Fahrenheit 9/11 & Harper

[Hawk]

I love that source! xD! I knew he was bogus in many aspects but that showed me so many more hahaha

[Bionic Antboy]

Yes but Liberals and the left-wing tend to take these 'perspectives' as concrete truth and proven evidence... I have debated with people who have used Meyers and his Columbine video as evidence for gun control being needed, the problem is that again Meyers paints his own picture and ignores or blams hard facts in exchange for heart-wrenching stories and 'facts' that feed the left-wing lobbyist flame.

I call it laughable because it IS laughable how gullible some left-wing people are, they allow themselves to be brainwashed by their own media and claim it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth =p

Actually, the whole point of me saying that the movie doesn't need to be evidence of anything is that it has become painfully clear, hardly even worth debate, that the "connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda doesn't exist.

Gullibility exists in equal proportions on both sides of the fence.

[moon]

Just because there may not be connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda does not mean that he and his regime do not pose a threat to the region and world as a whole.

[Bionic Antboy]

Just because there may not be connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda does not mean that he and his regime do not pose a threat to the region and world as a whole.

Iraq was crippled by over a decade of sanctions. Any number of nations in that region posed more of a threat than Iraq (with greater ties to al Qaeda, no less), as do nations NOT in the Middle East.

I'm not going to get into it any further, because such discussions usually break down, without any constructive outcome whatsoever.

Heck, someone's already brought up the "Big H" in reference to a FILM MAKER! You KNOW rational debate has ended at that point.

[Hugo]

Heck, someone's already brought up the "Big H" in reference to a FILM MAKER! You KNOW rational debate has ended at that point.

So, we can take it that you are going to use one sentence as an excuse to avoid having to reply to anything else I have said?

Furthermore, I stand by my comparison. Moore and Hitler are/were both bigots and gigantic liars who set out to deliberately deceive masses of people in order to further their own, selfish ends.

[Hawk]

Yes but Liberals and the left-wing tend to take these 'perspectives' as concrete truth and proven evidence... I have debated with people who have used Meyers and his Columbine video as evidence for gun control being needed, the problem is that again Meyers paints his own picture and ignores or blams hard facts in exchange for heart-wrenching stories and 'facts' that feed the left-wing lobbyist flame.

I call it laughable because it IS laughable how gullible some left-wing people are, they allow themselves to be brainwashed by their own media and claim it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth =p

Actually, the whole point of me saying that the movie doesn't need to be evidence of anything is that it has become painfully clear, hardly even worth debate, that the "connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda doesn't exist.

Gullibility exists in equal proportions on both sides of the fence.

For you perhaps Iraq was invaded to take out an al Qaeda supporter but for me we did it to get rid of a leader who was in fact a terrorist to his people, and who (if not stopped) would inevitably cause massive damage to western civilization.

Perhaps that is something worthy of debate eh?

[Bionic Antboy]

Heck, someone's already brought up the "Big H" in reference to a FILM MAKER! You KNOW rational debate has ended at that point.

So, we can take it that you are going to use one sentence as an excuse to avoid having to reply to anything else I have said?

Furthermore, I stand by my comparison. Moore and Hitler are/were both bigots and gigantic liars who set out to deliberately deceive masses of people in order to further their own, selfish ends.

yep.

Seriously though, Moore's own status as a "fat, rich man who is practically a corporation" has no bearing on the discussion on the film itself, the contents of which none of us here have seen, I'll wager.

I'm not going to try and defend something I haven't seen from people deriding it without seeing it. I don't want to play that game. I don't review movies I haven't seen

Hawk:

For you perhaps Iraq was invaded to take out an al Qaeda supporter but for me we did it to get rid of a leader who was in fact a terrorist to his people, and who (if not stopped) would inevitably cause massive damage to western civilization.

Perhaps that is something worthy of debate eh? 

Actually, that's not what the war is for me. That's just one of the "reasons" that the administration used to justify it. On NUMEROUS occassions, White House officials made sure that Iraq and al Qaeda were mentioned in the same breath.

Even this weekend, Cheney was defending that link, with no evidence to back it up, and outright lying to the press.

As for Saddam being a "terrorist to his people", let's play semantics. He was a violent dictator, but using the word "terrorist" is wrong, by definition.

Similarly, there are a number of countries around the world with despotic rulers, many even MORE virulently anti-American than Iraq EVER was. Some even had CREDIBLE links to al Qaeda. Why not go after them instead?

The 10 years between Gulf I and II were plagued by political infighting between the US/Britain and the rest of the UN. Sanctions in their form at the time did little to weaken Hussein's stranglehold on his people, but did a lot to the people himself.

By entering a new doctrine of "pre-emptive" war, the US has opened a can of worms of immense size, without stating a clear case for Iraq, and in direct violation of international law, on a number of levels.

A decades long policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has sown bitter fruit indeed.

But that's all beside the point, and would probably be better discussed in the US Politics forum, as I have already been (inaccurately at the time) accused of being offtopic, and don't want to validate that accusation. (or have I?)

[udawg]

I supported going into Afghanistan because of the Al Qaeda link, and things are getting better there for the average citizen now. I supported going into Iraq long before the 9/11 attacks and certainly before anyone mentioned Al Qaeda in connection with Iraq. The fact is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical ruler who has, in the past, tested WMD on his own people. If only for the safety and human rights of his own citizens, he needed to be removed from power. End of discussion...ignore the stupid "links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

[Bionic Antboy]

I supported going into Afghanistan because of the Al Qaeda link, and things are getting better there for the average citizen now. I supported going into Iraq long before the 9/11 attacks and certainly before anyone mentioned Al Qaeda in connection with Iraq. The fact is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical ruler who has, in the past, tested WMD on his own people. If only for the safety and human rights of his own citizens, he needed to be removed from power. End of discussion...ignore the stupid "links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Except that ISN'T the end of discussion.

By adopting a pre-emptive war policy, the current US administration is flying in the face of the policy that the US, and much of the Western world, has held for decades.

I won't even get into the untold suffering the sanctions caused between the Gulf War and the current invasion.

Unless of course, you're willing to say that whatever military action the US takes is justified, because it's the US doing it, not on the merits of the case itself.

[Black Dog]

(maplesyrup @ Jun 22 2004, 04:23 AM)

If Harper is so proud of his position of sending Canadian troops to the war in Iraq why is he tring so hard to hid it? 

Because you Liberals try and bait him with it, heck I could list 65 Liberal scandals and you would simply ignore them for Harper's stance on the war and vote the Liberals in again. Your a bunch of bloody hypocrites

That doesn't answer the question. If Harper, as it was indicated, supported participating in the Iraq was and is "proud of his position", why is he hiding it? It's a fairly straightforward question.

Yes but Liberals and the left-wing tend to take these 'perspectives' as concrete truth and proven evidence... I have debated with people who have used Meyers and his Columbine video as evidence for gun control being needed, the problem is that again Meyers paints his own picture and ignores or blams hard facts in exchange for heart-wrenching stories and 'facts' that feed the left-wing lobbyist flame.

I call it laughable because it IS laughable how gullible some left-wing people are, they allow themselves to be brainwashed by their own media and claim it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

Versus the right-wing types who nod along with the right-wing punditocracy of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Miller, Savage, O'Reilly, etc etc.? Of course, I'm sure these people would never paint their own picture, ignores or distort hard facts in exchange for heart-wrenching stories and 'facts' that feed the right-wing lobbyist flame...

Moore and Hitler are/were both bigots and gigantic liars who set out to deliberately deceive masses of people in order to further their own, selfish ends.

Yet, if someone would trot out a Bush/Hitler comparison, I'm sure you'd fall all over yourself with denunciations of "anti-Americanism".

As to F9-11's effects on the Canadian election: they will be negligible.

[Hawk]

Seriously though, Moore's own status as a "fat, rich man who is practically a corporation" has no bearing on the discussion on the film itself, the contents of which none of us here have seen, I'll wager.

It does if you claim to value honesty, especially if you rail against the US government using 'lies' as your weapons. Kind of flipfloped isn't it? Supporting one liar in the worlds eyes (Moores) for a liar to your eyes =p

Actually, that's not what the war is for me.  That's just one of the "reasons" that the administration used to justify it.  On NUMEROUS occassions, White House officials made sure that Iraq and al Qaeda were mentioned in the same breath.

So they should be ousted for using two specific words in the same sentance? Conspiracy theory anyone? At the time they were acting on intelligence, and that intelligence was not 100% correct (as we now know through the beauty of hindsight). However a very good result happened, and that is that Iraq is now free of a TERRORIST leader that ruled through terror.

Even this weekend, Cheney was defending that link, with no evidence to back it up, and outright lying to the press.

Where is the evidence claiming the innocence of Saddam? I dont see any of that either yet you claim he is, that thinking works both ways

Not to mention the press sometimes intentionally leaves certain parts out to 'make things interesting'... dont trust the press, question it

As for Saddam being a "terrorist to his people", let's play semantics.  He was a violent dictator, but using the word "terrorist" is wrong, by definition. 

Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Actually by definition I would say he fits the bill =p

Similarly, there are a number of countries around the world with despotic rulers, many even MORE virulently anti-American than Iraq EVER was.  Some even had CREDIBLE links to al Qaeda.  Why not go after them instead?

Firstly, they still might =) Secondly, because Saddam was by far the most dangerous among them (according to the intelligence information).

The 10 years between Gulf I and II were plagued by political infighting between the US/Britain and the rest of the UN.  Sanctions in their form at the time did little to weaken Hussein's stranglehold on his people, but did a lot to the people himself.

I am not seeing your point, please be more clear lol

By entering a new doctrine of "pre-emptive" war, the US has opened a can of worms of immense size, without stating a clear case for Iraq, and in direct violation of international law, on a number of levels.

What would you prefer, wait till they nuke you before you disarm them? Yeah thats a 'good' plan =p Double-standard, easy to fall back on, but oh-so-cowardly. If you dont understand what I mean it is simply that Liberals have a double standard that they dont believe exists, its a 'your damed if you do, damed if you dont' sort of deal.

By invading Iraq you declare Bush and the USA as heartless invaders, murderers, etc etc. Yet should they have not acted and Saddam had nuked USA or even Canada WHOA would there ever be hell to pay (because hey, the Bush administration was warned right? They 'failed to act on intelligence information prior to the attack')

Also dont start on the international law, if you believe the UN to be a credible institute then begin a new topic to discuss that one. I personally hold it in the highest contempt

A decades long policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has sown bitter fruit indeed.

How so? I fail to see the bitter fruit, sorry but I just dont see the connection x.x

But that's all beside the point, and would probably be better discussed in the US Politics forum, as I have already been (inaccurately at the time) accused of being offtopic, and don't want to validate that accusation. (or have I?) 

Hehe in some areas sure but I highly doubt any of us are on-topic anymore xD

[idealisttotheend]

I think it is interesting (as BA pointed out) that a film that no one has seen generates almost 4 pages of discussion. Is it really true that the name on the title screen means more than the film itself? Can we discuss the thing before even seeing it and would it be reasonable to assume that no one would change their opinion after seeing it?

[Alliance Fanatic]

Here's what actual police officer's think about Micheal Moore and his film Bowling for Columbine.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthrea...&threadid=23274

[maplesyrup]

Here's what actual police officer's think about Micheal Moore and his film Bowling for Columbine.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthrea...&threadid=23274

But I liked Bowling from an entertainment standpoint & I'll definitely see Fahrenheit

That a quote from the first police officer who responded.

[caesar]

When will you Bush and Harperites get it through you thick skulls; Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks on the /World Trade Center. That Canada did support the USA after that tragedy (and were ignored) and that we are and were involved in the War against the terrorists; Osama bin Laden and the alQaeda.

It will be a well watched documentary.

[Reverend Blair]

That it will, Caesar. What really bothers me is the vehemence from some that we not watch it. If Moore is so demonstrably wrong, then why don't they want us to see it? Wouldn't us watching it just prove their point?

[caesar]

I certainly would not change my mind ; I did heavy research before the invasion. As for the torture of Afghanistan and Iraqi prisoners; Bush has now admitted he claimed the right to waive prisoner abuse laws. So far he is not admitting the whole works but what he has admitted okaying is bad enough. Stripping, threatening with dogs; questioning for 20 hours without sleep. See the Globe web page.for more

[playfullfellow]

I certainly would not change my mind ; I did heavy research before the invasion. As for the torture of Afghanistan and Iraqi prisoners; Bush has now admitted he claimed the right to waive prisoner abuse laws. So far he is not admitting the whole works but what he has admitted okaying is bad enough. Stripping, threatening with dogs; questioning for 20 hours without sleep. See the Globe web page.for more

And I suppose beheading prisoners is ok? Caesar, I dont get you, in one sentence you said Bush was at fault for the WTC because he had forwarning and did nothing about it. Is the evidence he received prior to the WTC attacks any different than the info he got about Iraq? In your mind, Bush is wrong no matter what he does. This stinks of anti-americanism if I smelled it. Do you think other prisoners of war are treated any better in other parts of the world? I doubt Bush condones beheadings of people.

[Hawk]

ceasar you should stop posting.. honestly, your story either drastically flip-flops, contradicts, or is completely the same every time you post:

'George Bush is evil, he led the world to war and invaded Iraq against the UN and that makes him the worst President ever etc etc etc Iraq has no WMD, Saddam played with bunnies in his back yard, showered his people with love and protection, had no terrorist ties'

Please do get your story straight (and yes I did exagerate a little)

In regards to Michael Moore... hahahaa, the guy is a big fat white idiot but he is entertaining and I will most likely watch his newest debauchery of truth... I can't wait for 'Michael Moore hates America' to come out, that movie is gonna be awesome xD

[Reverend Blair]

This stinks of anti-americanism if I smelled it.

If criticising everything Bush does stinks of anti-Americanism, then doesn't criticising everything Chretien and Martin have done over the last decade stink of anti-Canadianism?

[maplesyrup]

RB...good point.

Quite frankly I have never encountered such negativity towards Canada in my entire life, as I have on these political discussion boards.

Some people just don't appreciate something fantastic, even when it is staring them in the face. I wonder how many of them have ever done international traveling, outside of the US, that is, to places such as India, for example, where people can literally die on the streets.

We are so fortunate here in Canada, and these folks want to destroy it by giving it away to the US.

(259)

[caesar]

Funny thing; most are Albertans where the beef industry has taken a hit from Bush tactics and feet dragging to re=open the border to Canadian beef.

Of course this turmoil in the middle east has given a big boost to oil prices?????? I believe most of our oil comes from Alberta and the north not the middle east. This middle east turmoil is lining Albertan pockets.

[caesar]

Was the information different; Yes; it came from American sources. The Iraq information came from Chalabi a convicted embezzler with visions of ruling Iraq. The intelligence that the USA used toconvince the UN to join in the invasion of Iraq was quickly proven fraudulent, forgeries. a student paper that was 10 years old. That should have given them a hint. That the USA reallbelieved that the information is valid is very questionable. I would hope they are not that stupid that they would not have been capable of checking the information they were using to validate it.

Personally I don't think their intelligence people are that dumb not to be aware that this information they were trying to use was not reliable or accurate; they were just hoping others would be.

Hawk, you should open your ears and eyes and read and listen to the expert opinion coming from the USA's only experts. Why should I quit posting. Does it upset your little love fest for Bush and Harper.

Has the invasion of Iraq made Iraq or the world a safer place??? Has the invasion made Iraq a safer place for the Iraqi people? Has terrorism threats lessened after this invasion?

[Argus]

We are so fortunate here in Canada, and these folks want to destroy it by giving it away to the US.

(259)

Uhm, just because we don't hate Americans like you do does not mean we want to "give Canada away".

You people seem to believe there are only two possible ways to treat the US.

1) Curse them, call them names, sneer at them, refuse to cooperate in anything they want to do. Make friends with their enemies, be they terrorists or brutal dictators. Undermine them at the UN, NATO and everywhere else. Endlessly point out how much better, how morally superior, how kinder, gentler, more educated, brighter, wiser, more caring we are than those evil Americans.

2) Crawl before them and give them the keys to our home, our firstborn children, and anything else they want.

[Bionic Antboy]

Seriously though, Moore's own status as a "fat, rich man who is practically a corporation" has no bearing on the discussion on the film itself, the contents of which none of us here have seen, I'll wager.

It does if you claim to value honesty, especially if you rail against the US government using 'lies' as your weapons. Kind of flipfloped isn't it? Supporting one liar in the worlds eyes (Moores) for a liar to your eyes =p

Except, as I point out above, none of us have seen the movie, so the accusation of "liar" is invalid. Go see it then get back to me. It's a straw man argument.

Actually, that's not what the war is for me.  That's just one of the "reasons" that the administration used to justify it.  On NUMEROUS occassions, White House officials made sure that Iraq and al Qaeda were mentioned in the same breath.

So they should be ousted for using two specific words in the same sentance? Conspiracy theory anyone? At the time they were acting on intelligence, and that intelligence was not 100% correct (as we now know through the beauty of hindsight). However a very good result happened, and that is that Iraq is now free of a TERRORIST leader that ruled through terror.

The depth of corruption from the White House is deeper than just connecting Hussein and al Qaeda. The Cheney/Halliburton deals, the abuse scandal, WMD ad nauseum.

Even this weekend, Cheney was defending that link, with no evidence to back it up, and outright lying to the press.

Where is the evidence claiming the innocence of Saddam? I dont see any of that either yet you claim he is, that thinking works both ways

Not to mention the press sometimes intentionally leaves certain parts out to 'make things interesting'... dont trust the press, question it

I always thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution. Are you suggesting that we turn a basic rule of law on it's head to suit your purpose?

As for trusting the press, I haven't in a LONG time.

As for Saddam being a "terrorist to his people", let's play semantics.  He was a violent dictator, but using the word "terrorist" is wrong, by definition. 

Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Actually by definition I would say he fits the bill =p

Silly semantics... terrorism is perpetrated against governments, not by it. Hence, Saddam COULD be a supporter of terrorism against OTHER countries, but HE'S not a terrorist. Even the White House never slapped him with that label, because it's incorrect.

Similarly, there are a number of countries around the world with despotic rulers, many even MORE virulently anti-American than Iraq EVER was.  Some even had CREDIBLE links to al Qaeda.  Why not go after them instead?

Firstly, they still might =) Secondly, because Saddam was by far the most dangerous among them (according to the intelligence information).

Obviously he wasn't. Bush came into the White House with a "get Iraq" agenda, at the cost of other, more important, security concerns, including al Qaeda and North Korea. By scraping "whole cloth" the largely "international law enforcement" bent of the previous administration, they completely botched their efforts against bin Laden. I guess testimony during the 9/11 commission doesn't count for anything?

The 10 years between Gulf I and II were plagued by political infighting between the US/Britain and the rest of the UN.  Sanctions in their form at the time did little to weaken Hussein's stranglehold on his people, but did a lot to the people himself.

I am not seeing your point, please be more clear lol

The point is to highlight that many have thought that the policy of containment instigated by the Bush I administration and continued by Clinton's was a failure, and that it should have been addressed years ago.

By entering a new doctrine of "pre-emptive" war, the US has opened a can of worms of immense size, without stating a clear case for Iraq, and in direct violation of international law, on a number of levels.

What would you prefer, wait till they nuke you before you disarm them? Yeah thats a 'good' plan =p Double-standard, easy to fall back on, but oh-so-cowardly. If you dont understand what I mean it is simply that Liberals have a double standard that they dont believe exists, its a 'your damed if you do, damed if you dont' sort of deal.

By invading Iraq you declare Bush and the USA as heartless invaders, murderers, etc etc. Yet should they have not acted and Saddam had nuked USA or even Canada WHOA would there ever be hell to pay (because hey, the Bush administration was warned right? They 'failed to act on intelligence information prior to the attack')

Also dont start on the international law, if you believe the UN to be a credible institute then begin a new topic to discuss that one. I personally hold it in the highest contempt

That's another bogus argument, as it's clear that Iraq didn't have nuclear capabilities. Remember the faked documents saying Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria, the British dossier that said Iraq could launch an attack with 45 minutes notices, which was also a bunch of hyperbole?

The "damned if you, damned if you don't" stance doesn't hold up, when, as I mentioned before, the majority of the UN wanted to re-examine the situation in Iraq for years, but was consistently stonewalled by the US/UK. They just let it fester for a decade. Of course, that probably doesn't count in your eyes, because it was mainly people who are "left of centre" who were pushing for it.

I'll admit that the UN is flawed and needs reform, but the international rules of engagement and justification for war are credible, unless you think it's better to just abolish it and let any nation declare war on another, using faked evidence.

A decades long policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has sown bitter fruit indeed.

How so? I fail to see the bitter fruit, sorry but I just dont see the connection x.x

I thought Iraq is a shining example of that. For decades, US foreign policy has propped up dictators to further their economic interests, regardless of said dictator's behaviour to their own citizens. Not only in the Middle East, either. They've done the same thing in this side of the ocean as well.

Bin Laden is another example, or are you going to play apologist for the CIA in it's support of bin Laden in the 80's?

Here's my point in a nutshell.

US foreign policy has bred terrorism and hatred towards them through many regions of the world. If they refused to support leaders who are brutal dictators to their people, the main reason for hatred towards the US in these regions would be largely diffused.

If you fail to see connections, there's not much I can do about that.