OT: Fahrenheit 9/11 *Explicit Content/Cursing*

[Joe Vancil]

The war went from removing Sadaam and his regime because they were a serious threat to the US and were planning to attack with WMD.

Then the war became all about liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator once those WMD's were no where to be found.

The first had to be the main and only reason we went over there. Or else why werent we doing this 20 years ago? And no desert storm was not about saving the Iraqi's from him, it was about protecting Kuwait from invasion. Must be nice to switch up solid reasons why we are over there.

First of all, we should have gone back to Iraq when the weapons inspectors were kicked out, back in the Clinton administration.  That was part of the term of the cease-fire.  Of course, we didn't, because our government doesn't stick to the principles of the average American.

You could have sold me on going back to war in Iraq for that reason.  But that's not what the government did.

I expect to get what I paid for - what the governement sold me - and that's those WMD's.  If they don't find them, I refuse to vote for anyone who voted for going to the war.  I likewise refuse to vote for anyone who opposed going to war during the Clinton administration - ESPECIALLY if they were around during the first Gulf War.

*ACCOUNTABILITY*.  Get used to it, guys.  And I've got a *LONG* memory.
 

[rickortreat]

Joe, there's no question that "We the people" are the most to blame.  But we're to blame because we trusted our representatives to do the right thing.

I can't tell you where America went wrong.  Alexander Hamiltion establishing the first Central Bank was the first clue.  When Jefferson tried to re-establish the Gold standard, the British started the War of 1812, forcing Jefferson to print money, since the US didn't have enough gold to pay it's way.

The first President they attempted to impeached Andrew Jackson, he too was a proponent of the Gold standard- which by the way is defined in our Consitution.

Gold was finally made illegal by Roosevelt in 34'  to prevent people from finding a way to store their wealth outside of the ravages of inflation.  Inflation caused by the overextension of credit from the Federal Reserve system- whcih was esatblished in 1914.  Just think our own Government managed to cause the great depresssion in only 15 years bankrupting the country!  Consider that the Federal Reserve act was suppossed to stablize our economy!

Nixon removed the Gold window in 1973, and ever since our money is backed only by our word.  

We're suppossed to be a free country and you can't be free if you can't trust your money.    :crazy:  

Now the whole world is afloat in paper money backed by nothing.  There's so much of it around that the cost of real things is going up.  Oil, Food, wood, metals, Houses- all inflated by excessive money creation.  The same thing happened in the 30's inflation, then depression.

So the fault is ours.  There are a lot of politicians both past and present that did us wrong in a systematic fashion. And we only went after Nixon and Clinton for relatively minor things. But I didn't vote for any of these guys, except for Clinton.  And I tried to tell everyone to wake up, but most people didn't understand me or why I was so concerned.  If the country falls, my concience will be clear.  But are we to blame for the failure to elect honest people, when there's been a conspiracy going on for years to make sure we don't even get the chance to vote for them?  Do you think it's a coincidence that Howard Dean dissapeared, so we get the choice to vote for one of two Skull and Bones member Yale graduates?  

[Guest_Randy]

First, the integrity of our political process has decayed.  It is VERY difficult for an honest person to make a difference in Washington and the political process itself is a HUGE ship that takes YEARS to understand a basic schematic of with committees, subcommittees, etc.  

Second, I don't trust politicians -- mainly because they will tell you what you want to hear and then tell another person what they want to hear -- and it doesn't make much difference whether it's a contradiction or not because the end justifies the means.

Third, Michael Moore is an idiot -- this movie (which is what it is) is simply his way of trying to get Bush booted from office.  There are a LOT of things that Bush has done that I DON'T agree with but anyone who things this is anything other than Moore trying to use the film industry for his own personal political objectives is naive.  Moore has done it before with some success so why not try it again -- he already had the support of Hollywood so it wasn't like he was taking a huge gamble.

My biggest problem with this movie?  It has NOTHING to do with Bush -- Bush is a big boy and he made a lot of the bed he is lying in so he can learn to answer for his choices.  However, I don't think that Moore really understands what he is doing to our military in Iraq right now -- they see this movie as an OPPORTUNITY.  I think there is a right and a wrong way of expressing your beliefs about this war -- the right way is to continue to support the troops while standing on your principles.  You have to be VERY careful about expressing this view, IMO, because in doing so you can show the rest of the world (who already resents us for many reasons) that America isn't behind this war -- unfortunately, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that America isn't behind our armed forces -- remember?  The guys who are dying overseas?  While I don't like a lot of things that Bush has done -- I have gone to great lengths to make sure that the men and women overseas understand that I support them.  This movie is going to be seen across the world -- and I'm sure it's going to find great receptance in those countries who already hate the US and have an agenda of destruction to carry out.  At least, IMO, we hold journalists accountable -- Moore will NEVER be held to accountability for this film if it should have the reaction that I'm afraid that it will.

PS - One side note, the US is hated for a LOT of reasons.  I used to have a guy from Kenya who worked for me and he hated the US (even though he would admit that he was studying in the US because our University system was better than those in Kenya and he could get a great deal of help here financially to go to school).  The reason why he hated the US?  Because the US loaned Kenya money to modernize -- money they couldn't afford to pay back -- and they owe the US so much money that they are basically paying the interest each year rather than paying on the loan.  It's the reason why he felt that his friends could come into the US -- go to school here and leave the country with huge credit card bills, phone bills, etc. and that it was justified because of what the US has done to his country.  There are a lot of perspectives out there -- are we going to make a movie out of all of those perspectives?  My point in all of this is why is Moores movie not "politically correct"?  There seem to be SOME issues that are allowed but others that aren't -- not sure that I understand why this is the case!

[Guest_Randy]

So the fault is ours. There are a lot of politicians both past and present that did us wrong in a systematic fashion. And we only went after Nixon and Clinton for relatively minor things. But I didn't vote for any of these guys, except for Clinton. And I tried to tell everyone to wake up, but most people didn't understand me or why I was so concerned. If the country falls, my concience will be clear. But are we to blame for the failure to elect honest people, when there's been a conspiracy going on for years to make sure we don't even get the chance to vote for them? Do you think it's a coincidence that Howard Dean dissapeared, so we get the choice to vote for one of two Skull and Bones member Yale graduates?

But are we to blame for the failure to elect honest people, when there's been a conspiracy going on for years to make sure we don't even get the chance to vote for them?

But I didn't vote for any of these guys, except for Clinton.

So you think Clinton was honest?  A person that lies in small things is going to lie in big things, Rick.  It was clear that Clinton was involved in a lot mroe than "relatively minor things" unless you call allowing yourself to grow rich at the mercy of others a "relatively minor thing."  If my investment banker called me up and let me know that I have earned $100,000 on a $1000 investment, I would IMMEDIATELY respond by "that's not possible."  An honest person doesn't simply "look the other way."  

I'm not here to call Bush an honest person -- there are many things that he has done that I don't like but you can't call him a liar and then defend Bill Clinton -- that's hypocrisy.  Clinton is, IMO, the epitome of our political problems in America today -- as long as he helps our economy, he can do whatever he wants to.  I would rather pay higher taxes and see America take the higher ground.

[Joe Vancil]

Clinton is, IMO, the epitome of our political problems in America today -- as long as he helps our economy, he can do whatever he wants to.

Agreed.  If Bush were making everyone rich, most folks wouldn't have a problem with him.  We Americans tend to care too much about our pocketbooks - not enough about prinicples.

 

[Lurker]

To think that other countries will use this movie as propaganda to claim that Americans don't support our troops is naive at best.  Most of those who oppose us can & do already have better propaganda than this movie.  All they have to do is take much of Bush's rhetoric and edit it to say what they want their mindless followers to believe.

Also this would not be the first time that Americans did not support a war that the government shoved down our throats.  I know that many of you are not old enough to remember directly but go back and study the Vietnam War era.   Check out Kent State where Americans shot Americans over a war.  

Moore's right to produce this type of movie is a big part of what our troops are fighting for...at least in their minds.  Talk to servicemen (there are many in SA) and most of them will tell you they are fighting to support our American freedoms.  Not to liberate the Iraqis.  They might not agree with Bush but do recognize him as the commander in chief until the American people say otherwise.

[westkoast]

Id like to know where you buy American flags in Iraq.

Presumably at the same place the people who burn them buy them.

You mean they burn the flags the US troops give them to show how much they support us?

[rickortreat]

Randy, where did I say Clinton was honest?

All I said was I voted for him, and implied that it was a mistake.  Clinton is a lying stinking weasel too.  He's just more likeable than Bush, like Regan was.

I would regret voting for him, except that I thought his opponents were worse.  

I also don't think he was responsible for the prosperity in America.  But we were fiscally much more responsible under a so-called tax and spend liberal than we are under a Republican President and Congress.

I don't belive that he would have sent us into Iraq under false pretences.  He knew that taking out Saddam would destablilize the Middle East, and decided that the risks  outweighed the benefits.

And Clinton, IMO, never would have signed the Patriot Acts into law.

[Ted]

I have been meaning to post on the Iraq war and US strategy for a long time. I've been studying strategy a lot lately (business, economic, foreign policy, etc.)

More and more, I am beginning to think that neither WMDs or oil or Saddam were the real reason underlying reason for going into Iraq. I think it goes much deeper.

It has to do with the strategy tool known as the Nash Equilibrium. Many of you are probably familiar with it. Back in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, he did so because he did not believe there was a credible threat of retaliation. He chose to attack believing it would offer the greatest payoff, but he was wrong; there was a credible threat in the form of the Coalition.

After the Gulf War, the Coalition imposed sanctions and restrictions on Iraq. And the only way those restrictions would work is if there were a real credible threat of retaliation unless Iraq complied. Well, Saddam decided again that there was no real credible threat. This time was right. He threw the inspectors out, and we lobbed a few cruise missiles. Saddam wins his payoff, we lose A LOT.

On 9/11 we get attacked on our home soil for the first time in a very long time, and things change drastically for a lot of people. Our government adopts a new strategy of proactively destroying enemies and those who harbor them, AND to create democracy in the region of the Middle East as one of the primary weapons against the extremism that fuels fundamentalist terror groups.

The appearance of strength internationally is now the paramount goal of foreign policy. We destroy Afghanistan and turn our eyes to Iraq. This is where the absolute necessity of a credible threat of retaliation comes in to play. In this strategy (whether right or wrong), the US MUST show a credible threat if it wants its strategy to end in a payoff rather than a loss. So, when Iraq chose to not cooperate with UN resolutions (yes, inspectors were there, but they were deliberately impeded), the US was forced to do something about it. Whether the strategy was right or wrong, the only way for the US to come out ahead once it leveled its threats of force was to show that those threats were indeed credible.

Now I'm not saying this was the best strategy to take in the first place. What I'm saying is, that having chosen to level those threats, the only way for the US to reach a positive equilibrium is to back up those threats, to make them credible. In any strategy, the only way to reach an equilibrium that is beneficial to you is to get competitors to understand that to choose the way they would like would cost them more than to choose your way. The only way to accomplish this understanding is to present a credible threat of retaliation if they don't do what you say you will.

I don't like the fact that we're in Iraq right now. But given the strategy our government took to deal with the new threat of terrorism, I don't know what else they could have done. The problem is, I don't know if anyone has thought of a better strategy for us. One that never demanded war would be nice, but I'm not sure such a strategy exists.

Ted

P.S. If you're interested, you should read about the Nash Equilibrium and its implications in economic and political strategy. It makes a lot of sense and is applicable in all kinds of "strategery." As it so happens, the Nash in question is the same guy who recently won the Nobel Prize and is the subject of the movie, A Beautiful Mind.

[JoMal]

Id like to know where you buy American flags in Iraq.

Presumably at the same place the people who burn them buy them.

You mean they burn the flags the US troops give them to show how much they support us?

I would presume you can get an American flag the same place where they prepare the coffins for transport back to the States.

I certainly hope we are not going to turn this debate into which polictican lies more to the American people. Or start rating which lies are bigger, or who made more money from unsavory sources. I thought we would continue on a "serious" trend here. Of necessity, politicians early on establish catchy, rhetorical phrases which don't quite mean what they sound like. As they move up the ranks of politics, the lies are easier to say and by necessity become bigger. We don't need to debate about it; just refrain from getting all hissy about it when they get caught.

Claude Raines in Casablanca - "Close this place down. I am shocked, shocked, to find gambling taking place here at Rick's". Toady - "Here are your winnings, sir". Raines "Oh, thank you."

I still do not have any reason to see Moore's movie. It won't sway me in any way regarding my opinion about why we went to war, why we are still there, or why we won't be leaving Iraq any time soon. He is not telling me anything I don't already know and he certainly is not providing any information that should elicit so much debate about it.  

If I needed some self-righteous A**hole to lecture me on what I should think, I can talk to my image in a mirror.

[jn]

Ted it's funny you should mention Nash.  I just found this yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5304846/site/newsweek/


P.S. I've comt believe one of the main reasons everyone thought Saddam was in posession of so of large stocks of chemical weapons and on the brink of attaing nuclear weapons. (I choose not to use WMD anymore, the phrase has now been misused to the point of meaninglessnes) is that Saddam NEEDED everyone to believe that in order to maintain a credible threat, and thus prestige and power.  He certainly may have had some dangerous and potentially dangerous weapons but nowhere  near as many as he wanted his enemies to believe.  In fact some reports have come out about how Saddams scientists lied to him about the extent of their work in order to maintain funding and keep themselves in his good graces.    

[spursfan101]

Agreed. If Bush were making everyone rich, most folks wouldn't have a problem with him. We Americans tend to care too much about our pocketbooks - not enough about prinicples.

At least Clinton didn't take away our civil liberties. He didn't set up non-protest areas when he was in our cities. He didn't imprison people and search peoples houses w/o search warrants under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.

Bush is just rogue. He'll get what he deserves come November.  I can't imagine Bob Dole ever doing anything like this. He was an honorable man, unlike...

[WayOutWest]

Warning: cursing below!!!
Warning: cursing below!!!
Warning: cursing below!!!
Warning: cursing below!!!
Warning: cursing below!!!












Saw the movie again, this time for free.

Like I stated in my initial post the only new revelations were the amount of Saudi money in the US, more importantly in the Bush familily pockets, and the involvement of Bush Sr. in all these shenanagins (SIC?).

Most of the posts I've read is your standard BS.

Try and debate the points brought up by Moore and ignore the opinions and sarcasm in the movie, let see where that gets you punks.  I would love to get you guys in a room and play "point counter point" instead of the mostly generalzing half assed dismission of points brought out by the movie.  If you haven't seen the movie then shut the fuck up about the movie's merrit.

P.S. Joe V, the man you hold in high regard, Regan is a guy I remember who wouldn't fund aids research when it could have been stopped, fucked us middle class shitheads out of money so the richest 19% of americans could benefit, blamed the fat bloated gov budget problems on welfare and the niggers on it and he was also nice enough to use billions of OUR tax dollars to bluff the USSR into bankruptcy.  IMO Regan was a piece of shit.

[WayOutWest]

OK, some points:

I have a copy of the movie but it doesn't have the nice DVD chapter features so I can't get to certain parts of the movie.

Point 1: Not sure if it's Bin Laden family money or Saudi money, I'll just call it "da money".  Close pal of Dubya Bush, who served in the reserves and who's name was blacked out in the "released" version of Dubya's service record, name is Bat or Bath, something with a B.  Anyway, this guy is in charge of "da money" and how it's invested in the US.  Dubya's daddy is in the oval office durring a time when Dubya is starting up his own companies.  Since Dubya is a flocking moron, he runs his copanies into the ground.  Two points, he gets his start up capitol from "da money", when his copany is on the brink of disaster he gets a few infusion of capitol from "da money".  This happens on more than one occasion.

"da money" and it's owners become "family" to the Bush's and the Bush administration.  The Bin Ladens' are welcomed guests at the white house and at the Bush family homes.  "da money" finds it's way into The Carlyle Group (SIC?).  After 9/11 the C group starts making tons of money because of the military build up to goto war in AFgan and eventually Iraq.  After a while it starts looking bad that the country of origin for 17 of the 19 hijackers is profitting from 9/11 so "da money" gets pulled out.  Alot of the Bush inner circle are profitting tremendously from 9/11.

Can someone explain this to me or tell me that those points addressed in the movie are false?

[Ted]

Stooge.

Sorry WoW, you're inability to discuss "grown up" issues without sounding like a drunken sailor kills your cred with me. Any time anyone makes a reasonable point, the best you can do is bust out your F-bomb and call people names.

No one here has said that the movie is completely without merit. All we've been saying is that a lot of the things Moore presents in his movies as facts are based upon evidence that he has sifted through.

You've got to calm down a bit man. I seriously worry about what will happen to you if Bush gets re-elected. You're gonna bust a vein someday.