"unfairenheit 9/11"

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jun 27 2004, 03:31 PM

I have a feeling that Moore is mostly preaching to the choir. He's established such a reputation as a one-sided propagandist of the Left that the vast majority of the people attending would vote for anyone over Bush. So I doubt many minds or votes are going to be changed.

I disagree. There are a lot of people who can't stand Kerry or Bush. They are trying to decide who to vote for. This movie will help them see who the better of the two evils is... IMO!

[Matt]

Oh! CHRISTOPHER Hitchens!

Nobody takes HIM seriously!

Self-serving little oik. Writes for the Daily Mirror (that paper of record (NOT!)) and any other dross publication which will give him space.

Wrote a pathetic hatchet job on Mother Teresa which made him the laughing stock of the entire British Isles.

You don't want to take any notice of him! He's a loony!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Mat@Jun 23 2004, 12:31 AM

Michael Moore is an overrated opporunist at best. The reason he is so controversial is becasue he makes so much money at it. But he has the right to film whatever his heart desires. I don't like the fact that he released this film at such a critical time in our history because we need to be as one as we go thru this. But he had to because he would make more money on it now, rather than if he waited till after the war (if there is an end). I don't like him personally but he has his rights too.

Yes, only the Left would try to hound a president out of office by making scandalous revelations!

[Cal]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Jun 25 2004, 07:31 PM

Anyone see this movie tonight? We tried to go, but it was sold out. I don't really like Michael Moore, but I am interested in seeing it. I think there is a chance that this movie could singlehandedly cost Bush the election. It will be interesting to see how Bush's camp refutes it.

I sure hope it does. Anything to get that idiot out of the White House.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jets+Jun 26 2004, 05:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jets @ Jun 26 2004, 05:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Jun 25 2004, 11:14 PM

It's chock full of distorted facts and blatant lies...Moore likes to use only half of what someone said to make his point..yet he convienently leaves out pertinent info from the rest of the story...

IF that's true, then perhaps he learned his craft from the same folks who wrote much of your church history.

Actually, most of it can be documented from independent sources. I will admit it has a strong slant, but if you have consulted other sources you will recognize the core truth of most of it.

[Faerie]

Shanstress, in reply to your question about if it were MY son serving in Iraq...

granted, I dont' know what I'm having right now...but I would be proud of my children for serving in the armed forces...our military does not exist to ONLY defend the US when we're attacked...Reagan referred to the United States as the city on the hill and I wholeheartedly agree...we should not hoarde our freedom, we should ensure that everyone in the world has the same rights and protections from tyranny and oppression...granted it's impossible to go and hunt down every tyrant...but we can make the attempt...

i have 2 nephews and 1 neice actively serving in the military..they are not poor, uneducated, inner-city, poverty stricken youths with no hope for their future...they joined the military out of LOVE for this country...they joined because they honored and revered the freedoms that we enjoy every day...they joined the military AFTER the iraq invasion...not to escape financial matters, but to serve our country with pride and dignity...both of my nephews had full scholarships to college...they gave it up to serve their country....

i think that if any active military personell were to read your description of what you think the average GI is...they would be disheartened and offended...

The people who go to the military are kids who have no other options: inner-city kids, kids living in a town where all its businesses are closing, kids who can't afford to go to college any other way. As long as they go fight, and not our kids, we don't have to worry about it, I guess. I guess their lives aren't worth quite as much.

have a little more respect for the people who are willing to sacrifice their lives so that your son may never know the brutality of war personally...sit down with a veteran of any war, find out his or her reasons for serving this country, and then tell me that you still think so lowly of our military...

you mentioned that one of the things about this movie that "enlightened" you was that the iraqi people are "normal." that they are happy and joyous...who ever said they weren't? the small % of terrorists who play in that country are no reflection to the average Iraqi citizen...I've heard MANY interviews of soldiers on leave, who say they are more afraid of Iraq when they're in america than when they are actually in Iraq...the american media makes it seem like ALL the people in iraq HATE our guts, that they want saddam back, that they detest americans...when in reality, our soliders have been thanked over and over for the work they have done...have you forgotten the images of people celebrating when baghdad fell? the people spitting on paintings and statutes of saddam? of course the people of iraq want their country back and oh golly gee...they have it back now!! and guess what, the new governing council of Iraq requested that the US military stay in their country, to protect them and to train them...we didn't get kicked out by the new gov't...they asked us to stay..that speaks volumes...

i know the current administration has made many mistakes...what president hasn't? i'm tired of the "well Clinton only did THIS" crap...it's silly...clinton bombed countries to attract attention away from the monica scandal...big deal...but i still support our president, for his courage and his willingness to see through to the end..it would have been very easy to of pulled out of iraq after we captured saddam...but we didn't..just like we didn't pull our of germany after hitler was found dead...just like we didn't pull out of japan after we obliterated generations of families...we stayed, and we cleaned up our mess...

ask yourselves this: are the iraqi people better off, or worse off w/o saddam in power? and i'm talking to you only shanstress, because i am bored of cal's rantings...he spews out liberal hate, you seem to intelectually think about both sides of the issue...no one said this war would be easy, or short...and no one said that no american military lives would be lost...but the cause is still noble..and i do believe we are seeing the end to this war...the iraqi's control their freedom now...let's see what they do with it...

[Faerie]

in reference to the idea that the Iraqi's are not happy about all that has happened..I quote the following article from Reuters...a well-known "liberal" news source:

Most of Iraq's 25 million people were overjoyed when Saddam's regime collapsed, and many are looking forward to the day he will be punished.

"Everyone all over the world agrees that Saddam Hussein should be put on trial in front of the Iraqi people," said Baghdad resident Ahmad al-Lami.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040630/.../D83HJ9B80.html

note at the END of the article is the only place where anti-american sentiment is expressed...notice the area the comment comes from..a decidedly PRO-SADDAM area....

[Faerie]

oooh..another good article...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040630/D.../D83HHGUO0.html

yes...the iraqi people are SO mad that they are no longer under Saddam's rule..what a farce!! bad americans for capturing saddam and turning him over to his own people!! horrid, wretched americans!! shame on you!!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Along the lines of Faerie's postings, a weblog of an Iraqi doctor:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Apparently even some generally anti-American Iraqis were pleasantly surprised by the transfer of power to the provisional Iraqi government, and impressed that we kept our promise.

[shanstress70]

our military does not exist to ONLY defend the US when we're attacked...Reagan referred to the United States as the city on the hill and I wholeheartedly agree...we should not hoarde our freedom, we should ensure that everyone in the world has the same rights and protections from tyranny and oppression...granted it's impossible to go and hunt down every tyrant...but we can make the attempt...

I totally disagree with this, but I respect your opinion.

i think that if any active military personell were to read your description of what you think the average GI is...they would be disheartened and offended...

You are correct, and I apologize for the way I wrote this. What I MEANT was that MOST of the people who join the military are in that situation (poverty). The people making the decision about whether or not we go to war aren't going to lose their children. There will always be plenty of less fortunate people who feel it is their only way out. They will secure freedom for the 'richies' on Capitol Hill.

have a little more respect for the people who are willing to sacrifice their lives so that your son may never know the brutality of war personally...sit down with a veteran of any war, find out his or her reasons for serving this country, and then tell me that you still think so lowly of our military...

I DO respect our soldiers wholeheartedly. In fact, it is because of my concern for them that I feel the way I do. I have talked to my grandfather about his military history before he died a few years ago. He was in WW2. I loved to listen to all his stories, and had so much respect for him. He was an amazing person! My brother was in the first Gulf War. I totally respect him too. They were both Marines. I will make it a point to ask my brother why he felt compelled to serve next time I see him.

Faerie, just because I don't agree with the decisions being made by the leaders of this country, it doesn't mean that I disrespect our military.

ask yourselves this: are the iraqi people better off, or worse off w/o saddam in power?

Honestly, I think they are better off now. But I don't know how long that will last. And I still don't think it's worth the lives of Americans. When someone signs up for the military, I'm pretty sure they agree to fight for the freedoms for America - not for the world. If the latter was the case, probably a lot fewer people would join.

I may be wrong, but if you have a son, I bet you may just change your mind. Every time I see another beheading story on the news, I feel physically sick imagining my sweet baby boy being in the hands of those monsters. If I didn't have my child, I would probably be for it. Your own flesh and blood has a way of changing your mind about things, as selfish as that may be.

Hope you're feeling well!

[Guest Unorthodox]

Could someone please define "liberal" and "conservative"?

Is there no grey area?

Because I think I am in a grey area.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Jul 1 2004, 11:28 AM

Could someone please define "liberal" and "conservative"?

Is there no grey area?

Because I think I am in a grey area.

There is a giant gray area, and most of us fall into it. But people do tend to be on one side or the other of the center (wherever that is).

[Guest Unorthodox]

Thank you...

Actually, I agree with what Clinton told Time Magazine.

He said that he agreed that the war in Iraq was necessary, he just disagreed with the timing.

I know alot of you think Clinton is a "liberal traitor", and maybe he only said those things to make himself look more patriotic.

But I agree with his statement, regardless of whether or not he was sincere.

I am no politician or general, so maybe this wouldn't work...but if I was Bush back in 2001-2002, I would have done things differently:

1. Get rid of the Taliban, and establish democracy in Afghanistan with the same effort we are using in Iraq today.

2. Simultaneously, send a smaller force to Iraq to make sure no WMDs leave the country. I don't think Saddam was stupid enough to use his WMDs from Iraq (if he had them). He would have feared retaliation. Its possible he wouldn't even sell WMDs to Bin Laden, since they were enemies. But JUST IN CASE he might sell them...I would have sent troops to patrol the borders and make sure no WMDS left the country.

3. After Afghanistan is truly stabilized, invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Free Iraq and establish democracy there.

4. Of course, during all those steps, continue to hunt Bin Laden.

5. I almost forgot...I would have got more international support before going into Iraq.

If anyone sees a flaw in that plan, let me know. I'm not convinced it would work, and would like to hear other opinions...this is just an idea from someone who does not see things as black and white...that is , I do not believe Moore or Bush 100%...there is a grey area.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Un -- I see some serious problems with steps 2 and 5.

With regard to step 2 -- Iraq still had an army until the conventional campaign defeated it. Saddam would have objected to any invasion, even a teeny weeny one like you propose. And sending in just a few troops would risk getting them defeated, or at least unnecessarily bloodied. Saddam's army was a shadow of its 1991 self, and our troops and capabilities are superb -- but there comes a point when quality can't make up for numbers. The only way to occupy any of Iraq was to defeat the conventional military first.

With respect to step 5, we got all the international support we were going to get. France wasn't going to go along, period. There were just too many political and strategic benefits of opposing us for it to be otherwise. Same for Germany, Russia, and China. We did have the support of three of the five largest militaries in Europe (Britain, Spain, and Italy), with a very competent Polish force. After a certain point, having too large a coalition can present as many problems as having a small one; when you have to give consideration to too many decisionmakers' preferences, the coalition can become paralyzed.

And having broad international support doesn't necessarily mean you're on the side of the angels. In the spring of 1941, the anti-fascist Allies consisted of two countries: Britain and the Soviet Union (the latter having been a German ally right up to Hitler's surprise double-crossing invasion of it.) The force that invaded Russia in 1941 consisted of Germans, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, and Spanish. The collaborationist government of Vichy France was effectively a German ally as well. Multilateralism doesn't make a bad guy a good guy; the key is the justice of the underlying cause.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jul 1 2004, 01:27 PM

With regard to step 2 -- Iraq still had an army until the conventional campaign defeated it.  Saddam would have objected to any invasion, even a teeny weeny one like you propose.  And sending in just a few troops would risk getting them defeated, or at least unnecessarily bloodied.  Saddam's army was a shadow of its 1991 self, and our troops and capabilities are superb -- but there comes a point when quality can't make up for numbers.  The only way to occupy any of Iraq was to defeat the conventional military first. 

Maybe "step 2" could be replaced with an international force...including that smaller American force that I mentioned...with numbers that overwhelm Iraq's military.

Also, I never said to invade Iraq with the smaller American force. I meant that they could sit on the borders in Iran, Turkey etc. to watch for transport of WMDs.

Then (after Afghanistan is safe), send the full U.S. force to Iraq, as we did in 2003. The invasion would have probably been later than 2003, but with troops on the border watching for WMDs, the terrorist threat from Iraq would be minimal (in theory).

With respect to step 5, we got all the international support we were going to get.  France wasn't going to go along, period.  There were just too many political and strategic benefits of opposing us for it to be otherwise.  Same for Germany, Russia, and China.  We did have the support of three of the five largest militaries in Europe (Britain, Spain, and Italy), with a very competent Polish force.  After a certain point, having too large a coalition can present as many problems as having a small one; when you have to give consideration to too many decisionmakers' preferences, the coalition can become paralyzed.

And having broad international support doesn't necessarily mean you're on the side of the angels.  In the spring of 1941, the anti-fascist Allies consisted of two countries:  Britain and the Soviet Union (the latter having been a German ally right up to Hitler's surprise double-crossing invasion of it.)  The force that invaded Russia in 1941 consisted of Germans, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, and Spanish.  The collaborationist government of Vichy France was effectively a German ally as well.  Multilateralism doesn't make a bad guy a good guy; the key is the justice of the underlying cause.

Yes, I suppose "Step 5" (international support) might be too optimistic. A unilateral invasion of Iraq (with a few allies like Britain, Spain and Italy) to get rid of Saddam would work in any case. Of course, if Afghanistan was pacified first...we might have been able to get a few more countries on board...but I guess it would not be necessary.

So here is the revised plan (what should have happened):

1. Get rid of the Taliban, and establish democracy in Afghanistan with the same effort we are using in Iraq today.

2. Simultaneously, send a smaller force to the borders of Iraq (along with troops from other countries) to make sure no WMDs leave the country. I don't think Saddam was stupid enough to use his WMDs from Iraq (if he had them). He would have feared retaliation. Its possible he wouldn't even sell WMDs to Bin Laden, since they were enemies. But JUST IN CASE he might sell them...I would have sent troops to patrol the borders and make sure no WMDS left the country.

3. After Afghanistan is truly stabilized (leaving a small peacekeeping force), invade Iraq with our entire army (and the assistance of any allies that will join us) and remove Saddam. Free Iraq and establish democracy there.

4. Of course, during all those steps, continue to hunt Bin Laden.

Is that better?

[punaboy]

Snow says:

Those that can't teach gym, post a 3rd parties thoughts to try and win a debate."

Why Snow, is that comment aimed at me? Good thing I never wanted to "teach", especially gym heh. But as you must know, I am not trying to win any debate, especially here at LDStalk. And there is no effort to debate in my posts on this thread. Perhaps you are just offended that anyone might post something you don't approve of?

Snow's favorite channel..."all Snow, all the time".

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Jul 1 2004, 01:28 PM

Could someone please define "liberal" and "conservative"?

Is there no grey area?

Because I think I am in a grey area.

I think I am too. I'm liberal on some issues - like rights for gays, and conservative on some issues - like gun rights. Most everything else I waffle on because I'm so much in the middle. It bugs me to have presidential candidates that are so extreme in each direction.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Unorthodox@Jul 1 2004, 11:47 AM

Thank you...

Actually, I agree with what Clinton told Time Magazine.

He said that he agreed that the war in Iraq was necessary, he just disagreed with the timing.

I know alot of you think Clinton is a "liberal traitor", and maybe he only said those things to make himself look more patriotic.

But I agree with his statement, regardless of whether or not he was sincere.

I am no politician or general, so maybe this wouldn't work...but if I was Bush back in 2001-2002, I would have done things differently:

1. Get rid of the Taliban, and establish democracy in Afghanistan with the same effort we are using in Iraq today.

2. Simultaneously, send a smaller force to Iraq to make sure no WMDs leave the country. I don't think Saddam was stupid enough to use his WMDs from Iraq (if he had them). He would have feared retaliation. Its possible he wouldn't even sell WMDs to Bin Laden, since they were enemies. But JUST IN CASE he might sell them...I would have sent troops to patrol the borders and make sure no WMDS left the country.

3. After Afghanistan is truly stabilized, invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Free Iraq and establish democracy there.

4. Of course, during all those steps, continue to hunt Bin Laden.

5. I almost forgot...I would have got more international support before going into Iraq.

If anyone sees a flaw in that plan, let me know. I'm not convinced it would work, and would like to hear other opinions...this is just an idea from someone who does not see things as black and white...that is , I do not believe Moore or Bush 100%...there is a grey area.

You make some good points.

Particularly with regard to garnering more international support.

That Bush and his cronies played fast and loose with the reasons that gave the americna public for GOING to war against Irak was Bush's biggest mistake. The war, with proper timing and proper justification may have been acceptable. But the WAY Bush handled it was a betrayal of trust with the american people. It's one thing to lie about your sex life. It's another to lie about matters of national security. Clinton had his faults. But in the battle of for the crown of "liar of the ages", Bush wins hands down.

If Bush were to tell you that he had reasons to invade another country in the future, would you believe him? If he asserted that the CIA had given him information to justify his decision, would you believe him?

(Fool me once......fool me twice!)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

One major difference between Bush and Clinton is that it's been established beyond doubt that Clinton lied. (There's still a smidgen of semantic wiggle room as to whether he lied under oath.) There has been no conclusive showing, or even substantial evidence (beyond the fact that he was apparently wrong) that Bush willfully lied about the reasons for the campaign in Iraq.

Gentlemen don't accuse others of lying without evidence. It's a damn shame dueling has gone out of style. Micheal Moore would be impossible to miss.

[punaboy]

Faerie says:

"we should not hoarde our freedom, we should ensure that everyone in the world has the same rights and protections from tyranny and oppression...granted it's impossible to go and hunt down every tyrant...but we can make the attempt..."

ergo:

"We should not hoard our (fill in with your choice--true divine religion, sacred political/economic system, race, culture), we should ensure that everyone in the world has the same rights and protection from tyranny and oppression...granted it's impossible to go and hunt down every (infidel, commie, colored, foreigner)...but we can make the attempt..."

Just how is your statement any different from the position of all crusaders and jihadists down thru the ages?

Sounds a lot like "white man's burden" jingoism, responsible for endless mass murder.

Your hubris prevents you from respecting the sovereignty of others...

[Guest Jets]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jul 2 2004, 11:01 AM

One major difference between Bush and Clinton is that it's been established beyond doubt that Clinton lied.  (There's still a smidgen of semantic wiggle room as to whether he lied under oath.)  There has been no conclusive showing, or even substantial evidence (beyond the fact that he was apparently wrong) that Bush willfully lied about the reasons for the campaign in Iraq.

For some uncanny reason, I would rather have a President "lying" about his personal sex life than one being "wrong" about major global events. I suppose it has something to do with the impact it might have on my life.

Gentlemen don't accuse others of lying without evidence.  It's a damn shame dueling has gone out of style.  Micheal Moore would be impossible to miss.

You really are a lawyer, aren't you! Either Marsha Clark was no gentleman or her evidence stunk.

[Faerie]

Originally posted by punaboy@Jul 3 2004, 06:27 PM

Faerie says:

"we should not hoarde our freedom, we should ensure that everyone in the world has the same rights and protections from tyranny and oppression...granted it's impossible to go and hunt down every tyrant...but we can make the attempt..."

ergo:

"We should not hoard our (fill in with your choice--true divine religion, sacred political/economic system, race, culture), we should ensure that everyone in the world has the same rights and protection from tyranny and oppression...granted it's impossible to go and hunt down every (infidel, commie, colored, foreigner)...but we can make the attempt..."

Just how is your statement any different from the position of all crusaders and jihadists down thru the ages?

Sounds a lot like "white man's burden" jingoism, responsible for endless mass murder.

Your hubris prevents you from respecting the sovereignty of others...

so...i'm racist because i think america should share freedom w/ the world..but you're ok for dissing white people..NICE!!

[punaboy]

so Faerie, perhaps you'll show me where I have dissed "white people"? Or as usual, will you just cut and run?

you are caught out in jingoistic "hate speech", and instead of defending your ideologies, you accuse me of racism...nice!

[Faerie]

Sounds a lot like "white man's burden" jingoism, responsible for endless mass murder.

sorry..but this is just a bit offensive...if i were to say the SAME thing and put "black" in instead of "white" i'd have the NAACP breathing down my neck...

how about calling me a crackah instead...sheesh

[punaboy]

you are the one who made your comments, don't blame me when others notice the lack of integrity in your ideology and you look bad.

The fact is, your comments are essentially the same as those of apologists for the British Empire, which was/is notorious for such racist ideologies. The British actually published their ideology of the necessity of British imperialism, based on the idea of the "White Man's Burden" to civilize the world, which is well-known and historical. Americans liked to apply such ideology to their affairs as well, calling it "Manifest Destiny", and while not (always, anyway) specifically employing racist terminology, the understanding was (is?) clear that Anglo America was called by God to conquer, first the North American continent, and then, "Onward!!! (hoo-rah!!)", in a grand and holy effort to "civilize the heathen savages" of the entire globe. Read some history, it's all there.

Today, such racists call the current world invasion "destroying the evildoers", or "spreading holy democracy", or other such drech, but it is just the (racist) crusades all over again.

If this regressive ideology now seems racist to you, and if racism is truly repugnant to you, perhaps you should reconsider your stance. And if and when you do wake up, could you please ask your "elected representatives" to withdraw their USA occupation troops from sovereign Hawaii? We want our stolen kingdom back.

But my comments were not specifically directed only to the racism inherent in your comments, racism is only one of the bogus excuses I mentioned in my example. The real problem here is mass murder, and racism is just one of the excuses used by mass murderers to justify their genocides.

If you can defend your ideology, then defend it. But as usual, you just try to divert, change the subject, and attack the messenger.