Justice

Agreed. I think you are all being a bit harsh for a first-timer.

God damn it, stop lurking and come back!

Get in. Now.

Hey, who bolded my one amp thing?

Wait a minute. What? *Grabs Jobber by the shoulder* *Shakes head* Just let him go.

Nah, I'd tell him to get the sand out of his vagina and stop being so thin-skinned. Then, when he would inevitably ask, "What's a vagina," I could enact my Pr0n In The Classrooms Plan. "I understand that many of you think my new teacher/student disciplining policy is vicious and quite possibly barbaric, but I assure you that it is derived from only the most qualified studies." *Holds up copy of The Substitute.*

1. Your bullshitting yourself. We gave him trucks and planes (P-40s and others like those) and all other sorts of things while his forces were hastily upgrading everything they could. This is pretty well known and why Patton wanted so badly to attack them at the very end: If we took away our support, they wouldn't have enough trucks and such to get their men ahead to the front lines, and probably would be missing valuable things along the way. The first big Russian Bomber (Tu-2, I believe), was a copy-off of technology acquired from B-17s that we lent Russia. Secondly, the British gave them the Roll-Royce Jet engine and plans to build the damn thing, which is far more dangerous than us giving Saddam a tolken amount of chemical weapons (If you don't believe me, talk to any Korean War veterans who had to fight Mig 15s and other like them; those were a direct ripoff using the Roll-Royce engine). And as Mike said, France and Russia have armed Iraq far more than we could ever imagine to. Russia literally supplied them with equipment for their entire ground army (There were even rumors they were still shipping stuff to them while we were in full Invasion Mode in the UN), and France gave them Mirage fighters for their Air Force. We are HARLDY responsible for arming Iraq when one actually looks at the composition of his military. 2. No, no we couldn't. No one other than Iraq had any possible chance of success against the Iranian Military. Remember: Saddam, for a while, had one of the most formidable militaries in the world (Yeah, yeah, stop laughing). Secondly, you are COMPLETELY ignoring Geography here. Iraq (Outside of maybe Turkey, and they were very unlikely to invade because of their own problems with Cyprus and Greece) is the only one who borders Iran. You can't have the Saudi Army marching across to Iran without going through Iraq. At this time, the US wanted an ally who could deal with Iran directly; Iraq is the only one with 1. The means 2. The will 3. The location to properly do so. Thirdly, all those countries have had problems with killing (Turkey and the Kurds is probably most notable). All of them had serious moral bankruptcy, so we were trying to get the most out of helping someone we necessarily didn't agree with. 3. Weak. We allied with the greatest mass murderer of all time (Stalin, in his purge of the Ukraine, killed 10 million Ukrainians, which is 2 to 4 million more than the amount of Jews Hitler killed, not to mention his numerous purges and deaths from his disasterous 5 Year Plans), and someone who was looking to take over all of Europe, or as much as he could of it without starting another huge war. He was one of the greatest threats that the free world has ever known. Am I pissed off that we allied with him? I didn't like it, but I can understand why we did. Same with Iraq: Iran was a bigger threat back then, so Iraq was a natural choice as an ally. We gave a proportional amount of support to Saddam and Stalin for what they were going to do with us. Oh, and you're welcome.

Touche. All I meant by the speech was that I found the editing painfully obvious. I made my own opinion on that during my first viewing of the movie totally uninformed that it would happen. If I can see that in a tired stupor, I think an attentive audience would, too. I'm not talking about the added part. I'm actually referring to Moore's selective cutting of the speech. In the original speech, Heston gives an appology and states how they've basically cancelled the entire convention outside of a luncheon, and then goes on to defend the NRA from taking the blame for Columbine. In the movie, the cuts Moore makes make him come off as insensitive and callous rather than respectful and defending himself.

No offense, but I expect about as unbiased a view of Moore from David T Hardy as I would expect Moore to give of Bush. I remember when he was simply that guy with the web site with this page that debunked shit in BFC. Except a lot of it was kind of obvious stuff, like how he spliced together different Heston speeches when even I, watching BFC for the first time at 2AM in the morning as a cure for insomnia, noticed the background changing. Who would be fooled by that? The blind, I guess, but anyone else? I think that's the point Mike's making, Jobber... The fact that Michael Moore hasn't sued him OBVIOUSLY means he's telling the truth. And on Heston: The bigger part is how he cut the speech up tons to make it seem a lot crueller than it was intended (That, and he didn't note the fact that the NRA did cancel everything outside of a luncheon because of the shootings).

Why not sue? Simple: Because it's more publicity than Michael Moore could ever wish for. Imagine it: "PRESIDENT SUES TO SHUT UP WHISTLEBLOWER!" "BUSH ADMINISTRATION AFRAID OF MOORE!" "FAHRENHEIT 9/11 MAKING BUSH HOT UNDER THE COLLAR!" The reaction to this should be what the Bush administration has already done: With a laugh and dismiss it as simply fiction. As a non-threat. Why concentrate on the unaimed and wild blows of some egotist when you are going to be taking on the Kung Fu (And I use this loosely) of the Democratic Party. Frankly, the Democratic Party are a lot more adept at actually, well, REACHING people and TURNING them to vote against Bush than Moore ever could. You can find a similar example way back in the 50's: Studios and directors who made horror and Sci-Fi films would rile up all the yuppies by hiring actors to come in as some church group and publicly denounce the movie as "Vile, violent, horrifying, etc...". Why would this work? Because people like controversy and forbidden fruit. You tell them "Something about this movie is bad", and more people will want to see it. Anyways... this whole article is crap. Most of the stuff was debunked so throughly beforehand that even Moore couldn't risk putting it in his movie. And I'll quote the great fk_teale regarding your hard-on for posting all this editorial crap:

There's a difference between what I said and what you think I said. I meant that what happened happened, went the way it did, was completely legal, and wasn't "stolen." The Supreme Court didn't screw anybody over, so get over that. However, Gore did win more votes. That's a fact and I'm not going to let that one slide away. Mikey Moore, however, and his "Daddy's friends on the Supreme Court" line, can go suck one. Gore got more votes, got the popular vote, but didn't become President on a technicality. And that's what really happened. Just because he didn't get the office in 2000 didn't mean he didn't get more votes. Double votes mean shit unless we know the statistics in ALL the closely contested states. New Mexico could have easily moved the other way, as with a few other close Gore states. To just say double votes (And this is a double vote for the Presidential Candidate, right? How does one determine that these go to Gore...) would have swung it in one state doesn't work when you don't look at the entire picture. It's not a technicality: Double votes aren't accepted anyways. Possibly a bad twist of fate? Okay, that's a bit more believable...

Nothing like a "Our #1 enemy endorses Kerry" campaign. Even if the more rational Republicans will condemn this crap. And this is more than a few submissions in a video contest for MoveOn. Unless Jefferson county (home of Louisville) is less significant than you'd think. Because hey, they were only endorsed by major celebrities and posted all across the internet. I mean, that has none of the coverage that the LOUISVILLE MEDIA BLITZ offers, right Robbie? And right now we have Mikey Moore comparing Bush to the Anti-Christ, so I don't think the stupidity is even CLOSE this time.

"With great power comes great responsabability."

That's what boot camp is for, Mike. Unless you're a complete psychopath, having someone constantly yelling at you in your face 20/7 will have a profound affect on you. Indeed. I'd say exclude any sexual or serious assault charges (Like Manslaughter or anything) and only if the sentence is within a year's length of their time in the Armed Services. (I.E. You can't do this with a life sentence for multiple robberies, but if you got a few carjacking convictions for about 6 years, you'd be eligible). And the minimum would have to be around 3 years, with possibly restricted shore leave/off time.

Okay, that basically debunks this guy as a credible source. Deceit isn't just outright lying, it's also distorting facts: Telling actually statistics, but then misusing them or not giving the entire story so as to misrespresent what actually happened. If he can't accept that, well, then he's nothing. Not only that, most of it is rhetorical arguments rather than actually doing fact searches. If you were trying to silence any criticisms that Moore, well, uses distorted facts to make his arugment true, well, you failed. Sorry, try again.

Since Cerbs' isn't on, here's a good source against Farenheit 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn

... WTF? o.0 I swear, the treatment of Judge in the dark matches are criminal. Guy ME's Genesis, and now he's jobbing to a furry female?!

Damn it, I called this from the first day and I wanted to screw him over. When I told AoO to confirm it, I wanted to get everyone else in CE on it so we could all agree with him on some stupid thing and then turn around and say "FOOLED YOU! OMG BANNED!" or something.

Wow, a conservative resorting to petty name-calling....I'm shocked and/or appalled! Yup, you've got a really good point to make when you're calling the other guy a moron. Maybe you should have typed it out as "maroon" to REALLY up the maturity level! Jeez, you acted like I just shot a kid in self-defense or something. Wow. Way to over-react at one little word. Cheney mentioned it the possibility of it twice and it was never mentioned again! You'd think if the Bush Administration was so intent on spreading it, you'd have everyone saying and constantly purporting that viewpoint. Instead, you have Cheney saying that there are some indicators that Iraq might have helped out, then never mentions it again. Should I suddenly associate a few Dems wanting the UN to watch over the 2004 Elections with the rest of the damn party?

Finding Bin Laden isn't something that is necessary to the War on Terror. It's a moral victory, yeah, but it doesn't diminish the fighting power of the terrorists in any way: Bin Laden isn't the big planner, he's the big funder, and his funds are currently frozen in banks across the world anyways. Scouring the crags of Afganistan doesn't do anything for the War on Terror: To fight the War on Terror more effectively, we need to improve our intelligence gathering methods greatly, as was inadvertantly proven by our Invasion of Iraq. Moron. The 9/11-Iraq connection isn't something that's widely mentioned because, well, it's something that Cheney has only hinted at a few times. That's not like Bush or his officials repeatedly saying "Iraq was behind 9/11!". There's a difference betweeen a few mentions of something and a huge endorsement, and this never really got past a few mentions from Cheney. It was never put in as a reason for invading Iraq.

No, you obviously don't if you are writing off Iraq's terrorist involvement like it were nothing. Al Qadia and Iraq do have connections with each other. Just because they didn't cooperate for 9/11 doesn't automatically that they were still on decent terms: Just because I don't do everything with my friends doesn't mean they aren't my friends. And, um, Bush never mentioned Iraq-9/11. Cheney has a few times, but he's the only administration official that has ever said anything about it. This article isn't just saying that we should have gone after Bin Laden more. This article dismisses anything and everything we've done in Iraq as useless, that we've accomplished nothing by deposing Saddam, which is both foolish and idiotic. We've taken out a dictator who harbored terrorists and funded terrorist groups with money he shaved from Food-for-Oil and illegal oil trade with Syria. We've taken out someone who has caused immense destruction and death in the Middle East(Saddam has killed 1 Million people outside of Iraq alone through 3 different invasions) and wrought terror upon his own starving people. This piece is just one of many trying to make the sacrifice of soldiers meaningless so that the Democrats can cry "Vietnam! Vietnam!" during the election, and they don't even realize that if they win, they're going to reap their own whirlwind of bad press and low morale.

That's not leaving an open possibility, that's an accusation right there, which is exactly what I responded to: You have no proof besides the fact that the Justice Dept. has been researching what counts as torture for purposes of interrogation. They've been doing this for a while, is the thing; ever since Afganistan, when 'enemy combatants' and the Geneva Convention really started to come into play. It's not as though the Justice Department has solely been focusing on that aspect, only that as a large part of an investigation into the entire legality of the Geneva Convention when it comes to treating these people. There's no proof that these people were acting on higher orders, and the Justice Department has been researching this for a while now. Unless you have some sort of actual, well, proof, then all you have is a baseless accusation based on a coincidence.

Might need to re-check the info, as links between Al Qaeda and Iraq existed as far back as 1991. There is a reason why they never caused problems in Iraq. -=Mike Were they allies of the group that attacked us at the time of the attack? Not according to the 9/11 Commission, who completely dismissed the idea. Oh, wait, you're a conservative, I'm sure you've got some conspiracy theory about commission members attending liberal movies or something.... -Xias Because in the conservative world, Republicians really want to hurt their own party! Whether or not they were actually involved in 9/11 doesn't mean they weren't allied in one way or another, nimrod. Even if 9/11 didn't have any Iraqi involvement, that doesn't dim the fact that Iraq was big into helping terrorist groups and other dangerous extremists in the Middle East. Eh, wait, you're a yuppie. You don't actually know how the real world works, so what's the use in trying to explain anything to you. -Powerplay ... Damn, you are just so friggin' familiar... Thank you! ... Huh? Did you quote the right person here? *Remains confused*

For once, I agree with Nablius/Highland. Listen to one of the liberal members with some decent common sense, people!

Just a question, what would the legal standing be for Iraqi soldiers caught fighting the U.S. troops now, say in Najaf (sp?), if they clamied they were fighting against the occupation of their country? I would say that, since they are fighting against a government that is being recognized by the rest of the world as 'their government', I don't think they would be considered soldiers, and therefore not POWs. Since the old government isn't something like Taiwan, that was officially recognized as China for a long while, they can't claim to be soldiers because their government no longer exists. Basically, no, because there is no debate on whether or not the Iraqis in Baghdad are the official Iraqi government. If there were some sort of debate on the legitmacy of the new government being the official one, then they might have something. But they are just guerillas now, part of no recognized government anymore.