FINE I'LL SEE THE DANG MOVIE ALREADY!!!!
FINE I'LL SEE THE DANG MOVIE ALREADY!!!!
Originally Posted by Mirage
On a side-note, I saw Moore talk to some people at the DNC (or at least in Mass.), and he's pretty good, well, what I know. He makes for a compelling case.
After watching Moore vs. O'Riley I don't really have much respect for Moore's arguments. The only good point he made during that interview was that the "removal of a brutal dictator" was not the reason people were given to go to war, yet that's what you tell their families since no WMD' were found. Whoopdie-doo! I think the latter is an even better reason.
And he kept saying "Bush is sending the children! Won't somebody please think of the children!" That just got on my nerves. Everyone is someone's child, and no one forced them to join the military.
The guy bugs me. Though I do think Captain_Spaulding is right; he's just really bias which makes him come off bad. Very bad. I don't like him.
Heh. I saw that to. I think it was dumb how he said '' would you send your childeren over in fallujah bill?'' and then bill was like ''no I wouldn't, I would go over there myself'' then michael more was like ''you would? '' and bill was like "yeah" and michael more was like" ok! lets get this man signed up! no I wouldn't want you to die bill...'' etc. Those of you who havnt see it just goto foxnews.com -->video and its under politics.After watching Moore vs. O'Riley I don't really have much respect for Moore's arguments. The only good point he made during that interview was that the "removal of a brutal dictator" was not the reason people were given to go to war, yet that's what you tell their families since no WMD' were found. Whoopdie-doo! I think the latter is an even better reason.
And he kept saying "Bush is sending the children! Won't somebody please think of the children!" That just got on my nerves. Everyone is someone's child, and no one forced them to join the military.
The guy bugs me. Though I do think Captain_Spaulding is right; he's just really bias which makes him come off bad. Very bad. I don't like him.
Complete video or the part Fox likes to show?
Complete video. Moore wouldn't agree unless they promised not to edit it.
Moore still got worked.
O'reilly did a horrible job defending himself. He couldn't even answer Micheal's question straight: "Would you send your child to Iraq?" Bill kept saying, "I would go myself." Nice job avoiding a YES OR NO QUESTION dumbass.
O'reilly came up with the stupid idea that it wasn't really lying about the WMD's because so much intel said he did. That's stupid. Just because you're misinformed doesn't mean that it excuses you from making mistakes. If my mom told me, when I was 3 years old, that 2+2=5 and I kept repeating it, its still a lie because its false information.
Bill O'reilly is such a dumbass. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....u=bill_oreilly
He didn't have to answer it yes or no because it's an irrelevant question. No one is sending children to Iraq. Legal adults are signing up for military service of their own free will. No children, and no draft. I'm kind of dissapointed that O'Riley didn't say that at all, but saying he would send himself was perfectly valid. Saying "Bush is sending the children" is overdramatization and a scare tactic.
He also was perfectly willing to say that it was a mistake, a fact which Moore chose to ignore. People who exploit a mistake and refuse to accept any amount of apology bother me. I feel that removing Sadaam from power was a better reason anyway.
What about when O'Riley asked Moore if he thought America would be wrong in getting involved in WWII before Pearl Harbor? He said the holocaust wouldn't've happened if he were President becuase he would've taken care of Hitler before he came into power. What the hell does that mean? He wouldn't've invaded during WWII, he would've invaded sooner? He would've assassinated Hitler before he posed a threat? What a lame thing to say.
For the first part of the interview they were just being boogers to each other. "Bush is a liar," "It's not a lie, its a mistake," "A mistake is as good as a lie," "But its not a lie," "Well that doesn't matter because now people are dead," "But Sadaam is in custody," "But it was a lie." Freaking shut up!
Whether or not Bush admitted it was a mistake is completely irrelevant. Moore's charge wasn't whether or not Bush was 'sorry,' it was that he lied. O'reilly said that it wasn't a lie. I do not see how apologies enter into this.
This is stupid. Say, Hypothetically, someone feels patriotic after 9/11 and decides to join the army, with the intent of finding Osama. He could be against the war in Iraq, but he's still in the army. You can't choose where the army sends you, you could want to fight in Afghanistan but instead wind up in Iraq. Thus, "sending" parent's children to fight a wrong war.
I have three things to say.
1.) Hitler was a threat to world power when he re-millitarized (sp?) the Rhineland, and when he invaded czechoslovakia (sp?). I think both of these took place before the holocaust, thus following Michael Moore's plan of "only attack if we're threatened" would have started WWII sooner, maybe averting the holocaust.
2.) Hitler's rise to power can be attributed to the failed league of nations (which was supposed to watch out for people like Hitler). Maybe Moore means that if he were president, the U.S. would have actually joined the League of Nations (we didn't join it when it was first formed).
3.) Its stupid to compare Saddam to Hitler. Yeah, Saddam's bad and all, but nothing CLOSE to Hitler. Comparing Iraq to WWII is insane, in my opinion.
If they're not willing to go where they're sent, then they shouldn't sign up for the Army. It was their choice to become property of the government.
It's also irrelevant what words were used. The both of them were arguing over something stupid, and Moore I think calling Bush a liar over something he was told by three different sources was true is just being a turd. I agree that even a "mistake" can be a "lie" but my point is just that Moore is being a douche about it.Whether or not Bush admitted it was a mistake is completely irrelevant. Moore's charge wasn't whether or not Bush was 'sorry,' it was that he lied. O'reilly said that it wasn't a lie. I do not see how apologies enter into this.
I wish the both of them would've gone into more detail on this issue because, as it stands, Moore looks like an idiot over it. And who's to say Saddam wouldn't become as bad as Hitler? If Moore were President and would've stopped Hitler before the holocaust, people could say the same things about him that he's saying about Bush now: "He wasn't that bad [yet]! No Jews were killed [yet]!"I have three things to say.
1.) Hitler was a threat to world power when he re-millitarized (sp?) the Rhineland, and when he invaded czechoslovakia (sp?). I think both of these took place before the holocaust, thus following Michael Moore's plan of "only attack if we're threatened" would have started WWII sooner, maybe averting the holocaust.
2.) Hitler's rise to power can be attributed to the failed league of nations (which was supposed to watch out for people like Hitler). Maybe Moore means that if he were president, the U.S. would have actually joined the League of Nations (we didn't join it when it was first formed).
3.) Its stupid to compare Saddam to Hitler. Yeah, Saddam's bad and all, but nothing CLOSE to Hitler. Comparing Iraq to WWII is insane, in my opinion.
In a democracy, armies should be for the PROTECTION of the people - and Hitler was an undeniable AGGRESSOR and a THREAT.
Saddam, like tens of other America-backed blood-thirsty his-own-people-killing tyrants was a joke. Or at least not a threat. He did NOT declare war on the US - the US declared war on a sovereign state, that was in NO WAY a threat to the US. Not terroristically, militarily or othervise. To claim something else is absurd, and a lie - which is what the Bush administration did. Lie to the American people, and send the United States armed forces to a non-threatening country, killing over 900 US soldiers (while more still are dying, even though your national media stopped telling you of the deaths after the "Hand-over"), over 10.000 civilians, and creating a BREEDING GROUND for terrorists who hadn't gotten a foot-hold in Iraq before the war.
And I doubt the American administration in WWII was ruled by a war-profeteering puppet-master.
Yeah, he only lead the killing of several million people, and declared his ambitions to taking over the Midde East. Haha, good one!Saddam, like tens of other America-backed blood-thirsty his-own-people-killing tyrants was a joke
Yeah, 'cause nuclear explosions are fun, and VX gas tastes SOO good.Or at least not a threat.
You mean no Iraqi soldier set foot upon American soil? Yes, that's true. But did they not state they wanted to, and amassed WMDs, and funded many West-hating terror organisations? Iraq sure did all that. And that, mon ami, counts as agression, and a very good basis for war.He did NOT declare war on the US
killing over 900 US soldiersI think these numbers are wildly exaggerated, being less than half for each, in reality.over 10.000 civilians
Both main nations of the Allies in WWII were controlled by very strong and determined leaders, who did not fear war... while their predecessors were weak and cowardly, for lack of more refined words.And I doubt the American administration in WWII was ruled by a war-profeteering puppet-master.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
"Ambitions to taking over the Middle East"? I haven't heard this before. Can you give me a cite? Preferably after the first Gulf War, and the castration of Saddam's power?
Too bad he had none.Yeah, 'cause nuclear explosions are fun, and VX gas tastes SOO good.
"He was eyeballing me!" Sorry, west-hating is not enough. Saddam did not declare war, he did NOT amass WMD after bending over to the Americans in 90's, and he had no ties to Al Qaida.You mean no Iraqi soldier set foot upon American soil? Yes, that's true. But did they not state they wanted to, and amassed WMDs, and funded many West-hating terror organisations? Iraq sure did all that. And that, mon ami, counts as agression, and a very good basis for war.
Corpses don't lie.I think these numbers are wildly exaggerated, being less than half for each, in reality.
Whine whine whine. Is it STRONG to jump on a helpless enemy, while that enemy is being tied down by sanctions, thingiemagics, and the general fact that America could kick the collective arses of the world many times over with their damn steel-penises? No, that's cowardly.Both main nations of the Allies in WWII were controlled by very strong and determined leaders, who did not fear war... while their predecessors were weak and cowardly, for lack of more refined words.
War Angel, now I remember why I put you on ignore. It was because you're full of it.
Check the facts - closing on 1000 US soldiers dead in Iraq. And that doesn't even contain the number dead in Afghanistan etc.
Well, the fastest I found an updated casualty count was of course a anti-war site, but still: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Saddam didn't have any WMDs. Non. Nada, zilch. Oh, yes, they found an empty shell with, POSSIBLY EVEN, something like sarin, useless, alone and from the long past, abandoned by Saddam in a warehouse or road-side or something! Wow, what a find. There were inspections going on in Iraq, but Bush boy had them thrown out of there so he'd get his war on.
And he did not have ties with Al Qaida. Of other terror-organisation, I don't know. Like Bush cares either way.
Believe me, he really did want to. He sees Iraq as the true ruler of the Middle East (he even calls it Babylon, the stupid prick), and has made quite a few remarks regarding that right of dominion. As for his real abilities... obviously, he had few, let alone after the Gulf War. Still... even a desire alone is dangerous."Ambitions to taking over the Middle East"? I haven't heard this before. Can you give me a cite? Preferably after the first Gulf War, and the castration of Saddam's power?
A nearly-finished reactor was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981, and several reports of Iraq trying to rebuild it have been made since. Germany, France and Russia have all sold toxic and bio materials to Iraq, used for the making of biological and chemical charges. Up untill 1998, the West had proven, authenticated information that large, refined quantities of those materials were in Iraq. After 1998... we cannot tell. It's a 100% fact that Iraq had them at certain points in history, with a very strong desire to use them - luckily, they didn't.Too bad he had none.
Err, yes he did. He made no use of them... but he sure did keep what he had.he did NOT amass WMD after bending over to the Americans in 90's
Once again, for the hundredth time - Al Qaida is NOT the only terror organisation in the world. It's not even the largest. Iraq did not deal with them, because Al-Qaida is too religious for them... but they supported dozens of others, that operated against the US and the West as well.and he had no ties to Al Qaida.
Corpses don't, but the people who count them often do. Numbers of people killed is something that is often exaggerated, especially in the Arab world, to make things look more 'heroic', or simply to gather more sympathy. The Palestinians here often claimed to have had 2 million (!!!) of them exterminated, when the real numbers barely go above 4000.Corpses don't lie.
And sitting idly while your blood is being shed is bravery? Impotence is just as bad as trigger-happiness, if not worse. America finally retaliated, and I, for one, am glad it did.No, that's cowardly.
WTF?... Well, regardless, I'll keep on debating. If you can't handle it, and though it would sadden me, do put me on ignore.War Angel, now I remember why I put you on ignore. It was because you're full of it.
Also, your figures are taken from 'antiwar.com'. Not very objective, now is it? But, I'll keep on looking for some objective source of information. I'm not saying you're wrong on it... simply that a nice, big grain of doubt is to be taken along with every report that's coming from the Middle East.
Probably not when he was invaded. It took the Americans too damn long, and he managed to hide them, or ship them out, sell them, etc. But he DID have them at a certain point in the near past, and there's no question about that.Saddam didn't have any WMDs
You're underestimating one of the most lethal nerve-gasses the human race (or should I say, the German race?) has ever made. Finding something like that in military artillery shells (that's what they were, non?) is a very nice proof that Iraq had them, and intended to use them.Oh, yes, they found an empty shell with, POSSIBLY EVEN, something like sarin useless,alone and from the long past, abandoned by Saddam in a warehouse or road-side or something! Wow, what a find.
Then I'm telling you - there are many very commited connections between Iraq and numerous terror organisations.Of other terror-organisation, I don't know.
I believe he does. And even he doesn't... what practical difference does it make? One of the most militaristic, violent and dangerous countries in the Middle East has been put out of order. That's good, no matter which you look at it. Focus on the good stuff!Like Bush cares either way.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Hey, War Angel, if a country has WMD, supports terrorism and ilegitimate goverments and has imperialistic external politics policies, should we kinda...bomb it?
Posting Permissions
