Farenheit 9/11

[ledhed]

Edited means both audio and visual. Michael Moore was on a bunch of shows and admitted he edited his film clips and cut down others. For example one of the congressmen he asked if he would send his sons to Iraq actually had two there , the question was shown the answer was not , because " yes I am proud to say both my sons are serving " would not have fit his movie .

 

[Ev0]

Edited means both audio and visual. Michael Moore was on a bunch of shows and admitted he edited his film clips and cut down others. For example one of the congressmen he asked if he would send his sons to Iraq actually had two there , the question was shown the answer was not , because " yes I am proud to say both my sons are serving " would not have fit his movie .

So you're saying he found the one congressman out of 500, who had his children serving in the armed forces, which is something he already stated in his film?

I saw the film yesterday, and it left me surprised with all of Bush's business connections, it reminded me greatly of Jean Crechien (sp?) and his connections with Bombardier, and how both of them used their country to further their businesses (except Crechien at least just stuck to Canada, he never screwed around with the entire world). I felt the film was well done, and that the parts about Bush's business connections and the demographics of the US armed forces were very eye opening and informative.

One thing Moore did manage to avoid was mentioning that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer running a cruel, despotic dictatorship. He made pre-war Iraq look like it was a free, peaceful, 'soverign' nation. But this was obviously not the case, as Saddam's regime was cruel, and killed thousands of innocent people. But life under US occupation is not any better, if not worse. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of Iraq though, he learned his lesson after the Gulf War and Operation Desert Fox.

 

[Muscles]

I watched the film yesterday and I was laughing all the way through. Beyond the lies, it was boring. Why? I knew it was coming, Saudi link, discredit the military, Bin Laden flown out, Bush golfing. Great. Much of the movie deals with this link between the Saudis. It doesnt exist as much as Moore would like you to. The Carlye group connection with Bush's father was how Moore cons people. Obviously the Bush's joined when contract between BDM and the Saudis expired. That connection is exactly like saying Michael Moores dad who worked for general motors and he are culpapble for the firing of hundreds of workers.

Here is the fun part about Carlyle group. Its founder is David Rubinstein top domestic advisor to Jimmy Carter. Also Thomas Macmaclartey, Clintons cheif of staff Arthur Levin and this was in the 90's while all these deals were going on. Now I could say the Clinton administration was culpaple in Yemen, Khobars, WTS. Now I have just used Moore's ridiculous logic.

If George Bush was as corrupt and as inherently evil without a conscience, Michael Moore would not even be breathing let alone able to "snoop" around the Bush junta structure. The film was basically frayed cords that connected to no source. All Moore had to do was take Vietnam era arguments that were true back then and bring them 40 years up. Corporate interests, military industrial hobgoblins, no war for oil snappy one liners, identify the present generation as envious of the baby boomers tell them they can be like them and presto you have conned people. Not only is the movie lousy in presenting a coherent case, but it is dull as hell.

One bit of footage that eliminates one after the other. The stuff Moore let go shows the porous nature of his claims. For instance a senator who answered Moores question of military service relatives by saying he had a nephew who was in the army was cut out of the movie. Nick Bergs footage that was held back out of respect for the family was bull****. Moores movie was in the can before the kid was killed. Of course the truth is that Berg was a Bush supporter and Im sure he was actually saying good things about the war. Cant have that can we? He doesnt have empathy or sympathy for people, and he stands to lose 23 million if hes actually honest at any point. Why people try to glorify Moore as some sage of honesty illustrates the waning attatchements to truth. Bush should infact invite Moore to the White House, shake his hand and on camera exclaim "Youve just won me the election."

 

[Danoff]

But life under US occupation is not any better, if not worse.

At least 400,000 innocent men women and children would need to be killed before life would be worse under US occupation.

 

[Duke]

At least 400,000 innocent men women and children would need to be killed before life would be worse under US occupation.

But they already have been, didn't you see that website? It's only our government-controlled media brainwashing that's preventing us from seeing the truth.

 

[bigmike04]

I just saw the movie. Just forget about the facts that Bush is a former oilman or that his vice president worked for a company that is making huge profits from an obviously unjust war. If the US is so concerned about the suffering of people under brutal governments, why not invade Sudan where the government is committing genocide against it's own people? Oh, forgot, Sudan doesn't have oil like Iraq. It's the hypocrisy, greed, and self-serving nature of elected officials that make so many around the world have disdain for the political process (especially in the US). Whatever you think about Moore, I applaud his making available footage that we would not get to see otherwise. Also, in the movie, a number of the troops have doubts about the war, including one marine who refuses to go back to Iraq. If the war was justified, i.e. the guys who flew the planes into the WTC were sponsored by Iraq, then maybe the soldiers would feel more justified in carrying out their duty. The truth is that the US has just stirred up a hornets nest and has made it that much easier for terrorist organizations to recruit members.

 

[Danoff]

why not invade Sudan where the government is committing genocide against it's own people?

I have explained this many times before, but what the hell, one more can't hurt.

These countries were not targeted because unlike these countries, Iraq is one that we defeated in armed conflict recently and set terms with to end hostilities. Those terms have been blatently defied (evidenced by a decade of UN resolutions). The result is that (especially after 9/11) we need to make it known that when the US (or a council that the US is a member of) sets terms, we expect them to be lived up to. Iraq is not just an example for the rest of the world, though (an example that we will enforce our terms). Iraq is also a starting point for democracy and freedom in the middle east, a plan that Bush thinks is the solution to terrorism. Bring them freedom and they'll no longer hate us for it. That's the idea. Iraq just happened to be the country that we had the most ligitimate reason for invading.

The result is the following:

- Free Iraqi people (possibly the most important)
- A closer target for the terrorists to strike (rather than more attacks here in the US)
- No more Saddam
- Stronger US foreign policy (especially under Bush) because the world knows we walk the walk
- A foothold for democracy and freedom in the middle east that may prevent future 9/11's

Sounds like everyone but the terrorists win. Notice oil was not mentioned.

..........

 

[wellyrn]

You guys are incredible. You haven't even seen the movie and you are trying to preach the truth about it to people! Just keep your eyes and ears closed, your mouths open and im sure things will blow over before it is proven how ignorant and gullible you are.

You laughed all the way through? You are a sick individual. I guess you think it's funny how Moore fabricated all those people dying and thier families grieving... HA-LARIOUS! You need a moral calibration because you have lost your decency to the system.

 

[Danoff]

You guys are incredible. You haven't even seen the movie and you are trying to preach the truth about it to people!

I refuse to support the movie - so I can't see it. I would like for you to explain to me what part of it was so convincing to you so that I might understand.

What little I've heard about it is highly misleading or just plain wrong. I've preached the truth about the parts of it I know about.

 

[ledhed]

I'm having fun though reading all the articles about how the guys playing fast and loose with the facts, and its free ! his big mistake was in calling it a documentry, now all the real journalist are free to blow him a new bunghole and they are doing it with relish and mustard !

 

[wellyrn]

If you refuse to see the movie then you don't have much right to talk about it. I'm not going to give you a blow by blow because really you have to see it yourself to decide what its about.

 

[Carl.]

I refuse to support the movie - so I can't see it.

Here's the solution:

Moore: pirate my film, no problem

 

[Danoff]

If you refuse to see the movie then you don't have much right to talk about it.

I have every right to talk about the parts I know about and what little footage from it I have seen.

Here's the solution:

I'll look into it.

 

[bigmike04]

..........

You made some interesting arguments, especially the one about Iraq defying UN inspections for years. The only problem is, the UN didn't say "OK let's bomb Iraq and remove Saddam". The US made their case for war on two fronts: 1. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and are building more and 2: they were "in contact" with Al Qaeda before 9/11. Both of these arguments are false. The fact is that the US government did not allow the weapons inspection process to be completed and caused the deaths of thousands of innocents. There's been a lot of talk about the Iraqi people and the world being better off now that Saddam is out of power which may be true (although Iraq seems worse off at the moment), but it seems that it would be easier now for terrorists to set up bases in Iraq without having to worry about a brutal dictatorship. As Bush is quoted in the movie "a dictatorship would be easier to govern". The US also marginalised the UN, belittling many of it's members (France in particular) and then come back with their tails between their legs asking for help. When that didn't work they ran to NATO. Iraq had been under sanctions for years and Colin Powell is quoted in the movie as saying in 2000 that Iraq was NOT a threat, that they were contained. The facts: Iraq was NOT a threat, they didn't have weapons, Bush bombed Iraq to get the oil, and LIED about WMD's and Iraq being involved in 9/11. The US does not have the right to use the UN and then disregard them when they feel it's convenient.

 

[Danoff]

You made some interesting arguments, especially the one about Iraq defying UN inspections for years. The only problem is, the UN didn't say "OK let's bomb Iraq and remove Saddam". The US made their case for war on two fronts: 1. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and are building more and 2: they were "in contact" with Al Qaeda before 9/11. Both of these arguments are false. The fact is that the US government did not allow the weapons inspection process to be completed and caused the deaths of thousands of innocents. There's been a lot of talk about the Iraqi people and the world being better off now that Saddam is out of power which may be true (although Iraq seems worse off at the moment), but it seems that it would be easier now for terrorists to set up bases in Iraq without having to worry about a brutal dictatorship. As Bush is quoted in the movie "a dictatorship would be easier to govern". The US also marginalised the UN, belittling many of it's members (France in particular) and then come back with their tails between their legs asking for help. When that didn't work they ran to NATO. Iraq had been under sanctions for years and Colin Powell is quoted in the movie as saying in 2000 that Iraq was NOT a threat, that they were contained. The facts: Iraq was NOT a threat, they didn't have weapons, Bush bombed Iraq to get the oil, and LIED about WMD's and Iraq being involved in 9/11. The US does not have the right to use the UN and then disregard them when they feel it's convenient.

I'm pretty sure you didn't address even one of the points in my post.

 

[bigmike04]

.......we need to make it known that when the US (or a council that the US is a member of) sets terms, we expect them to be lived up to. Iraq is not just an example for the rest of the world, though (an example that we will enforce our terms).

.......the UN didn't say "OK let's bomb Iraq and remove Saddam". The US made their case for war on two fronts: 1. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and are building more and 2: they were "in contact" with Al Qaeda before 9/11. Both of these arguments are false. The fact is that the US government did not allow the weapons inspection process to be completed and caused the deaths of thousands of innocents.

.......I'm pretty sure you didn't address even one of the points in my post.

The UN set the terms, not just the US by themselves.

Point addressed.

 

[Danoff]

Point addressed.

One point of half a dozen... referred to.

The UN set the terms, not just the US by themselves.

The terms I was talking about were the cease fire terms from the first gulf war.

Any one member of the UN could decide that the UN's actions were not sufficient.

Example.

5 countries together go to war with country X and defeat it. They set terms saying that the dictator of country X can continue to have his country if he (among other things) no longer sells apples. For 10 years country X continues to sell apples even though the other 5 countries tell it not to. 3 of the 5 countries say flat out that they're not willing to enforce the terms.

Does that mean that other 2 countries are not justified in enforcing the terms? No.

So your counter-argument is bogus.


In this hypothetical country X is Iraq. The 5 countries are the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia. "Selling apples" is any number of things that we told Iraq not to do that they continued to do... it's a long list. The 2 countries that decided to enforce the rules are Britain and the US (among others).

 

[Duke]

No, it's not. The point you did not address is that the UN set the terms, with the US as part of that council. Then the UN failed to enforce its own terms. The US did so, because we were part of the council that had set those terms, and no additional resolution was made removing those terms.

 

[Carl.]

One point of half a dozen... referred to.



The terms I was talking about were the cease fire terms from the first gulf war.

Any one member of the UN could decide that the UN's actions were not sufficient.

Example.

5 countries together go to war with country X and defeat it. They set terms saying that the dictator of country X can continue to have his country if he (among other things) no longer sells apples. For 10 years country X continues to sell apples even though the other 5 countries tell it not to. 3 of the 5 countries say flat out that they're not willing to enforce the terms.

Does that mean that other 2 countries are not justified in enforcing the terms? No.

So your counter-argument is bogus.


In this hypothetical country X is Iraq. The 5 countries are the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia. "Selling apples" is any number of things that we told Iraq not to do that they continued to do... it's a long list. The 2 countries that decided to enforce the rules are Britain and the US (among others).

What if a country Y has been in violation of a few dozen UN resolutions (68 - correct me if I'm wrong) for the last decades, but can get away with it easily, with almost no consequences? What if that country is the only one in all his neighbors to really have WMDs, never allowed inspections and refused to sign the non-proliferation act for those WMDs and still have all of our support? Now what if superpower Z try to make people of countries A,B,C,D,E..., who already hate Country Y and doesn't accept how it has been created in recent history, understand that you're doing the right thing while rushing to invading country X (while presentig BOGUS ARGUMENTS such as hypothetical WMDs programs, integral copies of student thesis and alleged terrorist links as primary reasons in front of the international council). Be sure to make them understand that there's no middle ground here, they're either with you, or against you, that it's your way, or the highway. If they disagree with you, that means they're pro-terrorism.


Then just wait for a while for the next wave of terrorist attacks to come, and the cycle to start over again on a larger scale, and don't forget to seize good opportunities and gain power from these events in the process.

In this hypothetical country X is still Iraq, and country Y is Israel, and superpower Z is the US. I've been too lazy to replace WMD programs by possessing cantaloups for metaphorical purposes, but I guess you get the point.

 

[Danoff]

What if a country Y has been in violation of a few dozen UN resolutions (68 - correct me if I'm wrong) for the last decades, but can get away with it easily, with almost no consequences?

Lots of countries break UN resolutions (maybe they'll think twice about that now...). The problem is that you have to have really good cause to go to war because nations enjoy soverignty (sp?). When an agressive nation like Iraq takes over one of our allies, they give up that right and, should they lose, we get to invade. We chose not to under some conditions and they weren't met (and nobody can claim we didn't give it time). So Saddam loses his right to Iraq. Hell, we'd be justified if we wanted to turn Iraq into a US state.

It takes more than the breaking of UN resolutions to get us to go to war. One way to do it, though, is to lose a war and not live up to the terms...

The bottom line, though, is that that is an excuse. Not living up to the terms of the end of the first gulf war is an excuse. The real reasons we went in are the five points I posted earlier.

And by the way, the arguemnt "Bush pisses me off" (which is basically what you just said) is really weak. Try coming up with some real hard logic for why the war is bad. I'm sure it's not as hard as you guys are making it look.

 

[Carl.]

Hell, we'd be justified if we wanted to turn Iraq into a US state.

Jesus Christ... You should apply for foreign policy advisor at the white house. Their new motto should be: **** diplomacy, it's way too much politically correct.

And by the way, the arguemnt "Bush pisses me off" (which is basically what you just said) is really weak.

I'd like you to explain how you can resume all I've said to "Bush pisses me off".

 

[Danoff]

Hell, we'd be justified if we wanted to turn Iraq into a US state.

Jesus Christ... You should apply for foreign policy advisor at the white house. Their new motto should be: **** diplomacy, it's way too much politically correct.

It's true. We successfully invaded their country. Every world power before the US wouldn't think twice about annexing the new territory along with the natural resources. But the US has decided that it isn't interested in keeping all that oil, so they're giving the country back to the Iraqi people. It's a fairly unprecendented move historically. Quite big of us considering that we'd be justified in keeping it.

I'd like you to explain how you can resume all I've said to "Bush pisses me off".

Not everything you said...

Be sure to make them understand that there's no middle ground here, they're either with you, or against you, that it's your way, or the highway. If they disagree with you, that means they're pro-terrorism.

The gist of your post was that US foreign policy had ticked you off. I reduced that to Bush (even though that's not totally correct). That's how I got there.

 

[Carl.]

It's true. We successfully invaded their country. Every world power before the US wouldn't think twice about annexing the new territory along with the natural resources. But the US has decided that it isn't interested in keeping all that oil, so they're giving the country back to the Iraqi people. It's a fairly unprecendented move historically. Quite big of us considering that we'd be justified in keeping it.

Yes, compared with what happened before the 20th century, that's good. But I don't consider it big, that's the only acceptable thing to do after an invasion. What you've said by stating that you'd be justified in turning Iraq in an US State, is don't try to annex another country, or we'll have the right to annex yours, because that's what other world powers have done in the past. (and why an US state more than a British state, for example? wasn't Desert Storm an operation done by a coalition of countries? that doesn't make sense. Could I should say to a black men that we're "big" to let them work and earn their money, because in the past, they had to be slaves?)

Not everything you said...

The gist of your post was that US foreign policy had ticked you off. I reduced that to Bush (even though that's not totally correct). That's how I got there.

Ok. As much as Bush pisses me off, that's the concept "you're either with us or against us" that I was objecting to, or "don't question our foreign policy, because you'll be un-patriotic, or un-american". I find that rather weak, too.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, compared with what happened before the 20th century, that's good. But I don't consider this big, that's the only acceptable thing to do after an invasion. What you've said by stating that you'd be justified in turning Iraq in an US State, is don't try to annex another country, or we'll have the right to annex yours, because that's what other world powers have done in the past. (and why an US state more than a British state, for example? wasn't Desert Storm an operation done by a coalition of countries? that doesn't make sense. Could I should say to a black men that we're "big" to let them work and earn their money, because in the past, they had to be slaves?)

How about during the 20th century? How about citing some examples where countries have successfully invaded and not kept the terrority they conquered? The fact of the matter is that when you successfully invade a country, you're justified in doing lots of things with it, including annexing it.

Also, it's true that people shouldn't try to take over another country or they could end up taken over. That was a risk Iraq was willing to take when they invaded Kewait.

Your "parallel" example of slavery is appaling. I'm not talking about supressing people's rights here. I'm talking about the choice of who governs the new Iraq and how that governing works. The parallel to slavery would have been if I had said "hey we'd be justified in turning all of the Iraqi citizens into slaves.... that's what other countries have done in the past". And it has been done in the past but that doesn't mean its justified.

I guess that was confusing about my post, I wasn't really trying to say that just because other countries have done it means we'd be justified.

 

[bigmike04]

Lots of countries break UN resolutions (maybe they'll think twice about that now...). The problem is that you have to have really good cause to go to war because nations enjoy soverignty (sp?). When an agressive nation like Iraq takes over one of our allies, they give up that right and, should they lose, we get to invade.

The majority of the UN and a significant percentage of the US' own citizens feel that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, and that was BEFORE we all found out that the WMD claims were bogus.

We chose not to under some conditions and they weren't met (and nobody can claim we didn't give it time).

The UN weapons inspectors (Hans Blix) requested more time and were told no by the US. Bush had to make sure he invaded before he got booted out of office.

The bottom line, though, is that that is an excuse. Not living up to the terms of the end of the first gulf war is an excuse. The real reasons we went in are the five points I posted earlier.

That's strange, I could have sworn that the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq was that they possessed WMD and were seeking to build nuclear weapons - both of which were completely false. He even attempted to connect Al Qaeda with Iraq, sure why not, it's close to Afghanistan and there are plenty of good targets. The main claims were that Saddam was a threat to the US and his neighbors - both of these claims were false because UN sanctions and fly-overs had effectively corraled Iraq's ability to do anything.

Look danoff its seems that your argument can be boiled down to "might makes right". The US can do whatever it wants because it's the world's only superpower. The truth is that the US attacked Iraq for oil and possibly a bit of personal vendetta stuff from Bush. If they REALLY cared about a stable middle east, why don't they focus on fixing the israeli/palestinian issue?

 

[Danoff]

If they REALLY cared about a stable middle east, why don't they focus on fixing the israeli/palestinian issue?

What I really care about is that there aren't any more terrorist attacks in the US. That's the number 1 concern for me.

The truth is that the US attacked Iraq for oil and possibly a bit of personal vendetta stuff from Bush.

Prove it.

Look danoff its seems that your argument can be boiled down to "might makes right". The US can do whatever it wants because it's the world's only superpower.

I don't think any one of my arguments can be boiled down to that, let alone all of them.

That's strange, I could have sworn that the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq was that they possessed WMD and were seeking to build nuclear weapons - both of which were completely false.

First of all, you can't prove that it's false so don't claim it. You should say things like, "seeking to build nuclear weapons, of which they have no evidence" so some crap like that.

Secondly, Bush is giving all the wrong reasons for being in Iraq. I think his administration and PR people think that it will go over better with the American people. That doesn't mean we weren't justified or that the outcome will be bad. It just means Bush is doing a terrible job of justifying it.

He even attempted to connect Al Qaeda with Iraq, sure why not, it's close to Afghanistan and there are plenty of good targets.

He did link Al Qaeda with Iraq and Saddam. I don't think he linked Iraq with 9/11 though.

The main claims were that Saddam was a threat to the US and his neighbors - both of these claims were false because UN sanctions and fly-overs had effectively corraled Iraq's ability to do anything.

Bush is doing a bad job of justifying the war. Go read my points and address those. I'm not going to defend all of his claims for him. Saddam was violating terms placed on him to get us to stop kicking his a*s after the first gulf war. That's reason enough.

The UN weapons inspectors (Hans Blix) requested more time and were told no by the US. Bush had to make sure he invaded before he got booted out of office.

I guess you just can't get anything done in 10 years huh?

The majority of the UN and a significant percentage of the US' own citizens feel that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, and that was BEFORE we all found out that the WMD claims were bogus.

You can't prove they were bogus so don't bother claiming it. A significant portion of US citizens think that their state should withdraw from the union - whatayagonnado.... and it's not our problem that the UN didn't have the melons to back up its talk.

 

[the_cobbinator]

That's strange, I could have sworn that the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq was that they possessed WMD and were seeking to build nuclear weapons - both of which were completely false.

I think the fact that Saddam was still in charge was good enough to attack Iraq.

 

[Carl.]

What I really care about is that there aren't any more terrorist attacks in the US

We actually do agree on something.