| Member |
Message |
unreviewed
Joined: Dec 07, 2000
# Posts: 6776
|
Posted: 07/14/2004 05:35 pm
Finally got to see it. In the end, the audience applauded, the lights came on, ... and then we went home.
|
 |
kevchadders
Joined: Feb 18, 2002
# Posts: 581
|
Posted: 07/15/2004 04:24 am
Havent seen it yet... think i'll wait till it comes on DVD, and hire it out.
But i'll be watching Spiderman 2 tonight!!! Get in! 
|
|
vexcom
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
# Posts: 18
|
Posted: 07/15/2004 02:15 pm
The 7 minutes in the classroom are priceless. Moore would have been more effective if he just shut up, cut the sound and let the timer run all the way out in complete silence.
Nice one Bush, you get the report whispered in your ear - Our country is under attack sir. and you sit in a kindergarten class for 7 minutes doing absolutely nothing... Freakin idiot and no one with an ounce of intelligence can dispute that complete and utter failure of duty.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 07/15/2004 04:42 pm
vexcom, your ignorance is distrubing. If I remember correclty they believed the first plane to hit the tower to be a small passenger plane and a navigation error. No one thought we were under attack. But, perhaps my memory is wrong and they knew this by the time they told Bush. What SHOULD he have done? Jump up and run out of the classroom?
This is where liberal hatred of Bush is seen for what it is. Whatever reaction Bush had at that point would have been the wrong reaction for people like Michael Moore.
|
|
jcokos
Administrator
Joined: Nov 06, 2006
# Posts: 2774
|
Posted: 07/15/2004 05:03 pm
Since my political opinions aren't welcome here anymore, I'll simply say this .....
Before you spout off about someone being a "Friekin Idiot", based on what Michael Moore wants you to believe, please do some research. Go and find out what happened in the DOD, the Secret Service, and at every level of government in the minutes leading up to "The Whisper". Educate yourself on what was known at that exact moment, what protocols had already been activated, and what the exact exchange was during the Whisper, and what happened immediately afterwards.
Simply looking at 7 minutes of one man doesn't nearly give you the facts to make such a judgement. Moore doesn't give them to you, becasuse they don't support the point he's trying to make. They're out there, if you're brave enough to read them, and allow your pre-formulated opinions to suffer a bit of a jolt of reality.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 07/16/2004 11:49 am
Well said, John.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3671
|
Posted: 07/18/2004 05:24 pm
The scary thing is that we may have been duped with all the propaganda about what the war was suppose to be about and not what it was "really" about. Was the president really interested in saving the Irakis or actually interested in the oil? That's the question. Had there been no oil in Irak, would President Bush really care what was happening over there???
I'd say the U.S. would not have gone to war with Irak hadn't there been money to make. The U.S. needed an excuse to go to war with Saddam and what better way to get the americans fired up than to have Osama fly planes into buildings on 9/11 and then tie in Saddam. There were plenty of points in that movie that seemed to click in place when the puzzle is put together. Coicidence? maybe. Planned? could be that too. Makes me wonder.
|
|
Rezac
Joined: Jan 25, 2004
# Posts: 811
|
Posted: 07/19/2004 12:37 pm
I Hate Bush. But his 7 min spent finishing the story really didn't make a diff at this point, either does arguing about what happened 3 years ago.
If you want to blame people, blame the weak people on the first three planes who did nothing but sit on their hands.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 07/19/2004 12:56 pm
Was the president really interested in saving the Irakis or actually interested in the oil?
what oil? Have we received any oil Iraq? If we went in for the oil, presumably that means money, why then are we still spending money on rebuilding? Why isn't that oil money going into our pockets?
The U.S. needed an excuse to go to war with Saddam
We did? 12 years of defying UN resolutions was not enough? All the evidence the World (including the UN, France, Germany, Russia, US (including the Clinton Administration)), a US policy of regime change in Iraq (Clinton Administration), Saddams' lies about weapons (more UN violations found after the war), and desire for WMD and nuclear weapons was not enough of a reason so Bush killed 3000 americans on 9/11 to get oil that we don't actually get?
If Bush was responsible for 9/11, why blame Osama? Why not just blame Saddam?
There were plenty of points in that movie that seemed to click in place when the puzzle is put together.
Only if you're clicking the pieces together with a sledge hammer (or a complete disregard for common and educated sense).
|
|
greenleaves
Joined: Mar 21, 2002
# Posts: 720
|
Posted: 07/19/2004 01:36 pm
what oil? Have we received any oil Iraq? If we went in for the oil, presumably that means money, why then are we still spending money on rebuilding? Why isn't that oil money going into our pockets?
The thousands of barels of oil leaving Irak every day. That oil.
We did? 12 years of defying UN resolutions was not enough? All the evidence the World (including the UN, France, Germany, Russia, US (including the Clinton Administration)), a US policy of regime change in Iraq (Clinton Administration), Saddams' lies about weapons (more UN violations found after the war), and desire for WMD and nuclear weapons was not enough of a reason so Bush killed 3000 americans on 9/11 to get oil that we don't actually get?
The problen is that there are about 100 other countries, that qualify in the terms of imperialist amreicans to be invaded. And the oil is leaving Irak as we speak, who IS getting the money? There were no weapons of mass destruction, the un did not find them, the Bush didn't even let them finish looking. There are other "terrorist" countries that really do have WMD Sure, they start with oil, thats just a coincidance 
If Bush was responsible for 9/11, why blame Osama? Why not just blame Saddam?
Because of the natural gas pipelines that couldn't be put in until the us took over (now they are in). Anyway afganistan is one of the largest producers of natural gas in the world.
Only if you're clicking the pieces together with a sledge hammer (or a complete disregard for common and educated sense).
The us air force asosiation even admited that those terrorist, with the education they had, could not have posibly made those plains crash with that precision. The goverment, doesn't even bring this vital issue up, why? Questioning these things is the educated means of going.
St0n3y, don't let over patriatic spirits overwelm the better judgment I know you have.
|
|
jcokos
Administrator
Joined: Nov 06, 2006
# Posts: 2774
|
Posted: 07/19/2004 04:25 pm
I can understand that you don't like (maybe even hate) the current administration. I can also understand and respect the fact that you may be against the war. However, I can't believe that I'm reading posts from educated and intelligent people here that are falling hook, line and sinker for such outrageous conspiracy theories. Don't let your emotions cloud actual fact. To Wit:
Bush ordering the 9/11 Attacks
I can't believe that I'm even addressing such a ludicrous point. It didn't happen. Give the terrorists credit where it's due. They trained for nearly 10 years, some of them, for this attack. They waited until we dropped our shorts, and then they got us. Not even someone that hates America as much as Michael Moore would do something like that. It's evil, pure and simple that did that, not the "Imperialistic Whims" of a president that you don't like. Get real 
OIL
Iraq is pumping, selling, and shipping many thousands of barrels of oil per day. Not a drop of that has come to the US, nor has one dime from it's sale. That oil belongs to Iraq, and they are producing and selling it, and using these legitimate profits to fund their police, army, new government, schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure needs within the country. They are becomming self sufficient, and the money is now getting to the people, not the dictatorship. Prior to the war, that same oil was being sold "under the table" to many diplomats in France, Germany, Russia, and hundreds of other nations that were supposed to be obeying the UN sanctions. Sanctions against Iraq didn't work, because the UN looked the other way as they were being violated by their membership. This is documented fact. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html
Imperialistic America
Websters defines "Imperialism" as The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.. When exactly has the United States exhibited this type of activity? Since 1940, our nation has freed billions of people from tyranny, dictatorship, and actual imperialist nations --- Japan, France, Poland, etc in WWW2, the Taiwanese, the South Koreans, The Serbs, The States that formerly made up the USSR, and more recently, Afghanastan and Iraq. To date, we have "acquired" none of their territory, nor do we influence their governmental operations. Granted, in Afghanastan and Iraq, we're still working with them to get up on their own 2 feet, but just like with all the other nations, once they're stable, we'll allow them to function independantly. To suggest that our motives are imperialistic in any way is simply untrue and unfounded.
WMD
Do you know what a "stockpile" of chemical weapons looks like ? Anyone? Let me hazard a guess here. Since we know that it takes very little to a whole lot, it would take roughly 1 "gallon" of VX Nerve Agent to kill about 200,000 people. I use the word "gallon" as a visual analogy, as that stuff typically isn't found in liquid form, but the volume is right. A crop duster plane flying over a football stadium that dropped that much VX would kill everyone there, and for miles around. We can all pretty much agree on that fact ... a little bit of these things goes a long way. Now, if you ran a country the size of California, and had some of these lying around, and wanted to hide them, where would you put them? A container that would easily fit UNDER THE SEAT of a minivan could kill thousands. How many such vehicles are in Iraq ? How many square miles of sand are there? Do you think it's possible to put that stuff in a cardboard box, and bury it 20 feet below the ground, never to be found again? How easy would it be to transport on the backs of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries? I think we are all expecting there to be some giant warehouse full of organized shelving with boxes labled "Anthrax for NYC" on them. That's not going to happen. This stuff is most likely stored in old soup cans, cereal boxes, folded up socks, inside of spare tires, etc ... spread all over the place. We'll probably NEVER find them all, or even a significant percentage of them. Thankfully, Saddam and his henchmen don't have access to them any longer either.
Remember, he kicked out the inspectors 4 years before our invasion. God only knows what he was up to during that time. Recall during the run up period to the war that we had inspectors back in there. Remember what actually happened during that time, not what you want to believe happened -- the inspectors did not have full access to the country. They were allowed to inspect only specific areas that Saddam said they could, and only with scheduled arrival and departure times .... "Hey Mr. Hussein, we're going to check out that suspicious looking metal building in the middle of the desert the day after tomorrow. Does 1:30pm work for you?" You'll also remember that we were flying high altitude spy planes over the country to look at every square inch ... provided that we gave 2 days notice, and the exact location of the areas to be covered by the plane. Does that sound like an environment likely to produce any real evidence to you? Does it smell like a rat? Isn't it strange that the very countries that were involved in the Oil for Food scandal are the same ones that agreed with this ridiculous protocol? Again, this is not a conspiracy theory, this is documented fact. That is exactly how the weapons inspections prior to the war went.
Regime Change in Iraq is not a new concept. From the Washington Post May 8, 2003: Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq.
Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."
Don't Believe me alone ... listen to some of the same people that are "on your side" in this whole thing .... they are/were on board with the whole thing when it was convenient for them.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
As I said a few weeks ago, we need to do everything possible to make sure that innocent men, women and children in the US and other countries are not at risk. Getting rid of the training camp and support system in Afghanastan was step 1, taking out a host country in Iraq was step 2. Now we can start working on others: Iran, Syria, etc. Lebanon got the message, maybe some of the other Rogue Nations will too. You can call Bush a cowboy all day if you want, but the natives over there are most certainly getting restless, and that's exactly what needs to be done.
Now, if we can just close the borders, check every single bag in transit, every container at the docs, and stop strip-searching old ladies and start looking harder at the right demographic ... I might just get on a plane sometime soon.
|
|
Rezac
Joined: Jan 25, 2004
# Posts: 811
|
Posted: 07/19/2004 05:34 pm
damn, that's a lot of typing...if I was ever that inclined to type that much about a point, I'd just say 'forget it'.
|
|
jcokos
Administrator
Joined: Nov 06, 2006
# Posts: 2774
|
Posted: 07/19/2004 05:41 pm
It's important stuff.
Emotion coulds Judgement, and I hate to see people getting too caught up in the emotion of an issue, when facts are forgotten. Very often, the facts are tossed aside for a "feel good", and that leads to poor leadership, and poor results.
I've done that here at times ... so I know from whence I speak !
|
|
yellowwing
Moderator
Joined: May 21, 2002
# Posts: 2524
|
Posted: 07/20/2004 06:14 am
It's a movie. Moore is an artist, it's up to the individual to decide if he's a good one or not.
Artists contribute to society and provoke thought. Moore has been successful in that goal. I read several forums, not all technical, and everyone of them has a Moore thread.
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 07/20/2004 12:34 pm
It's a movie. Moore is an artist, it's up to the individual to decide if he's a good one or not.
True but how many people are walking away from the movie believing somethign that is just not true, because Moore deliberatly hides the facts that don't agree with him.
Here is an example: Because of the natural gas pipelines that couldn't be put in until the us took over (now they are in). Anyway afganistan is one of the largest producers of natural gas in the world.
Who knew about this before watching Moore's 'fakeumentary'? And who also knows that this is completely untrue?
John, Great post. Lots of good hard facts that many reading will clearly ignore!
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3671
|
Posted: 07/21/2004 12:33 am
I have no doubt that Saddam was an evil man. I also think it's naive to think that the U.S. can do no wrong. Bush or any leader can get corrupt and still not get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Whether or not Moore has all the facts straight is of course up for debate. I personally do not believe all that he said. However, it's very possible there was a whole lot of greed behind this Iraq war. To think that some of the greedy rich big wigs (who are NOT Iraqis) are not making money off of that oil is also naive. They have plans. We just don't know the depths of the planning involved and if there was indeed conspiring to bring this about. Guess we'll never know for sure what's what.
|
|
yellowwing
Moderator
Joined: May 21, 2002
# Posts: 2524
|
Posted: 07/21/2004 04:57 am
Curt, Reality is Top Secret! 
|
|
St0n3y
Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 07/21/2004 10:55 am
However, it's very possible there was a whole lot of greed behind this Iraq war.
And it is very possible there was NO greed behind the war and the intentions of the war were precisely what was stated.
We just don't know the depths of the planning involved and if there was indeed conspiring to bring this about.
Exactly. We don't know so to presume and believe the most evil motives were in play, as Moore does, is just as evil as one wants to portray the other side.
Since we don't know the motives because we cannot read minds we can deduce quite a bit from what we see.
1) We are not getting the oil. If we were, I'm certain our gas prices would be much lower.
2) If bush believed there were no WMD, going into Iraq on that basis would have to be one of the dumbest political moves in US history.
3) Haliburton is losing money in Iraq, not to mention peoples lives. If invading Iraq was based on financial considerations this has to be one of the dumbest business moves in US history.
4) THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED SADDAM HAD WMD. If Bush had NOT acted on the known intelligence I'm 100% certain the democrats would be calling for his impeachment if/when the next terrists strike occurred on our soil. Lets remember, everybody likes to point fingers backward and ask "why didn't we" (read: the 9/11 commission) and then use phrases like "no blood for oil" when we dare act on real world threats.
|
|
philh
Joined: Sep 14, 2001
# Posts: 3050
|
Posted: 07/22/2004 12:05 am
Interesting read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266328,00.html
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3671
|
Posted: 07/22/2004 03:42 am
That Guardian article confirms what I've been saying. Who says that war doesn't make money. IF it isn't Oil it's the sales of war weapons and war services.
|
|
|
