Fahrenheit 9/11

[Guest 01NFRs2k]

Originally posted by mesteno:

tell me, your going to vote for somone because of what happend 30 years ago? I guess you never were told that Bush also flew missions during the cold war. of course not.

 

And i call bullshit to ANYONE who says that they wouldn't go into the guard if given the chance during a draft.

Yes, but having contacts to get you into the National Guard is a different story. Sure, during Vietnam, anyone would have been very happy to get into the National Guard.

[cNeutron]

Originally posted by 01NFRs2k:

That is not my reason. I just did not want to go into it, since this is a thread dedicated to 9/11. I'll talk all day about Kerry if you'd like.

well i really would like to hear your reasons why? because kerry doesnt have a record that is worth anything i just dont know what anyone would see in him. But i really do want to hear why you support him. And try to keep it about kerry and not bush bashing because that is no argument then.

[SHIEF]

This is enough right here to not vote Bush:

 

"Bin Ladin doesn't concern me"

He says this openly in 2002, then denies it and says that Kerry was "exagerating". Ummmm...open your eyes you dumbfuck of a President (who can't pronounce a full sentence without stopping/thinking), this is the guy who struck your country killing thousands and he doesn't concern you. What an idiot.

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by mesteno:

A: I guess you never were told that Bush also flew missions during the cold war. of course not.

 

B:And i call bullshit to ANYONE who says that they wouldn't go into the guard if given the chance during a draft.

A: George W Bush never flew a mission in his entire life. He never flew a sorte, he was never given an objective to complete. It's debatable that he even flew patrols. You dont let some one who almost didnt fail his pilot aptitude test fly missions. You sign him up as a favor to his congressman dad and ground his ass.

 

B: I wouldn't. Thats assuming, of course, that the draft would not be clled up again unless there ws a real nd serious threat to the united states. No on ever made a difference fromt he national guard, and I'm a cocky sum'bich that would be out to do just that. I couldn't sleep at night knowing that my peers were off in battle while I cashed in on the safety of nepitism, I have my pride. Besides, beleive it or not, I know alot about fighting and warfare, the way fo strategy been a hobby'study of mine for many years, would be kind of nice to put that to use.

 

"Kerry doesnt have a record..." Bullshit. Those are the words of some one who's done no reaserch of their own, they simply listen to wht Tucker Carlson and the bush campaign chairs have to say. "Bush has made it clear that he's not going to loose an election for being to gentlemanly". He uses every dirty trick he can and deliberately deceives the public, and he's got over $50mill to do it.

Look back on Bush's record prior to you guys electing him the first time. He completed on one full term as a Governor, thats it. Prior to that, he sucked at his job in the oil industry, failed in his attempt at congress, barely graduated highschool and college, dodged the draft and sucked at the air national guard, and was raised as a spoiled biach. He had absolutely nothing to run on, but he runs a ruthless campaign and is willing to say and do anything to get elected. His record as president is nothing to brag about either, he's done nothing bu make messes, and swears he'll clean them up in the next 4 years. Not a very strong platform.

[Berto]

Originally posted by Blowzilla:

I agree with Berto. While I hate Kerry but like Michael Moore's documentaries, the word "propaganda" should NOT always have a negative connotation

he didn't have a problem reading.

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by 01NFRs2k:

Anyone here read the whole 9/11 report? I did. Iraq is not mentioned once in it. Kind of interesting that we decided to go there.

You should read a report on Iraq to learn about Iraq, and read a report on 9/11 to learn about 9/11, and understand that they are separate events, and don't confuse the two.

 

We went into Iraq because Saddam was spitting in the face of UN sanctions. The countries that are pissed off at the U.S. right now are pissed off because corporations or governments of those countries were selling arms to Saddam in violation of UN sanctions from the Gulf War, and we rained on their parade by setting everything straight. That's why many members of the UN were being pussies about going in to attack Saddam - because some of them had their hand in Saddam's cookie jar. Every other country that is pissed at us had some illegal financial interest in Iraq or is closely allied (read: stands to gain economically) with a country that did.

 

The fact that most Americans can't distinguish between everything that is happening in the Middle East shows just how ethnocentric we as a nation are.

[Guest doggunracing]

Originally posted by RX7dood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I agree with Berto. While I hate Kerry but like Michael Moore's documentaries, the word "propaganda" should NOT always have a negative connotation

he didn't have a problem reading.</font>Where did he say that propaganda is always negative? It should always have a negative connotation though, because it represents a control of information, facts or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause, or damage another's, with no regard to the opposing view.

[Berto]

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

seriously, damn.

 

propaganda is only negative depending on your personal views.

[OGRE]

Originally posted by BrockSamson:

A: George W Bush never flew a mission in his entire life. He never flew a sorte, he was never given an objective to complete. It's debatable that he even flew patrols. You dont let some one who almost didnt fail his pilot aptitude test fly missions. You sign him up as a favor to his congressman dad and ground his ass.

mission, patrol what's the difference? kinda like your list of "laws" kerry sponcored? tongue.gif

 

hypocytical? Nit-picking words when do the same thing, c'mon eric. That's weaksauce.

[Berto]

Originally posted by mesteno:

mission, patrol what's the difference? kinda like your list of "laws" kerry sponcored? tongue.gif

 

hypocytical? Nit-picking words when do the same thing, c'mon eric. That's weaksauce.

sponsored.

[Guest 01NFRs2k]

Originally posted by Tony:

You should read a report on Iraq to learn about Iraq, and read a report on 9/11 to learn about 9/11, and understand that they are separate events, and don't confuse the two.

 

We went into Iraq because Saddam was spitting in the face of UN sanctions. The countries that are pissed off at the U.S. right now are pissed off because corporations or governments of those countries were selling arms to Saddam in violation of UN sanctions from the Gulf War, and we rained on their parade by setting everything straight. That's why many members of the UN were being pussies about going in to attack Saddam - because some of them had their hand in Saddam's cookie jar. Every other country that is pissed at us had some illegal financial interest in Iraq or is closely allied (read: stands to gain economically) with a country that did.

 

The fact that most Americans can't distinguish between everything that is happening in the Middle East shows just how ethnocentric we as a nation are.

Kind of like our financial interest in Iraq... but ours obviously wasn't about sending arms

[Guest 01NFRs2k]

Americans were deceived or attempted to be deceived by the Bush administration in the reasons for going to Iraq. I do not think there was any question about that. I find it hard to believe that anyone could think this was just about "spitting in the face of U.N. sanctions." This had gone on for years and years and all of a sudden we think it is ok to bust in there. Oh while we're in the region fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan (something that was never finished), we might as well invade Iraq also. That is crazy.

[Guest Harris92]

John Kerry has had the worst attendance in the

senate and also failed to attend one the most important meetings on the 9/11 panel, while our country was still in a state of threat. graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

[Guest Harris92]

To be exact he missed 76% of the senate intelligence

committee's public hearings. Wow. He really seems like someone who cares for the people.

[Mowgli1647545497]

http://www.richardsimmons.com/images/img/RichardBiofotos2.jpg

[Trouble Maker]

Originally posted by Tony:

You should read a report on Iraq to learn about Iraq, and read a report on 9/11 to learn about 9/11, and understand that they are separate events, and don't confuse the two.

 

We went into Iraq because Saddam was spitting in the face of UN sanctions. The countries that are pissed off at the U.S. right now are pissed off because corporations or governments of those countries were selling arms to Saddam in violation of UN sanctions from the Gulf War, and we rained on their parade by setting everything straight. That's why many members of the UN were being pussies about going in to attack Saddam - because some of them had their hand in Saddam's cookie jar. Every other country that is pissed at us had some illegal financial interest in Iraq or is closely allied (read: stands to gain economically) with a country that did.

I don't disagree with that logic and the illegal trading, going against the sanctions, needed to be stopped. There was a problem in Iraq and it needed to be resolved. The UN was not really doing anything about it. Even if one can consider what the UN was doing even slightly effective, it would have taken forever. Could something else have been done to try to resolve it without force? I think so. Was there really a clear and present danger? I don't think so.

 

But by that logic weren’t all of the countries that were selling things to Iraq also spiting in the face of the UN sanctions and we should also attack them? As much as I would like for us to attack France, I don't think it would be a very good idea to attack all of the countries that are on that list.

 

I think what 01NFRs2k was referring to was the fact that, the reason the administration has given to us for us being in Iraq has been changed three times. First it was WMD's. The administration says that all of the information they had at the beginning of the war did point to Iraq WMD’s, or extensive abilities to produce them and a will to use them on us. That was reason enough to go in. We wanted proof, but there was none at the time, we couldn’t get it because Iraq wouldn’t let weapons inspectors everywhere. There was never any WMD’s found to date. So the new reason why we went in was because Iraq had direct connections to Al Qaeda and supported, financially, 9/11 as well as other terrorist activities. Well, there’s not any evidence to support that either. Now the reason is simply that we got a bad dictator out of office.

 

Well, Saddam’s been a bad dictator for a long time and we felt the need to do something about it now. Why now? Evidential to that is when gassed the Kurds in the 1988, and we didn’t ever do anything about that use of WMD’s. Saddam actually did something very bad back in the early 90’s. Something that was a real reason for us to go to war (oil was obviously an ulterior motive at this time, but he WAS trying to forcefully take over another country). Also, did we have the backing of the UN for that war (something I don’t know and couldn’t find in a quick search)? We started to go into Iraq, but didn’t finish the job like we are now. Why didn’t we finish it then and why are we finishing it now?

 

I think it’s great that Saddam is out of power and that there can be a free Iraq that governs themselves as they see fit, and that hopefully out of all of this there can be some more stability in that area of the world. The end does not justify any means. I just don’t think that we have some god given right to go around reshaping the world as we see fit, when we feel the need to. I would have hoped as a country, and eventually as a world, we could grow out of the idea of colonizing. It’s just not right.

[Guest Tony_K]

Originally posted by 01NFRs2k:

Americans were deceived or attempted to be deceived by the Bush administration in the reasons for going to Iraq. I do not think there was any question about that. I find it hard to believe that anyone could think this was just about "spitting in the face of U.N. sanctions." This had gone on for years and years and all of a sudden we think it is ok to bust in there. Oh while we're in the region fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan (something that was never finished), we might as well invade Iraq also. That is crazy.

Okay, whatever you are trying to say there. . .. I just wanted to help you distinguish between September 11 and the Iraq war, since you, like many others, have seemingly linked the two for no apparent reason.

 

Funny, I don't remember any talk about Osama and Iraq in the news in the months before the Iraq war. The news every night showed UN inspectors being denied access by Saddam's military. Repeatedly. For months, if I recall correctly. Iraq was not an Osama hunt; it was a weapons hunt. Saddam said, "no I don't have any weapons . . . . you'll see . . . . but you can't come in to look just yet . . . . wait . . . ." for quite some time. Why? What did he do in those months? What was he hiding? If he was clean, why would he have held off inspectors for so long? Explain that, please.

 

Here's another way of looking at Saddam and Iraq: Imagine if the police showed up at your door with a search warrant and you told them they can't come in. . . ...and you were already on probation...

[Trouble Maker]

Originally posted by Tony:

Originally posted by 01NFRs2k:

[qb]I just wanted to help you distinguish between September 11 and the Iraq war, since you, like many others, have seemingly linked the two for no apparent reason.

 

Funny, I don't remember any talk about Osama and Iraq in the news in the months before the Iraq war. The news every night showed UN inspectors being denied access by Saddam's military. Repeatedly. For months, if I recall correctly. Iraq was not an Osama hunt; it was a weapons hunt. Saddam said, "no I don't have any weapons . . . . you'll see . . . . but you can't come in to look just yet . . . . wait . . . ." for quite some time. Why? What did he do in those months? What was he hiding? If he was clean, why would he have held off inspectors for so long? Explain that, please.

 

Here's another way of looking at Saddam and Iraq: Imagine if the police showed up at your door with a search warrant and you told them they can't come in. . . ...and you were already on probation...

Sorry to rehash, but maybe I didn’t get my point across clear, I do that sometimes. You didn't hear any talk about Osama prior to the war because there could still conceivable that they had WMD's, which was a good enough of an excuse at the time. The administration is even sticking to that story now, saying hindsight is 20/20. Then when it didn't look like they were going to find any evidence of WMD's they said that Iraq and Saddam were harboring and funding terrorist, including Al Qaeda and Osama. Then when people found out that wasn’t true they said It's to get Saddam out of the power and bring freedom to the people.

 

This is my take on why Saddam did what he did with the UN. Saddam didn't let UN inspectors go everywhere when he did let them in and didn't let them in at all later on because he was narcissistic. I think it's obvious that someone who can do what he did/had people do to other human beings has some sever psychological issues. He didn't think there was a good reason why he should let them see anything because he was the ruler of his country and was so powerful that there was no way he would ever be overthrown. I don't think he would have every thought we would get that far and that there was even a need to move anything bad that he had lying around. That in no way proves that he did or did not have any WMD's, but I don't think him having and needing to move the WMD's was not the reason as to why he wouldn't let the UN inspectors in.

[The Pikey]

I liked the part when the Taliban guy says he feels sorry for that ladies husband...Pure comedy

 

Scott

 

peace

[Guest 01NFRs2k]

Originally posted by Tony:

Okay, whatever you are trying to say there. . ..

I think it was pretty clear what I was saying. I don't think I can make it any more clear. What I am saying is that there are many other reasons we are in Iraq than U.N. sanctions. Just like Neo said, we have been given about 3 different reasons. And one of those reasons was that terrorism was being supported by Saddam Hussein. Now how can you say that is not a link between what happened on 9/11 and why we are in Iraq. And going back to the 9/11 report, Iraq is not listed once. Terrorism and Iraq, we were told went hand in hand, well at least financially. Doesn't make sense, does it? Iraq and 9/11 are not two separate issues, as the administration had turned it into the same issue.

[Guest Tony_K]

graemlins/thatfunny.gif Find me an instance where the *President* - NOT the MEDIA - gave catching Osama as a reason for going into Iraq... I want the written text of Bush's own words, and a citation as to when and where it was said, as well as your source.

 

You seem to be confusing what you have heard from the media over the months.

 

[ 18. October 2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Tony ]

[Guest 01NFRs2k]

That was an intelligent response. Here, let me show you an intelligent response. If you think WMD was an issue and U.N. sanctions, the only reason Iraq was claiming that was to keep Iran off their back. There were never any WMD. Bush just has this idea that he can spread democracy throughout the world. Well, it's not that easy as we have seen in Iraq and with all of the lives lost. People are not going to wake up one day and accept democracy. We have no exit strategy. Who knows how long we will be there and how many more lives will be lost. And if you want to put some stupid smiley face as a response to that, I feel bad for you. This is so sad and for what reason. I'm done.

[Guest Tony_K]

Do you know that the sanctions involved far more weapons other than "WMDs"?

 

By the way, Saddam was claiming *not* to have WMDs... remember? Truth is, plain and simple, that he was building up a weapons arsenal in violation of his "probation", and we and other nations saw it as a threat.

 

Do you honestly think that Bush would lie to everybody, spend countless dollars and risk countless lives for some bravado power trip? Do you honestly think that ALL of our senators, intelligence institutes, and military are ALL so incredibly stupid as to all be fooled by a lie from George Bush? Do you honestly think that other nations sided with us either because Bush lied to them and fooled them too, or because of some form of corrupt alliance among governments?

 

Don't you think that if he had actually acted out of deceit there would be some form of action taken against him by our government? Impeachment? Court Martial? Law suit? Whether the Iraq war was justified or not, mistake or not, I don't know; but if you think for a moment that it was solely at the hands of Bush, maybe you should take an American Government course and then go back and read some credible reporting sources.

 

I thought that slow-talking Dubya who can't even form a sentence was too stupid to do all that? He's just a puppet, right?

[Drunkendubber]

bush kerry and im sure countless other senators and other officials are on tape and record stating that iraq had WMD they all have the same intelligence that told them so. As did great britian, the un and any once else with intelligence you cant get angry at the man that acted get angry at the man that verified the intel and published it.

[Buckeye23]

Well, you had 3 major Intelligence reports stating that Iraq had WMD.

 

1. U.S. Senate Intelligence Report

2. Putin's Intelligence Report

3. British Intelligence Report

 

All those reports are saying that Iraq had WMDs. Now I don't know about anyone else, but if I were the president I wouldn't want to sit on my hands with these 3 major reports staring me in the face and do nothing. I'd rather take my chances and be wrong than do nothing and risk the lives of possibly tens of thousands of civilian lives.

 

In either scenario, the president is the goat. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you're wrong about the WMD (in which case, it looks like we are), then you're deemed a war mongerer(sp). If you don't do anything and someone releases a chemical weapon here in the US and them chemical agents are traced back to Iraq, then the president will accused of not acting on the intelligence, etc... It's definitely a touchy situation either way you cut it, and it's obviously not just about flexing the U.S. military machine.

 

And Saddam DID have terrorist ties. I don't know if anyone remembers that Saddam did pay money to the families of Palastinian(sp?) suicide bombers. If that's not supporting terrorism, I don't know what is.

 

And let's not forget the constant breaches of the Cease Fire agreement from the Gulf War. Allied planes patrolling the No-Fly Zones were under constant fire from Iraqi ground batteries. A VIOLATION of the cease-fire that Saddam signed. Not to mention that his land based rockets were only allowed to have a certain range on them and that rule was broken also.

 

Saddam was not removed from power in the Gulf War BECAUSE...Congress did not approve a regime change in Iraq. Bush Sr. was only authorized to remove Saddam from Kuwait. THAT'S IT. So saying that we didn't finish the job is not a valid arguement.

 

However, we're now well passed the point of no return. I think this whole mess of "The President lied" (even though the 9/11 Commission says he didn't) would have been cut off had the president just come out and said something to the effect of:

 

"I had what I believed was the best available information regarding Saddam and his WMD programs and I acted on that intelligence. However, now it's seems that the intelligence was not as credible as was once believed. I still believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do based on Saddam's past history as a brutal dictator, use of chemical weapons, genocide, supporting of international terrorism (NOT JUST OSAMA'S PALS), etc..."

 

Sorry for the long post...