I just got back from seeing Farenheit 9/11

[Pers]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.
ii) Iraq had no links with Al Qaeda.
iii) The coalition does suck, look at the coalition that was formed in the Gulf War or the countries that supported the attack on Afghanistan.
iv) Another commonly used excuse is that Iraq massacred thousands of civilians with chemical weapons. Interestingly, the US supplied Iraq with all those weapons.

I, for one, did not care for the rest of the movie and thought it was ok. If MM had concentrated on the Iraq war instead of going all over the place, that movie would have shaken America up.

i) who cares. Saddam was a monster.
ii) that have been publicly released, sure. Neither you nor I can say for certain either way.
iii) Who cares if it sucks or not?
iv) who cares if we supplied them or not? He's the one that turned into this monster to use it on his own people

1)The world cares, because there are serious human rights violations by many governments around the globe and the US (or any other country) cannot pick and choose who it wishes to invade (...oh lookie here, oil).

2)By the same method of deduction, you couldn't prove Bush doesn't have strong ties to al-Qaeda.

3)Your arguments could be beaten by a middle-school debate team. "Who cares"? Do you know how to argue a point, or are the facts you need to prove your point with unavailable?

4)So why didn't we invade Iraq for the previous decade while these violations were occurring? Why aren't we invading countries in northern Africa right now? North Koreans have suffered for even longer, why not invade their country? They all have monsters.

Pretty easy for you to say "Who cares" while you're sitting cozy in your home, but American soldiers are being sent to their deaths everyday because our government decided that even though the facts were pointing the other way, "Who cares, let's invade Iraq anyway".

owned.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

 

[Amorphus]

I :heart: Michael Moore

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

:beer:

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

*cough*Halliburton*cough*

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.

they just found 19 more sarin gas shells, each one is capable of killing about 5,000 people

if sadam had given just one of these to a terrorist to bring into the US, who wouldn't call that "mass destruction" ?

I would really like to see some link to that, I have not yet heard of anything even remotely similar like this.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
4)So why didn't we invade Iraq for the previous decade while these violations were occurring?

Same reason we didn't pursecute the terrorists who attacked the USS Cole or the US embassies in East Africa: We had a pussy in office who was more concerned with his public image and getting head than he was with carrying out the duties of the office that he swore an oath to uphold.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

We'll have this discussion in a year when Iraq is a more stable country that is outputting oil at its maximum rate. At the moment they are only outputting something like 50% of their capacity. Iraq alone doesn't have THAT much of an impact on worldwide oil prices anyway. The prices are controlled by OPEC.

I do see your point; I've never been able to figure out how America "profits" from attacking Iraq, but the same thing was said about the first Gulf War. I would hope that the news agencies who post this kind of stuff are basing what they say on hard facts.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

The average american is paying more (taxs, gas prices, etc...) BUT Halibution(sp), oil companies, etc.. are making money fist over fist full. The same companies that give piles of money to republicans, esp. Bush.


Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":

10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true

4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe

3. Where the hell was Spider-man?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: jpeyton
4)So why didn't we invade Iraq for the previous decade while these violations were occurring?

Same reason we didn't pursecute the terrorists who attacked the USS Cole or the US embassies in East Africa: We had a pussy in office who was more concerned with his public image and getting head than he was with carrying out the duties of the office that he swore an oath to uphold.

:beer:

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.

they just found 19 more sarin gas shells, each one is capable of killing about 5,000 people

if sadam had given just one of these to a terrorist to bring into the US, who wouldn't call that "mass destruction" ?

Link? I mean, this should be front page news across the world if you're telling the truth about 19 fully loaded and imminently dangerous sarin gas shells that were ready to deploy.

This is a start, I'm still Googling.

 

[brunswickite]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.
ii) Iraq had no links with Al Qaeda.
iii) The coalition does suck, look at the coalition that was formed in the Gulf War or the countries that supported the attack on Afghanistan.
iv) Another commonly used excuse is that Iraq massacred thousands of civilians with chemical weapons. Interestingly, the US supplied Iraq with all those weapons.

I, for one, did not care for the rest of the movie and thought it was ok. If MM had concentrated on the Iraq war instead of going all over the place, that movie would have shaken America up.

i) who cares. Saddam was a monster.
ii) that have been publicly released, sure. Neither you nor I can say for certain either way.
iii) Who cares if it sucks or not?
iv) who cares if we supplied them or not? He's the one that turned into this monster to use it on his own people

1)The world cares, because there are serious human rights violations by many governments around the globe and the US (or any other country) cannot pick and choose who it wishes to invade (...oh lookie here, oil).

2)By the same method of deduction, you couldn't prove Bush doesn't have strong ties to al-Qaeda.

3)Your arguments could be beaten by a middle-school debate team. "Who cares"? Do you know how to argue a point, or are the facts you need to prove your point with unavailable?

4)So why didn't we invade Iraq for the previous decade while these violations were occurring? Why aren't we invading countries in northern Africa right now? North Koreans have suffered for even longer, why not invade their country? They all have monsters.

Pretty easy for you to say "Who cares" while you're sitting cozy in your home, but American soldiers are being sent to their deaths everyday because our government decided that even though the facts were pointing the other way, "Who cares, let's invade Iraq anyway".

what he said.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.

they just found 19 more sarin gas shells, each one is capable of killing about 5,000 people

if sadam had given just one of these to a terrorist to bring into the US, who wouldn't call that "mass destruction" ?

Link? I mean, this should be front page news across the world if you're telling the truth about 19 fully loaded and imminently dangerous sarin gas shells that were ready to deploy.

EDIT: I also want to know where you got this "5,000 people" figure.

Do you have any clue what Sarin gas is or does?

Yes, I do. Hey guess what, GWB eats babies and runs over old ladies. I don't have a link though, you'll just have to trust me.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.
ii) Iraq had no links with Al Qaeda.
iii) The coalition does suck, look at the coalition that was formed in the Gulf War or the countries that supported the attack on Afghanistan.
iv) Another commonly used excuse is that Iraq massacred thousands of civilians with chemical weapons. Interestingly, the US supplied Iraq with all those weapons.

I, for one, did not care for the rest of the movie and thought it was ok. If MM had concentrated on the Iraq war instead of going all over the place, that movie would have shaken America up.

i) who cares. Saddam was a monster.
ii) that have been publicly released, sure. Neither you nor I can say for certain either way.
iii) Who cares if it sucks or not?
iv) who cares if we supplied them or not? He's the one that turned into this monster to use it on his own people

i) So are half of the other world's countries. Ask for a dictator, get an atlas!

ii) Err no, there are no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The commision said that there are no confirmed ties between them. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty without reasonable doubt?

iii) I couldnt put in better wordsw than Jigga.

iv) So killing Iranians with shells is ok but the moment he uses it on Iraqi's, he becomes a monster? Get some help dude!

Here you are saying that F9/11 shook you up and you havent begun to see the depth of lies that the Bush administration has laid out. Maybe people like you dont deserve to know the truth. You may return to your Lindsey Lohan threads.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
I'm not sure how much of it was fake and how much was real. I'd love to find out for certain.

2% real, 8% Twisted truths, 90% fabrication = Academy Award Winning Documentary

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world. If the US and it's oil partners could have extracted all that oil in one day, or one year, they would have. It will take time, but you are a fool to think the US govt. will invest hundreds of billions into Iraq to get the country up and running and let the Iraqis keep all the fruits of our labor.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

*cough*Halliburton*cough*

Please, do tell.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.

they just found 19 more sarin gas shells, each one is capable of killing about 5,000 people

if sadam had given just one of these to a terrorist to bring into the US, who wouldn't call that "mass destruction" ?

Link? I mean, this should be front page news across the world if you're telling the truth about 19 fully loaded and imminently dangerous sarin gas shells that were ready to deploy.

This is a start, I'm still Googling.

Err that gas shell was made prior to the first Gulf war. Where are the nukkulaar weapons and missiles capable of reaching UK in 45 minutes?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
I'm not sure how much of it was fake and how much was real. I'd love to find out for certain.

2% real, 8% Twisted truths, 90% fabrication = Academy Award Winning Documentary

90% fabrication? :roll:

Do you know what libel or slander is?

Even better, how about a list of the 90% that's been disproved so far?

BTW, I'll save FFMCobalt the time and effort to reply to your message and just post the beer myself:

:beer:

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Err that gas shell was made prior to the first Gulf war. Where are the nukkulaar weapons and missiles capable of reaching UK in 45 minutes?

Exactly. A shell that Saddam specifically listed as destroyed to the UN. That alone places him in violation of UNSC Res 1441.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Isshinryu
http://bowlingfortruth.com/

The main points that no website wil be able to counter:

i) Iraq has not WMD's.

they just found 19 more sarin gas shells, each one is capable of killing about 5,000 people

if sadam had given just one of these to a terrorist to bring into the US, who wouldn't call that "mass destruction" ?

Link? I mean, this should be front page news across the world if you're telling the truth about 19 fully loaded and imminently dangerous sarin gas shells that were ready to deploy.

This is a start, I'm still Googling.

Err that gas shell was made prior to the first Gulf war. Where are the nukkulaar weapons and missiles capable of reaching UK in 45 minutes?

Hahahaha, even better, how come a shell capable of killing 5,000 caused "minor exposure symptoms" to the soldiers exposed?

How come Saddam never used his "5,000 American's Dead" shells during the war when he launched many other conventional explosive shells?

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I love how people throw the "we invaded Iraq for the oil" arguement. How has this profited the US? Gas prices are the highest ever, American GIs are being killed every day and it is costing us billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of goodwill around the world.

Hmm, how are we profiting by this again?

*cough*Halliburton*cough*

Please, do tell.

1
2
3

Happy?

 

[brunswickite]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt
I'm not sure how much of it was fake and how much was real. I'd love to find out for certain.

2% real, 8% Twisted truths, 90% fabrication = Academy Award Winning Documentary

link please, or did you pull that out of your azz?

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hahahaha, even better, how come a shell capable of killing 5,000 caused "minor exposure symptoms" to the soldiers exposed?

How come Saddam never used his "5,000 American's Dead" shells during the war when he launched many other conventional explosive shells?

If you'd RTFA, you'd know that the shell was practically ineffective because of the method it was used in. It was designed to be launched from an artillery piece. Rigging it as a roadside bomb hindered its effectiveness, especially since the rigging was done by filthy worthless uneducated terrorists instead of weapons experts.

Saddam didn't bother launching Sarin shells during the war because he knew (and rightly so) that we were prepared with the proper NBC gear to deal with Sarin. Plus, it's far more effective killing those pesky helpless Kurds.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Err that gas shell was made prior to the first Gulf war. Where are the nukkulaar weapons and missiles capable of reaching UK in 45 minutes?

Exactly. A shell that Saddam specifically listed as destroyed to the UN. That alone places him in violation of UNSC Res 1441.

And read again, WHERE ARE THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?? You cant invade a country based on some sarin shells.

And you want a country that has violated UN resolutions. Here is one, lets go and invade them as well :roll: