Fahrenheit 9/11

R

rufio

New Member
What do you all think of this movie post it all here. I hear its just Bush bashing. I for one am sick of all this ignorance that democrats are spewing forth.
 
It looks like a good movie, I want to go see it next week.
I'm not a Bush fan, but I like alot of micheal moore's films. I rented the dvd of his old tv series and it was great. His Films are pretty extream but he gets his point across very well. I think right now he's taking some heat because he had film of a US soldier assulting a prisoner (I think it was just shoving and name calling), but republicans are complaining that he didn't give the video to the pentagon or army. But really what would they do with it if they had evidence.

But if u're a bush fan u should know that theres going to be 19 anti Bush and anti Iraq war documentaries coming out this summer. Which should be interesting, but I don't think they have as much hype behind them as Farinhite.
One movie that I really want to see is Control Room, but I can't find a theatre in B.C. that is showing the film.
 
Anything anti-bush or anti-iraq is done out of ignorance. Flat out. Anyone who would rather shoot flames than peacefully disagree isn't worth listening to. If you don't like something Bush did, voice your opinion on it. PEOPLE CHANGE! You don't have to go vote for someone else who won't do a better job just because you disagree on something this guy did! And let's take a look at what he did too. He went into another country, took out a tyrant that was killing innocent people and attacking other countries, and freed these people. Where were all these complainers during World War 1 and 2? Or any other war for that matter? Since when has helping people been a crime? I would gladly vote for Bush any day of the week over anyone who thinks Iraq was a bad idea. And I hope he hits Kim Jong Il next!
 
Well his reason for going in in the first place was because they had weapons of mass distruction, and they helped fund terrorism. Then later he said that Sadam never funded any terrorists. And when they couldn't find the weapons of mass distruction he said he went in there to help the people in Iraq. Do u think in the beginning if Sadam let the UN come in and look if they had weapons, we would of still gone in to Iraq.
Also I was never a Bush fan even before he became president, I'm more of a democrat. Even though I'm Canadian.
Well that went alittle off topic.
 
Hehehe, I don't think you can be a Democrat if you're a Canadian.
smile.gif


When it comes to politics, let's try and stick to talking about our own countries and not somebody elses. We don't live there and they do, so we can only comment on what we see as outsiders.

And please, let's try to keep this on the movie, and only for those who have actually SEEN it. Talk about the movie, what's in it, not about who should have done what and when, who's the better president, etc. etc. This is a highly inflamatory film (pun intended) and whether you're left or right oriented in the political spectrum (nobody seems to be in the middle these days), it's bound to cause passions and tempers to run high. Let's all try to be courteous, civil and respectful to others' points of view. If you've got a point, pitch it clearly and cooly. Well, try to anyways.
wink.gif


Given the nature of the film, I don't think my words are going to do much good in keeping the peace, but I can at least try...
 
Hey cool, thanks for the tip on that movie (Hearts and Minds), never heard of it.

<Side topic>
If the war in Vietnam is of any interest to you, you might want to check out a new documentary Fog of War. I unfortunately have not seen it, but from what I've gathered from those who have it's based mainly around a series of interviews with the former US Secretary of Defense, Robert McNarma, and his thinking about that conflict, the reasons why the US went in and whether or not, given the outcomes of that conflict and the 20/20 vision of hindsight, it was the appropiate thing to do.
</side topic>

Back to your regularily scheduled programming...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JoBlow @ July 02 2004,11:02)]And when they couldn't find the weapons of mass distruction he said he went in there to help the people in Iraq. Do u think in the beginning if Sadam let the UN come in and look if they had weapons, we would of still gone in to Iraq.
Click to expand...
They found a bunch of MiG fighter jets not too far from where they've had a base for a long time. They never even knew they were there until sand dunes shifted and revealed the tail of one of the jets (World magazine is my source on that). I don't know if any of you have ever seen a fighter jet up close, but I have, and I can tell you - they're stinking big. If tons of jets can be buried right next to a base and not found, who knows what else is out there. As Rumsfeld said, we can't just dig indiscriminately, they follow leads - some good, some bad. As he also said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

As for the second point, Saddam toyed with the UN for years over the weapons inspection ordeal, and violation of UN resolutions was also a given cause for the war. If there is a question to be raised here, it's what about the numerous violations from Israel? Personally, I believe the UN is a steaming pile of manure. There are countries on commissions for human rights who are known human rights violaters, and have in fact used their positions in the UN to aid in the continued violation of the rights of their citizens. These are the people telling the entire developed world how to govern itself?

Also, about WWI and WWII - we were brought into those wars, be it through Germans firing on American ships, or British ships with Americans on them, or a direct Japanese attack on one of our naval bases. There was little arguement against those wars for a reason, although there are those who would argue that a certain president (no names *cough* Woodrow Wilson *cough*) only kept us out of the war (WWI) long enough to run on the slogan "he kept us out of war." Soon after his re-election, however, we were involved in what came to be known as The Great War.

Granted, now, Germany had been practicing unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking any ship en route to Great Britain, but they stopped for a while, then Wilson warned them to stop (?), and then after they started again, he asked congress for a declaration of war. Buuuuut, he could just as easily done so before the election.

Anyway, that's enough history for today, stop by MWF 1-2 for HIS400, Survey of American History from 1865-1945 for more
tounge.gif
 
Yeah I think Israel gets away with alot. Think about it they bulldozed towns and kicked people out of their house with nowhere else to go.
I think the U.N if governed well can be great. They already do alot in helping countries. I thinught it was great when they banned South Africa from being a member because of their segragation laws. But its just like any other government people are out for their own country. They want to see what their country can get out of it.
My dad says the reason Israel gets weapons from america that other countries don't is because alot of the most powerful rich men in the country are Jews and Israel is their home land.
 
...riiiiight. The "Jews run the world" conspiracy theory.
rock.gif
Technically speaking, the Israelis have a historically valid claim to that land. The same cannot be said for the "Palestinians" who refer to the Jews as occupiers, when in fact there's a very plausible case to be made otherwise.

And how great is an organization that bans others from its ranks for their shortcomings, while failing to police the more deplorable acts of its own members? It's akin to ToJ banning from membership those who apply but have been known to swear on public servers, while allowing its own current members to commit blasphemy.
 
Espresso, went looking for you Mig story and here's some corroborating evidence, if any one was looking for a link and some pics. But 30 Mig fighters does not weapons grade (or even dirty bomb grade) plutonium make.

It shows me that Saddam was untruthful and stupid, or at least his generals were; how the heck were those things suppose to be able to fly afterwards? Or maybe he was smart and trying to play a "but we're defenseless" card instead of using them to fight a losing battle against superior American air power. But it doesn't show me that he was a world-sized threat.

Saddam was a tyrant, to be sure. He lied, he was slimy, abused his people, good riddance. But if you're going to send thousands of troops into a country to declare pre-emptive war in the name of national security, doing something that the US has never done before w/o valid prior instigation (to my knowledge), don't you think you'd like to have some real hard evidence to back up your reasons for setting such a momentus precedent?

Who knows, a day may come when somebody manages to dig up a hidden biological warfare lab and then a lot of people will be eating humble pie. For Bush's sake, I hope somebody finds it soon, because none of this looks good.
 
There was a time when muslims, jews and christians lived in palestine in peace.
I don't think just because the bible says god gave the land to the abraham and his desendants that at this time the land still belongs to the Jews. The palestineans were living there now. I don't like the fact that they kicked people out of their houses and send them to refugee camps.
And for some reason everytime I say this someone always says god gave the Jews the land. Well abraham had 2 sons. And most muslums I've talked to have said that the muslums and the jews should share the land like before.
Ofcource I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon, since there's been to much violence. I think someday it will happen.

As for Bush, he's got to learn how to stick to one story. Personally I thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, thats y Sadam wouldn't let the UN in. But before starting a war I would make sure I had proof.
 
I didn't say they had a biblically valid claim to the land, I said they have a historically valid claim to the land. It's where their people (Hebrews) originally settled and lived for hundreds (thousands?) of years, before they were scattered by conquering nations. It has nothing to do with "God gave the Jews the land" and everything to do with refugees returning to their home country. What is the national heritage of the Palestinians? Can you tell me what country they originated in and what historically valid claim they have on the land? I'll give you a clue...there isn't one country they came from. "Palestinians" are immigrants from several countries - Yemen, Jordan, Russia, Greece, Bosnia, and some others.
 
Sorry.

But at the moment they were living there. I'm from India, does my grand children have the right to go back to India 50 years from now and say my dad lived here when he was young, so I have valid claim to the land.
Ok I'm not very good at giving examples, but I think the moved from the land, how they did that doesn't matter the fact is they moverd. If they wanted to move back they could but live with the palistineans that are living there now, not move them out.

How about this wacky example. Say 100 years from now natve indians create their own country in north america, and now natives from other parts of north america want to come there but there's not enough land for all of them. So they start kicking non natives out of their homes. I know technically Natives believe no one awns the land it belongs to everyone equally but go with it.

Can u tell me what historical claim u have of the land your living on. We're all immagrants in north america. Historical claim does't make any difference.
When Israel first started moving people out of their houses I didn't like it but atleast they were relocating them to new towns. But then they started to move people out of their houses with no other place to relocate, which ment people moving in to refugee camps.
 
Off Topic article about WMD's out of Iraq.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Saddam's WMDs are in Syria - By Michael D. Evans

There is mounting evidence that at least some of Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction are in Syria, smuggled there by the Iraqi dictator for safekeeping before the beginning of the war. Part of the stockpile the coalition forces have so far failed to find in Iraq was probably destroyed; part is likely still hidden. But a massively lethal amount of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is stored alongside Syria's own stockpiles of WMDs.

Perhaps more worrisome, there are indications these weapons are not under the control of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Rather, in a potentially catastrophic palace intrigue, his sister, Bushra, and her husband, Gen. Assaf Shawkat, the No. 2 in Syria's military intelligence organization, the Mukhabarat, are said to have made the storage arrangements with Saddam as part of a bid for power.

On Jan. 5, 2004, Nizar Nayouf, a Syrian journalist who recently defected to France, said in a letter to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that chemical and biological weapons were smuggled from Iraq into Syria before the war began, when Saddam realized he would be attacked by the U.S. Nayouf claimed to know three sites where Iraq's WMDs are kept: in tunnels under the town of al-Baida in northern Syria, part of an underground factory built by North Korea for producing a Syrian version of the Scud missile; in the village of Tal Snan, adjacent to a Syrian Air Force base; and in Sjinsjar, on the border with Lebanon.

Speaking to the British television station ITN on Jan. 9, Nayouf quoted a Syrian military intelligence official as confirming the three sites.

Nayouf's claims had in fact been substantiated by the U.S. intelligence ! community two months before. In a briefing to defense reporters on Oct. 30, 2003, officials of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency in Washington released an assessment that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were transferred to Syria in the weeks before the war began.

The officials said the assessment was based on satellite images of convoys of Iraqi trucks that poured into Syria in February and March 2003. According to Middle East Newsline, quoted by WorldTribune.com, most of the intelligence community concluded that at least some of Iraq's WMDs, along with Iraqi scientists and technicians, was smuggled to Syria.

NIMA chief James Clapper, a retired Air Force general and a leading member of the U.S. intelligence community, told reporters he linked the disappearance of Iraqi WMDs with the large number of Iraqi trucks that crossed into Syria before and during the U.S. invasion. The assessment was that these trucks contained missiles and WMD components banned by the U! nited Nations Security Council.

"I think personally that the [Iraqi] senior leadership saw what was coming and I think they went to some extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence," Clapper said. He said he is certain that components connected to Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear programs were sent to Syria in the weeks prior to and during the war.

David Kay, the recently resigned head of an American WMD search team in Iraq, confirmed that part of Saddam's weapons was hidden in Syria, Britain's Sunday Telegraph reported on Jan. 25, 2004. Kay said he had uncovered conclusive evidence shortly before last year's U.S. invasion.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons, but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program," Kay said.

Gal Luft, a former analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, confirmed Iraqi WMDs are hidden in Syria, but not by the regime.

"Certain individuals are taking money and hiding weapons," he told UPI on Feb. 7, 2003, but this is "not government-sanctioned." Judith Yaphe, a former senior CIA Middle East analyst, agreed, suggesting the WMD smuggling operation is "palace intrigue." She said in the same UPI report that Bashar Assad's sister, Bushra, "is the brains. She's much smarter and more effective than Bashar, and she was disappointed at being passed over and not seeing her husband elevated."

Dr. Dany Shoham of Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies is a former lieutenant colonel in the IDF Intelligence Corps who specializes in weapons of mass destruction, particularly bio-chemical warfare. He says it is "likely" at least some of Saddam's WMDs were hidden in Syria before the war.

"I'd say there are three possibilities: that these weapons were destroyed by the Iraqis before the war; that t! hey were hidden in Iraq; and that they were smuggled out," Shoham said. In all probability, some were destroyed, some are still hidden, but some lethal amount was smuggled to Syria for safekeeping.

"Syria is the No. 1 candidate," Shoham continued, "because of its long, common border with Iraq, because a number of Iraqi bio-warfare scientists fled to Syria before the war, and because Syrian President Bashar Assad had a much closer relationship with Saddam than his late father, Hafez."

"What is strange," said Shoham, "is that, since Saddam was captured – and even before – the Americans did not relate to the Syrian option. It is as if the U.S. doesn't want to reveal the fact that Iraqi WMDs are hidden there. It could be that the U.S. cannot yet confirm this – but another possibility is that the Bush administration knows the answer and has decided it is not yet time to reveal it. For whatever reason, it may still be too classified. If there is some political bias involve! d, the U.S. presidential election campaign might account for it."

If Syria is indeed safeguarding at least some of Saddam's WMDs, now that Saddam is history and Iraq has started along the road to democracy, what is likely to happen to these weapons?

"It is not likely that Syria will share them with Hezbollah in Lebanon," said Shoham. "It is in Syria's interest to maintain the current relative quiet" along Lebanon's border with Israel, he said, noting the tension in Syria's relationship with the U.S., which is about to impose sanctions on Damascus due to its support of terrorism.

"The Syria-Iran interface is very strong and active," he noted. "On the other hand, it is well to keep in mind that Syria has its own large arsenal of WMDs."

Assuming the U.S. did detect the smuggling, why didn't it stop it? The Bush administration certainly received advance warning. In December 2002, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced on television that Saddam ha! d hidden chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

"We believe, and I say it has not been completely verified, that weapons he [Saddam] wants to hide – chemical and biological weapons – have been smuggled into Syria," Sharon said on Israel's Channel 2.

A senior Israeli intelligence official said afterward the Iraqi WMDs included mobile biological facilities mounted in trailer trucks, as well as chemical munitions. He said the U.S. had examined evidence provided by Israel. "We have solid evidence," the official said. "This is not a hunch or speculation."

Israel's warning was repeated some three months later. On March 31, 2003, a senior Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer, Intelligence Research Department head Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iraqi chemical and biological weapons are probably hidden in Syria, Israel Radio reported.

According to the Center for Nonprolifer! ation Studies, Syria has the largest and most advanced chemical warfare capability in the Middle East, including chemical warheads for Scud ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, chemical gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft, and chemical warheads for artillery shells. It has an estimated CW stockpile in the hundreds of tons, including Sarin, VX and mustard gas.

It appears Syria is not about to transfer WMDs to Hezbollah in Lebanon, since it is not in its interest to invite massive Israeli retaliation for a WMD attack. According to Dr. Boaz Ganor, head of Israel's International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, Syria cultivates other terrorist groups that are committed to Israel's destruction, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"But in the present constellation, when world focus is on Syria, it would not be rational for Damascus to transfer WMDs to these groups and invite a massive U.S. response," he said.

The White House has maintained it lacks hard! evidence to back Nayouf's reports of Iraqi WMDs smuggled to Syria.

"I want to be very clear: We don't, at this point, have any indications that I would consider credible and firm that that has taken place. But we will tie down every lead," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Washington on Jan. 10, 2004.

Another former Israeli Intelligence official said Washington's unwillingness to believe the Israeli reports is basically political, having to do with the president's re-election campaign: "The Bush administration does not want to confront the Syrians, even though they are bad news and working all along with Saddam," he said.

Perhaps the Bush administration feels constrained during a re-election campaign about taking on another despot possessing WMDs, while it still has forces on the ground in Iraq. But the same justification that powered regime change in Iraq still exists – it has just moved to the dictatorship next door.
Click to expand...

Could it be true? Who knows. But its fuel to the fire.
tounge.gif


Cory
 
Its an interesting article, but if it was true wouldn't it be taken into consideration by the senate intelegence comitee before they held their press conference today.
 
re: the press conference...well, I guess it depends on when this information came to light. And remember, Condoleezza Rice doesn't think the evidence is strong enough, so if it's not convincing for her it might not be convincing to the senate comitee, hence why they didn't say anything about it.

As for the article, if it holds true (which I think there is a possibility that it might be), it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months. This appears to be strong evidence, although Nizar Nayouf might just be spouting off just to make his defection useful to France, I don't know.

Despite that, the US Administration isn't moving on it because a) tensions are too high in the east, can't risk another conflict w/o finishing the old one, b) US forces are stretched too thin, and/or c) maybe they're holding it back as an "ace up the sleeve", to barge in some time in August and say "hey look, we found the WMDs!" I'll give the Administration the benefit of the doubt, it's most likely a) and b).

But this all begs the question: why was Iraq first on the hit list if "Syria has the largest and most advanced chemical warfare capability in the Middle East" and "supports terrorism"? Why does Iraq get invaded but Syria only gets sanctions (for now anyways)?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But this all begs the question: why was Iraq first on the hit list if "Syria has the largest and most advanced chemical warfare capability in the Middle East" and "supports terrorism"? Why does Iraq get invaded but Syria only gets sanctions (for now anyways)?
Click to expand...

Dunno, there are a lot of things about this administration that I don't understand. Why Iraq and not Syria? Why not sanction NK or Iran? If they knew they WMD's were being moved, why didnt they intercept them?

Sad thing is, Bush had the entire country in his hands post 9/11. When he moved on Iraq, he alienated himself in a big, bad way from a lot of people.

So many unanswered questions, so little time.

Cory
 
I was watching a interview of Bill Clinton on tv and he put North Korea and Iran over Iraq in who he thought was a bigger security risk. He said their not afraid that Nort Korea will use the Nukes on other countries, but afraid that they would sell them to anyone that offers them the most money. Because North Korea can't afford to feed their own people. Ofcource I don't understand y u would invest in nukes instead of agraculture, if u know your citizens are starving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top