Fahrenheit 9/11

Re: Oil

In 1953 we overthrew the democratic government of Iran because the President (Mossadegh) was going to nationalize that country's oil and we didn't like that idea. So we installed a repressive puppet dictatorship (The Shah). That was under a president (Eisenhower) who compared to Bush 1)had a lot more respect for democracy, 2)was justifiably concerned with the troublesome interplay between the political process and the military-industrial complex, and 3) did not have the disturbing connections to the oil racket.

In 1979 when an Islamist revolution overthrew our puppet and Americans were taken hostage, we all sat around scratching our heads saying, "Why are they so full of hate? They must hate our freedom." Sound familiar?

MAXIMUM, you claim to be a wordly fellow, but your naive acceptance of the bullshit that these liars are selling makes you seem less the cosmopolitan and more the provincial hick.

 

Re: Oil

[ QUOTE ]
Fishie said:
Intresting, you have ANY credible source that can back you up on this?

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry I don’t have an Internet source I can quote on this. The assassination attempts were mention on an episode of Dispatches quite some time ago. These attempts were always highly covert because a law passed by President Kennedy in the 70s made it illegal for the United States to kill a head of state.

The UK, Israel and other European intelligence agencies have also been looking for “opportunities†for years.

The 100 or so agents sent into Iraq pre-conflict were responsible for gathering the intelligence that led to the opening-shot in the conflict. This strike was a direct assassination attempt on Saddam and his top hench-men. It hasn’t been confirmed yet but it’s widely believed Saddam narrowly escaped this initial missile strike.

 

Re: Oil

[ QUOTE ]
a law passed by President Kennedy in the 70s

[/ QUOTE ]

Y'know, you CAN learn something from unreliable internet sources.

 

Re: Oil

Sorry, it was Gerald Ford.

Apparently it's called Executive Order 12333.

 

Re: Oil

Israel was against the war btw...

 

Re: Oil

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:

[ QUOTE ]
Fishie said:
Intresting, you have ANY credible source that can back you up on this?

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry I don’t have an Internet source I can quote on this. The assassination attempts were mention on an episode of Dispatches quite some time ago. These attempts were always highly covert because a law passed by President Kennedy in the 70s made it illegal for the United States to kill a head of state.

The UK, Israel and other European intelligence agencies have also been looking for “opportunities†for years.

The 100 or so agents sent into Iraq pre-conflict were responsible for gathering the intelligence that led to the opening-shot in the conflict. This strike was a direct assassination attempt on Saddam and his top hench-men. It hasn’t been confirmed yet but it’s widely believed Saddam narrowly escaped this initial missile strike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee you SURE your sources and assumptions can be trusted in ANY way whatsoever?

Look at this line for instance: Few events in contemporary American History have affected the lives of those living at that time as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

I admit that I plucked that sentance from a random internet site so to your standards its most likely wrong and Kennedy DID pass the law in the 70s during the midst of the war in Korea while personaly building the big Berlin wall trough China.

I mean what do we know?
We only go by real sources while you have hearsay and un named sources you cant direct us to to not back your claims and personal beliefs up to.
We should all just admit defeat, hang our collective heads in shame and apologise for being such gullible fools at this point.

So urm, im sorry for being such a dumbass by drawing my own conclusions and basing them on reliable sources and placing them in a historical context.
I am truly sorry, I have seen the light and from now on I too shall believe the propaganda spewed by fair and balanced sources like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Blair, Bush etcetera.

 

Re: Oil

[ QUOTE ]
Shadowdean said:

Israel was against the war btw...

[/ QUOTE ]

Bulshit, Israel was for it and was the ONLY country apart from the US where the war had popular support from the people.

All other countries in the COALITION OF THE WILLING had a majority that opposed the war.

 

Re: Oil

what is your point. just because the majority of the populace of those nations were unconvinced as to the nessecity of the second Gulf War doesn't mean thier leaders were mistaken in supporting the U.S.

 

Re: Oil

Well, that depends on what you think a leader should do. Should the leader represent his or her country's people?

 

Re: Oil

I guess it depends. Fundamentally democracy is about letting the people choose a representative to lead a nation, not giving the majority control over every policy decision. If that's what you think democracy should be about fair enough, but you're living on another planet.

Since the Iraq war, Germany has made a big point of stating that it listened to its people over Iraq but the truth has more to do with Gerhard Schroeder popularity than anything else. Many people think he used Iraq as a means to boost his dwindling popularity by backing 85% of the population on a contentious issue.

One point I want to make about Israel. If only most Americans felt as strongly about Iraq as they do the US’s relationship with Israel the world would be a better place. So it’s morally wrong to commit troops to removing a dictator from a dangerous country yet ok to supply gunships to a country which uses them to keep land it stole several decades ago?

 

"Questions for war supporters:

1. Was Saddam's regime the most brutal and oppressive in the world at the time of the invasion?

2. How can attacking a country with no WMD and no connections to Islamic Jihad be part of the "War on Terror?"

And Maximum, don't fault Moore for making Bush look like a dumbass. Bush does this himself anytime he speaks extemporaneously. Seriously, we can argue about the this fucked up war, but it is next to impossible to argue that Bush himself is possessed of much knowledge or insight. Just listen to him at press conferences (which he rarely holds because he and his handlers know he's a dumbass) or read quotations from his pitiful attempts at speaking the English language. It is embarrassing that he is America's leader and representative to the world, and that's before you even take into account his disasterous actions as Commander in Chief."

1. no, there have been countries that have,with thier actions and inactions been far worse than Saddam. But Saddam was a pretty bad dude and for once a country put a stop to his crazy tyranny.

2. the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism because Saddam was thought to have WMD's and be in contact with Al Queida. Saddam was a proliferater of WMD's and had always been such. No WMD's were ever found but Saddam had the capacity to make WMD's none-the-less and was ready and willing to kill thousands without concious. He may not have been an imminent threat but he was a threat. Secondly, the sole purpose of having connections with Al Queida is to conspire in acts of terror. The prevention of acts of terror is the war on terror and by removing Saddam from the equation, you make the world safer by removing the threat of a terrorist attack by WMD's.

Finally, if you can't recognise the fact that George Bush is a very intelligent man I pity you partisan blindness, and foolishness.

 

"I suppose you hate "filthy faggots", "negroes", and "non-christians" too? Hey, we can all stereotype the other side...

And considering most wacko conspiracy theorists are right-wingers who deeply, truly believe Clinton was actually Satan incarnate and the UN and Freemasons control us all, well, it's pretty dumb to call moore a theorist.

Many other countries, too, meaning countries too wussy to stand up for what their people believe in. Japan supported the war but the JP people sure as fuck didn't want it, I know, I lived there when that shit was goin' on down."

please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about freemason's or Negroes or Faggot's. I'm not a crazy right wing extremist and I actually liked Slick Willy to an extent. But there is no way around it, Micheal Moore is a crazy socialist conspiracy theorist who makes propaganda films.

 

Re: What the....?

"The latest on the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal: Sy Hersh of the New Yorker magazine recently told an audience that there are video tapes of American soldiers sodomizing Iraqi children in front of their mothers. The mothers then wrote letters to their husbands who were being held elsewhere, asking them to come and kill them after what they had seen.

These are horrible crimes and we have to hope that the people responsible will be brought to justice. When Bush and Rumsfeld signed documents allowing the military to ignore laws prohibiting torture, they set the stage for this. Bush and co. have done a great job dehumanizing “the enemy,†depicting them as the embodiment of all evil, haters of freedom,etc. We see the fruits of their propaganda, fear-mongering, and artful avoidance of anti-torture laws. This was tragically predictable and avoidable. Have the people in charge gone insane?"


listen to this moron rant about how much he hate George Bush. pretty dumb aint he.

 

Re: What the....?

sorry I'm hoggingg the board. I have to respond to Sgt. Ramrod Idiocy retroactively. and it appears I'm the only one here willing to defend the presidents decision to go to war.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, if you can't recognise the fact that George Bush is a very intelligent man I pity you partisan blindness, and foolishness.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah because his track record of running companies into the ground and his ability to complete whole thoughts is so overwhelmingly indicative of intelligence. At least he's proven he knows how to eat prezels, ride a bike and take vacation.

[ QUOTE ]
it appears I'm the only one here willing to defend the presidents decision to go to war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cognizant of the fact and yet unable to draw meaning or relevance from it. Maybe you accuse the wrong people of being blind.

GE

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:
2. the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism because Saddam was thought to have WMD's and be in contact with Al Queida. Saddam was a proliferater of WMD's and had always been such. No WMD's were ever found but Saddam had the capacity to make WMD's none-the-less and was ready and willing to kill thousands without concious. He may not have been an imminent threat but he was a threat. Secondly, the sole purpose of having connections with Al Queida is to conspire in acts of terror. The prevention of acts of terror is the war on terror and by removing Saddam from the equation, you make the world safer by removing the threat of a terrorist attack by WMD's.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this logic can be used by every other country in the world to justify attacking the USA. And, we actually have WMDs. Lots of 'em. I think we're doing a great job creating more terrorists day by day.

Don't apologize for "hogging this thread." You wanted to do it. I think you have the right to share your views here. You may not get much support. Also, refering to Clinton as Slick Willy and then saying you supported him somewhat - it doesn't sound all that sincere to me.

 

Iamthepope

Iamthepope has 'forced' me into this ridiculous thread.

Obvious irrefutable facts come up when dealing with the 'war in Iraq' and the Bush 'administration' (i'm loving the quotes here)

Its been said many times before but the truth of the statement never decreases. Nearly EVERY reason the president gave the US public for the war in Iraq has been false.

Now, the darker reasons for this war this time in my honest opinion outway the innocent things it has brought. Corparate greed has outshined human life. A couple hundred soldiers dead, with thousands wounded.

Sure its easy to deconstruct the pres's descision but if he is the will of the poeple then we should NOT be in this war. I'm a protester and a believer in the American system but these last 4 years we have had two full out wars with foriegn countries and with those sort of figures who knows,maybe if Bush gets another term he will throw in another 2 or 3 . Korea comes to mind.

Like i said before, this administration is evil (not evil in a religous way but in a moral way any way you want to think about it) and they should be hung for treason against the american public.

This post is kinda sparse in as compared to most of the other post on this thread but I cannot understand how somone could believe in this administrations descisions.

 

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, if you can't recognise the fact that George Bush is a very intelligent man I pity you partisan blindness, and foolishness.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah because his track record of running companies into the ground and his ability to complete whole thoughts is so overwhelmingly indicative of intelligence. At least he's proven he knows how to eat prezels, ride a bike and take vacation.

[ QUOTE ]
it appears I'm the only one here willing to defend the presidents decision to go to war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cognizant of the fact and yet unable to draw meaning or relevance from it. Maybe you accuse the wrong people of being blind.

GE

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one Company George Bush "ran into the ground". he only entered public life when he bought stock in the Texas Rangers(which was enormously successful) and ran for Governor(which he served the maximum of 4 terms as).

 

[ QUOTE ]
Plague said:

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:
2. the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism because Saddam was thought to have WMD's and be in contact with Al Queida. Saddam was a proliferater of WMD's and had always been such. No WMD's were ever found but Saddam had the capacity to make WMD's none-the-less and was ready and willing to kill thousands without concious. He may not have been an imminent threat but he was a threat. Secondly, the sole purpose of having connections with Al Queida is to conspire in acts of terror. The prevention of acts of terror is the war on terror and by removing Saddam from the equation, you make the world safer by removing the threat of a terrorist attack by WMD's.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this logic can be used by every other country in the world to justify attacking the USA. And, we actually have WMDs. Lots of 'em. I think we're doing a great job creating more terrorists day by day.

Don't apologize for "hogging this thread." You wanted to do it. I think you have the right to share your views here. You may not get much support. Also, refering to Clinton as Slick Willy and then saying you supported him somewhat - it doesn't sound all that sincere to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I didn't say I supported Bill Clinton, I said "I sort of liked him". Bill Clinton is a smart, like-able guy, dispite his sly way with words and his Occaisional dishonesty. I think that's a fair statement. I call him "Slick Willy" because the name seems to fit his personality(both his slipperiness with words and the slickness of his willy, in reference to the whole Lewinski thing).

the reason we have WMD's is as a deterrent against a potential enemy (formerly the Soviet Union). Saddam had WMD's to wage an aggresive war against Iran and then used them to slaughter the Kurds in the north in order to keep them under control. We have never used WMD's(except in Vietnam which was a mistake in any case) unless you count the bombs we dropped on Nagasaki and Heroshima which probably saved lives and ended the war sooner than would have been the case had we carpet bombed Japan into oblivion and then invaded the Island with 7 million soliders in which case the Island would have most likely been divided between the Soviet Union and the U.S. causing all sorts of trouble in the future. so, no, no other country could use that argument to "attack the U.S." (like anyone would) since we are a benevelent and democratic nation with the intent of maintaining the stability of the world and promoting freedom and democracy(even if we have sometimes failed to do so).

 

Re: Iamthepope

In response to what Vith_dos said:

he is a Hippie(or protester, or activist,or whatever he calls himself). Hippies are the scum of the earth and have little or no common sence. never try arguing with a hippie, it is impossible to reason with them or make them see reason. Hippies come crawling out of the woodwork whenever there is a war to protest for rediculous, nonsencical, reasons they probably don't understand. people who throw out comments like "[the Bush Administration] should be hung" and consider themselves "protesters" are the real evil to society. If you can't understand the Bush Administration, read a book or watch the news, but don't waste my time by saying stupid things.