83 replies to this topic

[Vintage]

In all of the criticism of F-9/11, all I have seen conservatives do is bash Moore. Are they running out of things to criticize about in his documentary, or are they just looking at the movie, not bother seeing it, and coming to the conclusion that it is a "biased piece of propaganda," therefore being hipoctitical about the film because they haven't actually seen it?

Moore is EXTREME left. That is why conservatives sometimes bash his movie before they have seen it. If Rush Limbaugh made a documentary, liberals would do the same thing. I agree that a person should see the movie in question before attacking it, but Moore has always been so anti-Bush that Bush supporters can presume the movie is bashing Bush and choosing the best sources to do so.

Here's a question for all those people who have seen the movie:
Does it ever support anything Bush did? encourages critical thinking, huh?

~Vintage

Edited by Vintage, 13 July 2004 - 05:28 PM.

[Oroku Saki]

Here's a question for all those people who have seen the movie:
Does it ever support anything Bush did? encourages critical thinking, huh?

~Vintage

Come to think of it, what did Bush do to help the American people? Give us a false sense of security by using scare tactics about terrorism, and then taking away our freedoms? Lying to us that following him means being a patriot, but opposing him, or questioning his actions makes you a traitor to your country?

So what if the movie mainly bashes Bush? Are any of the facts presented in F-9/11 false? Like Rawray stated, there are at least 3 teams of independent researchers checking every single item presented in Moore's film, and found nothing inaccurate so far, except for the larger amount of Saudi money invested in the US economy. Moore himself even stated that he is considering offering a reward for anyone who can find any inaccuracies in F-9/11.

If a conservative like Limbaugh or Bill O Reilly released a documentary bashing Kerry, or showing Bush in a positive light, I would still go see it, weigh both views shown, and then come to my own conclusions, which is what INFORMED voters do. To make any decision in life, you need to weigh the consequences of both sides.

Even though I do not want to bring the whole debate about Communism, I feel that is necessary to address this. If the US became Communist, our enitre constitution would be scrapped, and most of our rights taken away. So why do you think that attempts to get rid of corporations who use the government for financial gain is an attempt to promote Communism? Actions like this are still upholding the Constitution, so I don't see why this can turn the US into a Communist government.

Getting to the military enlistments, because of the high unemployment rates in the US, the military looks better as a career option for the middle and lower class. Moore wanted to show that because of the indirectly-forced enlistments, the military has an easier time to strengthen their forces. Some of these troops are sent to critical terrorist hot spots, such as Afghanistan, while a majority of them are sent to Iraq, a place where we probably should not have started war with anyway. Sure, I hate Saddam as much as the next American, but when it comes to fighting the war on terror, America needs to set their priorities straight. There should be no reason why our troops should be sent to die in a country that most likely did not pose as a threat to us.

Sadly, we are at a point in Iraq where we can't just pull our troops out, and both Bush and Kerry have no doubts about that. Check the news and other resources, and compare what both candidates said about their plans for foreign policy. So far, I have found that Bush wants the US to continue fighting in Iraq indefinately, and Kerry wants to repair our diplomatic relations with the countries Bush pissed off.

[Chrysophylax]

Think of every communist country. Russia: ended up being poor and misguided because of communism.
North Korea: You know whats worse then getting shot ? Starving to death in the cold of the north korean mountains because of your communist leader fucking things up. Cuba: Poor, because the U.S cut off trade with them, thus leaving them poor because we don't have thier buisness.

You know what happend in Cuba once they became Communist ? Castro, and his leaders started a pool where you went to the government office, entered your name, came back the next day to find your new job and paycheck. Eye doctors being peditricians, construction workers being fishermen. Should a doctor that had to go out of country to earn a degree in neurology be earing the same wage as someone laying bricks ? No, because thats just not how things work.

I said true communism. Not communism that exists or has existed.

[The Infinite Shindig]

Heres the thing, When they were in detroit interviewing the people from the ghetto, why were they upset at the government for thier friends/family getting killed in Iraq/Afghanistan (I wasn't really watching) ? They enlisted in the forces either for thier country (god bless America) or because they need the free education. When they were asking the congressmen if they had enlisted thier children, why do you think many of them said no ?

Heres the thing, The wealthy can pay for thier education. The poor and sometimes middle class have trouble paying, forcing them to enlist sometimes for the hope of living through the war, and having an education. Moore seems to want us to think that we should all be equal economicly wise and thats just not fucking right.

Let me get a couple of things straight here. You apparently think it is ok and downright fine for the poor/lower middle class to fight our wars, but you also think (since you seem to be fundamentally a republican) that they can also be screwed over in the form of federal aid (welfare, etc)? That doesn't seem fair. "Gee, since you are poor, you can fight my war for me, and then I don't have to give a crap about you." Is that it?

Points like the ones you made really make me wish that selective service was universal. I can say this considering that I am 18 and hold a draft card. I really don't think your opinion on the draft matters unless if you have or held that card, really I do.

To address the point about the Congressmen. Moore was trying to show the concept that accountability is somewhat universal. I am in no way saying that the US Congress or the President is responsible for US casualties, but what I am saying is that there is a point made there. For example, let's say you are on the board of directors/committe for youth league sports with no child of yours involved anymore. You and the majority of your committee members make a controversial decision that involves funds. After six months, there are clearly problems with your decision and it looks like the solution is to place larger fees on the parents. Wouldn't you feel like you had some accountability to the parents? However small? Perhaps you would feel as though you should probably shell out some type of "donation?" I know the example isn't perfect, but I tried to collapse Moore's congressional point down to a much smaller scale.

I saw the movie; I wanted to shoot myself after the first hour. Michael Moore makes good points, but he's a sensationalist. Conservatives are pissed because the liberals finally have their own crack pot to announce his extreme winged agenda to the country. Liberals have the movies and the conservatives have their own syndicated radio talk show host, not to mention and army more where that came from on both sides. Seems rather balanced to me. Plus, there is the counter point movie coming in theatres, which was previously eluded to in another post. I just think the conservatives here dislike when there is a crackpot to rival theirs.

Michael Moore is a snake. There is no denying that. But if you mean to tell me that the conservatives don't have their own snakes, then I reserve the right to call you a certifiable fucking retard.

Thoughts?

[Dan Wask]

I know, I'm not exactly the smartest person when it comes to politics, and, I have trouble stating my views the exact way that I meant it. I hate topics like this (espcially because I created it) because it shows a side of people that need not be shown on a nerf forum.

And no, I don't think it is fine that the poor are fighting our war, what I should have said is why are the poor fighting our war just for the sole reason of education ? The rich can pay for education, ruling out enlisting for educational benifets. The poor can't, forcing some of them to enlist for the educational benfits.

I come from a middle class family. My father's education was payed for by his WWII father veteran working at the paper mill during the day, the steel mill at night. His mother, worked at 3 different department stores during the week.

My father got married, and lived off of nothing trying to support my brother and mother from a low job at the chemical plant. He worked his way up until he reached a prominany position. So please don't give me this bullshit about letting the poor fight our wars when my grandfather who came with nothing from poland, learned english, and joined the army NOT drafted to go and fight in WWII.

My mom is soon going to have to take a second job to help pay for my brother's education at virginia tech. So, I just don't want to hear any more blatant bullshit about me not caring about the lower/middle class when you don't know jack shit about me or my family.

Edited by Dan Wask, 13 July 2004 - 07:29 PM.

[Oroku Saki]

Points like the ones you made really make me wish that selective service was universal. I can say this considering that I am 18 and hold a draft card. I really don't think your opinion on the draft matters unless if you have or held that card, really I do.

I may be contradicting myself a little on this issue, but here goes: to even out the gap between the rich and poor being in the military service, there should be a draft, however looking at current events, it is really sad that a rich middle-aged white guy like Bush has the power to send young people to die for their financial gain. Selective service is a double-edged sword. It can be used for making sure all citizens provide a service to their country, however it can also be abused by sending them to die for lame causes.

[reversedracula]

I think Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451 said it best: "Michael Moore is a screwed asshole."

http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=38776

Long live science fiction! On a serious note though, I can't help but think this crappy I, Robot film "based on" the Asimov book is going to suck more than a positron brain imbalance and prove significantly more detrimental to the sci-fi/fantasy community. Bush/Cheney '04. Bradbury '08!

[Oroku Saki]

I'm not surprised that Bradbury is pissed at Moore. Also, you would have thought it would have been reasonable for Moore's company to keep in touch with Bradbury, which he didn't. Mind you, that article was written almost 2 months ago. Bradbury thinks that the movie is just going to die off in the box office, and yet it outsold all of the other movies during its opening in theatres.

I already had my mind made up as to who I was going to vote for before I even saw this movie. Seeing F-9/11 only helped reinforce my reasoning behind this.

About the movie I, Robot? I think that it looks too lame for me to even bother watching it.

[reversedracula]

We may disagree on politics, but we certainly agree on the decrease in the quality of Will Smith's sci-fi films... and in the end, isn't that what really matters, my Iron Chef friend?

[Oroku Saki]

Yeah, I think that Will Smith's Sci Fi days were long gone ever since they came out with the 2nd Men In Black movie.

Do you ever watch Ninja Turtles? Oroku Saki ain't no Iron Chef, even though the Great Master Shredder could theoretically be one if you think about it (with all the blades and all). But that's getting a little too off topic.

I think I already summed up my personal thoughts on the issue of F-9/11. As I said before, despite Moore being the political radical that he is, I must say he put together an excellent film, and I recommend that people see it even if they support Bush. The film brings up several important topics that will be key contributing factors in the next election.

Also, I look forward to seeing any conservative-based films that are coming out, but I think that Michael Moore Hates America is more about bashing Moore, instead of taking on his political arguments.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 13 July 2004 - 10:52 PM.

[AirApache]

Okay, I haven't really had enough time to read each post in depth (sorry) but here's what I'll argue/add.

To get this out of the way, I, Robot actually isn't that far from what COULD happen. Popular Science put it best. I don't have it with me but it went something like this.

To create the ideal robot, (i.e. washing the dishes, getting the mail, etc.) the robot would have to react to new situations. The more and more advanced our studies get, the more our robots/machines will be able to think for themselves. This is what we want, right? We don't want to have to press a million buttons just because we want it to do a new function.

Instead, we'd rather have a machine that could problem solve. Which, by the way, is a human quality. Once we create a robot that can problem solve, what's to stop it from deciding that it want's to reprogram itself?

Of course...argues the other side of PopSci, we could always have some sort of 'magic button' that disables the robot. But personally, I believe that even though I, Robot appears farfetched as of now, who knows what our reality will be like 30 years from now?


Back to F 9/11. I remember someone writing about Bush going to war because of family business. If this hasn't been countered yet, then here I go. Saddam Hussein isn't just old Bush business. If you have a different family problem then you can counter this argument. But if you're hanging off of Hussein...that ain't just a family feud.

Human Rights. Basic human rights. Hussein has TORTURED his own people. 'Nuff said. And also, I believe that when Bush announced that they were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, that was bullshit. There was so much friggin evidence that it only made sense to go (I did a report on this...english). Not to mention that given his history, Hussein would use them if he had the chance.

We have evidence that warehouses were cleared only a few days before inspectors arrived, and all the remaining computers had been cleared, and harddrives replaced. But...we have inspectors who are so freakin amazing with computers, they found bits and pieces of lists. Lists of wmds. Not to mention we've had several defectors from Iraq that have told us about the plants they worked in.

I'm not old enough to vote, so you may scoff at whatever I say (stupid kids, what do they understand). Seeing as I don't have to, I won't strongly take sides to either Bush or Kerry. I don't know there policy crap or that stuff.
What I will say, is that Bush initiated a war. There has never been a war in which the president suddenly gained many people who disliked him. (Okay..possibly WWII. But that was the coolest war all-time. Dogfights...you can't beat that.)
So I can see why Bush's popularity has gone down quite a bit. But I say let him finish whatever he's doing. Maybe he has a plan that he doesn't think civilians should know about. Or maybe he doesn't. But we thought he was good enough once. He hasn't lied about his propositions or crap like that, so I say let him stay another term. Then again, I'm just a high schooler.

AA

[Chrysophylax]

Human Rights. Basic human rights. Hussein has TORTURED his own people. 'Nuff said. And also, I believe that when Bush announced that they were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, that was bullshit. There was so much friggin evidence that it only made sense to go (I did a report on this...english). Not to mention that given his history, Hussein would use them if he had the chance.

Removing a tyrannical dictator doesn't justify a pre-emptive war at all.

[merlinski]

The Moore movie doesn't show anything positive about Bush because Moore, and myself, believe that nothing positive has come out of that man's presidency. Look at the Iraq war, from the beginning:

Bush comes into office, asks CIA to justify war on Iraq.
9/11 happens.
Bush asks CIA to tie it to Iraq.
CIA comes up with very weak stuff.
Bush takes weak stuff, presents it as strong evidence to the american people.
Bush says "they have WMD's".
Cheney says "they have ties to 9/11 hijackers".
Rumsfeld says "no one presents a more immediate threat".
We invade, 140 soldiers die.
Bush declares "Mission Accomplished".
746 more soldiers die.
We find no WMD's.
It turns out that they didn't have a nuclear development program.
Cheney denies ever saying that Iraq had ties to the 9/11 hijackers.
Rumsfeld denies ever saying they were an immediate threat.
Bush says that the war was about the people, not WMD's.
Bush says that America is now safer (8 times in 32 minutes).
There have been more terrorist attacks in the last year than in any time in history.
We haven't found anything that could be used to harm us.

So basically we are left with these criteria for invading Iraq:
Hatred of US.
Terrorists might have possibly lived in the country.
Threat of WMD's, used them in the past.
Human-rights-hating dictatorship.

Now, wait a second... that's not only Iraq. In fact, Iraq isn't even the best example of those examples! That would probably be Iran! Or Saudi Arabia. Or any other country in the region. But we chose Iraq. Maybe it has something to do with Bush coming into office with that on his agenda? Oh wait, I forgot, that can't be it, because Bush said in his 2000 Campaign that "US troops shouldn't be used for Nation Building". Wow, now I just feel confused.

Human Rights. Basic human rights. Hussein has TORTURED his own people. 'Nuff said. And also, I believe that when Bush announced that they were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, that was bullshit. There was so much friggin evidence that it only made sense to go (I did a report on this...english). Not to mention that given his history, Hussein would use them if he had the chance.

We have evidence that warehouses were cleared only a few days before inspectors arrived, and all the remaining computers had been cleared, and harddrives replaced. But...we have inspectors who are so freakin amazing with computers, they found bits and pieces of lists. Lists of wmds. Not to mention we've had several defectors from Iraq that have told us about the plants they worked in.

That's not unique to Iraq. Why was Iraq special?

I'm not old enough to vote, so you may scoff at whatever I say (stupid kids, what do they understand). Seeing as I don't have to, I won't strongly take sides to either Bush or Kerry. I don't know there policy crap or that stuff.
What I will say, is that Bush initiated a war. There has never been a war in which the president suddenly gained many people who disliked him. (Okay..possibly WWII. But that was the coolest war all-time. Dogfights...you can't beat that.)
So I can see why Bush's popularity has gone down quite a bit. But I say let him finish whatever he's doing. Maybe he has a plan that he doesn't think civilians should know about. Or maybe he doesn't. But we thought he was good enough once. He hasn't lied about his propositions or crap like that, so I say let him stay another term. Then again, I'm just a high schooler.

We thought he was good enough when he lied and said that his tax cuts would help the economy, when he lied and said that he wouldn't use US troops for nation building. Some people fell for that, the majority didn't and voted for Gore.

History lesson time! After starting Gulf War 1, Bush Sr.'s popularity jumped to 90%.

He has lied about his "propositions"! His administration has lied over and over again about whether they claimed that there was a link to 9/11 or whether they called Iraq an imminent threat!

Edited by merlinski, 14 July 2004 - 10:02 AM.

[CheeseNerfer]

I enjoyed the movie even though it was extremely one-sided. Also you'd think that Michael Moore would before putting things in a national movie that were offensive, make sure that they are all true, so think before you say everything he said was a lie. Also I'd like to say that the movie did not change any of my political views, but I did find it very interesting.

[AirApache]

If I was a little more knowledgeable with politics (God forbid), then I would have followed Bush/Kerry's policies and stuff. Then I would be able to have a better argument. Since I don't I'll just go by what I deem ethical.

Okay, 9/11 would have happened regardless.

I'll give it to you that Bush totally changed his ideals after mission was accomplished. That annoys me. Like I said, I'm not really FOR Bush, I just don't think that this propaganda crap was needed.

Actually, the CIA had sufficient evidence, and I personally believe that Saddam outsmarted us. Okay, maybe not sufficient, but a good amount of it. Apparently it wasn't good enough for the UN and the French. (Oh, wait...the French don't count.)

Bush has made tax cuts, but people aren't satisfied by them. He hasn't lied about that.

Hatred of the US and possible terrorists have always been an inherent problem. You can't say that after the war in Iraq, that is the reason why they came out.

You say we haven't found anything that could harm us. That may be true, after we invaded. But before we did, we found huge traces of botox and VX and many other chemical and biological weapons. Like I said before, they have evidence of a nuclear program, but when we invaded, we couldn't find anything. Just because we can't find anything doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Iraqi's and Saddam aren't stupid. They, like us, can make it difficult for us to find things, and can try to cause conflict in an opposing country.

I was po'd that Bush changed his ideals, like you pointed out, after we finished the invasion. We came in for the wmds, and we left with saddam. Although the removal of Saddam is great, it's not something that should have happened if it wasn't on the agenda.

I still think making a movie that defaces your OWN president is not right. I've noticed, growing up, how people of the other party try their best to make the country's president look bad. Why would you do that?

You may disagree with the president, but if your president makes a choice (sometimes that's tough), I think it's only right to support him, even if you disagree.

It's like this: Bush finally decided that he would go to war with Iraq. Okay..there is a lot of people who disagree with him. I'm sure the decision wasn't the easiest to make for Bush. But when he decides, if a third of the country tries to slow his progress down, it's not just defacing Bush, it's hurting the country.

Well, you totally destroyed most of my previous argument. But I hope you agree with me on most of this stuff.

AA

[Vintage]

Let me get a couple of things straight here. You apparently think it is ok and downright fine for the poor/lower middle class to fight our wars, but you also think (since you seem to be fundamentally a republican) that they can also be screwed over in the form of federal aid (welfare, etc)? That doesn't seem fair. "Gee, since you are poor, you can fight my war for me, and then I don't have to give a crap about you." Is that it?

I am opposed to any draft, because I only want people fighting for the USA who actually want to defend the country with their lives. But here is where you went wrong Shindig:

What is the US military here for? To give people free educations? Or to defend our country? When people use the military to get a free education, they MUST prepare themselves to fulfill the military's primary purpose.

My dad got his education with the Marines. He was and still is ready to go off to war for our country. People who use the military for education without understanding their duties in it, find themselves with a hard smack of reality.

Even before seeing F-9/11, I still hated Bush anyway, because I have found that in the end, many of his political decisions hold little to no actual grounding in terms of serving the American people or upholding the Constitution, which is what all presidents pledge to do when they are sworn into office to begin with.

Sometimes you need to see both sides of the story to get the big picture. I would rather be informed than ignorant, which is why I highly recommend that people see F-9/11, regardless of their political stances.

You confessed that you hated Bush before you saw the movie, so why would seeing it make you 'informed'? If you saw a movie that praised Bush, your hatred of him would keep you from believing what you just saw. Being 'informed' is only a way of saying 'finding reasons for backing your predisposed beliefs.'

Don't get me wrong, I am the same way you are. If I saw a movie talking about the heroic deeds of John Kerry, I would not believe them. My beliefs concerning Kerry affect the way I observe his motives and doings.

My main point is this: Once you feel you have a clear knowledge concerning a political figure/action, it is extremely hard to change your mind. Thus, becoming 'informed' only really happens before you reach your conclusion.

~Vintage

[AirApache]

Politics on a nerf board....this is a bad way to get enemies...

[rawray7]

Human Rights. Basic human rights. Hussein has TORTURED his own people. 'Nuff said. And also, I believe that when Bush announced that they were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, that was bullshit. There was so much friggin evidence that it only made sense to go (I did a report on this...english). Not to mention that given his history, Hussein would use them if he had the chance.

airapache, am i reading this right? you thought the president was bullshitting about telling us he was wrong? "i believe that when bush announced that they were wrong...that was bullshit(apache, 3)". okay, wtf? on the other hand, i'm sure your amazing english report has better information, proving that the president pulled a big "J/k" about lying, just to show how funny he is. so much "friggin" evidence...like....hmm....none. not a single WMD - all they found was a model plane in a shed, that had the capacity to carry a toxic agent. i'm personally going down to Hobby Shack tomorrow to arrest everyone in there with a model plane.

merlinski, you're my hero. i can't help but make fun of these kids, without you actually proving points, i think us nerfing liberals would be given a bad name. if only cxwq would stop avoiding this thread and start his usual "QED, you lose, i win, here's a link to some british news that i found in .0004 seconds that shows you why you're dumb."

Edited by rawray7, 15 July 2004 - 01:00 AM.

[Chrysophylax]

I am opposed to any draft, because I only want people fighting for the USA who actually want to defend the country with their lives. But here is where you went wrong Shindig:

What is the US military here for? To give people free educations? Or to defend our country? When people use the military to get a free education, they MUST prepare themselves to fulfill the military's primary purpose.

Aren't you just a walking oxymoron?

You're saying that you only want people who want to fight to fight. But then you turn around and say that those in the military, but don't want to fight should also fight.



...five to one, baby. One in five.

Edited by Chrysophylax, 15 July 2004 - 08:14 AM.

[Oroku Saki]

I am opposed to any draft, because I only want people fighting for the USA who actually want to defend the country with their lives. 

Then why is the government trying to pass one before the election, without the mainstream media reporting it? If you look at my previous posts, you can find the bill on the Congress website under the bill numbers I posted. If you oppose the draft, why not do somthing about it?

What is the US military here for?  To give people free educations?  Or to defend our country?  When people use the military to get a free education, they MUST prepare themselves to fulfill the military's primary purpose.

And if a draft passes, it will be harder for these individuals to adjust to this (whoever they may be).

My dad got his education with the Marines.  He was and still is ready to go off to war for our country.  People who use the military for education without understanding their duties in it, find themselves with a hard smack of reality.

I have several friends who also went into the military for education, and they are fully aware of the possible hazards and commitments of their decision. If I enlist, I am also aware of this. I am sure that even a good majority of the lower class who enlist are also aware of what they are getting into. In the film, Moore interviews a few kids from the ghettos, and ask them what they think about enlisting, and they mention the possibility of getting killed, so don't say that people who enlist for education do not know what they might be getting themselves into.

You confessed that you hated Bush before you saw the movie, so why would seeing it make you 'informed'?  If you saw a movie that praised Bush, your hatred of him would keep you from believing what you just saw.  Being 'informed' is only a way of saying 'finding reasons for backing your predisposed beliefs.'

Don't get me wrong, I am the same way you are.  If I saw a movie talking about the heroic deeds of John Kerry, I would not believe them.  My beliefs concerning Kerry affect the way I observe his motives and doings.

My main point is this:  Once you feel you have a clear knowledge concerning a political figure/action, it is extremely hard to change your mind.  Thus, becoming 'informed' only really happens before you reach your conclusion.

The reason why I feel that the movie made me more informed is because the film showed Bush's decisions and actions in more detail compared to what I have picked up every so often from the news. So far, no one has found any inaccuracies in it, despite what many conservatives have said to bash Moore. Since I have not heard of any movies that have been made to praise Bush, I have no other choice but to make my decisions based on what is already out there in the media.

[merlinski]

Actually, the CIA had sufficient evidence, and I personally believe that Saddam outsmarted us. Okay, maybe not sufficient, but a good amount of it. Apparently it wasn't good enough for the UN and the French. (Oh, wait...the French don't count.)

The Administration has wasted no time in blaming the CIA's evidence for the invasion of Iraq. They're backpedaling, and instead of saying "yes, we thought it was a good idea", they're saying "we didn't screw up, but if you think we did, it's their fault".

Hatred of the US and possible terrorists have always been an inherent problem. You can't say that after the war in Iraq, that is the reason why they came out.

I'm saying that when we bomb a country and invade it, you end up killing people. And when you kill people, you just create more extremists (the relatives of the dead).

You say we haven't found anything that could harm us. That may be true, after we invaded. But before we did, we found huge traces of botox and VX and many other chemical and biological weapons. Like I said before, they have evidence of a nuclear program, but when we invaded, we couldn't find anything. Just because we can't find anything doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Iraqi's and Saddam aren't stupid. They, like us, can make it difficult for us to find things, and can try to cause conflict in an opposing country.

Actually, the only reason we thought he had WMD's was because we gave him some back in the 1980's. The inspectors had found nothing, and the famous "500 tons of VX", etc. speeches turned out to be based on bad intelligence, and the White House is pretending that it's not responsible for the quality of that intelligence.

I still think making a movie that defaces your OWN president is not right. I've noticed, growing up, how people of the other party try their best to make the country's president look bad. Why would you do that?

You may disagree with the president, but if your president makes a choice (sometimes that's tough), I think it's only right to support him, even if you disagree.

I speak out against Bush because I believe that people ought to know what this man is doing, and how he is lying to them. That way, people won't fall for campaign statements and we won't have to deal with 4 more years of his bad decisions.

It's like this: Bush finally decided that he would go to war with Iraq. Okay..there is a lot of people who disagree with him. I'm sure the decision wasn't the easiest to make for Bush. But when he decides, if a third of the country tries to slow his progress down, it's not just defacing Bush, it's hurting the country.

Was it really that hard? Or was he pushing for it from the beginning?

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report." - Richard Clarke

Even if they find WMD's in Iraq, I don't believe this was a justified war. I believe that preemptive strikes of this size are not something that the US ought to do, especially without the help and support of the rest of the world.

[THIRST]

One of these days, I wouldnt be surprised if the president framed Iraq into having WMD's...I mean, if he brainwashes enough people, if he sets his own fake WMD's in Iraq, it would help in the election.

Though I doubt anyone who could be elected to office would have that sick of a mind.

THIRST

[Crankymonky]

Well, his IQ is like 80...

[cxwq]

if only cxwq would stop avoiding this thread and start his usual "QED, you lose, i win, here's a link to some british news that i found in .0004 seconds that shows you why you're dumb."

I've been following the thread. There really hasn't been anything posted against the film that's worth debating. Basically there are two themes here from the conservative camp:

• It's biased! It's not a documentary at all because it's biased! He picked the people he would interview so it's biased!
• OMG Moore is an asshole! OMG Moore is unpatriotic! OMG Moore is UNAMERICAN!

Yeah.

I'll invite anyone here to show me a political documentary that isn't biased. No? Didn't think so. Everyone's got an agenda. Acknowledge and move on.

As for the ad hominem attacks against Moore, if that's all you guys have got (and it appears to be the case) then he's going to be laughing all the way to the ballot box.

The only thing I'll bother to address specifically is this:

What is the US military here for? To give people free educations? Or to defend our country?

They're here to defend our country. Let them know exactly when Iraq invaded us and I'm sure they'll be happier to be sacrificing their lives for the cause. As it is, they're dying for politics not freedom.

Bush is unamerican.

[Crankymonky]

Damn, I wub Cx.

I have not seen Moore's documentary, but I don't care about such things. I try to look at the big picture, not just the people some guy chooses to interview.

That was from Vintage, too lazy to type in that bit of stuff that shows his name

Vintage, to see the whole picture of something, you must look at both sides...There won't be something that shows all there is to know...

Crank'

Edited by crankymonky, 15 July 2004 - 12:58 PM.