Fahrenheit 9/11
Forum
Ya because only Sadaam was telling the truth? hmmm that sounds well kinda wrong.... Ya now why? I'll give you a hint it has something to do with the U.N. not backing us as well as half the northern hemisphere.
>>By Billy Pilgrim (Thursday, 17 Feb 2005 05:06)
Maybe Sadaam was telling the truth. We would still be right not to take his word about it.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Thursday, 17 Feb 2005 05:29)
>>>How dare you suggest that Blair was not doing the right thing!
Bob from Apollo
Good grief, WE (the rest of the world) can`t criticise you`re foreign policy but you can criticise what our opinion of our OWN leaders? Dear god what next? He`s my elected head of state I`ll criticise him as much as i bloody well want thankyou.
Further, did you actually read my post? I stated that I felt Blair DID do the right thing, but told the country (OUR country) he was doing it for reasons which were entirely incorrect.
This illustrates a fantastic point and one that I meant to bring up in response to smores statment about europe should not try and dictate American foreign policy. Smore, Americam foreign policy IS the rest of the worlds domestic policy. So I think it`s a little unfair to expect the rest of the world to sit quietly by and not speak up.,
>>>Maybe Sadaam was telling the truth. We would still be right not to take his word about it.
Bob from Apollo
So by that token, if someone has lied in the past we should not believe his word in the future? Sooooo what about (i think you know where this is going kids) if we were lied to about the reasons we went to war? Should we not distrust everything that our policy makers say after?
Think long and hard about your answer Bob this is getting to be like swatting flies with a garage door( only joking mate thoroughly enjoying a decent debate).
>>By docjay (Thursday, 17 Feb 2005 15:07)
Once again pardon the typo`s all
>>By docjay (Thursday, 17 Feb 2005 15:08)
It's hard to imagine how WMDs could be a lie if that was the common wisdom. I would even be more willing to believe that Sadaam somehow got rid of them.
Shame on you Europe and the Democrats in this country. Is their no limit to your pseudo moral vanity?
>>By Bob from Apollo (Thursday, 17 Feb 2005 17:29)
I apologize for getting carried away and lumping all of Europe and the Democrats together.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Saturday, 19 Feb 2005 16:48)
So... by that token, if enough people believe a thing then it is "common wisdom" and therefore the truth?
Some other examples of "common wisdom" throughout the ages for you bob
*The world Pre-Galileo/Columbus: "Common wisdom" states the earth is flat
*Medical science Pre-Lister: "Common wisdom" states that carrying out operations in evening dress will reduce infections
*Natzi Germany: "Common wisdom" states that Jews are inferior to the christian aryan
Europe in the middle ages: "Common wisdom" states that witches cannot float there fore dunkiing is an excellent method for detecting witches
These are examples bob not comparisons between the above and your country.
Now, bob I would like to make a request. I would like for you read, carefully, what I have written about your last post. Note how I have adressed something in it which i believe to be wrong and how i have carefully argued against it, providing examples were appropriate. This is known as DEBATING. What I have NOT done bob is to simply say something that does goes no way toward proving my point, nor adress the points made by the other person. This, bob, is known as RHETORIC, and is not as much fun.
Look I`ll show you again.
YOU said:
"Shame on you Europe and the Democrats in this country. Is their no limit to your pseudo moral vanity?"
[I read this and find fault with it as a statment from you. Now what I do is explain why...]
Bob you stated that I was wrong to criticise MY elected leader for making a mistake, knowingly or otherwise, despite the fact that he has since admitted that he was wrong about WMD.
[Now i provide evidence to help illustrate and back up my argument]
You said "How dare you suggest that Blair was not doing the right thing!"
[Now i close my argument]
I think it smacks of hypocrisy for you to accuse us of pseudo moral vanity whilst expressing outrage at us criticising our elected leaders for a mistake they have even confessed to making.
See? Fun isn`t it? Now you try.
>>By docjay (Saturday, 19 Feb 2005 17:03)
Posted the above before your last apology. Gimme a second to think.....no it still stands, you can`t accuse ANYONE of "pseudo-moral vanity". Lovely turn of phrase though. Ok bob go back to reading my last post, typing errors and all. I look forward to your reply. ;-)
>>By docjay (Saturday, 19 Feb 2005 17:06)
You said he was lying. I don't see how he could be. Even if we(couldn't resist the royal plural here) grant your point, which I don't, that there weren't any WMD. Your first example(pre-Galileo/Columbus) seems to be the most fitting. Would we say that that person was lying? I don't think so.
I don't think you can in practice or principle separate rhetoric from debate as neatly as you would like either. It seems to me that you are doing a good bit of grandstanding and playing to audience that doesn't exist. If you want me to take what you've written seriously, I will.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Saturday, 19 Feb 2005 19:04)
That should be "and playing to AN audience that doesn't exist", docjay.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Saturday, 19 Feb 2005 19:39)
(stage whisper) Sometimes when there is an over concern with physical perfection as there appears to be in this thread it is an indication that the heart has been eclipsed by the eye.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Saturday, 19 Feb 2005 20:24)
Sorry Bob I was playing to an audience a bit...this discussion has become a bit of a tourist attraction for my med school class. Apologies.
So, your point about WMD, Lying/truth/common wisdom/gallileo. No you're quite right the people who believed that the world was flat were not lying. But they were wrong. But common wisdom at the time stated that they were right and a man suffered immensley as a result. Now to the WMD...I`m just trying to illustrate the point that much of the evidence points to the fact that our leaders were wrong about WMD. They have not been found and (in my country anyway) the intelligence that pointed to them ever being there has been described as "fundamentally flawed". We invade anyway and many people make the reasonable argument that invasion was a good thing nonetheless since it deposed a dictator. BUT, our leaders were, it would appear, WRONG. It doesn`t matter how many people believed it all signs thus far point to the fact that they were wrong. Perhaps not lying but, almost certainly, wrong. And i find it worrying that people will continue to believe them in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary.
My personal belief (and i have no rational explanation for this) is that the value of one human life and a persons liberty is beyond value. IF they were wrong about WMD then might they be wrong about the men languishing without trial in Guantanamo and Belmarsh? (our equivalent so I `m not america bashing here).
Perhaps Moore goes too far. But then, surely, so does Fox news nightly? My feeling is that we have to be prepared to challenge what our leaders tell us, checks and balances. Perhaps you`ll never be convincerd that WMD were not present. But don`t you find it odd that the worlds hyperpower, with the greatest military and intelligence machine ever assembled, have failed to find a single WMD or a trail pointing to where they might have gone?
>>By docjay (Monday, 21 Feb 2005 12:26)
Hi Docjay a few points.
First, i will only critcize bush and Blair for claiming saddam has WMD's if they said it knowing that he didn't. Which is not the case. Saddam may not have had them now (he did have them in the past if you remember he used them on his own people.) He did act like someone who did. He refused to submit to the UN mandates. Sanctions were not working and if he did have WMD he has also shown the willingness to give them to terrorists. This is was a legitmate concern for the US. The UN prove impotent and powerless when it came to Iraq. And more then one country came to the US to find a solution. Bush found one, now other countries want to critcize him. These are the same countries who sat there while saddam thumbed his nose and mandates, the same countries that turned a deaf ear when the US tried to get the UN to set some course of actions on Iraq wgich ignored them. The same coutries whi lined their pockets with Saddams blood money through that corrupt oil for food program. And know you expect me to consider what these other countries are saying id wrong and right. I've lost two loved ones in Afghanistan and Irag and I have one still their and every time I hear about a death over thier I cring and pray to god. But I don't vlame Bush he was reacting to a problem the only way he saw fit. Right or worng he took action. I do blame those souless, corrupt elitist europeans who dare to comment on what is moral and immoral when it was through their actions Saddam was abe to thrive. If all of these countries were as appalled at irag's actions before 9/11 as they are acting about the US's actions after this would not be happening and my friends would not be dying. So excuse if I don'ttaked your recommendations and opinions to much to heart.
>>By smore (Tuesday, 22 Feb 2005 02:45)
docjay, I wanted to take a couple weeks off for Lent so I can't really reply in full or after this post, but I just wanted to voice my opposition to two points you have made earlier: that a guerilla army can't be defeated with force of numbers, and US foreign policy has contibuted to the deaths of thousands of New Yorkers. I couldn't disagree with you more about these two points. Maybe we can take these up again after Easter.
>>By Bob from Apollo (Tuesday, 22 Feb 2005 14:34)
Cool look forward to it better do some more research!, thanks smore as well, valid points. To respond to those..
What countries came to the US seeking a solution? As far as I could tell the US instigated the invasion then canvassed other nations for support.
Saddam acted like someone who did? (and this is not easy defending him and is purely an intellectual argument) When? I mean in the two years prior to invasion? Having had something does not mean you still have it and the statments by Hans Blix since have been somewhat damning. Although i agree in part that in spirit the war was justified on account of his failure to comply with the UN BUT the invasion has since been found by many experts to be unlawful when the test of internatiional law is applied.
Oil for food corrupt? No argument here but many western buisnesses (particularly in theUS and UK myself included) have profited from the war.
I don`t understand what you mean by
<If all of these countries were as appalled at irag's actions before 9/11 as they are acting about the US's actions after this would not be happening and my friends would not be dying>
Your (and my) freinds are there as a result of americas decision to invade. I don`t understand how other countries being apalled at the US`s actions contributes to deaths in Iraq?
If they had taken stronger action against Iraq pre 9/11 do you feel that would have prevented 9/11? What about afghanistan, many coalition troops and afghanistan civillians died there too.
Many of these, quite valid, points do however detract fom my original point. Which was not that the war was, necessarily, unjust but was, from a tactical standpoint, poorly concieved. What are your thoughts on that?
>>By docjay (Tuesday, 22 Feb 2005 16:26)
I`ve just read back over some of those arguments...this should be a turkey shoot on your part but I`ll try harder next time!
>>By docjay (Tuesday, 22 Feb 2005 16:28)
I will grant you that this war was is not a example of strategic planning. I think both you and I will agree that strategy and intellectual cunning are not Bush's strong suits. But it was basically the only card Bush had to play. I believe that Bush thought he would have received more support from europe then he did but he had no choice to invade once he made the threat. If he didn't he would have looked as useless and benign as the UN. I do believe if France, Germany and the other countries who withheld their support would have joined the end this mess would have been a lot sooner, cleaner and less bloody. I feel that europe probably had better intel and more sound tactical strategies for this sort thing then the US. particularly because Clintion dismantled our foreign intel system during his 8 years in office. Regarding other nations seeking a solution to Saddam. I'm refering to the number of appeals to the US as one of the permanent members on the security counsel of the UN, years ago. A number of other countries since the Desert storm war in the early nighties wanted to get Saddam to comply. Everytime when the US brought up the issue to the UN, the european block of countries responded with a blockade on the topic. And I believe this was because of the money being made. Yes I agree the US countries benefited from this deal with the devil also. But not the US government but there were many european governments making money off of the Iragi people pain and suffering. I also concede that other places in the world the same can said of the US. I also believe if the UN had been more aggressive and forceful with Saddam over the passed decade we would not have had to invade Iraq over WMD's cause we would've already known he didn't have them. And that means my friends would not be over there now and dying. I hear people talking about tuhe deaths of innocent civilians by the US military action in Iraq but I do not remember any of those people complaining when Saddam was doing worse to his own people. If all those people in the UK were vigilant with their government 10 years ago about keeping check on the Iraq governement as they are now about pulling out of Iraq this issue would have been solved before 9/11 even happened. nd while I'm not saying that would have stopped 9?11 from happening it would eliminated Iraq as one of the potential players in global terrorism and we wouldn't have been there. Afghanistan maybe not, but who's to say if al-quaeda wasn't finding a hospitable landlord in Iraq maybe they would not have a strong foothold in Afghanistan. I acceptypur military aanlysis as probably accurate but too bad the US wasn't privy to such analysis becuase the majority of people who could have given such advice was too pissed at the US for ending thier gravy train to help. And then show up near the end after all the hard work is done and ask for a peice of the profits. I used to believe it was some truth in this one world philosophy but after see how the world leans on the US when it benefits them and abandons the US when we need them I have serious doubts of creating another US foreign predicated on the opinions of other nations. I am sorry but I don't not beleive the Eu nations have the US best interests at heart.
>>By smore (Tuesday, 22 Feb 2005 17:02)
you refered to iraq as "one of the global players in world terrorism" if you are refering to the alleged ties to al-quaeda there is no proof to back up that claim this was just another statement of lies that came out of the mouth of bush and his war monger cronies at the whitehouse which i am sad to say that a majority of Amercans actually bought that statement of hot air that came from the devils lips
also your last statement should be reversed the U.S is the one that has no respect for the Eu by disregarding the opinions of most of the world by instigating an illegal war that has done nothing but increase terrorist activites across the world and in the E.U forcing them to invest more money and time into their security the U.S if anything has done more harm then good as usual the U.S makes a mess ad leaves other countries to clean up that mess
>>By MetalBladeRecords (Wednesday, 23 Feb 2005 14:00)
Yea, Ok, MetalBlade. Unfortunately both of your statements are false rhetoric not any where near fact. I'm waiting Docjay to reply, he seems to have some intellegence and insight. Not just someone parroting what they were told at a peace rally.
>>By smore (Wednesday, 23 Feb 2005 14:38)
Cheers smore! reciprocated but gonna be away for a week or so, pick up where we left off. In the meantime scrap it out guys!
>>By docjay (Friday, 25 Feb 2005 18:14)
Fahrenheit 911 made me laugh, cry and very grateful that I live in a country where a movie such as this (political satire) can be made and find it's way for public viewing and critique. Although I wonder what would have happened to it if it hadnt won acclaim at the film festivals. It came to a small art theater for only a few days then disappeared, and only returned after it won acadamy awards to a few theaters for a couple of weeks. I remember that the theater was packed and I was one of the few people laughing and wondering if the people who were just sitting there with their mouths open knew it was supposed to be funny/sad..."Peoples of zee world relax!"
I'm sure the title was inspired by Ray Bradbury's famous SiFi book "Fahrenheit 451" ,which is still on the banned list of many schools and libraries ( Forbiden Library: banned and challenged books. In Association with Amazon.com) that dealt with total control of the multi-media by the government. I thank God for the likes of Michael Moore to keep us laughing at ourselves in hope we dont get way too sad like "451".
>>By MissSuze (Sunday, 27 Feb 2005 22:38)
MissSuze... Fahrenheit 9/11 won 0 Acadamy awards and was EVERYWHERE not just art theaters STILL having little to no effect on the election.
>>By 8drummer8 (Friday, 11 Mar 2005 06:40)
Your right 8drummer8 about the academy award...Sorry, was thinking that I had remembered him givng an acceptance speech..About the movie, it had very limited play in my area. (St. Pete/Clearwater Fl.)..Thank You...
>>By MissSuze (Friday, 11 Mar 2005 17:14)
I'm not so sure it was meant to be as funny as you thought considering the campus campaigning Moore did for Kerry (using tired scare tactics I might add).
>>By 8drummer8 (Saturday, 2 Apr 2005 00:33)
I won't get too far into this right now (God knows it always gets me in trouble) but I highly suggest you all watch "FarenHYPE 9/11"...your eyes will be opened to the true bullshit factor in Micheal Moore's propaganda piece of crap film.
Hollywood is extremely liberal. They wouldn've even show FarenHYPE 9/11 in theatres. That's just beyond retarded.
>>By LastCaress18 (Thursday, 19 May 2005 07:54)
farenhype 9/11 sorry no Republican propoganda for me Ive heard quite enough these past 3 years
>>By MetalBladeRecords (Sunday, 26 Jun 2005 21:13)
Hey now wait just one sec now the hell can this be allowed if Algore won the damn election what so then that was all for nothing then if Bush was just gonna be da president n e way
>>By The puzzler (Saturday, 9 Jul 2005 23:51)
I don't think that Bush lied to us about the WMD, but, if he wasn't 100% sure, completely positive, then why would he go to war? You don't go to war because it's possible that they could hurt us, or even that it's probable. Unless he knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that there were WMD's, then why did he sent thousands of people to die?
>>By sexkitten (Monday, 8 Aug 2005 20:43)
so if he didn't lie about the weapons of mass destruction. . .
where are they? as of yet. . .none have been found. . .
strange. . .
>>By drowninginflame (Wednesday, 10 Aug 2005 02:42)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW MOVIES