Fahrenheit 9/11 - Thoughts only if you've seen it.

[quote name='pete5883'][quote name='ZForce915']I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.[/quote]

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.[/quote]

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their fucking job!!!
 
[quote name='Storamin']i have a small penis[/quote]

who are you and why are you trolling this thread, no one here cares how small your penis is ^^
 
[quote name='Indiana'][quote name='pete5883'][quote name='ZForce915']I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.[/quote]

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.[/quote]

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their shaq-fuing job!!![/quote]

i think each member of congress should have 2 or 3 assistants to read the bills for them and give them a summary of what its about. blindly voting on any law is just idotic.
 
[quote name='Indiana'][quote name='pete5883'][quote name='ZForce915']I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.[/quote]

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.[/quote]

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their shaq-fuing job!!![/quote]

In a postition of power you can and should delegate responsibility to your staff. There's not much room for interpretation in bills, they're legal documents. Stuff is spelled out thoroughly and so long as the people you set to interpret them for you have some legal background you're going to get a good summary from them as to what the bill is about. And their job isn't to read the bills. It's to understand the bill and determine how to vote to best benefit their constituents.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Indiana'][quote name='pete5883'][quote name='ZForce915']I was suprised to hear a member of congress actually say outright "we don't actually read everything that we vote on. Do you know how long that would take?"

Scary.[/quote]

Some bills are ridiculously long, they obviously can't take the time to sit around and read legalese all the time. Just because they haven't read the bill doesn't mean they don't know what it's about.[/quote]

That makes me feel better. I can see it now. Well I read it this way and told 100 people to vote on it because of how I saw it. Since they didn't actually read it they voted. We found out later that the person who read it was wrong and we voted for the wrong thing. Now we have a crappy law.... There is no reason for them to not be reading the bills!!!! It's their shaq-fuing job!!![/quote]

i think each member of congress should have 2 or 3 assistants to read the bills for them and give them a summary of what its about. blindly voting on any law is just idotic.[/quote]

I think you're being too conservative with that 2 or 3 guess. I'd say 2-3 per bill.
 
[quote name='coolz481']Now I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly or his show, but the constant labeling of Fox News as right-wing is really tiresome. I don't understand why Democrats can't tolerate a channel that employs more than one token conservative.

CNN's idea of balance is having Sens. Hagel, McCain or Collins on to represent Republicans when they all differ with Bush and the RNC on major issues involving war, tax policy and the environment. CBS's and NBC's main news personalities were all former chiefs of staff for Democratic congressmen and ABC's Sunday anchor was part of Clinton's famous 1992 'war room.'

As to Michael Moore's movie, I think it touches on some very important subjects, particularly U.S./Saudi Arabia relations. I think all citizens, Republican or Democrat, should educate themselves about the 'royal' family that has the audacity to name an entire country after themselves. I do think Bush's tactics have been mistaken, but I think the ultimate project, transforming the middle east into functioning democracies, is a worthy goal. I only hope there is some way to make a smoother transition to that goal. Maybe John Kerry has a plan to do that, but I sure haven't read it or heard about it yet.[/quote]

A diplomatic, well-thought out post that acknowledges both sides.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
 
Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

As for fox news being right wing biased, take a look at quinipiacs report, an independant report on the media. fox was 4% away from reporting neutral, while cnn, msnb, were over 30% to the left, abc and the other broadcast shows were 15% to the left, and the newpapers varied...i admit fox has several very strong right wing personalities on some of their shows..ie hannity is a much stronger personality then combs. Oreilly is for the most part independant, I don't trust him, he was run out of boston, due to making up stories. But they do put strong liberal people on in interviews. ie sp? juan williams, moria illanson, susan estridge....and they have some former liberal people in (sp?)laurie dew, and geraldo, and greta van sustren on their network.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

As for fox news being right wing biased, take a look at quinipiacs report, an independant report on the media. fox was 4% away from reporting neutral, while cnn, msnb, were over 30% to the left, abc and the other broadcast shows were 15% to the left, and the newpapers varied...i admit fox has several very strong right wing personalities on some of their shows..ie hannity is a much stronger personality then combs. Oreilly is for the most part independant, I don't trust him, he was run out of boston, due to making up stories. But they do put strong liberal people on in interviews. ie sp? juan williams, moria illanson, susan estridge....and they have some former liberal people in (sp?)laurie dew, and geraldo, and greta van sustren on their network.[/quote]


Bush and his adminstration consistantly link Iraq and 9/11 to make people believe that Sadaam was involved. There was a study done that showed that if you got most of your news from Fox, you were most likely to be misinformed about Iraq.

This is from Bush's "Mission Accomplished speech.
" The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)"
 
[quote name='"ryanbph"']Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

Watch the movie... You'll see Bush actually say this ... I can't remember what the actual quote was but yes, he did say Iraq and Saddam were tied to 9/11. I've heard this arguement before and it doesn't hold up. They said that Saddam and Al Queda were involved.
It was a few years ago, but people should still remember it.

As for the movie. I liked it. It was one sided but I can make up my own mind after seeing both sides. There are no denying the majority of facts from the movie. There is definitely a spin on some stuff, but I went in expecting that.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']This is from Bush's "Mission Accomplished speech.
" The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)"[/quote]

Please tell me this is not the "Bush linked Saddam to 9-11" evidence.

After 9-11, Bush said we would attack terror 'wherever it may be.' I took this to mean everywhere. I had visions of US forces helping British forces fight the IRA (should they resort to terrorism again).

Saddam harbored terrorists. There are allegedly (someone confirm maybe?) training camps in Iraq that featured aircraft, so terrorists could find the best way to take over a plane. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That last part was made very public a while back. Saddam-terror link established. Thus Saddam was included.

I have not seen anything from Bush where he says "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11" or anything close to it. The passage above only equates 9-11 with the terrorism we are fighting. If someone can provide a source that shows Bush making Saddam out to be behind 9-11, I will gladly agree with them that Bush is wrong for doing so.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks

The bush administration never stated that they were involved, if you are going to be makin up this, please have some proof. They said that they had a relationship, which is now being shown to be true, ala what president putin of russia said, and the recent documents that state the communication between the two.

As for fox news being right wing biased, take a look at quinipiacs report, an independant report on the media. fox was 4% away from reporting neutral, while cnn, msnb, were over 30% to the left, abc and the other broadcast shows were 15% to the left, and the newpapers varied...i admit fox has several very strong right wing personalities on some of their shows..ie hannity is a much stronger personality then combs. Oreilly is for the most part independant, I don't trust him, he was run out of boston, due to making up stories. But they do put strong liberal people on in interviews. ie sp? juan williams, moria illanson, susan estridge....and they have some former liberal people in (sp?)laurie dew, and geraldo, and greta van sustren on their network.[/quote]


Actually the 9/11 said there was no collaboration between Saddam and Osama. The only "relationship" they had was in the mid-90's Osama asked for Saddam's help, and he nevered answered them. Their relationship was one of hatred for each other. Saddam would kill or throw in prison any Al-queda he came across, while Osama was calling for the people to rise up and overthrow Sadaam.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='ZarathosNY']This is from Bush's "Mission Accomplished speech.
" The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)"[/quote]

Please tell me this is not the "Bush linked Saddam to 9-11" evidence.

After 9-11, Bush said we would attack terror 'wherever it may be.' I took this to mean everywhere. I had visions of US forces helping British forces fight the IRA (should they resort to terrorism again).




Saddam harbored terrorists. There are allegedly (someone confirm maybe?) training camps in Iraq that featured aircraft, so terrorists could find the best way to take over a plane. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That last part was made very public a while back. Saddam-terror link established. Thus Saddam was included.

I have not seen anything from Bush where he says "Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11" or anything close to it. The passage above only equates 9-11 with the terrorism we are fighting. If someone can provide a source that shows Bush making Saddam out to be behind 9-11, I will gladly agree with them that Bush is wrong for doing so.[/quote]

The training camps were not in a part of Iraq that Sadaam controlled. Sadaam was no threat. We went in to find WMD's. Guess what. We found none. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is falling apart, which is where we should have been concentrating. The Taliban and the warlordds are regaining control, and now Afghani production of poppies is higher now than before we invaded, which is a source of terrorist funding.

What I also said was that Bush & company consistantly said 9/11 and Iraq in the same speeches to get people to link the two together in their minds. Why else in polls would 60% of ppl believe that Sadaam has something to do with 9/11?
 
``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Saddam during a speech before the James Madison Institute, a conservative think tank based in Florida. ``He had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.''
 
[quote name='Noonan768']``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Saddam during a speech before the James Madison Institute, a conservative think tank based in Florida. ``He had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.''[/quote]

This is what I'm getting at. 'Ties to al-Qaeda' and 'behind 9-11' are two different things to me. Maybe in more context it's implied more forcibly, but the above statement is a very very weak implication.

BTW, as I said before, Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, so the patron of terrorism label above fits.
 
I am always confused as to how people think that Bush is doing a bad job on terrorism. Name one attack on US soil since 9/11. To me that's success. I am SURE they had plans for more attacks and I am sure they are PLANNING more of them. As long as Bush is ass kicking around the globe I feel a little safer. Everyone knows that Bush will destroy your entire country if you fuck with us. Seems smart to me. It's not like we are gonna jail you..no we fucking rock your entire world. I think too many people easily forget what 9/11 was and means. I personally witnessed plane 2 hit and it's something I see in my eyes every day. There could never be enough retribution for what they did.

As far as a link between Saddam and Osama...someone clearly stated that they did meet and that Osama asked for assistance. If they really hated each other so much then why would Osama do that. And just because no proof of it has been found doesnt mean it didnt happen. Also who knows if 9/11 didnt get better respect from Saddam for Osama and he wouldnt have taken him up on an offer of an alliance. Seems like after 9/11 you couldnt take Osama as some small time terrorist. He is top mother fucker #1. Saddam is top mother fucker #2. We got #2 out of the way at the very least.
 
[quote name='defender'] Name one attack on US soil since 9/11. To me that's success.[/quote]

i agree, thats a damn good thing, but do you credit this to the patroit act? to the wars we fought? or do u credit it to the hardwork of the police and cia who had forewarned of the sept 11th attacks anyways?
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='defender'] Name one attack on US soil since 9/11. To me that's success.[/quote]

i agree, thats a damn good thing, but do you credit this to the patroit act? to the wars we fought? or do u credit it to the hardwork of the police and cia who had forewarned of the sept 11th attacks anyways?[/quote]

This is a slippery slope. We can blame the president but give credit elsewhere? The whole 'find someone to blame' game is very tiresome. Makes me think of that scene in Rising Sun. I found it almost offensive at the time. Now it makes sense.

And with that I realize I have become much too serious, and also violated my 'no serious posts in political threads ever again' rule. I recuse myself from the rest of this thread (if there's more of it) as punishment, and return to my usual smartass ways.
 
[quote name='defender']Everyone knows that Bush will destroy your entire country if you shaq-fu with us.[/quote]

Unless you're from Saudi Arabia like most of the 9/11 terrorists.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='defender']Everyone knows that Bush will destroy your entire country if you shaq-fu with us.[/quote]

Unless you're from Saudi Arabia like most of the 9/11 terrorists.[/quote]

pwned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
[quote name='Storamin']The fact that Michael Moore, armed with lies and half-truths, can cause this kind of discussion makes me doubt in Americas future. Can you guys even reproduce, I thought there was a certain IQ level you had to have to function, maybe 5? The fact that you even listen to his opinions disgusts me. If I want the facts I'll listen to various news sources. Not some asshole celebrity.[/quote]

Typical agruement. He calls Michael Moore a liar, without ONE piece of evidence to support that statement.

News sources? I pity you if you think you can rely on the American media for constant accurate information. They show you want they want you to see. If you want real news, try BBC.com or some other source that can report on everything without bias.
 
[quote name='Noonan768']``He was a patron of terrorism,'' Cheney said of Saddam during a speech before the James Madison Institute, a conservative think tank based in Florida. ``He had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.''[/quote]

In 2000, C.Rice, VP Cheany and D. Rumsfelt all were quoted as saying the Saddam was "no threat" and was not capable of making WMDs. I'm not sure why he suddenly became such a big threat after 9/11. Oil maybe?
 
Defender-
I feel much less safe...name the biggest attack EVER on U.S. soil...9/11 and that was under Bush's ever so watchful eye. The people in charge do things without thinking. Bush may be a moron, but we've elected morons in the past. That's not his fault. My problem with him is his string of lies, his inability to be personally responsible for anything, his party's penchant for having a laissez faire attitude towards big business but wanting to be all hands on in our personal lives.

The biggest crime of all is how Bush has completely duped the right wing media that predominates this country. Those on the right like to pretend there's some sort of liberal media, but the truth of it is... we live in the most conservative of all modern countries. Our media is no exception. When they start talking about legalizing drugs, abolishing the death penalty and setting up government sponsored health programs for all then I'll START to listen to complaints of liberal media. Until then I will remember the way every word Clinton said was examined and held up to the light while every word Bush says is chuckled at and ignored.

What this country NEEDS is a truly liberal media to expose the numerous lies that have been propogated since bush took office.

I'll still shop at your online store, though.
 
[quote name='loserboy']Defender-
I feel much less safe...name the biggest attack EVER on U.S. soil...9/11 and that was under Bush's ever so watchful eye. The people in charge do things without thinking. Bush may be a moron, but we've elected morons in the past. That's not his fault. My problem with him is his string of lies, his inability to be personally responsible for anything, his party's penchant for having a laissez faire attitude towards big business but wanting to be all hands on in our personal lives.

The biggest crime of all is how Bush has completely duped the right wing media that predominates this country. Those on the right like to pretend there's some sort of liberal media, but the truth of it is... we live in the most conservative of all modern countries. Our media is no exception. When they start talking about legalizing drugs, abolishing the death penalty and setting up government sponsored health programs for all then I'll START to listen to complaints of liberal media. Until then I will remember the way every word Clinton said was examined and held up to the light while every word Bush says is chuckled at and ignored.

What this country NEEDS is a truly liberal media to expose the numerous lies that have been propogated since bush took office.

I'll still shop at your online store, though.[/quote]

:applause: Very well said.
 
Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.
 
The biggest crime of all is how Bush has completely duped the right wing media that predominates this country. Those on the right like to pretend there's some sort of liberal media, but the truth of it is... we live in the most conservative of all modern countries

I don't see where you get the media is right wing, as I stated earlier, the majority of the tv and print media is skewed dramatically to the left, that was an independant survey done by quinipiac. As for being the most conservative of all modern countries, I agree, that may be true, but we are also the best country to live in. I don't know of thousand of illegals, and legal residents moving to the other liberal nations of the earth. Our economy is bar far the best. If it is so bad to live in a conservative nation, then why are so many people trying to come here?

In 2000, C.Rice, VP Cheany and D. Rumsfelt all were quoted as saying the Saddam was "no threat" and was not capable of making WMDs. I'm not sure why he suddenly became such a big threat after 9/11. Oil maybe?

In 1998 President Clinton said Iraq was a threat, and stated the WMD, and potentially a nuclear threat, those were his reasons for bombing. I didn't have a problem with what he did then, nor do I have a problem with what Bush is doing..Clinton also went into Bosnia, without UN approval, in the 1990's. He claimed it was a mass genocide, and we needed to go. Well the numbers of those killed were terribly overstated, and he also said we would be their 6months, and we are still their, and yes they are still having problems...I agreed with bill clinton sending troops to bosnia.

As for attacking Iraq, and while they don't have any ties with 9/11, they did have al quida ties...if we waited 2, 3 or even 4 years without doing anything, how can you say with 100% proof, that we wouldn't be hit again as bad or worse then 9/11, with iraq having ties to it this time. No one can, and the 9/11 commision is all about why didn't we take care of this earlier, well we did take care of a potential threat earlier with iraq, and yet people still complain about it.

I have seen people talk about moores movie, and talk about how this administration instill fear in order to get what they want, ie the color coded threat system. Well if we get attacked, and the administration didn't warn us about it, their would be hell to pay, you can't please everyone I guess
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.[/quote]

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.[/quote]

Really? Because last time I checked, most of the people in the armed forces don't get to decide where they go, or why. Bush sent them to Iraq, and for what reason, exactly?

Defender - when you say that we'll whoop your country's ass if you "shaq-fu" with us, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that the Iraqis who were killed - the children, the women, are part of the retribution for 9/11? What did they do? Hell, what did their *country* do? Did we "shaq-fu" Saudi Arabia? I don't think we did. Did we even really go after Osama bin Laden after 9/11? It took two months to get the armed forces into Afghanistan, and even then, Bush was illegally diverting funds from the Afghanistan war into Iraq. How does that make us safer? Diverting funds from chasing the person we know was behind the attacks, to go after someone who had nothing to do with them? I feel a hell of a lot less safe.

seppo
 
[quote name='ryanbph']As for attacking Iraq, and while they don't have any ties with 9/11, they did have al quida ties...if we waited 2, 3 or even 4 years without doing anything, how can you say with 100% proof, that we wouldn't be hit again as bad or worse then 9/11, with iraq having ties to it this time. No one can, and the 9/11 commision is all about why didn't we take care of this earlier, well we did take care of a potential threat earlier with iraq, and yet people still complain about it.
[/quote]

Pretty bizarre. We weren't doing *anything* to Iraq? So containment wasn't working? Ah, yes. Because he was amassing a formidable army, and weapons of mass destruction, yeah? You can't prove something hasn't happened, so you can ask that question without fear of a reasonable response. You can't prove anything. You can't prove that Saudi Arabian nationals aren't planning an even larger attack right now. You can't prove that there's not a terrorist in your hometown about to poison the water supply. But you can look at the evidence of what has happened so far.

Containment was working with Hussein. We kept him from developing into a threat through monitoring, and inspections. Inspections that were underway until Bush stopped them. Fancy, that.

The 9/11 commission isn't about why we didn't take Iraq out earlier, dumbass, it's about how we let 9/11 happen, and the communication and organizational morass that caused us to miss the signs. If ANYTHING, the point was that the major threat isn't in state-sponsored terrorism, but the more insidious, hard to root-out NON state sponsored terrorism, which doesn't give us a hard target to fire back at.

seppo
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.[/quote]

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.[/quote]

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?
 
I don't know 'bout you guys, but I'm going to stop voting for the President whose political platform I agree most with. I'm going to start voting based on how much ass they whup and how many bitches they mack, so Kerry and Bush need to get started.
 
[quote name='suprsaiyanMAX'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.[/quote]

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.[/quote]

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?[/quote]

korea? vietnam? yeah those were great, wernt they?
 
tty bizarre. We weren't doing *anything* to Iraq? So containment wasn't working? Ah, yes. Because he was amassing a formidable army, and weapons of mass destruction, yeah? You can't prove something hasn't happened, so you can ask that question without fear of a reasonable response. You can't prove anything. You can't prove that Saudi Arabian nationals aren't planning an even larger attack right now. You can't prove that there's not a terrorist in your hometown about to poison the water supply. But you can look at the evidence of what has happened so far.

Weren't their al quida training camps in iraq, haven't several of their top people come thru iraq, before we got their? I have no problem with taking care of saudi arabia as well, one country at a time, but every presidency, democrat or republicain, treat saudi arabai the same..

If contaiment was working, then why after signing the intent of war with iraq, did both party members talk about the threat they posed, pulosi, daschle, kerry to frist and haster all talked about something needs to be done in iraq....and iraq how consitently tossed the weapon inspectors out of the country, hans blix had never found one illegal weapon in any country he went into, including north korea, ohh and when did saddam say he would let the inspectors back in, after he was threatened with force...

I don't see why you need to revert to name calling, I never said the 9/11 commisson was made to figure out why we haven't taken out iraq, I said the 9/11 commision was formed and has brought up instances where they said why wasn't this taken care of sooner, I thought by the name of the commission being the 9/11 commission, you would be able to conclude that they were investigating why/how 9/11 happened, if you weren't able to conclude that, I am sorry for not being more descriptive for you. No we don't have a hard target to fire back at, we have to get into nations that harbor these terrorist and clean them out, yes it is a dirty and messy military operation,
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.[/quote]

Actually, most of the poor shmoes over there right now are National Guard forces who never expected to have to wage professional war for what's going on a year plus. These are not people with U.S. Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine training. And the reason they're stuck there is because Bush (1) underestimated the number of troops he'd need to control Iraq and (2) knows it's political suicide to institute a draft to get our professional army up to the needed levels of personnel.

I love the fact that Bush ran in part on criticizing the preparedness of the military, and then proceeded to run it into the ground by fighting an unnecessary two-front war. Genius thinking.

And for all of you who are saying we needed to go into Iraq because there were terrorists there, then why aren't we invading Saudia Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, or Syria, which has known links to terror? Instead we invade Iraq, a country whose government has no terrorist connections but is led by a tinhorn dictator dumb enough to defy the U.S. of A.

And I say no terror connections because that's exactly what they've found. Saddam IGNORED bin Laden's request for help. Didn't even call back. Gave him the same response I give to a telemarketer's voice mail. And while there was an al Queda training camp in Kurdish-controlled northern Irag, guess what -- Bush had REPEATED opportunities to kill off Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the camp's leader. And he let them all slide. Why? Because he WANTED those camps there to justify the war. No camps, no war, so this guy -- who, btw, is the person who beheaded Nick Berg -- is still running loose, thanks to Bush.

Whatever Bush is in this for, it's not for protecting us.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='Storamin']i have a small penis[/quote]

who are you and why are you trolling this thread, no one here cares how small your penis is ^^[/quote]

Hey m8, I thought this thread was suppose to revolve around Michael Moore & his movie. I laid my opinion down. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it's an opinion. If you're going to insult me, at least insult my opinion. Why resort to stupid insults like that? Evidently your brain can't take thinking. Whatever size my penis is, I don't think it matters. Unless you can't keep your mind off it. Maybe you need a new profession, involving small children at your local church. Maybe in the future you'll get some money for yourself and realize why republicans are around. That, or you can probaly stay poor for the rest of your life.
Now that I think more about it, it doesn't even matter if you insult my opinion, I think the only one you'll impress is yourself.
 
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='suprsaiyanMAX'][quote name='punqsux']

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.[/quote]

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?[/quote]

korea? vietnam? yeah those were great, wernt they?[/quote]

Somalia, Bosnia, kosovo, Lebanon...there are some more probably but those are the ones I could think of. Granted all conflicts are entered for various reasons, but you can't say that the Iraq War now is different now just because they weren't directly threatening us.
 
[quote name='ZForce915'][quote name='Storamin']The fact that Michael Moore, armed with lies and half-truths, can cause this kind of discussion makes me doubt in Americas future. Can you guys even reproduce, I thought there was a certain IQ level you had to have to function, maybe 5? The fact that you even listen to his opinions disgusts me. If I want the facts I'll listen to various news sources. Not some asshole celebrity.[/quote]

Typical agruement. He calls Michael Moore a liar, without ONE piece of evidence to support that statement.

News sources? I pity you if you think you can rely on the American media for constant accurate information. They show you want they want you to see. If you want real news, try BBC.com or some other source that can report on everything without bias.[/quote]

I like NPR's All Things Considered.
I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims. He's real good at that, editing out parts and then editing other parts in. Makes you think it's the truth, only it's a half-truth. Around here we call that lieing your ass off.
You're not worth any more to me than any other person I've never met, You do your job, and then you die. I just like to laugh at you. Pretty good fun so far. It's not as if the world cares if you or I like Bush or Kerry. You do your job, and then you die. Some of us do a better job than others. That's why there's Republicans. You're so much better than me and your opinion is worth so much. Oh, wait...
 
[quote name='suprsaiyanMAX'][quote name='punqsux'][quote name='suprsaiyanMAX'][quote name='punqsux']

iraq WAS NOT threatining us, they shouldnt be asked to die to "liberate" another country.[/quote]

So? We weren't threatened by many countries that we have conducted large military operations in. Are you saying we shouldn't have been involved in any of those either?[/quote]

korea? vietnam? yeah those were great, wernt they?[/quote]

Somalia, Bosnia, kosovo, Lebanon...there are some more probably but those are the ones I could think of. Granted all conflicts are entered for various reasons, but you can't say that the Iraq War now is different now just because they weren't directly threatening us.[/quote]

i agree with you there. but we had no business being in any of them, we cant police the world, whenever we try many innocent people die and people just hate us more.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Any soldiers Bush sent were sent because they joined one of the Armed Forces of their own free will (which is so thanklessly granted to them by the government they serve). No US soldier currently in Iraq was drafted, and all servicemen knew full well the risk involved in joining a US Armed Service. Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.[/quote]

Actually, most of the poor shmoes over there right now are National Guard forces who never expected to have to wage professional war for what's going on a year plus. These are not people with U.S. Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine training. And the reason they're stuck there is because Bush (1) underestimated the number of troops he'd need to control Iraq and (2) knows it's political suicide to institute a draft to get our professional army up to the needed levels of personnel.
[/quote]

You're right, they didn't expect to get a war. All they wanted was a free ride to college. Too bad they were called up on their end of the bargain. Guess much isn't free in life, nice lesson they're learning right now.
 
Now someone's father/mother/uncle/aunt who thought they left the military behind them is going to have to go fight for Bush's mistake.....


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday.

The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in those two countries.

Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity.
 
[quote name='punqsux']
i agree with you there. but we had no business being in any of them, we cant police the world, whenever we try many innocent people die and people just hate us more.[/quote]

Are we the world's police force? Yeah, more or less, but we are also the most powerful force. Should the bigger guy protect the little guy? That's a matter of each person's opinion, but even trying to help someone can go very wrong and even if it doesn't someone will probably end not liking you too much. I pretty much agree with punq and don't think we should always fight others battles, but then again I know jack about foreign relations. I mean if you think about Germany never attacked us directly, though they most likely would have eventually, they went after our allies first. But we helped out basically all of Europe even though they had not striked us directly yet. We helped our allies fight a huge evil, but unfortunately conflicts and wars just don't seem to have the clear cut line of evil that WW 2 had. We have to pick and choose these world police fights today it seems and there are some conflicts I think we could've helped but didn't and others were we probably should have taken a largely diplomatic approach instead of military force. Personally I think what we did in Bosnia, kosovo, etc. was more honorable and helped more than anything else, but according to people such as Michael Moore, America only brings misery to the rest of world. I think people forget that war is not a light switch you can flip on/off, fighting will continue even after someone like us or the UN steps in, it's a harsh truth that cannot be avoided or pushed aside.
 
[quote name='Storamin']I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims. He's real good at that, editing out parts and then editing other parts in. Makes you think it's the truth, only it's a half-truth. Around here we call that lieing your ass off.[/quote]

Amen to that. Seriously calling this movie a "documentary" is the biggest misnomer I've heard in many years. Heck, give me a chance and I'm fairly certain that I could twist things around just enough to make the Pope appear to be a full-fledged member of the Nazi party for crying out loud.

Don't get me wrong, I've really liked some of Michael Moore's stuff in the past. But jesus-tapdancing-christ, if anyone is dumb enough to believe that everything he says is the whole truth should have their head examined. Michael Moore is not objective. Never has been, never will be. That's what makes his stuff enjoyable. It's fine to be entertained by something that is blatantly biased, but at the same time realize that there is indeed a clear and concise biased spin put on everything and take it for the piece of entertainment it is and nothing more.
 
***WARNING: Post movie rambling at 12:00 A.M.***

I just got back from seeing this film. Im what i like to call "A Sane Person". I read up on what was true, what was stretched and what was pure travishmockery ( :) ).

I had already seen all of the brutal violence towards them and towards us. This, in a sense, didnt faze me...it was the mothers. The mother/relative in Iraq who's family's house apparently was bombed and asked God for help. The Mother, from a relatively local town to me, in Flint who was shown in good times and bad times, both times with faith in God.

Those 2 scenes stand out more than any "Hi, i can count to 5!" look Bush had. People who were giving thier lives, and sons, to God...whose apparent vessel is Mr. Bush himself, were losing faith on camera.

For those of you who have NOT seen this movie, i am talking about a woman who had multiple members of her family enlisted. Her son died. Rmember hearing "black hawk down" on tv and it wasnt in reference to the movie? Her son was part of that and is no longer part of this earth. His last letter asked why Bush is doing what he is doing...but still went on with his duty. He is dead. Near the end of the movie, and to me the most heart wrenching, this woman went to DC, to the white house, to try and bring just a bit of understanding to her loss.
She met a somewhat insane person who was promoting "bush bad, cause death" type feelings and mentioned peoples sons and daughters dying. Of course she said hers was one, and in complete heartlessness, another woman came over and started yelling "This is staged" and questioning when and where he died, as if she new every inch of baghdad.

This does not change my negative outlook on Bush. Does not give me more ammo, nor does it make me happier he's still around. More or less, it made me lose hope in my fellow man.

I'm sad now.
goodnight.
 
"Weren't their al quida training camps in iraq, haven't several of their top people come thru iraq, before we got their?"

1.) The training camps were in northern Iraq, which was under Kurdish control, not under Saddam's control. Yet, the Kurds were our allies in the invasion of Iraq, and those camps were touted as supposed "links" between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Anyone even marginally cognizant of the Iraqi political climate knew that Bush was basically lying at that point.

2.) The "top person" who came through Iraq, according to Bush & Co. was Zarqawi - the guy who beheaded Nick Berg. Now, here's the interesting bit. What BushCo said was that Iraq provided material assistance to a known member of Al Qaeda, by providing medical care to Zarqawi - medical care that supposedly consisted of amputating one of his legs, supposedly injured in combat of some sort. I don't know whether you've seen images from recent videos, or whether you've seen any recent stills of Zarqawi, but the weird thing is this: he has two legs.

So the answer to your question, is yes there were training camps in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein & the Baathists had nothing to do with them, and to the second part, I have no idea whether this particular member of Al Qaeda came through Iraq, but I can tell you that he walked out on both his legs, if he did.

seppo
 
I liked the movie, but I knew almost all the info in it. I thought it very telling when Moore is surrounded by secret service because he is near the Saudi embassy, and the secret service guy admits that the Saudi's have the only foreign embassy with a secret service squad permanently assigned to it. I thought it did a good job showing just how chummy the Bush's are with the Saudi's and how much money they have invested over here. Forget oil, think about what would happen if they pulled even half of their investments. Also, as far as editing out half of the truth to present what he wants, he sure does, but then again, you can read his books where he conveniently lists every source for almost every sentance in said book, and you can go check them yourself to see how much editing he did. Almost everything in the movie was covered in better detail in the election chapter of "Stupid White Men" and the first chapter of "Dude, Where's My Country."
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']Anyone who joined "not expecting a war" must now reflect on that ignorance, and should realize that they have only themselves to blame for being in Iraq.[/quote]

[quote name='Storamin']You're right, they didn't expect to get a war. All they wanted was a free ride to college.[/quote]

I would not call serving in the military, even in peacetime, a "free ride" to college. The only free ride is the one you probably had when your parents paid your way, if you're even old enough. Have you watched the movie? Moore makes this excellent point towards the end: "I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest, are always the first to step up to defend their country. They serve, so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives, so that we can be free. It is remarkable, their gift to us, and all they ask for in return, is that we never send them into harms way, unless its absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?" (In the following sound bytes, Condoleeza Rice is seen saying, "There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.")

A lot of these people joined the military to get into college because they could never in a million years afford it themselves. Joining the military even in peacetime, in order to educate yourself and make something better of yourself than what you were born into, is commendable. They have EVERY RIGHT to be upset that they are now fighting an unnecessary war, an optional war based on lies and falsehoods. They have every right to be upset that they may not be properly equipped, that the war is being mismanaged, and that Bush tried to cut their combat pay, health care, and benefits.

And after all of that, these people continue to serve. And you have the BALLS to get mad at them for being upset about being there? You are beyond contempt. And probably an effective troll.

[quote name='Storamin']I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims[/quote]

Double standard much? He presents some evidence to back up his claims, whether they're right or wrong. Where's yours?
 
[quote name='Storamin'][quote name='ZForce915'][quote name='Storamin']The fact that Michael Moore, armed with lies and half-truths, can cause this kind of discussion makes me doubt in Americas future. Can you guys even reproduce, I thought there was a certain IQ level you had to have to function, maybe 5? The fact that you even listen to his opinions disgusts me. If I want the facts I'll listen to various news sources. Not some asshole celebrity.[/quote]

Typical agruement. He calls Michael Moore a liar, without ONE piece of evidence to support that statement.

News sources? I pity you if you think you can rely on the American media for constant accurate information. They show you want they want you to see. If you want real news, try BBC.com or some other source that can report on everything without bias.[/quote]

I like NPR's All Things Considered.
I don't have to backup my claims because I'm not trying to educate you. Michael Moore should be forced to back up his claims. He's real good at that, editing out parts and then editing other parts in. Makes you think it's the truth, only it's a half-truth. Around here we call that lieing your ass off.
You're not worth any more to me than any other person I've never met, You do your job, and then you die. I just like to laugh at you. Pretty good fun so far. It's not as if the world cares if you or I like Bush or Kerry. You do your job, and then you die. Some of us do a better job than others. That's why there's Republicans. You're so much better than me and your opinion is worth so much. Oh, wait...[/quote]

Michael Moore shows proof in his film. You just pretend everything you say is the gospal truth. Around here we call making false claims about someone without anything to base that on being a jackass.

I have never been so assured before that someone's opinion adds nothing to a conversation like I am I now having read your posts. You write nothingness, attempting to back it up with nothingness and then top it off with a statement that proves your inability to add anything to this discussion.
 
I'll be seeing it this weekend. I'll post afterwards for sure. I am currently reading "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips. All Bush haters, or anyone who cares about politics for that matter, should pick this up and read it. It talks about the whole family history. He is gone without a doubt.

toy soldier
Corporal USMC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top