Farenheit 9/11: Your thoughts

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:18 pm

Just because the federal government chooses to give money to the states for law enforcement, doesn't mean it assumes the responsibility if it then chooses to withdraw that funding. It's not a bill owed to the states. But that's the kind of thing a socialistic thinker like Moore wants to portray: It's Bush's fault for not doing the jobs that prior presidents had the choice to do or not do. The same standards of government responsibility always hold: protect people's rights. Anything else it chooses to do is not a responsibility, and you can't call fault if it pulls back.

Death_2004 · Post by **Death_2004** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:00 pm

I personally think that being president means more then just to protect people's rights.

Post by **AnimeGuru0** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:28 pm

That NYT article didn't work, it asked me to register and some junk.

But considering the New York Times is one of the most liberal newspapers in existance, it's no surprise if they attack bush and/or side with Moore.

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:37 pm

AnimeGuru0 wrote:That NYT article didn't work, it asked me to register and some junk.

But considering the New York Times is one of the most liberal newspapers in existance, it's no surprise if they attack bush and/or side with Moore.

That's because you have to register in order to read the article.

And while the New York Times may be liberal, they're also accurate. They do not print falsehoods, so if you read something in their paper, it's true.

EDIT: Oh yeah. And back on topic.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:57 pm

They don't print falshehoods, but they color everything extremely to the left. Not even politically always, but socially. This article could just as well have been written from a States' Rights perspective as local jurisdictions taking economic power and responsibility back from the federal government because they're doing well. But by the NYT's mindset, any funding cut is a bad thing.

And the worst things are A)The Times refuses to even consider that it might be leaning left, and B)every other news source takes its cues from them.

Post by **AnimeGuru0** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:58 pm

LOL, Jason Blair. That's all I gotta say about that.

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 7:42 pm

Thank you for clearing that up. Now, as I said earlier, BACK ON TOPIC.

Death_2004 · Post by **Death_2004** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:36 pm

Like he said back on topic. For a movie which i heard from somebody else that a survey showed most americans are against the movie it hit $100 million which is a record for any doc about anything.

TrebekCrow · Post by **TrebekCrow** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:15 pm

I saw it simply out of curiosity. While Bowling for Columbine was a good primer piece on gun control, this was somewhat shockingly full of half-truths and modified information. Don't get me wrong - I'll be voting against Bush in November, but ths movie really had nothing to do with that. One problem that many liberals (and conservatives) make is attacking a person when what they really dislike is that person's ideas. While I vehemantly disagree with many of Bush's policies, I don't dislike him as a person (because I've never actually be George W. the person).

Artemis · Post by **Artemis** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:13 pm

I haven't seen it (as I'm thirteen and it's rated R, and my parents are really rigid on that). But I suspect that if I did see it, then I would probably agree with it. I live in Washington state, and where I live the community is totally anti-Bush, and I agree with them. I think that he's made some pretty bad choices for America, but that's just me.

RoastedTwinkies · Post by **RoastedTwinkies** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:06 pm

Artemis wrote:I haven't seen it (as I'm thirteen and it's rated R, and my parents are really rigid on that). But I suspect that if I did see it, then I would probably agree with it. I live in Washington state, and where I live the community is totally anti-Bush, and I agree with them. I think that he's made some pretty bad choices for America, but that's just me.

The movie isn't that bad. The only reason why it's rated R is because of graphic war scenes in Afghanistan. There weren't that many scenes though.

I agree with the points the movie made. In the beginning, I went in there, thinking that it was a propaganda film. But I came out, changing my mind. There was simply NO NEED for the war. Bush should have kept the troops in Afghanistan. He didn't need to attack Iraq because Saddam wasn't a threat to the world. Yes, he can terrorize his own people, but he can't terrorize his neighbours because of the UN embargoes.All Bush wanted to do is finish the job that Daddy couldn't finish when he was president. That really pisses me off.

Post by **AnimeGuru0** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:31 pm

Actually, the war on Iraq was a bit more complicated than just bush wanting to "Finish daddy's job".

Since the weapons of mass destruction thing didn't turn out to be................a good argument, I wont use that one, but there are many other reasons why Saddam was taken out of power.

First off, Saddam openly praised AND funded terrorist groups. I believe he said that he would give a large sum of money (1,000,000 dollars?) to the family of any suicide bombers in Israel. He also harbored terrorists in his country, I remember seeing on the news a terrorist who had finally been caught after having hidden in Iraq for.......what.........13 years? Something obscene like that.

Second, the moral issue. While I don't necisarrily support the US being the police force of the world (Why don't countries like FRANCE and CANADA step up and do something for freaking once in their miserable existances (no offense to the french and canadians ^^;;;;;;;; Moreso to the French and Canadian governments)), you cannot deny that Saddam has committed some horrible war crimes. The genocide of the kurds and the horrible slaughter on Kuwait during Iraq's initial invasion come to mind.

To be honest, Saddam was far too much of a liability in the post-9/11 world in Bush's opinion. I support him, cause Saddam is a scumbag. I'm glad he's out of power. Now I just want our troops to get out of there and let them (The Iraqis) take care of things themselves.

Oh yeah, and so this isn't totally offtopic, I still maintain my opinion that Moore is an idiot. *drifting off topic again* I saw a movie called "Micheal and me" or SOMETHING (I don't know if Micheal was the name used int he title), and there was a whole segment about this chick who skinned rabbits..............*shakes head in frustration* Just.........don't go see that movie........it was weird.....

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:40 pm

To be honest, Saddam was far too much of a liability in the post-9/11 world in Bush's opinion. I support him, cause Saddam is a scumbag. I'm glad he's out of power. Now I just want our troops to get out of there and let them (The Iraqis) take care of things themselves.

That's how I feel about it. Saddam needed to come down. I don't support the war, but that's only because I don't support war at all. I don't like the idea. However, I also understand that there really weren't many options. And now, I just want the military out of Iraq. Partly because I don't want the draft re-instated, partly because my father's in the military, and partly because I feel that we no longer need to be there.

As for the movie... I really have one complaint about Micheal Moore and most Bush-bashers. They need to focus more on his actions. Yes, Bush is an idiot. But when a debate becomes solely "BUSH IS A MORON NEENER NEENER", I get annoyed. I wanna know about his actions, not his I.Q.

RoastedTwinkies · Post by **RoastedTwinkies** » Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:36 pm

AnimeGuru0 wrote:*snip*

First off, Saddam openly praised AND funded terrorist groups. I believe he said that he would give a large sum of money (1,000,000 dollars?) to the family of any suicide bombers in Israel. He also harbored terrorists in his country, I remember seeing on the news a terrorist who had finally been caught after having hidden in Iraq for.......what.........13 years? Something obscene like that.

Second, the moral issue. While I don't necisarrily support the US being the police force of the world (Why don't countries like FRANCE and CANADA step up and do something for freaking once in their miserable existances (no offense to the french and canadians ^^;;;;;;;; Moreso to the French and Canadian governments)), you cannot deny that Saddam has committed some horrible war crimes. The genocide of the kurds and the horrible slaughter on Kuwait during Iraq's initial invasion come to mind.

To be honest, Saddam was far too much of a liability in the post-9/11 world in Bush's opinion. I support him, cause Saddam is a scumbag. I'm glad he's out of power. Now I just want our troops to get out of there and let them (The Iraqis) take care of things themselves.

*snip*

While you do raise some good points that I agree with, I just had a few things to say. First, this whole war raises the issue, we can't just go and attack any dictatorial country. While, yes, the reasons for attacking Iraq are valid, what, are we going to go in and 'remove' every dictatorship that exists in the world today? If we did that, the war would never end.

I can totally understand the moral issue, but I completely support Canada's decision on the war. Ever since the end of WWII, the Canadian military got nothing but cutbacks. It's like those Liberals hate the military and don't care for our national security. We send them out with old equipment that doesn't even work, putting their lives in danger. Hell, our helecoptors are so crappy, for every hour they are flying in the air, they need 48 hours of service thereafter. Over in Afghanistan, our troops had to use paint and sand on their army green uniforms because our IRRESPONSIBLE government couldn't afford desert uniforms. Because of all these cutbacks and everything, our troops should not be sent out unless it's absolutely necessary.

I know this sounds contradictory, but since the US troops are in Iraq, it wouldn't be a good idea to pull them out so soon. I don't think the Iraqis are ready to run the country on their own. If the US pulls out now, it's just going to be a matter of time befre a coup crops up and takes over the country, and then we have another asshole dictator to deal with. The whole war on Iraq would have been a waste of time. If they want democracy to take hold of the country, the US would have to sit on Iraq for 50 years, just like they did with Germany and Japan after WWII. But, I don't think the US is prepared to do that.

Post by **AnimeGuru0** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:52 am

Parakiss - Very well put. I 99% agree with you. War is retarded, but sometimes it's a necisarry evil. I just wish that sometimes other countries would stand up and do the dirty work instead of the US, cause it seems like we've been getting the short end of the stick lately. It really annoys me how a VAST majority of foreign countries hate the US, when it's the US that pretty much protects a lot of those countries both militarily and economically (if the US market crashed, the world market would crash as well).

Twinkies - Well, we didn't take Saddam out of power just cause he was a dictator. Castro is a dictator........and I know of no plans that we have to "Take him out" in the near future. While Castro sucks, he's not really a threat to us. I think China is kind of the same way. I know China is communist and has some type of dictatorship but i'm not entirely sure how it's run. But while Chinese/US relations are strained, I don't think the US has any intention of "taking China out". Basically, we're just self-interested (as all countries are), if there's no threat to us, we rarely seem to care (and the only time we do care is if the UN makes us). If we were really out to get dictatorships, I think we'd be at war with 20% of the nations of Africa right now as well.

So, yeah. Micheal Moore is dumb. Boo Farenheit 9/11 (lame attempt to stay on topic).

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:51 am

Yes, he can terrorize his own people, but he can't terrorize his neighbours because of the UN embargoes

I just noticed this, and I have to laugh. Saddam couldn't terrorize his neighbors? So, was he perhaps invited to Kuwait the several times he invaded there? When he launched missiles at the United States a few years back, that was just a friendly, out-of-season Christmas present, right? Those UN embargoes are so effective.

RoastedTwinkies · Post by **RoastedTwinkies** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:05 am

ParaKiss_Groupie wrote:
Yes, he can terrorize his own people, but he can't terrorize his neighbours because of the UN embargoes
I just noticed this, and I have to laugh. Saddam couldn't terrorize his neighbors? So, was he perhaps invited to Kuwait the several times he invaded there? When he launched missiles at the United States a few years back, that was just a friendly, out-of-season Christmas present, right? Those UN embargoes are so effective.

I'm just saying that Saddam was limited to what he can do because of the embargoes. Without the money, he can't fund his military. Therefore, he is limited.

ParaKiss_Groupie · Post by **ParaKiss_Groupie** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:15 am

RoastedTwinkies wrote:
ParaKiss_Groupie wrote:
Yes, he can terrorize his own people, but he can't terrorize his neighbours because of the UN embargoes
I just noticed this, and I have to laugh. Saddam couldn't terrorize his neighbors? So, was he perhaps invited to Kuwait the several times he invaded there? When he launched missiles at the United States a few years back, that was just a friendly, out-of-season Christmas present, right? Those UN embargoes are so effective.
I'm just saying that Saddam was limited to what he can do because of the embargoes. Without the money, he can't fund his military. Therefore, he is limited.

Saddam's country sold oil. No one can put an embargo on oil. Saddam had all the money he wanted. The UN can say that they didn't buy stuff from him all the time, but they're lying. It's oil.

RoastedTwinkies · Post by **RoastedTwinkies** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 11:18 am

ParaKiss_Groupie wrote:
RoastedTwinkies wrote:
ParaKiss_Groupie wrote:
Yes, he can terrorize his own people, but he can't terrorize his neighbours because of the UN embargoes
I just noticed this, and I have to laugh. Saddam couldn't terrorize his neighbors? So, was he perhaps invited to Kuwait the several times he invaded there? When he launched missiles at the United States a few years back, that was just a friendly, out-of-season Christmas present, right? Those UN embargoes are so effective.
I'm just saying that Saddam was limited to what he can do because of the embargoes. Without the money, he can't fund his military. Therefore, he is limited.
Saddam's country sold oil. No one can put an embargo on oil. Saddam had all the money he wanted. The UN can say that they didn't buy stuff from him all the time, but they're lying. It's oil.

But the UN said that they wouldn't pay money for the oil. They used food and medical supplies to pay for it. Too bad Saddam still kept that away from his people.

EDIT: unless.... he sold that stuff for money.

Sailorasteroid · Post by **Sailorasteroid** » Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:46 pm

RoastedTwinkies wrote:But the UN said that they wouldn't pay money for the oil. They used food and medical supplies to pay for it. Too bad Saddam still kept that away from his people.

EDIT: unless.... he sold that stuff for money.

He could have done that, and probably did, but there was also a huge black market for him to sell oil on. The oil-for-food program was just the legitimate face of that black market. Just look for [google]"oil for food" corruption[/google] and read about some of the investigations taking place. It's been suggested that the reason the UN opposed going into Iraq was the loss and/or exposure of these illegal sales.