fahrenheit 9/11

[Cheech]

Watched it yesterday. Pretty impressive. I'm sure some of the stuff mentioned might be misleading, but you can't help but ask yourself some questions...

[aquariumfishguy]

It was a very powerful film, to say the least. Anyone (for or against Bush) should consider seeing the movie.

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

It was a great film but like all things like that you have to go in and come out skeptical. He made some interesting points but you cant believe whole heartedly everything he says... just as you cant believe Bush.

I think it was a great idea for him to make the film..... although i think that mainly the people who are going to go see it are the people who already think Bush is a cracker.

[kikuchiyo]

It's nice Americans are finally seeing the stories and images that were on world news for ages (I was out of the country right before the war started, including in the Middle East and South Asia. The view from there was, obviously, very different). This country's news media is one of the most inept, unprofessional, unthinking (or just plain greedy) in the world. Sometimes it seems like its one step away from state run news media. Even my beloved NPR wasn't as pressing as it should have been.

I've always been a fan of Moore and he doesn't say anything new in the film that he didn't say in Dude Where's My Country, but coupled with this delightful news (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1933216&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=188&tid=192&tid=99) a film is probably the best way to get an idea across these days in America.

[cgrabe]

I can't trust a word that comes out of Moore's mouth. I'd be the first to say Bush has really screwed up, but Moore clearly has no interest in objectively documenting anything but his checking account balance. He may have some valid points in there somewhere, but I'm not going to try to wade through the deception to find them.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by cgrabe
I can't trust a word that comes out of Moore's mouth. I'd be the first to say Bush has really screwed up, but Moore clearly has no interest in objectively documenting anything but his checking account balance. He may have some valid points in there somewhere, but I'm not going to try to wade through the deception to find them.

ditto for me.

[ash]

it doesn't have to be objective- it's just his viewpoint. At least it has people talking and questioning- our useless soundbite media sure the hell isn't.

[aquariumfishguy]

Exactly Ash. And like ALL media isn't biased in some way or the other? LOL

Moore is just one other source... take it in, and make what you want out of it. But he is just as entitled to project his views as everyone else is.

And yes, he is probably over payed, but so is everyone else out there in that field (most anyway).

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ash
it doesn't have to be objective- it's just his viewpoint.

I never said anything about objective.

He changes things around to something they are not. Has nothing to do with being objective, it has everything to do with lying and manipulating the truth.

And I never said he wasent entitled to make his movies either. He is 100% entitled to make them. Just as Im entitled not to waste my money on seeing them.

[kikuchiyo]

There was a nice discussion of this in a film class I took, in reference to Roger and Me. He argued that the way he arranges details can be problematic to some people but his tendency to look down on the people he says he's fighting for (less so in Columbine and 9/11 than in Roger and Me) is far more of a problem.

[cgrabe]

Originally posted by ash
it doesn't have to be objective- it's just his viewpoint. At least it has people talking and questioning- our useless soundbite media sure the hell isn't. It should at least try to look abjective when he tries to pass it off as a documentary.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by cgrabe
It should at least try to look abjective when he tries to pass it off as a documentary.

apparently he did, he keeps winning awards for 'best documentary'...
:o

[kikuchiyo]

A documentary is never unbiased. No matter how neutral it might seem, the filmmaker always puts in his/her own value judgements. Documentaries are no different than any other kind of filmmaking.

Though, in America, we're taught not to question documentaries or CNN.

[slipknottin]

eh i question all of them, many just arent as obvious as Moore's.

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

I dont think Moore lies and manipulates the truth. I think its far too risky to put out a mass production of total lies. However, its what Bush and CNN does, so how can we be so sure? :D

I really liked the movie. I was so shocked when the 18 year old tank drivers said they pretended they were in a video game when they were killing people. I almost cried.

[ash]

Slipknottin if you don't mind my asking- can you give me an example of why you think that? I'm not asking that in an argumentative way, I'm just curious. I mean there were some things in this film that I thought were unnecessary- like the bit at the beginning about the bin laden family- but then you have things like the obscured military records and the fact that one person in the entire body of congress has a child in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know- I guess I think that while I don't take what he says without a grain of salt I'm very happy that is being said. the atmosphere of 'criticize and you're a traitor' that was starting to build was terrifying to me.

[Milton Friedman]

Micheal Moore "documentaries" are intentionally misleading and full of halftruths. When Moore's "documentaries" engage in intentionally edit speaches to change the context (i.e charlston Heston), using edited clips to give a false impression, making up facts, using partial satistics and the "documentary" being used by Hes Bu la (i think that is how u spell it) a terrorist organization as a propoganda tool raises a red flag at the validility of this film.. Yes every documentary has some bias and will ultimitally lean toward the authors point of view. Yet it is another thing to do what i listed above and call it a documentary.

Oh yes and by the way, he does hate America.

[ash]

LMAO- and how is that different from the news or the speech of any politician? Have you seen the movie?

[Snake Eyez]

Planning on seeing the film, but not paying for it. I am not a fan of Moore, since I do not like the distortion of events that he does. I view his film as propaganda. I guess in the way that Moore's film is a documentary, then so is the Blair Witch Project.

I will also see the movie Michael Moore Hates America.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ash
but then you have things like the obscured military records and the fact that one person in the entire body of congress has a child in Iraq and Afghanistan.

maybe you can explain why that matters?

I didnt know it was their choice wether their kids serve or not.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ash
LMAO- and how is that different from the news or the speech of any politician?

It isnt, thats why I dont care to listen to their ads or whatnot either.

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

He doesnt hate America he just hates some ugly things that have been going on there lately. He is american too, does he hate himself? NO. He doesnt even hate Bush, he just doesnt beleive in his ability to be a president and run a country. I dont either. I never have. I dont like Canada's prime minister either, but at least he knows how to pronunciate big words. :rolleyes:

See it or dont, no one is forcing you. I just hope for those who do see it it causes them to think criticaly about EVERY bit of information they are being fed..... in the movie and everywhere else.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by Milton Friedman

Oh yes and by the way, he does hate America.

Have you seen the movie poster for F 9/11 in other countries?

Guess what it is..

A burning american flag!

[happychem]

I think that criticizing Moore's documentaries and calling them propaganda is shortsighted.

All documentaries, with the exception of nature/discovery channel-style ones, are just a pretty word for propaganda. They all edit heavily to skew quotes, images, statistics to support the point of view they're trying to sell. Moore is no different in doing that than anything that's being put out by any 'documentary' or even the media, ALL the media. At least, all the media I've seen.

The popular press is terribly uncritical, it's atrocious, really. Everything post-9/11 was an unrepenting parade of how wonderful and strong we are and we can do no wrong and anyone who questions us or disagrees is anti-american or an enemy. And this followed through right up to Iraq. Then the public's taste started changing, and the media picked up on it. And now it's been a great big "I told you so" fest that shows only the explosions and instability with minor stories about the steps forward towards some form of stability and normalcy.

The indie press is no better. It's so obsessed with opposing everything that the "mainstream" or people in power do it tends to overlook whatever would put holes in it's stories.

I don't know Moore personally, so I really could say whether or not he's "anti-American". But I doubt it. From what I've seen of him and his movies, which is really very little, he just seems very critical of certain views, namely republican ones, but it certainly goes deeper. I think that Moore does disagree with certain aspects of American culture, as should all people, as good as it is, it's not Eutopia. But I think that he's smart enough to know when to make a controversial documentary about the right topic to get money and fame, and draw attention to that point.

All media presents it's facts with a skew in the intent. Your job as the educated consumer is to filter the facts from the politics. The best propaganda is based entirely on truth, but presented in an inflamatory setting. Until the media becomes a critical, thought provoking body without a bias, you cannot make an honest attack at any documentary (or documenterer), unless you do so from a neutral, unbiased footing, which is not easy ground to find.

[Snake Eyez]

Your job as the educated consumer is to filter the facts from the politics.


Completely agree with that statement. Unfortunately you have alot of people that go see this "documentary" and believe everything that is in it. That is my problem. People eating up what he has to say without doing any research of their own. I guess I just view this film a mockumentary.

[cgrabe]

Here's a pretty good rundown of Bowling for Columbine. My understanding is that this is pretty much how he does all his books and movies. It's long but worth reading.

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Milton Friedman]

Yes ofcource every documentary has some bias, yet it is important to keep it within a acceptable range..

-----Propaganda-----|------Documentary------|-----Propaganda------

Most documentaries I have seen lie within that boundary.

What Michael Moore artistically and rather brilliantly does in his films is push the limit of facts to support his political agenda without uttering a single lie to give one a false impression. Every documentary presents facts to support an argument, but it is irresponsible as an author to omit other key facts and arguments of other side.

Responsible documentaries that do have slight slants but in my opinion present both sides objectively are ones shown in the discovery channel, OPB, History etc (Commanding heights battle for the world economy is my favorite. Slants pro capitalist, but fairly presents the other side)

LMAO- and how is that different from the news or the speech of any politician? Have you seen the movie?

There is no difference, yet i would argue "most" news outlets would not push the boundaries such as the likes of Micheal Moore, Ann Coulter,Sean Hanity, Stewart Smally has done.

Have I seen this film? No. I plan to but not spend any money (i.e. borrow it from a friend). I don’t want to spend 8.50 on a movie ticket, like I did with his other film. I saw bowling for Columbine. After seeing what he did to Charleston Heston in that film, enough was enough.

Quote from Michael Moore
"[Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

[scrubbs]

heres a little something to read.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

[Gambusia]

Micheal Moore is entiitled to his opinions BUT

he is a fringe figure that hurts progressive causes.

Moore is entitiled to his movie and his views, just don't take them as the gospel truth.

Just as you should not take anyone's views as the truth.

[ash]

I think that's a fair summary gambusia.

[Milton Friedman]

Micheal Moore is entiitled to his opinions BUT

he is a fringe figure that hurts progressive causes.

Moore is entitiled to his movie and his views, just don't take them as the gospel truth.

Just as you should not take anyone's views as the truth


I concur

[DeVitaf]

I thought this was funny...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/buddiesforever.jpg

[ash]

ooo weird- did they paste moore's head on rumsfeld's body? ;)

[DeVitaf]

Originally posted by ash
ooo weird- did they paste moore's head on rumsfeld's body? ;)

lol

[greeneyedlady]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~
I was so shocked when the 18 year old tank drivers said they pretended they were in a video game when they were killing people. I almost cried.


During all wars at some point the soldiers involved have pretended they were somewhere else doing something else, it is a perfectly natural reaction to the horrors of war. Every soldier no matter what their nationality is guilty of this. Condemn one and you have to condemn them all. Not everyone involved is immune to the effects of war. Hence battle fatique, post tramatic stress disorders, and the nasty flashbacks some vetern's suffer from. My own grandfather would never speak of world war II in which he was involved. Only mentioned a couple of places he was at. Such as normandy, and others. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that war is he(( and it matters not to the men and women on the front lines what you think of their coping mechanicanisms. And no I not trying to slam anybody here I'm just trying to point out a disparity in thinking.

[ash]

I didn't see that part of the movie as an attack- for me it sort of had the effect of "oh what are those little kids doing there?" I think, for me, the gravity of that scene was that it's always kids.

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

Exactly ash.... i understand that a lot of weird things happen in people's heads during war. of course it does, your killing people who have just as much a right to live as you do... and who gives you the right to do that? war does.... and only war. my grandfather wont talk about it either..... And i also understand that kids as young as 14 went to war during the 1st and 2nd world war. but those wars were a just cause.... i really dont beileve this war in iraq was just. "War on Terror". WTF? More like "war to disarm iraq" wait a minute... there was no nuclear weapons! "war for oil?" maybe. "war for power" more likely. Sure, thier governemt wasnt the best there but i dont think it was in such a dire need for the bombing of thier country and slaughter of thier civilians. Now there IS terrorism there..... terrorism against americans for being there. the longer they keep thier troops there the more of them will be killed. and for what? to keep the peace? not bloody likely.... hopefully now that FINALLY they have a new government and the americans can leave them to thier country.

I always have and always will think it was a stupid idea to bomb Iraq and give away so many young lives.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~
but those wars were a just cause....

Many will disagree with that.

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

Um i think the slaughter of millions of jews in the holocaust is a just cause.

And another point.
Greeneyedlady, "Hence battle fatique, post tramatic stress disorders, and the nasty flashbacks some vetern's suffer from. "

Yes, war veterans suffer from that. For many of them war has ruined a good part of thier life. So we've sent thousands of our young kids to war..... Now for the rest of thier lives they will suffer with the memories of what they have done. They had no choice... they were paid to do it. But it will traumatize them for years to come. Is this war in Iraq really so valid as to not only loose the lives of soilders... but infect them with mental disorders for years and years? :mad:


ps- i'm not hating on anyone.

[aquariumfishguy]

Good points... when you think of a human being (usually young ones) going to war, and when they come back cannot talk about it and suffer mentally for years and years... it kind of makes you wonder if what we consider "war" is meant for us to handle.

Of course, you would have to be somewhat spiritual to go down that path (meaning - did God create us to handle such burdens), but it’s a good question to ponder.

[jacblades]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~
Um i think the slaughter of millions of jews in the holocaust is a just cause.



actually most of the atrocities of the holocaust werent discovered untill after or towards the very end of the war. concentration camps were out of the worlds view during most of the war. ww2 wasnt about the holocaust.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~
Um i think the slaughter of millions of jews in the holocaust is a just cause.


Um, we didnt even know about that until well into the war.

And still some would disagree.

BTW- how many people does someone have to murder before it becomes just cause?

[slipknottin]

Alot of the people that suffer do so because they werent debriefed properly.

[Cheech]

I have a cousin who went to a treatment house for cocaine. He was telling me how in there, there were drug addicts, alcoholics, nymphomaniacs, gamblers, but there was also a section for people who came back from war, soldiers, who can no longer live in a normal society.

He was telling me stories how these people could not be bothered. Any little noise would drive them crazy. You could not startle them, or even ask them a question related to war. They could not handle it. I could only imagine the things soldiers see when they go to war. All I know is that I wouldn't be able to handle it!...

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

So what if we didnt know about the Holocaust until during the war? it happend didn't it? and thank god the war stopped it. WW2 was about many things. I dont like the idea of war. I didnt think world war 1 and 2 were a great idea... but they were at least nessecary. this thread isnt about world war 1 and 2 though. this is about THIS war.

Alot of the people that suffer do so because they werent debriefed properly.
debriefed properly? what the? so if i am debreifed properly i can go out like a machine and kill hundreds of people and not feel a thing?

i still dont agree with this war. i dont agree with the sending of innocent lives to do Bush's dirty work. I dont agree with the reprocussions it will have on people's minds.

if it is nessecary for the saftey of the world and my good country then yes, i would risk my life to protect it for my future generations. but i dont see how sending troops to Iraq is protecting the US from anything but expensive oil. :rolleyes:

[aquariumfishguy]

And is it ever expensive! $2.00/gallon here... (sigh) :(

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

Oh well. Theres no use arguing about it. There will always be wars.... Its human nature to do so. I just hope that with our intellgence nowadays we will put our tempers aside and think of other ways to go about helping others. Well, if thats what we are really doing, is helping them.

Life is short. I would much rather spend my life amoungst nature than other humans anyways. :D


AFG.... yikes its $.94 a litre here. Makes me really regret driving a Ford Explorer... :D

[aquariumfishguy]

In my convertible (which is new and is supposed to be “economic” in regards to fuel consumption), I can only get premium and that is near $2.10 but I guess that’s better than how it was a month or so ago… what, it was about $2.50 here.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~
So what if we didnt know about the Holocaust until during the war? it happend didn't it?
So it was a just war even though we didnt know it was a just war? Is that what you are implying?



debriefed properly? what the? so if i am debreifed properly i can go out like a machine and kill hundreds of people and not feel a thing?
It has nothing to do with not feeling a thing. It has everything to do with still being able to function normally when its over.

if it is nessecary for the saftey of the world and my good country then yes, i would risk my life to protect it for my future generations. but i dont see how sending troops to Iraq is protecting the US from anything but expensive oil.

Um, how exactly was WWII good for the saftey of the world, if it was about the holocaust? :confused: Wouldnt it be about the saftey of the people being put to death? Almost all of which were Germans?

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

slipknottin i am not going to argue with you. i think its stupid....

but if you insist.

no where did i say that WW2 was for the safety of the world. i dont know where you got that. it was a new paragraph, deary. I said i would go to war for the safety of the world and of my country. wouldnt you? i was not talking about any war in particular.

WW2 was not about the holocaust. i never said that. i said that it was just.... and a reason was the holocaust. If millions of people are being killed wouldn't it be better to send a few thousand to die in war in order to protect a million? i would think that would make sense. all lives are equal and just as valuable as each other.

All im saying is that when the time comes to go to war... the reasons better be worth the loss of life. I dont feel this happend in this Iraq war. At first it might have been legit... had there actually been 'weapons of mass destruction' and a reason to disarm them. But turns out that was BS so now what? nothing! Just dance around the truth of the matter.

[aquariumfishguy]

While I feel much more safe knowing as few countries as possible have "weapons of mass destruction", I often wonder what makes the US government think we can have these weapons but nobody else can.

Why is it we should have supreme control over all countries who are deemed economically unstable??

[slipknottin]

WW2 was not about the holocaust. i never said that. i said that it was just.... and a reason was the holocaust.
It was a just war because of the holocaust, but the war wasent because of the holocaust. So I take it, it wasent a just war then? Odd sort of circular logic you have going there.


If millions of people are being killed wouldn't it be better to send a few thousand to die in war in order to protect a million? i would think that would make sense. all lives are equal and just as valuable as each other.
Why does that logic not apply to Iraq?

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by aquariumfishguy
While I feel much more safe knowing as few countries as possible have "weapons of mass destruction", I often wonder what makes the US government think we can have these weapons but nobody else can.


Er, dont believe in gun control then, do ya?

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

*blinks*

millions of people are being killed in Iraq? Where? by who?

It was a just war because of the holocaust, but the war wasent because of the holocaust. So I take it, it wasent a just war then? Odd sort of circular logic you have going there.

why do you keep twisting my words around! stop. ONE reason in my mind the war was more justified than the Iraq war is the stopping of the holocaust. Saving of millions of lives by giving thousands.

i do not see that anywhere in the Iraq war. If anything i have seen images of innocent small towns being blown apart.

Slipknottin, while you keep picking the things i say apart why dont you offer up your take on the war? you seem to be all for it. why exactly?


PS- i was thinking the same thing AFG. i really dont see where the American government gets off on thinking they have the right to have them and no one else can. If we all had them we would be too sh!t scared to nuke each other. If no one had them it would also be great. But if only a couple countries have them everyone is scared.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~
*blinks*

millions of people are being killed in Iraq? Where? by who?
Thats why I asked earlier how many had to be killed before you think we should act. I didnt say millions were killed, but it surely is many thousands.



i do not see that anywhere in the Iraq war. If anything i have seen images of innocent small towns being blown apart.
:confused: ok.

Slipknottin, while you keep picking the things i say apart why dont you offer up your take on the war? you seem to be all for it. why exactly?
I pick your things apart, because they all contradict and dont add up.

And I still say that saying every countryshould be allowed to have WMDs is the equivalent of saying all people should be allowed to own whatever firearm they want.

[slipknottin]

Now really, if we were comparing people saved vs. people killed, and the higher the ratio the more just the war is, then this war is far better off than WWII was.

Some numbers-

Allied death count in WWII- ~40 million
Allied troops killed in WWII- ~15 million

combined german and austria death count for the holocaust- ~6 million

So people saved - say 6 million, and people killed lets say 15 million (even though a huge amount of civilians were killed)

So thats what, .4:1?
If we included civilian deaths its like
.15:1.

Now take Iraq, Saddam and his sons are believed to have either directly or indirectly been responsible for at least 8,000 deaths

Allied deaths in Iraq so far are at something like 800

Thats like a ratio of 10:1.

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

Well if America wants all the countries to disarm everyone's weapons then THEY SHOULD TOO!

haha its so weird how they think they can go on building nukes yet attack other countries to disarm thiers.



So your saying that if WW2 never happend things would be better than they are now?

[Finaddictfred]

I love my country and I served my time..but I despise the government and its lies..but its the nature of the beast..it will never change only get worse. I'm glad Im as old as I am and gettin older every day. The state of the entire world makes me sick to my stomach !

[happychem]

I guess I could preface by saying that I agree, in principal with AFG's statement about wmd's.

However, despite the fact that I do not hold much regard for the current administration, I'm quite happy that there are democratically run countries that hold arsenals of devastating weapons. Or at the very least, are vastly technologically superior to unstable countries. No, this doesn't just apply to the USA, it include Europe, Canada, Japan, etc. Why? because this allows us to impose some form of responsible useage of such horrible implements. It's nice to say that no one should have any (same goes with guns), but until everyone agrees (never), it can't happen. So until that time comes, I'm glad that governments where the people ultimately make the decisions are the ones with the upper hand.

I do not agree with the arrogance shown by the bilateral invasion of Iraq by the USA and Britain (yeah, there were other countries involved, but let's be honest). I never believed they're reasons for the invasion, and I opposed it as such. While history has justified my point of view, the ousting of Saddam was a very good thing, and the attempt to bring democracy to Iraq about as noble a cause as possible. If they had made that they're argument, and included the fact that Saddam had refused to comply with the 1991 (is that the year?) armistice, I think I would have even supported them, or at least given it serious thought. I also think that they would have gained UN support on those grounds. Added bonus, even though I believe that a good part of their motivation was greed and cronyism, that may have been generally overlooked since they would be going in with a noble cause.

As for WWII, it was inarguably a noble cause. Holocaust notwithstanding, Hitler had already annexed Austria and was working his way through Europe before enough countries joined together to hold him back. A pity the States hadn't joined in at the beginning, might have been a different war. The bottom line is that Hitler had to be stopped.

WWI was a different story entirely. It started with an assassination and blew up from there along old alliances and, dare I say it, hurt feelings and grudges.

LuvMyKribs, I know what you're trying to say, but Slip is right, your logic does seem rather circular, ends justifying the means. However, Slip, it seems that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Cough - Dethjam - cough.;) Now, can't we all just get along?:D

[aquariumfishguy]

However, Slip, it seems that you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Can't we just disagree, without one side being 100% right and one being wrong?

[Milton Friedman]

Can't people just disagree, without one side being right and one being wrong?

Huh? How can you disagree without thinking the other side is wrong? :confused: (kinda know what you mean, just clarifying and being a bit of an *** :P)

It is inevitable that Iraq will pop up when we discuss Mr. Moore. I will add a detailed opinion on it later. As for now, I’m at work and need to be doing some work before my boss gets mad at me. :p

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

I guess im just trying to argue my point but i am being led in circles.

On one hand i dont think war is the greatest solution to everything, as i see with the Iraq war. Yes Saddam is gone, and that is good, but in the process we have lost many lives on both sides that i really dont feel was absoluetly nessecary (at this point in time anyways).

On the other hand, in some cases such as WW2, i think war was nessecary and eventually benefitial to European and other involved countries. Yes, lots of peopled died, but i feel that many more would have died or come under the rule of Hitler.

In either case its a tragedy.... and as i said before its human nature to go to war... we have been doing it since we were cave men. Maybe the world will really change when we start using our intellegence to solve issues other ways than physically fighting.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~
Well if America wants all the countries to disarm everyone's weapons then THEY SHOULD TOO!
We are disarming ourselves.


So your saying that if WW2 never happend things would be better than they are now?

Where did I say anything like that?


Yes, lots of peopled died, but i feel that many more would have died or come under the rule of Hitler.
And many will argue it was much the same with Saddam.

[~*LuvMyKribs*~]

And whats wrong with the ends justifying the means? That happens so much in our society today... especially with the justice system.

I dont care if its circular logic or not.... in my mind it makes sense. I always try to look at two sides of the story... as opposed to many people out there who only consider one.

Slipknottin you seem to be on the defensive about something... and i dont really understand it. Nothing i say should offend you but it seems to. Dont take other people's opinions so seriously... this is only the internet anyways.

Oh well. Im sick of this topic. Gimme something new :D

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by ~*LuvMyKribs*~

Slipknottin you seem to be on the defensive about something... and i dont really understand it. Nothing i say should offend you but it seems to. Dont take other people's opinions so seriously... this is only the internet anyways.


Im not upset at all. And I havent taken offense to anything.

You just seem to be changing your argument once you find that your current one is hitting a wall. I dont know why you think Im the cause of this problem...

[aquariumfishguy]

Well I promised not to post here again, but since you deleted that I guess I do not have to hold true to my word. If you were a fair person you would have deleted everything that started to be argumentative. ;)

As I said, respect is earned...

... hopefully this thread can die in peace. :thud:

[jacblades]

now now afg lets not be mean...

i think its funny when people ask if you are pro-war or anti-war. there is no one in their right mind that is pro-war in every situation. everyone would like to avoid war at all costs. war is absolutely a last resort. the group of people that are pro-war on iraq believe that htis is the only viable option. now i admit, i am for the most part very conservative but i also like to look at both sides before making my decisions. usually when i weigh each side, my decision comes out on the conservative side.
before the war, there was an anti-war rally in 5 points (which is where all of the young people and homeless people hang out in birmingham.) all of my friends were anti-war simply because they think war should never be an option and they went to the rally so i decided to go with them. (my theology teacher was also doing a reading so i wanted to hear it.) i listened to the few speeches that there were but they just seemed to come up short. (most of the rally was people beating on drums and doing 'interpretive dance'-there werent that many speeches) i couldnt get a feel for why the other side existed except that they all hated george bush because he couldnt spell and because he was a republican. even the people that gave speeches didnt seem to know much about politics and left many gaps in their arguments. (most didnt even know the name of the vice president.) i really tried for 2 and a half hours to understand the anti-war side but eventually gave up and went home. im not saying that all anti-war people are just a bunch of hippies that dont know anyhting about the world and its politics today. its just that the anti-war side seems to be anti-war in general and not just anti-war in iraq. i think its kind of blind to say there should never be war under any circumstances. (i dont think anyone here has said that-i just wanted to give my anti-war rally experience :) )

i also think vietnam was a just cause but there was no way we could win. i am beginning to think that iraq might be slightly similar in the aspect that we arent fighting one enemy as a whole.

[Milton Friedman]

Well I promised not to post here again, but since you deleted that I guess I do not have to hold true to my word. If you were a fair person you would have deleted everything that started to be argumentative.

Deleted what???

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by jacblades

i also think vietnam was a just cause but there was no way we could win. i am beginning to think that iraq might be slightly similar in the aspect that we arent fighting one enemy as a whole.

we won every major battle in that war. We lost not because of how well the vietnamese fought, but because of public relations back home.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by aquariumfishguy
Well I promised not to post here again, but since you deleted that I guess I do not have to hold true to my word. If you were a fair person you would have deleted everything that started to be argumentative. ;)


I deleted all the personal attacks. There is nothing wrong with arguing points.

[Milton Friedman]

we won every major battle in that war. We lost not because of how well the vietnamese fought, but because of public relations back home.


Also the Vietnamese had patience in that war, we didn't. The military knew that and exploited it.

[slipknottin]

We have always attempted to finish any war we are involved in as quickly as possible, and in many cases, its caused our undoing.

[jacblades]

Originally posted by slipknottin
We have always attempted to finish any war we are involved in as quickly as possible, and in many cases, its caused our undoing.

that is so very true :(

[DeVitaf]

I have found the answer to all your political woes...

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/bilder/rosspe~1.jpg

[aquariumfishguy]

Originally posted by Milton Friedman
Deleted what???

It was just a post in which I spoke my mind about Slip, and was posted after he "spoke his mind" about me. While I do appreciate that he deleted a few of his own words too, it is still strange to leave the rest of the argument up because most of it is back-n-forth’s between 2-3 people, and as other people like to say "this is getting no where".

That’s my take, and only my take after my own posts were edited/deleted.

[Sensei_the_dojo]

Perhaps it would be best if everyone got back on the original topic of the thread. ;)

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by aquariumfishguy


It was just a post in which I spoke my mind about Slip, and was posted after he "spoke his mind" about me. While I do appreciate that he deleted a few of his own words too, it is still strange to leave the rest of the argument up because most of it is back-n-forth’s between 2-3 people, and as other people like to say "this is getting no where".


How many times do I have to say it.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and arguing over points. Its the personal attacks that I deleted.

Now stop trying to take this off topic and make it personal.

[Matak]

News update:
I read in the National Post that a university student who is the head of the Conservative campus association is pushing to have the Elections Canada arm of the Candian government to sue Michael Moore. He wants the government to use a newly introduced law that holds that non-natives may not use the media to make politically influencing statements like the ones Mr. Moore made during our recent election. Mr. Moore said some things like "a vote for Stephen Harpur is a vote for Bush" and "Harpur has a big pair of scissors and wants to cut social programs from Canadas fabric".

I wonder how far you can get indicting someone on foriegn soil?

I'll see if I can find a news story to back up this claim.

[Matak]

OK!
I know that you have all been anxiously waiting for this link with baited breath, so here is the news link: Jack*** Moore story (http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/soundoff/story.html?id=4ed5999f-14ad-4e19-a9fe-90b81347fc40)