Hey BUSH!! PAY ATTENTION!!!

[Guest Xias]

But that's an idiotic comparison, because Italy and Germany were CLEAR allies of Japan. Obviously, as has been proven time and time again, Iraq aren't allies of the group that attacked us.

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...

I understand that, but at the time Bush was leading us to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which we now know was never the case. All I am saying (and all this article is saying, for that matter) is that the time spent on this witch hunt in Iraq could have been better spent taking down Bin Laden, who, by the way, we KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt is a threat. If there is another significant attack on US soil by Al Queda, then the Bush administration must take some of the blame for dicking around with Iraq and Saddam when we should have been stopping Bin Laden.

 

-Xias

[Justice 0]

I understand that, but at the time Bush was leading us to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which we now know was never the case. All I am saying (and all this article is saying, for that matter) is that the time spent on this witch hunt in Iraq could have been better spent taking down Bin Laden, who, by the way, we KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt is a threat. If there is another significant attack on US soil by Al Queda, then the Bush administration must take some of the blame for dicking around with Iraq and Saddam when we should have been stopping Bin Laden.

 

-Xias

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.

[Guest GreatOne]

But that's an idiotic comparison, because Italy and Germany were CLEAR allies of Japan. Obviously, as has been proven time and time again, Iraq aren't allies of the group that attacked us.

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...

I understand that, but at the time Bush was leading us to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which we now know was never the case. All I am saying (and all this article is saying, for that matter) is that the time spent on this witch hunt in Iraq could have been better spent taking down Bin Laden, who, by the way, we KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt is a threat. If there is another significant attack on US soil by Al Queda, then the Bush administration must take some of the blame for dicking around with Iraq and Saddam when we should have been stopping Bin Laden.

 

-Xias

Bush was leading us to believe that Iraq had anything to do with 911 much like he actually SAID IT.

 

Never happened, but if that's what you got out of it I can't help you..................

 

Here's an idea, the next person who bitches about not finding Bin Laden go volunteer for duty in Afghanistan, OK? No? That's what I thought...............

[Guest Xias]

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.

Again, they didn't present any obvious danger to us at the time we invaded. Bin Laden did. You're STILL ignoring that point- that, perhaps, if we had put all this time and energy spend in Iraq towards finding Bin Laden, we wouldn't have be worrying about a second attack from him now.

 

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.

 

Oh man, it wasn't Bush, it was just his Vice-President! Why would anyone EVER associate that viewpoint with the Bush Administration just because their VP mentioned it "a few times'?!? THOSE DAMN LIBERALS~!!!

 

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.

 

All well and good, but again, it wasn't a neccesary cause like the Bin Laden one was. Period.

 

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.

 

Once again- was it completely pointless? No. Was it a hell of a lot more pointless than going after the man who was behind 9/11 before he could start planning another attack? YES.

 

-Xias

[Justice 0]

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.

 

Oh man, it wasn't Bush, it was just his Vice-President! Why would anyone EVER associate that viewpoint with the Bush Administration just because their VP mentioned it "a few times'?!? THOSE DAMN LIBERALS~!!!

 

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.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Was I the only one who thought this was going to be a anti obesity story after how the article started?

Nope.

 

But then again I thought it would go on to say that with so many fat kids these days, it might be hard to find people in 5 years who are in shape enough to join the military.

[Guest Xias]

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.

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!

 

Again, I stand by my point. Cheney hinted at it a few times? CHENEY'S A PART OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. So it makes perfect sense to then say that the Bush Administration tried to spread the viewpoint that Iraq was involved in 9/11, because, again, Cheney is a part of the Bush Administration!

 

-Xias

[Justice 0]

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.

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.

 

Again, I stand by my point. Cheney hinted at it a few times? CHENEY'S A PART OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. So it makes perfect sense to then say that the Bush Administration tried to spread the viewpoint that Iraq was involved in 9/11, because, again, Cheney is a part of the Bush Administration!

 

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?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Cheney never tied Hussein with 9-11. He like others in the adminstration said the two had ties. Something the 9-11 commission backed up, and the Clinton adminstartion said has well in 1998.

[Guest MikeSC]

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!

The 9/11 Commission was dealing DIRECTLY with 9/11. The Commission ALSO stated that the media missed the mark on their report and said that links DID exist prior to 9/11.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Here's an idea, the next person who bitches about not finding Bin Laden go volunteer for duty in Afghanistan, OK? No? That's what I thought...............

It's not MY job to go find Bin Laden...that responsibility falls squarely on Bush's shoulders.

[Guest INXS]

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.

I've yet to see any evidence that Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked in any way, but for one second i'll accept your claim. So, by your rationale the USA are equally to blame having armed Saddam during his war with Iran..not to mention other countries that were also selling arms to Saddam during that period.

[Guest INXS]

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.

So now it's not important to bring the mastermind of 9/11 and other numerous terrorist attacks to justice? It would just be a "moral victory"?

 

His capture WOULD diminish the power of terrorist groups - certainly Al Qaeda. As you said, Bin Laden FUNDS Al Qaeda and if you think that we have stopped him from getting to his vast wealth you are deluded. Not only does he fund the group he is the LEADER. He makes the descisions..he's the brains behind them as well as the resources.

 

So, we've failed to get near Bin Laden in 3 years of looking so suddenly he's not that that important....WOW. Just wow.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Here's an idea, the next person who bitches about not finding Bin Laden go volunteer for duty in Afghanistan, OK? No? That's what I thought...............

It's not MY job to go find Bin Laden...that responsibility falls squarely on Bush's shoulders.

It falls on every country whose been victim to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

[Guest UncleJesseMark]

I usually only read the propaganda and rhetoric that you you conservatives spew on this part of the board, but I'm feeling energized today.

 

First of all, I challenge any of you to give me some unalienable proof that Iraq harbored terrorists. Or that Bush didn't send us into battle in Iraq to keep our numbers limited in Afghanistan in order to make some money or that There is blue cheese on the moon. The fact is, YOU CAN'T! Just like I can't prove the opposite.

 

We are lied to every day by the media in this country, but its not their fault either, because they get lied to as well. For any of you to believe that you are more right than anyone else around here: grow up, and try to think critically for a while, and not so emotionally. We are all given the same story. We all hear the same "facts".

 

And personally to MikeSC--- What exactly makes Michael Moore a Bigot? Do you know what a Bigot is? or did you just use it because it's an emotionally charged word??? ahhh yes, thought so.

 

Oh, and if you care to elaborate on why he hates America...and how you came to that conclusion...

 

Thanks

 

*edited to add last 2 sentences at end of paragraph 3*

[Guest Cerebus]

First of all, I challenge any of you to give me some unalienable proof that Iraq harbored terrorists. Or that Bush didn't send us into battle in Iraq to keep our numbers limited in Afghanistan in order to make some money or that There is blue cheese on the moon. The fact is, YOU CAN'T! Just like I can't prove the opposite.

 

Uh what do you mean "unailienable" proof? That would require me digging up offline documents to show you, something I am unable to do.

 

I CAN show you one example, but you'll likely dismiss it out of hand anyway.

 

We are lied to every day by the media in this country, but its not their fault either, because they get lied to as well. For any of you to believe that you are more right than anyone else around here: grow up, and try to think critically for a while, and not so emotionally. We are all given the same story. We all hear the same "facts".

 

Yes, look at how they have spun the Kay report, ignored Duelfer, and have their collective head in the ground to the specifics of the SSCI report.

 

And personally to MikeSC--- What exactly makes Michael Moore a Bigot? Do you know what a Bigot is? or did you just use it because it's an emotionally charged word??? ahhh yes, thought so.

 

Oh, and if you care to elaborate on why he hates America...and how you came to that conclusion...

 

''They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet."

 

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

[Guest GreatOne]

Yeah I would say that cheerleading AGAINST YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY makes you a traitor.

 

Of course, I can't wait to hear his fat ass go on another 'dumb Americans' tirade and then follow it up with 'Look at how many people watched F911'. Kinda reminds me of William Shatner on RAW telling Lawler 'These people aren't idiots, these are the people that watch Tekwar!'

[Jobber of the Week 0]

''They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet."

Has anyone actually heard him say this? So far, I've only heard that he said it to someone while on the other side of the pond, but there were no cameras and no tape recorders present.

 

 

Meanwhile, GreatOne goes overboard with...

Yeah I would say that cheerleading AGAINST YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY makes you a traitor.

 

Did you see that scene where Bush said that Osama is just one guy and he's not concerned where he is?

 

Osama would probably vote Bush for that if he could.

[Guest Cerebus]

''They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet."

Has anyone actually heard him say this? So far, I've only heard that he said it to someone while on the other side of the pond, but there were no cameras and no tape recorders present.

 

 

Meanwhile, GreatOne goes overboard with...

Yeah I would say that cheerleading AGAINST YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY makes you a traitor.

 

Did you see that scene where Bush said that Osama is just one guy and he's not concerned where he is?

 

Osama would probably vote Bush for that if he could.

Unless the Mirror reporter is completley making it up I suppose so. I havn't heard Moore deny it.

[Guest UncleJesseMark]

Yet, still, no explanation as to why Michael Moore is called a "bigot"

 

Also, It's not cheerleading if he is telling the truth. We have no hope of over coming a band of people who believe so strongly in what they are doing.

 

American Revolution anyone? Can no one open their eyes?

 

This does not mean I want America to "Lose" because we already have by deploying troops to Iraq on baseless grounds.

 

No one else should have to die. Case Closed.

[Vyce 0]

Also, It's not cheerleading if he is telling the truth........

 

American Revolution anyone? Can no one open their eyes?

If you sincerely believe that Michael Moore is "telling the truth", I could ask this same question of you.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

LISTEN UP!: Every Iraq/Saddam/9-11/WMD/Terrorism debate comes down to who used which words in which way and when. I never hear anyone on the left give any VIABLE alternatives to Bush and the Neo-Con's plan for responding to 9/11. There are tons of possible alternatives to the Bush administration's current stance on terrorism. Yet every god damn thread seems to turn into a "Bush/Blair lied" defend and attack fest. I'm sick of it! It's a sissy fight about how Bush and Blair phrased their intentions for going to war. There are more important issues than Bush getting re-elected or an off the rack politician like Kerry winning. Its all irrelevant! Should we ask what the definition of "is, is?" just to round out the endless cycle of meaningless debate?

 

Deal with this #1: Bush was going to attack Iraq no matter what. No matter how overwhelming or flimsy the case for WMD's or Al-Qaeda links were, Bush was going to get Saddam thrown out. The real intentions of the war are a mystery. Security, oil, strategic Middle East alliance, construction contracts, settling an old score for papa Bush and other factors are all probably rooted in the intentions for going to war. Stop bitching about intelligence reports and all the conspiracy theory non-sense. Iraq was in Bush's cross-hairs on innauguration day.

 

Deal with this #2: We're in Iraq. We can't erase this (good or bad) decision. Now what to do we do?

 

Deal with this #3: We won't know whether the decision to topple Iraq was a good idea for atleast 15-20 years. Sadly, the chances for failure are greater than the chances for success. But then again, how do we define or measure success?

 

Deal with this #4: Saddam, Hitler 2K4, is gone. The WMD's? Almost useless now that the bad guy in charge of them is gone. The Al-Qaida links? Not important now that he's in handcuffs. This isn't to say that Iraq won't turn into a hotbed for terrorism in the near future, but we can rest peacefully knowing that a really really bad dude isn't a threat anymore.

 

So let's debate the policies of the war on terror, not the language being used. This is a HUGE issue but all everyone does is immediately go for the JR High debate club strategy and target the politicians and what they said and how they said it. Let's talk policy for once.

 

- Should we be tearing down and rebuilding potentially dangerous nations? If so, which one's?

- Should the U.S be the world's policeman? Is it our duty to fly in like Superman and save the oppressed and crush the dangerous?

- What are some other ways for the U.S and other Western nations to try and combat terrorism or at least reduce the risk of being the target of terrorism?

 

These are the real issues. Bush's case for the war, while interesting to the newspapers, isn't really important when you look at the big picture.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I never hear anyone on the left give any VIABLE alternatives to Bush and the Neo-Con's plan for responding to 9/11.

Here's one: not have gone and gotten distracted by Iraq before Tora Bora had been flushed out. I applaud the "deal with this" statements, but #1 was the very problem (not at first, but certainly after 9/11) and why it's political.

 

So let's debate the policies of the war on terror, not the language being used. 

 

Okay.

 

- Should we be tearing down and rebuilding potentially dangerous nations? If so, which one's?

 

Careful language here. While it's important to protect ourselves, no I don't think we should be tearing down "potentially" dangerous nations. That is, assuming that the nation in question is "potentially" dangerous like Pakistan and not "potentially" dangerous like the USSR.

 

- Should the U.S be the world's policeman?

 

Hell no. It only gives us reasons to ignore problems at home.

 

- What are some other ways for the U.S and other Western nations to try and combat terrorism or at least reduce the risk of being the target of terrorism?

 

Terrorism comes in many forms. Not just Osama and Al-Zwahiri, but Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. You could almost say that as long as there's such radical divides in this world that some people feel terribly opressed, there will always be terrorism.

 

But if we wanted to make a start, discouraging theocracy rule, whether it's an Islam state or otherwise, is a good step. Religion isn't a bad thing in peoples' lives, but also is responsible for some of the most irrational thinking known to man.

[Guest UncleJesseMark]

Religion isn't a bad thing in peoples' lives, but also is responsible for some of the most irrational thinking known to man.

 

Bravo.

 

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

 

This is not Moore Being a cheerleader. Moore is right in this statement, this is the truth. In their minds they are fighting to protect the "sanctity" of Islam and of their country. We are being captured and beheaded by the men who run in the same circles as people who 10 years ago were being beheaded by Saddam Hussein's thugs. If you can't see that this is about revolution and self-preservation to them, then you do need to open your eyes. I don't agree with Everything Michael Moore says, but he's right about this one. We don't stand a chance.These men's will is very strong, and it is feuled with hatred. Misguided hatred yes, but hatred all the same. This quote is not a "Let's get those Iraqi's fired up so they can win" statement. It's an observation on how those men feel about themselves and their cause.

 

Fact is, we pissed too many people off, and now our boys are paying for it. Should we have gone to Iraq? maybe. maybe not. Should we have been out of there by now? Damn Right.

 

 

And still, no justification for the use of the word "Bigot". If you are going to defame character, stick to the "fatass slob" jokes. Classy, no doubt.

 

*edited to change "of" to "as"*

[Guest Cerebus]

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

 

This is not Moore Being a cheerleader. Moore is right in this statement, this is the truth. In their minds they are fighting to protect the "sanctity" of Islam and of their country. We are being captured and beheaded by the men who run in the same circles as people who 10 years ago were being beheaded by Saddam Hussein's thugs. If you can't see that this is about revolution and self-preservation to them, then you do need to open your eyes. I don't agree with Everything Michael Moore says, but he's right about this one. We don't stand a chance.These men's will is very strong, and it is feuled with hatred. Misguided hatred yes, but hatred all the same. This quote is not a "Let's get those Iraqi's fired up so they can win" statement. It's an observation on how those men feel about themselves and their cause.

 

Fact is, we pissed too many people off, and now our boys are paying for it. Should we have gone to Iraq? maybe. maybe not. Should we have been out of there by now? Damn Right.

I don't give a fuck what they think they are fighting for. They don't have popular support in Iraq. The "revolution" they're fighting for is for one of Islamofacism, terror, death, and opression. They don't have a moral leg to stand on. They are losing and they will continue to lose despite idiots like you and Moore insisting otherwise.

[Guest MikeSC]

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

 

This is not Moore Being a cheerleader. Moore is right in this statement, this is the truth. In their minds they are fighting to protect the "sanctity" of Islam and of their country. We are being captured and beheaded by the men who run in the same circles as people who 10 years ago were being beheaded by Saddam Hussein's thugs. If you can't see that this is about revolution and self-preservation to them, then you do need to open your eyes. I don't agree with Everything Michael Moore says, but he's right about this one. We don't stand a chance.These men's will is very strong, and it is feuled with hatred. Misguided hatred yes, but hatred all the same. This quote is not a "Let's get those Iraqi's fired up so they can win" statement. It's an observation on how those men feel about themselves and their cause.

 

Fact is, we pissed too many people off, and now our boys are paying for it. Should we have gone to Iraq? maybe. maybe not. Should we have been out of there by now? Damn Right.

 

 

And still, no justification for the use of the word "Bigot". If you are going to defame character, stick to the "fatass slob" jokes. Classy, no doubt.

 

*edited to change "of" to "as"*

Yeah, yeah, yeah. "I don't agree with everything Moore says...yada yada yada".

 

Whatever.

 

These men are fighting to "preserve" a gov't where people are randomly killed, where women have no rights, and where ANY difference of opinion is greeted by gunfire.

 

Yup, THEY'RE the good guys.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tom 0]

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."

 

This is not Moore Being a cheerleader. Moore is right in this statement, this is the truth. In their minds they are fighting to protect the "sanctity" of Islam and of their country. We are being captured and beheaded by the men who run in the same circles as people who 10 years ago were being beheaded by Saddam Hussein's thugs. If you can't see that this is about revolution and self-preservation to them, then you do need to open your eyes. I don't agree with Everything Michael Moore says, but he's right about this one. We don't stand a chance.These men's will is very strong, and it is feuled with hatred. Misguided hatred yes, but hatred all the same. This quote is not a "Let's get those Iraqi's fired up so they can win" statement. It's an observation on how those men feel about themselves and their cause.

 

Fact is, we pissed too many people off, and now our boys are paying for it. Should we have gone to Iraq? maybe. maybe not. Should we have been out of there by now? Damn Right.

 

 

And still, no justification for the use of the word "Bigot". If you are going to defame character, stick to the "fatass slob" jokes. Classy, no doubt.

 

*edited to change "of" to "as"*

Wow. None are more blind than those who refuse to see.

 

This IS Moore being a cheerleader for the other side. The people we're fighting aren't the ones who were brutalized by the Hussein regime. The ones who survived that are the ones who support us now. We're fighting against the remains of Saddam's regime and his supporters. And since Saddamn was a remorseless murderer and terrorists, so are the people we are now fighting.

 

BTW, the "bigot" comment was answered twice. Take the blinders off.

[Guest UncleJesseMark]

ok. you guys win. good luck.

[EricMM 0]

I mean ujm, what did you expect?

 

It's well documented that a lot of the anti-Americans are Ba'athist loyalists as well as radical muslims, as well as people from other countries.

 

None of which are particularly good for Iraq, or good period.

[Guest GreatOne]

Meanwhile, GreatOne goes overboard with...

Yeah I would say that cheerleading AGAINST YOUR OWN FUCKING COUNTRY makes you a traitor.

 

Did you see that scene where Bush said that Osama is just one guy and he's not concerned where he is?

 

Osama would probably vote Bush for that if he could.

Maybe your expectations are so low you consider hitting the nail on the head "going overboard" but not here. Does anybody actually stop and consider what might have happened in the world if we had these same kind of Bush-hating weenies back in the early 40s for FDR to deal with?

 

Actually I do remember the time he said something SIMILAR, and considering that no one except his followers (following him from cave to cave) knows exactly where he is it's just like jumping all over Bush for the classroom bit, I wouldn't necessarily hold that against him. And like you said a couple days ago to me, it might not be your job to go find Bin Laden but that doesn't stop you from bitching about it 24/7. I thought that maybe you'd like to walk the walk as well but apparently not.

 

And can anybody be sure that that was an actual quote? I mean you obviously must have missed the complex painstaking technical work with a splicer that Moore did for BFC if he's the only person you're going by.