Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michael Moore F911 lies and half truths

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • They're trying to spin it to support the invasion now. They're saying.."see, he would've someday maybe rebuilt some sort of...kinda WMD type program...which one day sometime, he could possibly have given to some terrorist down the road in the future"....yadda, yadda, yadda...you might just as well add..."during a full moon, on the fifth Tuesday of a leap year when a coyote bays under the light of a meteor shower while it's raining and snowing simultaneously."

    It's a joke..and how anyone could support this lying administration is quite frankly beyond me.

    It is, was and always will have been about oil, money for defense contractors who were Bush's buds (Halliburton, Carlysle Group, Enron, etc., who build such important military material as the Bradley fighting vehicle and so on), and a distraction from UBL because UBL was nothing less than a sticky wicket for GWB and his daddy...not to mention his buds the Saudi's.

    People were asking too many questions about the Saudi's and their involvement with terrorism and the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were mostly from there...he needed a distraction...and fast. Oh, look, there's Iraq...easily vilified...Saddam was bad in the past, we would really like to see him gone (since we created the monster in the first place), we can make tons of military contract money for our friends, the people will get their country to hate, and we'll control a large part of the world's oil in the end.

    Forget that everyone warned him, including the CIA, not to go into Iraq, it would seriously destabalized the region and open a pandora's box (which it has).

    Forget that Iran was more of a threat to give terrorists WMD tech and support....especially AQ, who had and has training camps inside Iran and allowed several of the 9/11 hijackers safe passage through their country when they were on their way to attack us.

    Forget that in ignoring Iran, turning away from the pressure on UBL and AQ, and rushing into the quagmire that is Iraq, we allowed AQ to regroup and reorganize, give them fodder for recruitment, destabalized the region (playing right into their hands), and allowed Iran and NK to build Nukes (now who can really give terrorists nuclear capability, unlike Iraq which never could've even if they'd wanted to).

    Stay the course?! Keep spewing the lies and misinformation hoping someone will believe it?! I'm too intelligent to buy GWB's crap...always have seen through it.

    Kerry is not perfect and he's not the most charismatic person on the planet, but I believe he's trying to be honest as much as he can, and charisma, IMO, is not a requirement to run the country. We can't continue under this administration or we're doomed and our children's children will pay the price for it.

    We have to try someone else and give them a chance to fix this mess and get us back on track to some sanity and truthfulness.

    If Kerry screws up, I'll vote for someone else in 2008, but no one can say how he'll do until we give him the opportunity.

    I like what he's had to say so far. He does have a plan for Iraq and the WoT...he's clearly laid them out and is soon to lay out his plans for the economy and education. Bush has said nothing new...he continues to lie and try to cover for his arrogance which has caused the US to become hated throughout the world and created a powderkeg in the ME.

    Yet, he refuses to admit any mistakes or wrongdoing. That alone warrants that he be replaced as President and Commander in Chief.

    CE
    Anthony Flessas
    Writer/Producer/Director,
    SP Pictures


    I have no avatar! I walk in mystery and need nothing to represent who and what I am!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by colonyearth
      Forget that Iran was more of a threat to give terrorists WMD tech and support....especially AQ, who had and has training camps inside Iran and allowed several of the 9/11 hijackers safe passage through their country when they were on their way to attack us.
      I suspect that Bush in planning for the US military to visit Iran in 2007/8. That gives 3 years of sanctions to weaken them and build new oil wells in Iraq.
      Andrew Swallow

      Comment


      • Invading Iran would be the most frelling stupid thing to do.
        Iran was finally in the road to democratization, with moderates finally having some power and pushing for reforms to slowly diminish the extremist religious groups dominance on politics.
        Then GWB called them part of the axis of evil and later invaded Iraq giving much more ideological strength to the extremists.
        There is already an almost unshakeable assumption by many in the Muslim world (fueled by extremists, and taken advantage of by terrorist groups for recruiting) that the USA is trying to invade and destroy their culture. If Iraq is followed by any further invasion it will make things much more worse.

        On the other hand, if a successful democracy is actually established in Iraq it may inspire the moderates in Iran.

        War is not the answer.
        Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase
        James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79)

        Comment


        • As far as i know there is a strong movement for reforms in Iran especially when you take a look at the younger people. And they are a major part of the population and they are quite attracted to the western lifestyle. I think it would be much wiser to try support the moderate groups than to confront the islamistic factions with weapons. If threatened, people will always gather behind their leaders as much their opinions differ on normal terms (this also happened in US). Invading Iran could end up really nasty...terrorism could rise to even new levels.
          We should try to destroy the foundation of islamistic terrorism by simply support the moderate parts of those societies.

          Anyways...The whole process of "planting" democracy in the muslim world and fighting terrorism will be a long one. I think it will take at least 20 years that those societies can transform themselves. And bombing them to democracy will only slowdown this process.

          Comment


          • We must Destroy Islam in order to Save it!
            <Fe>

            Comment


            • I think that we should go after every backwards country, and Iraq was as good a place as any to begin with. Even though we actually went after the Taliban first.

              I keep hearing Kerry saying that he's laid his plan out, but he hasn't. He has explained what he'd like to do, but he doesn't say how he'd do it.

              As for bringing in Germany, Russia and France, everyone needs to check out a book that came out last month entitled Treachery: How America's Friends and Foes are Secretly Arming Our Enemies. Apparently, it's all based on intell reports. I haven't been able to pick it up yet, but I have seen the author on some shows. Nobody gets it...G, R, and F wouldn't have joined the coalition no matter who was leading it or why it was being formed. They had business interests, some of them arms interests.
              Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
                I think that we should go after every backwards country, and Iraq was as good a place as any to begin with.
                How very...imperialistic.

                Jan
                "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jan
                  How very...imperialistic.

                  Jan
                  Well, imperialism would imply that we'd rule these countries, like Great Britain did when they ruled what seemed like the entire planet. In fact, the entire fifty-year Iraq "mess" could be blamed on the UK's decision to divide up that region the way they did. How many sects are in the borders of the country we know as Iraq?

                  That said, I think the goal now should be to try and get the sects to work together. Otherwise, it'd be like dividing the US into two sides and have liberals live on the west side and conservatives on the east side.

                  Back to the point, we are still in Germany and South Korea and Japan, but we don't rule them.
                  Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                  Comment


                  • How many sects are in the borders of the country we know as Iraq?
                    There are three main culture groups - Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd.

                    That said, I think the goal now should be to try and get the sects to work together.
                    At the moment, two of them do seem to be working together. Against us, of course. Only reason the Kurds haven't jumped in is because they've policed themselves and we've left them alone.

                    Otherwise, it'd be like dividing the US into two sides and have liberals live on the west side and conservatives on the east side.
                    I've seen the electoral maps - it looks like we do this already.

                    Imperialism implies rule, you are correct. So how would you propose we invade "every backward country", and change them in some way, without ruling them? Forcing a change implies enforcement. Enforcement implies rule. Even your examples were ruled for quite some time (except South Korea - but that was a country we defended, not invaded).

                    You say it like it's a quaint and jolly idea, but there's a massive divide between what you say and what those words mean.
                    Radhil Trebors
                    Persona Under Construction

                    Comment


                    • Thank you Radhill for saying much of what I was thinking.

                      I don't mean to be harsh here, but ZHDD and I have had our differences in the past...and it seems we still do.

                      The things you say ZHDD insinuate a very uninformed, hate filled person who lives by the rule of fear...something our illustrious President would like us all to do. Fear makes it very easy to control the masses and get them to allow you to do whatever you want.

                      There have been times throughout history, and I'm certain there will be again, when military action is clearly needed to defend and protect a more open and free idealogy such as what the US is supposed to represent.

                      Iraq was not one of them. Iran is not one of them. Invading any country in the ME would be, as my friend Capt. Montoya stated, frelling stupid.

                      chaostaenzer, you are right that more freedom loving people live in Iran. It is the hardline, theocratic government that rules that country that is the problem. The younger generation in Iran loved the US...up until we bombed Iraq and began an all out war against Islam as they see it.

                      Instead of helping the problem in Iran...we've made it worse there just as we have in Iraq.

                      And ZHDD, you say Kerry has laid out a plan for the WoT but hasn't explained how he'll carry it out. Yes, he has. Did you actually watch the speech where he laid out his 7 point plan to win the WoT? He explained everything perfectly well and clearly enough to me. People like you seem to have a problem understanding very clear and plain english whenever Kerry is speaking. I guess your ears get all muffled or something.

                      I personally have yet to hear anything clear from the Bush camp as to how they hope to proceed except in blanket, generalistic statements like, "have to you win in Iraq" and "we spread democracy through the middleeast" (an impossible thing to do the way he's trying to do it, BTW), and other such massively simplified statements that say nothing and mean less.

                      One of the best elements of Kerry's plan is his desire for a program of education and fighting poverty in the ME and third-world countries where terrorists recruit young people who have nothing else and want to blame someone.

                      Go into those countries...elevate the population and educate them...show them there's more to life than blowing yourself up with some bomb, hoping to be a martyr. Give them something worth living for...which right now...they really don't have. And that will cost a hell of a lot less, BTW, than war.

                      It's always amazed me that Christians refuse to ask the most important question to them when it needs to be asked the most: What would Jesus do?

                      Would he bomb Iran or Iraq? Or would he go among them and try to reach them on a personal level and teach them there is a better way...a better life to be lived?

                      The people of Iraq have paid an enormous price for this war. More than the people of the US have. And no matter how you try to sugar-coat it or explain it away...the bottom line is...they didn't to a damn thing to us...not a damn thing.

                      The people who attacked us...got away...and Bush is the one who let them.

                      Period.

                      CE
                      Anthony Flessas
                      Writer/Producer/Director,
                      SP Pictures


                      I have no avatar! I walk in mystery and need nothing to represent who and what I am!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
                        I think that we should go after every backwards country, and Iraq was as good a place as any to begin with. Even though we actually went after the Taliban first.
                        That's a frelling arrogant and most frelling stupid tought on foreign policy.

                        You also fail to understand something: the arrogance implied in calling "backwards" any country that has a different culture and form of government than yours is usually very insulting for those in that country. Especially if you're talking about countries that have enough centuries as to be millenia of their own cultural traditions.

                        You may need to travel outside the USA, and talk more with foreigners to realize just how badly received that would be.

                        Take it from me. Mexicans love the USA, export almost anything marked "made in the USA" and people would buy it (and remember that the economy of many Texan border towns depends largely on weekend buyers from MÚxico). Mexico consumes gladly and eagerly USA TV and films, etc., etc.
                        But know this: if the USA ever decided that we were "backwards" and in need of help to modernize and invaded us they would ignite a powderkeg of revolt and guerrilla war against their invading forces.

                        And Mexico is a friend of the USA, and our government speaks favorably of our neighbor... now imagine how any country that sees the USA suspiciously, with leaders that waste no chance to criticize and denounce the actions of the USA would react...

                        Or just look at this in the mirror:
                        How would you feel if a fundamentalist Muslim country had the military and economic power to act as the USA, and decided the USA was "backwards" and needed to be converted to the true faith?

                        You can't impose your culture into anyone by force of arms without being seen as an imperialist.
                        That is the biggest problem of perception in the Middle East right now.
                        Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase
                        James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79)

                        Comment


                        • <<'s always amazed me that Christians refuse to ask the most important question to them when it needs to be asked the most: What would Jesus do?>>

                          I don't see what Christians or Jesus have to do with this discussion.

                          <<Would he bomb Iran or Iraq? Or would he go among them and try to reach them on a personal level and teach them there is a better way...a better life to be lived?>>

                          Well, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq, and I sure didn't see any hate-filled comments made towards him.

                          <<The people of Iraq have paid an enormous price for this war. More than the people of the US have. And no matter how you try to sugar-coat it or explain it away...the bottom line is...they didn't to a damn thing to us...not a damn thing.>>

                          Freedom does not come without cost. The maintenance of freedom, neither. "To save our people, we must sacrifice our people."

                          <<The people who attacked us...got away...and Bush is the one who let them.

                          Period.>>

                          The people who attacked us are dead and their comrades have been caught and are being hunted down as we speak.

                          <<You also fail to understand something: the arrogance implied in calling "backwards" any country that has a different culture and form of government than yours is usually very insulting for those in that country. Especially if you're talking about countries that have enough centuries as to be millenia of their own cultural traditions.

                          You may need to travel outside the USA, and talk more with foreigners to realize just how badly received that would be.

                          Take it from me. Mexicans love the USA, export almost anything marked "made in the USA" and people would buy it (and remember that the economy of many Texan border towns depends largely on weekend buyers from MÚxico). Mexico consumes gladly and eagerly USA TV and films, etc., etc.
                          But know this: if the USA ever decided that we were "backwards" and in need of help to modernize and invaded us they would ignite a powderkeg of revolt and guerrilla war against their invading forces.>>

                          I know, man. My workplace is 90% Mexican. Mexico certainly has a corrupt government, but they are not a backwards culture by any means. They are not ruled in name or in actuality by religion. I think that Mexico has the ability to be a great nation, and I think the US could help them in this regard.

                          As for the Middle East, that is what I am talking about. For centuries, the ME was the center of science and math and culture itself. We surpassed them long ago, and I think there is a certain envy taking place, along with a crazed idea that we are ruled by Jews. There are no two more hated countries than the USA and Israel.

                          <<Or just look at this in the mirror:
                          How would you feel if a fundamentalist Muslim country had the military and economic power to act as the USA, and decided the USA was "backwards" and needed to be converted to the true faith?>>

                          That is essentially what happened on 9/11. The ME already hated us, shown when people were cheering in the streets. Some say we should sit idle and let things tend to themselves. But if we do that, how long until another 9/11 occurs?
                          Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
                            [B<<Or just look at this in the mirror:
                            How would you feel if a fundamentalist Muslim country had the military and economic power to act as the USA, and decided the USA was "backwards" and needed to be converted to the true faith?>>

                            That is essentially what happened on 9/11. The ME already hated us, shown when people were cheering in the streets. Some say we should sit idle and let things tend to themselves. But if we do that, how long until another 9/11 occurs? [/B]
                            Points of fact: No fundamentalist Muslim country (or any other type of country) attacked us on 9/11. Nor is the Middle East a country.

                            Jan
                            "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                            Comment


                            • <<Points of fact: No fundamentalist Muslim country (or any other type of country) attacked us on 9/11. Nor is the Middle East a country.>>

                              Got it in one, Ms. Schroeder!

                              This is where my point lies...terrorism is not Al Qaeda or Hamas or PLO...terrorism is terrorism and it springs from the conditions most ME countries make.

                              The crusades millenia ago could be seen as terrorism of the time. The Europeans hated the ME and north Africa because they were Muslim and heathens. So they went on a "quest for God" and slaughtered people.

                              This was not a policy of ancient England or France...it came from the Christian religion and distorted understanding of the Holy Bible's teachings.
                              Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                              Comment


                              • Sorry, you're mixing too many things up for me to figure out your point.

                                Jan
                                "As empathy spreads, civilization spreads. As empathy contracts, civilization contracts...as we're seeing now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X