at the threat Iraq imposed, there was none, or it was minimal. They weren't even the biggest threat in the region......hell, they wouldn't even crack the top 3 most dangerous countries in that region. WE KNOW IRAN IS TRYING TO BUILD NUKES.....but do they have oil?

Neesh

07-05-2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well with all of those great statistics about how the world hates us it just must be something we are doing wrong.
and then you say:
I'm sorry you gyuys have a problem with going into iraq, but I am one of MILLIONS of people who beleive we did the right thing.

What the fcuk ?
I thought there might be hope for you, thats why I bothered spending alot of time giving you facts and statistics..... so that you might, just might stop and re-think things for a minute, and try and become enlightened. But no, youre stubborn headed, ignorant, brainwashed, and you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. How can you expect anyone here to take your arguments seriously when you contradict yourself, even within the same post. PATHETIC. People like YOU are the reason why the majority of the world hates America. It is obviously futile to try and talk sense with you, but I tried... I tried to put my hand out to you and point you in the right direction, but you just don't give a shit. You have absolutely no moral values whatsoever, and that is extremely sad. :(

How does that saying go Lynn, "Fool me once, _______________ " ?

Have I commited a schmoe-paux here? Well, good. At least no one will die from it.

SLAW

07-05-2004, 11:50 PM

I'm sorry Neesh, but you gotta go.

Neesh

07-06-2004, 01:47 AM

I owe Lynn7 an apology. I really am sorry Lynn, I shouldn't have said those harsh things. What I SHOULD have done, is just ignore you. I can't say I've followed your postings before, but now I certainly see a pattern in the things you say. I really did intend to help enlighten you, but I guess I failed.
I had what I think are very good reasons for saying the things I said, in such a harsh manner. I take very FEW things in life seriously... such as movies, which bring me alot of joy. That's just art, just entertainment. But this is the POLITICS forum, and this thread in particular is about very serious issues. This isnt "who should be on the $10 bill", or "fake patriotism". What we're talking about here are issues that affect whether some people will live or die. Some people care more than others, and my perspective is no doubt shaped by the fact a great terrorist atrocity killed 3000 people a mile and a half from my home. I just dont want anything like that to happen again, and its really, really frustrating to see ignorance perpetuating itself.
In the Politics forum, on serious issues, I would expect schmoes to make constructive posts. When I see schmoes making hypocritical remarks within the same post and turning a blind eye to things brought up...... well, it's frustrating. I guess I got a little carried away with my response.

Lynn, feel free to respond to me in this thread, and say EXACTLY what's on your mind, no matter how harsh it is. I PROMISE I won't get upset, and nobody better call for her bannage either. ;)
I've got it coming, I can take it. In fact, all schmoes can feel free to verbally abuse me for the atrocities I have commited, tell me how wrong I am, break out the proverbial pliers and blowtorches and put me in my place.

Of course I'd rather see level-headed, open minded, and reasoned discourse on the issues at hand.... if I don't see that, I guess I'll just take a deep breath, and check out the "Actors/actresses you've jerked off to the most" thread.

Ultrahumanite

07-06-2004, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by JCR
Repeat after me:

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq

Very good. Now repeat after me:

Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and in fact expressly said they didn't.

Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and in fact expressly said they didn't.

Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and in fact expressly said they didn't.

Now repeat after the 9/11 commission:

There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that.

There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that.

There's really very little difference between what our staff found, what the administration is saying today and what the Clinton administration said. The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al- Qaeda and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that.

(As explained by 9/11 commissioner John Lehman on "Meet the Press")

Now I feel better.

:rolleyes:

JCR

07-06-2004, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
Very good. Now repeat after me:

Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and in fact expressly said they didn't.

Well OK. I posted my post because I wasn't sure lynn7 was 100% clear on that point. Thank you for backing me up. ;)

Lynn7

07-06-2004, 08:38 PM

Neesh,
I am OK with what you said. The thing I don't understand is why there is so much hostility on the part of people who didn't agree with the decision to go to Iraq. You are not the only person who has been hostile to my point of view. i am only pointing out that I am certainly not alone in my support of Bush- there are millions who think exactly like I do. The country is deeply divided over this issue and I am only representing to you the way that I believe. I do not take my position lightly as I am sure that you do not. I have given a lot of thought to all of these issues but being different people we come up with different conclusions, that is all. I'm cool.

Lynn7

07-06-2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by JCR
Well OK. I posted my post because I wasn't sure lynn7 was 100% clear on that point. Thank you for backing me up. ;)

I'm clear that Bush never tried to connect 9-11 with Iraq but that it was important to begin to set a new tone after that day of don't mess with us.

Lynn7

07-06-2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I don't think the terrorists are calling for a jihad against the US because they are "jealous". Lets be real here, its got nothing to do with that. Also, just because millions believe in this war, it doesnt vaildate it. Just as many people disagree with the war, and globally, there is overwhelming majority against.

And concerning Iraqi civilian casualties, one aspect of the occupation that gets overlooked is this: The US is detaining thousands and thousands of Iraqi men. The estimated amount of innocents being detained (and apparently mistreated) is OVER 90%. A little disturbing don't you think?

But bottom line is this: When you look at the threat Iraq imposed, there was none, or it was minimal. They weren't even the biggest threat in the region......hell, they wouldn't even crack the top 3 most dangerous countries in that region. WE KNOW IRAN IS TRYING TO BUILD NUKES.....but do they have oil?

I knew if I used that word "jealousy" that it would be distasteful but it is just a common human emotion that we all deal with. Some people will hate the best basketball team simply becasue it is the best. many people will routinely root for the underdog. It's the human way. I'm sure some people in the world have genuine reasons to hate us for some of the deals the US has done in the past. But all of the countries engage in their little intrigues. I don't like it or excuse it but we just need to vote for leaders who best represent what we believe in.

I agree that we could have not gone into Iraq. That was another way of dealing with the situation. I was scared to death as our troops were going into that country. But, I think that it was the right thing to do. I agree that the Iraqi people were not a threat to us but I think SAdaam was a threat and his psychopathic sons were a bigger threat. we will never know what might have happened if we hadn't gone in. Maybe nothing but I do beleive that if Sadaam had fully complied that we would not have gone in. I saw his behavior as taunting us and since the world watched us to see how we would deal with his behavior, I feel we had to do what we said. I'm sure you disagree but that is my feeling on the issue.

jeo4

07-07-2004, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Point taken. It's George Bush Sr.'s fault for not finishing the job.

Nope...it's Bill Clinton's fault...possibly the most 'do-nothing' president to ever set foot in the oval office. Al Qaeda struck against us three (count 'em...THREE) times before W. even went to work, and after his dad left office.

Raymond Babbit

07-07-2004, 09:20 AM

You know I keep hearing people say that terrorists and other countries hate us cause of our freedom. Now, to me, this seems kinda arrogant. It' a perfect example of what other countries have been saying about us: we think we're bigger and better than everyone else. Also, what freedom? With the Patriot Act now, we don't have a lot of freedom anymore.

I think the real reason they hate us is not jealousy, but anger over our history. Let's face it, since the beginning, the U.S. has had a history of doing bad things to other countries. We've overthrown popular governments, imprisoned people for no reason, supported brutal dictators, gotten involved in conflicts we had no right to be involved in, and in Afghanistan, didn't we promise the Taliban we'd help them rebuild after the Soviets left? And what did we do? We left. that is the reason the terrorists hate us, our history, not our freedom. If they were jealous of our freedom, they could just move here and share it with us. Instead they feel they need to have revenge for something our country did to them in the past. I know some people on this board will probably brand me as unpatriotic or un-American for pointing this stuff out, cause that's happened to me before, but I don't care anymore.

jeo4

07-07-2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by JCR
Have you even seen BFC? Moore never said it was wasn't the murders fault. He certainly didn't blame Lockheed or the NRA. If there was anything in BFC that was untrue the NRA would have sued instantly. Why didn't they? And do try to remember that moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. And if doubt anyone found "senile old Charleton Heston funny" It's one of the least funny scenes in movie history. "...gives my party a chance to take back the White House" I doubt moore is a member of the democrat party. He didn't support them at the last election, BFC criticises clinton for giving the teleban money and bombing asprin factories. He may be with 'em now but imo it's just in "an enemys enemy is my friend" type of way.

And you can go on shouting about whatever weapons Iraq had in the 90s (which BTW the usa sold to them) but the fact remains there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq in the run up to gulf war 2. And that fact my friend is more damaging to the USA than a million michael moore movies ever could be.

OMG! You're right! The U.S. used to be *GASP*...allies with Iraq! We even gave them WMD's when they fought with Iran! What bastards we must be for being friends with them in the first place! And when did that end? When Iraq invaded Kuwait and began pillaging and raping. Does this not come off as completely obvious? And what did the U.N. discover on tape that the U.S. DID NOT GIVE THEM? Right! A chemical weapons laboratory! They were told to relinquish their WMD's as a direct result of the first Gulf War. And on a tape broadcast all over the free world, U. N. weapons inspectors caught them red-handed trying to hide the lab on back of a tractor trailer. And when Clinton could have rectified the problem, he didn't because it would have made him look bad because he was getting head in the oval office. Wag The Dog, indeed. And while Iraq may have hastily gotten rid of it's WMD's before inspectors could find them again, THEY DID HAVE THEM. No offense, JCR, but Moore hasn't told the truth about anything that would blow cannonball sized holes in his bullshit. And I am not blind to his political motivation.

As for BFC, I saw it. I saw Moore trying to make a very slanted point against guns and against the NRA. And why would the NRA waste time and money suing this asshole when his points are so laughable to begin with? That would be completely stupid. And no, the man never said Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold weren't responsible for the attack at Columbine, but he never once addressed the issue objectively. It was instantly a propaganda ad for gun control. Where did parents and teachers go wrong? Why did these two half-wits with a chip on their shoulder plan such a mean spirited attack and then kill themselves? And why did nobody ever notice? And was this a subject of Moore's film? No...like this isn't the completely obvious issue! Come on, you've got to be kidding me. And he DID attack the NRA and Lockheed. Lockheed doesn't even manufacture guns in that plant! He ignores the mental instability and hate spewing out of these kids mouths for years before they attacked their classmates. People aren't ignorant of the facts. Why he's pretending otherwise baffles me.

jeo4

07-07-2004, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by JCR
Lynn it also has to be said that going on about the 3000 innocent people becomes slightly hollow when you realize the minimum number of innocents slaughtered by coalition troops in Iraq currently stands at 11132. (Source www.iraqbodycount.net The actual figure is probably quite a bit higher than this, because unsurprisingly the US army is not keen to talk about this issue.)

Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

Um...and who said these people were innocent? Are they civilians or soldiers? And why do you insist upon villifying the coalition when they are doing the job they are told to do? You're assuming that the lives that the coalition has taken are "innocent" when they are in this war every bit as much as (if not more than) the coalition. The 3000 people who died at the hands of terrorists were not soldiers and they had no idea they were being attacked. There is a huge difference. How you can lump the two together is beyond me.

Raymond Babbit

07-07-2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
And no, the man never said Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold weren't responsible for the attack at Columbine, but he never once addressed the issue objectively. It was instantly a propaganda ad for gun control. Where did parents and teachers go wrong? Why did these two half-wits with a chip on their shoulder plan such a mean spirited attack and then kill themselves? And why did nobody ever notice? And was this a subject of Moore's film? No...like this isn't the completely obvious issue! Come on, you've got to be kidding me. And he DID attack the NRA and Lockheed. Lockheed doesn't even manufacture guns in that plant! He ignores the mental instability and hate spewing out of these kids mouths for years before they attacked their classmates. People aren't ignorant of the facts. Why he's pretending otherwise baffles me.

I can't believe people are still asking why they did that. It should be obvious that it's because they were picked on so much, they snapped. The main blame lays on society.

JCR

07-07-2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Um...and who said these people were innocent? Are they civilians or soldiers? And why do you insist upon villifying the coalition when they are doing the job they are told to do? You're assuming that the lives that the coalition has taken are "innocent" when they are in this war every bit as much as (if not more than) the coalition. The 3000 people who died at the hands of terrorists were not soldiers and they had no idea they were being attacked. There is a huge difference. How you can lump the two together is beyond me.

jeo4, do you mean to tell me you believe the usa could drop thousands of pounds of explosives on iraq and only kill the people the usa wanted to? Course they fucking couldn't. The bombs are nowhere near accurate enough. And yes if the usa is slaughtering innocent people I feel you can compare it to 9/11. Watch the footage in F9/11 of the children who had they're faces burnt off by the coalition bombing. Do you think they were terrorists?

Lynn7

07-07-2004, 04:32 PM

But I think that we have been very good about trying to pinpoint bombs to minimize civilian casualties. Fallujah could've been decimated-problem solved.

As far as us getting into intrigues around the world we really tried to stay out of world affairs for a lot of our history. We stayed out of WW2 until they bombed us and we got pulled inot that conflict. After that we did start getting embroiled in world business and that has been a shame. But considering how powerful we became as a country we hve been pretty darn good- contributing zillions of our money to countries in need of aid. Sometimes some strings were attached but oh well.

Overall we try to do the right thing. We do not go around conquering other nations to take control like so many other countries in history have done. We didn't take over Sadaams oil the first time and not the second. Even though we are paying thru the nose for our oil. Even though we have spent so much of our money to get rid of SSadaam Bush tries to go around and have other countries forgive Iraq's debts so they can have an easier time of rebuilding. So many of theother nice countries refuse to forgiveI raq's debts. That is OK but they should not imply we are not a good country. we are a great country.

JCR

07-07-2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
But I think that we have been very good about trying to pinpoint bombs to minimize civilian casualties. Fallujah could've been decimated-problem solved.

Heh. I don't think so lynn. If you'd done that every religious leader in iraq would have called for jihad, and the usa would be looking at vietnam part 2.

Oh and you say the usa wiping iraqs debts is a good thing. Well maybe it is but the usa didn't really have a choice. Iraq couldn't afford to pay those debts. What was the usa going to do, send debt collectors round to iraq? Ha.

Jim H

07-07-2004, 07:53 PM

Are they civilians or soldiers? And why do you insist upon villifying the coalition when they are doing the job they are told to do? You're assuming that the lives that the coalition has taken are "innocent" when they are in this war every bit as much as (if not more than) the coalition. The 3000 people who died at the hands of terrorists were not soldiers and they had no idea they were being attacked. There is a huge difference. How you can lump the two together is beyond me.

That 11000ish number is civilians, not soldiers.

At least it's a much lower number than in the first war, where estimates ranged beyond 50,000 in civilians alone.

Thrizzle

07-07-2004, 08:31 PM

Correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't we taken over the Iraqi oil? I mean, the Iraqi's certainly don't control it. A big issue was Iraqi firms complaining Halliburton getting every single contract without bidding.

jeo4

07-08-2004, 12:50 PM

jeo4

07-08-2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by JCR
jeo4, do you mean to tell me you believe the usa could drop thousands of pounds of explosives on iraq and only kill the people the usa wanted to? Course they fucking couldn't. The bombs are nowhere near accurate enough. And yes if the usa is slaughtering innocent people I feel you can compare it to 9/11. Watch the footage in F9/11 of the children who had they're faces burnt off by the coalition bombing. Do you think they were terrorists?

Of course not. That's just stupid. War is devastating to anyone involved. But 9/11 was a sneak attack on nothing BUT civilians, none of whom had any idea what was about to happen.

And so you can seriously compare a sneak attack to a war? And no, I don't think that innocent lives (especially those of children) deserve to be ruined. However, let's be completely realistic about this. 9/11 was nothing short of a Pearl Harbor style attack. Until that moment, we weren't even considering going to war.

Did Bush take this war too far? Yep. No doubt we pretty much abandoned Afghanistan and we still have no news of Osama's demise or capture. (Save for a Pakistan report that he "died"...rigghhht. No body, no other news organizations confirming the story.) So why did we invade Iraq? Probably because W. was told to finish what Dad started ion 1991. Plain and simple. Bush Sr. did more than nudge W. in that direction. I'm sure he pushed the issue hard. Still, I can honestly say the intent was completely different for the United States than al Qaeda who just sent a handful of their own to destroy lives without any rhyme or reason. You will never convince me otherwise.

Lynn7

07-08-2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Correct me if i'm wrong, but haven't we taken over the Iraqi oil? I mean, the Iraqi's certainly don't control it. A big issue was Iraqi firms complaining Halliburton getting every single contract without bidding.

From what I've heard the Iraq people were in no condition to start up oil productioin since it had been controlled by Sadaam and he was out of business. I heard Halliburton was the only company big enough to hit the ground running and get the oil up and going.

QUENTIN

07-08-2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Neesh,
The thing I don't understand is why there is so much hostility on the part of people who didn't agree with the decision to go to Iraq.

Because if our side is wrong, the worst that happens is a dictator would still be in charge of a country. As there are all over the world, including in my opinion, the U.S. (an underhanded coup took place to get Bush into the White House. Stealing an election with white-collar guerilla tactics then acting unilaterally and against most of the world on such a vast array of issues, and nullifying the votes of a country's people in order to spend four years passing self-serving laws makes one a dictator). Whereas if your side is wrong, we kill tens of thousands of people and lose thousands of people both in the war and later in vengeful terrorist reactions for no good reason. Hostility often arises from the desire not to be killed.

Though funnily enough, while Neesh was certainly hostile, I find 95% of the hostility to be on the right side. Occasionally you get the hot-headed grad student who will scream "fascist" at you or spraypaint your mink coat, but I don't think it's the left-wing that goes around killing doctors, bombing buildings, beating people who "look foreign", and stockpiling weapons. One of the leftist ideals involves peace as a goal, something I don't feel the right shares.

To me, the saddest thing of all about this whole issue is how little the right seems to care about lives that aren't American. Why is 3000 dead (quite bad) so incredibly horrible and deserving of more vengeance than over 300,000 dead (inarguably worse) in Afghanistan since we broke our deal with them at the end of the cold war and Iraq in the two invasions and with our decision to starve its people. Murder and violence are always wrong, I'm a pacifist and believe taking a human life is the worst thing someone can do. But if anything, many terrorists have more legitimacy in their reasoning than the Bush administration to bomb buildings. You read me right, you can tell me to cornhole myself at Abu Ghraib now.

Ultrahumanite

07-08-2004, 04:51 PM

QUENTIN, let me share with you the wors of Thomas Jefferson:

The justest dispositions possible in ourselves, will not secure us against it [war]. It would be necessary that all other nations were just also. Justice indeed, on our part, will save us from those wars which would have been produced by a contrary disposition. But how can we prevent those produced by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish often prevents them.

and the words of Carl von Clausewitz:

The fact that slaughter [battle] is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but [it does] not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.

Lynn7

07-08-2004, 06:52 PM

Here's another one:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States … George Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945.

SLAW

07-08-2004, 07:09 PM

You two are just so fucking adorable. I think you two should get married. :D

Lynn7

07-08-2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Because if our side is wrong, the worst that happens is a dictator would still be in charge of a country. As there are all over the world, including in my opinion, the U.S. (an underhanded coup took place to get Bush into the White House. Stealing an election with white-collar guerilla tactics then acting unilaterally and against most of the world on such a vast array of issues, and nullifying the votes of a country's people in order to spend four years passing self-serving laws makes one a dictator). Whereas if your side is wrong, we kill tens of thousands of people and lose thousands of people both in the war and later in vengeful terrorist reactions for no good reason. Hostility often arises from the desire not to be killed.

Though funnily enough, while Neesh was certainly hostile, I find 95% of the hostility to be on the right side. Occasionally you get the hot-headed grad student who will scream "fascist" at you or spraypaint your mink coat, but I don't think it's the left-wing that goes around killing doctors, bombing buildings, beating people who "look foreign", and stockpiling weapons. One of the leftist ideals involves peace as a goal, something I don't feel the right shares.

If your side is wrong then the Hussein family could hve conspired with terrorists as a nation with the power of a nation's oil. If we did not hold them to their commitments to the resolutions we would have lost all of our power int he world. If we were not willing to follow through then that would've empowered the Husseins like never before.

I've said it before but I see the election stealing totally differently. As soon as up to a week before the election gore was running aat least 10-15 points behind Bush and then suddely the week before Dem opereratives released information form when Bush was a lot younger about a drunk driving arrest- they deliberately held that info to the end (which of course was their right) that shook people's confindence in Bush and evened the polling immediately.

Then there were a lot of very shady voting things going on. In Ashcroft's state the polls were opened for like 3 extra hours form what they should have been A democratic area voting much longer than other areas in a swing state. In many other areas people were voting twice and even dead people were voting. How about eh Dem operatives that visited nursing homes and filled out the ballots for people. How about the media calling the election before the panhandle in Florida had their polls closed due to a different time period which they had been warned not to do (the people in this area are predominantly Repubs. And then after the election they were trying to count Gore votes that were not punched if the other punchings on the ballot were Democrat as if it couldn't have been a non-vote. I ahve left votes empty at times when I cannot decide and the elections was so close that many people interviewed the day before the election still didn't decide how they were going to vote. And then the Dems only wnated a recount of 4 primarily Dem counties so they could get just enough votes to win-not the entire state which would've been fair. adn anyway the entire state was counted after the election and observed by amny media outlets who proclaimed that Bush was indeed the win.

As far as the right wing going around killing people, we are not doing that. There have been one or two doctors that have been killed by extremists who believed that they were saving the lives of thousands of babies by taking out an abortion doctor. If the right was really about killing then why are there a million abortions performed each year? And why does the left hold pro-lifers to a different standard then the PETA people? They all have the rights to their opinions-PETA beleives that animals are being unfairly slaughtered and have blown up places in protest.

There are zealots on both sides. To say that the people on the right go around stockpiling weapons and beating people who look foreign- that is not what we believe in. We beleive in peace THROUGH STRENGTH and many of the churhes routinely sponsor foreigners to enter the country. We do not beat them up. Please don't take few screwballs and say that they represent the conservatives. What about the lefts' zealots that have done a lot of destruction so that the people of Atlanta were afraid that there historic landmarks would be destroyed. There are crazy people on both sides. and some people are simply using any excuse to strike out at society or or anarchists.

countchocula

07-08-2004, 07:30 PM

Conservatives are so comfortable with violence, that it frightens me. There wouldn't have been so many anti-war protests if we were actually going after the guy who caused 9/11. It's not war itself that irks certain people; it's just this war in particular. And I'm convinced that bellicose conservatives simply don't care about the loss of Iraqi citizens. If I break into someone's home unexpectedly and kill everyone there, it's wrong. If I break into someone's home, announce that I'm there, and then kill everyone, it's remissible.

???????????????????????

Thrizzle

07-08-2004, 08:33 PM

LOL. Just because you oppose the IRaq war doesn't mean you're a pacifist.

We just believe it's unnecessary.

Jim H

07-08-2004, 09:29 PM

If we did not hold them to their commitments to the resolutions we would have lost all of our power int he world.

How do you figure? Last I checked we're still by far the most powerful nation in the world.

PETA beleives that animals are being unfairly slaughtered and have blown up places in protest.

No they haven't. Point to one such example. PETA does a lot of stupid things, but as far as I know, blowing up buildings is not one of them. There are other groups that have though. Incidentally, none of the animal rights cases of arson and such have caused a human death as of yet.

We beleive in peace THROUGH STRENGTH

I don't think that will work. At this point, I don't know what will, but peace-through-war seems highly unlikely for long term peace.

BTW, I don't understand how so many Christians are soldiers and pro-war. I don't recall Jesus giving any allowances for when it is ok to kill people, maybe I just missed it?

Lynn7

07-09-2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Jim H
How do you figure? Last I checked we're still by far the most powerful nation in the world.

No they haven't. Point to one such example. PETA does a lot of stupid things, but as far as I know, blowing up buildings is not one of them. There are other groups that have though. Incidentally, none of the animal rights cases of arson and such have caused a human death as of yet.

I don't think that will work. At this point, I don't know what will, but peace-through-war seems highly unlikely for long term peace.

BTW, I don't understand how so many Christians are soldiers and pro-war. I don't recall Jesus giving any allowances for when it is ok to kill people, maybe I just missed it?

We are the most powerful nation in the world but if we never act then we have no power. The terrorists never beleived we would act. They called us a name (paper tiger comes to mind but I'm not sure that that is right) what the word they called us meant that we were too afraid to lose American lives. They beleived us to be soft. America's power is like Israels power. It is held in check for only the very biggest threat. Under what circumstances would we ever use a nuclear weapon? The terrorists know that.

PETa or someone belonging to taht group recently blew up a laboratory. No one was hurt but that is a matter of time. They also have the reputation for spraying people's mink coats with red paint. Not very nice, IMO. Or recently were't they handing out pamphlet's to children saying tht their parents were murderers for wearing an animal skin or something crazy like that. There are zealots on BOTH sides. Most pro-lifers I know would rather kill themselves before they killed another.

Christians are not pro-war. But they do beleive in the bible and the bible teaches many things about fighting. We beleive in fighting when we are under attack. We beleive in fighting to help the oppressed. We beleive in fighting for our faith. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek and to be peaceful and pray for our enemies but he also said he did not come to change the Old Testament- he came to fulfill it. The very end of the world in the bible is all about how Jesus is going to come and do away with the enemy (Satan etc) so the bottom line about Christianity is that a beleiver studies the bible and does not take certain scriptures out of context. They understand the entire message and then everything makes sense. The more I study the bible the clearer everything becomes. The simpler life is. People do mock Christians for being simplistic but the bible also says this:

Mt 11:25 -
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."

God gets a kick out of the "wisdom" of people. He says that His ways are higher than our ways. Anyway he thinks its funny when people make life so complicated and crazy when His "infants" are the ones who trust in him and recognize that He is the only one who knows all this stuff. When he says "the wise and intelligent" he is not complimenting these people! It is tongue and cheek. Or tongue in cheek?

The Old Testament is loaded with wars and God will actually tell His people to fight and kill. They never start anything- they kill when they are threatened.

JCR

07-09-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Here's another one:

George Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945.

Lynn I don't think quoting orwell is a great idea because he said a load of things that can be used to back up almost any political point- there are long orwell quotes in Dude WMC and F911. Also it's slightly ironic you're using orwell to defend bush, seeing as orwell was a hardcore left winger. Also Orwell was no doubt talking about hitler and WW2 in that quote, which is a whole different kettle of fish from gulf war 2.

Slightly off topic but if anyone here hasn't read 1984 and animal farm you should do so right fucking now. You need them like you need you're brain.

JCR

07-09-2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
they kill when they are threatened.

Right I don't really wanna go here but wtf. Lynn7 Iraq never actually threatened the usa. And doesn't that senate report today actually say that the war (and therefore bush, seeing as he started it) has made the risk of terrorist attacks on the usa worse :confused:

Thrizzle

07-09-2004, 02:29 PM

/\

Also:

CIA gave false report on Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=espionage_and_intelligence)

And, there is an estimated 20,000 Iraqi insurgents.....but thats off the record. (On the record means, for political gain)

Jim H

07-09-2004, 07:04 PM

Under what circumstances would we ever use a nuclear weapon?

There isn't one. I can't think of a single scenario where using modern nuclear weapons is justified. They're pretty much incredibly foolish doomsday devices.

We beleive in fighting when we are under attack. We beleive in fighting to help the oppressed. We beleive in fighting for our faith. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek and to be peaceful and pray for our enemies but he also said he did not come to change the Old Testament- he came to fulfill it.

That's exactly my point. They're irreconcilable, to me. All the old rituals and old laws are apparently gone in Christianity, so what is he fulfilling? I assumed he meant prophecies.

They never start anything- they kill when they are threatened.

The historical wars of the Jews say otherwise. THey came into an area and then conquered because they wanted land (like Bashan), repeated a few times, then were conquered themselves. The same as pretty much every notable people in the region at that time.

"Defensive" actions along the line of invading Poland or France, I guess.

But anyways... I'm going to leave the religious debate as it is getting too offtopic.

Lynn7

07-09-2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by JCR
Lynn I don't think quoting orwell is a great idea because he said a load of things that can be used to back up almost any political point- there are long orwell quotes in Dude WMC and F911. Also it's slightly ironic you're using orwell to defend bush, seeing as orwell was a hardcore left winger. Also Orwell was no doubt talking about hitler and WW2 in that quote, which is a whole different kettle of fish from gulf war 2.

Slightly off topic but if anyone here hasn't read 1984 and animal farm you should do so right fucking now. You need them like you need you're brain.

I think it's effective to use the writing of someone who is respected on the left. There are times when force is necessary to preserve our freedom.

Lynn7

07-09-2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by JCR
Right I don't really wanna go here but wtf. Lynn7 Iraq never actually threatened the usa. And doesn't that senate report today actually say that the war (and therefore bush, seeing as he started it) has made the risk of terrorist attacks on the usa worse :confused:

I really disagree that we are worse off- we had no personal intelligence in Iraq before the war (I think the report mentioned this problem)and now we have hundreds or even thousands of people connecting over there. EAch of the 140,000 soldiers over there has potentially made a connection that might lead to terrorist info.and all of the terrorists that they have captured over there can be interrogated which may lead to some good info. If we had started this all I would be with you 100% but after 9-11 I realized that all of their attacks were escalating.and if the last plane had not been overcome with brave passengers our congress might've been killed which might've casued some chaos in our country.

Lynn7

07-09-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Jim H
There isn't one. I can't think of a single scenario where using modern nuclear weapons is justified. They're pretty much incredibly foolish doomsday devices.

That's exactly my point. They're irreconcilable, to me. All the old rituals and old laws are apparently gone in Christianity, so what is he fulfilling? I assumed he meant prophecies.

The historical wars of the Jews say otherwise. THey came into an area and then conquered because they wanted land (like Bashan), repeated a few times, then were conquered themselves. The same as pretty much every notable people in the region at that time.

"Defensive" actions along the line of invading Poland or France, I guess.

But anyways... I'm going to leave the religious debate as it is getting too offtopic.

Well the entire bible fits together as a whole. It is hard to take each thing and address it out of context. Since you don't want to go there, I won't. One more thing- Jesus did fulfill the prophecies but there is an overall plan that is being fulfilled as we speak.