• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?

GTaudiophile

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Web Site

You guys remember the movie Super Size Me?

Well, Morgan Spurlock is at it again, off to several countries in the Middle East including Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and even Pakistan to literally ask the big question, Where is Osama Bin Laden?

In the process, he interviews people like you and me living in these places, asking them about Americans and America, asking them about what they want in life, asking Muslims about the role of Islam in the world, etc. He also asks friends, family members, and relatives of some of the "most wanted" terror masterminds of the past decade.

The most chilling interviews take place in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

All in all, I went into the film with low expectations, but combined with his humor, I think Spurlock truly gets to the heart of the matter. I hope it is a movie, that like Super Size Me, slowly grows to become a national phenomenon.

Yes, I voted for GWB twice. Yes, I love the US military and will support our soldiers and generals blindly. But our foreign policy is what is at issue here, and I think this movie will open the eyes of many Americans as to the better options we have and should consider.

I often wonder, how would the world view us in 2008 has GWB taken all that international support in the days following 9/11 and simply turned the other cheek? That thought always reminds me of the scene in Schindler's List when Oscar Schindler teaches the concentration camp commander the power of the words, "I pardon you."

 
Now I haven't seen the movie (and I didn't vote for Bush), but there was nothing wrong at all with Bush going into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and the world did support us with that. His only mistake was not sending enough troops and wiping all of them out [see e.g. Taliban escape from capital and OBL escape from Tora Bora].

The United States screwed up when Bush first made the axis of evil speech and then decided to attack Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: Veramocor
Now I haven't seen the movie (and I didn't vote for Bush), but there was nothing wrong at all with Bush going into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and the world did support us with that. His only mistake was not sending enough troops and wiping all of them out [see e.g. Taliban escape from capital and OBL escape from Tora Bora].

The United States screwed up when Bush first made the axis of evil speech and then decided to attack Iraq.
Click to expand...

I don't really think that your statements portray just exactly how much they screwed up..

The way they handled the hunt for OBL is a disgrace. I suggest you read up on how it was handled if you haven't.
 
Originally posted by: Veramocor
The United States screwed up when Bush first made the axis of evil speech and then decided to attack Iraq.
Click to expand...
This makes it sound like a mistake. It could that this was intentional - that these plans were in place even before 9/11.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Veramocor
The United States screwed up when Bush first made the axis of evil speech and then decided to attack Iraq.
Click to expand...
This makes it sound like a mistake.
Click to expand...

Not a mistake at all.

It could that this was intentional - that these plans were in place even before 9/11.
Click to expand...

They were.
Click to expand...
So if it was such an obviously correct thing to do, why did they have to lie about the reasons to invade?
 
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Veramocor
The United States screwed up when Bush first made the axis of evil speech and then decided to attack Iraq.
Click to expand...
This makes it sound like a mistake.
Click to expand...

Not a mistake at all.

It could that this was intentional - that these plans were in place even before 9/11.
Click to expand...

They were.
Click to expand...
So if it was such an obviously correct thing to do, why did they have to lie about the reasons to invade?
Click to expand...

Did you read the first link?

It was not a mistake for them, because it achieved their goals, for the most part.

You ask why they had to lie? Because their goals were not the American people's goals, and this is still to some degree a democracy.

Why have most nations lied about most wars they have started?

Why did the US not just invade Mexico, but go through the hassle of the President unilaterally declaring a new border well inside Mexico, putting a small number of our troops on 'our side' of the new border, and using the conflict that finally happened when Mexican troops ran across them to justify the war? Why was Vietnam based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was unimportant for the war reasons? Why was an obscure assassination used for starting WWI? Why was the 'safety of US medical students' used as the reason for Reagan overthrowing the leftist government of Grenada, even while the students' families pleaded for him not to invade because they would only be in danger if he did? Why was our invasion of Panama to change the regime explained with the pretense of 'drug charges' when the real reasons were different? Why was our war with Spain to get control of Cuba explained by a mysterious explosion on a US ship?

And that's just a sampling of our own nation, other nations have lists too. Why did Rome explain to its citizens why it conquered other peoples by saying it was a defensive act?

The answer is that it's in the government's interest to lie about these things, much as it's in your interest to lie why you shot your neighbor and took his things, if you can find a lie.

The governments, especially in demoracies, do better when their publics support their wars than when they are against them, and so they say what they can to get support.

The reason is larger for the Iraq war - the US has long been part of efforts for international law, in particular the UN Charter, which the US signed, which greatly limits the situations in which one country can invade another. Now, while the enforcement is lax against a nation as powerful as the US, which has a veto, it helps to pretend you are following the rules so you can still demand others follow them. WMD fit this perfectly, since the only exemption in the charter in the ballpark for our war was the one allowing attack when imminently threatened by another nation - the idea being when one nation amasses forces on the border about to invade, you can attack first. So, suddenly, Saddam was an 'imminent threat' with his WMD, so we could pretend to follow the UN charter.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Did you read the first link?
Click to expand...
That's why I posed the question.

It was not a mistake for them, because it achieved their goals, for the most part.

You ask why they had to lie? Because their goals were not the American people's goals, and this is still to some degree a democracy.
Click to expand...
So the real problem is that their goals were for the benefit of a small proportion and not all of us. It would be interesting to see a wish list of their goals.

Why have most nations lied about most wars they have started?

Why did the US not just invade Mexico, but go through the hassle of the President unilaterally declaring a new border well inside Mexico, putting a small number of our troops on 'our side' of the new border, and using the conflict that finally happened when Mexican troops ran across them to justify the war? Why was Vietnam based on the lie of the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was unimportant for the war reasons? Why was an obscure assassination used for starting WWI? Why was the 'safety of US medical students' used as the reason for Reagan overthrowing the leftist government of Grenada, even while the students' families pleaded for him not to invade because they would only be in danger if he did? Why was our invasion of Panama to change the regime explained with the pretense of 'drug charges' when the real reasons were different? Why was our war with Spain to get control of Cuba explained by a mysterious explosion on a US ship?

And that's just a sampling of our own nation, other nations have lists too. Why did Rome explain to its citizens why it conquered other peoples by saying it was a defensive act?
Click to expand...
Upon return, sometimes the roman conquerors would share the loot with all of the citizens.

The answer is that it's in the government's interest to lie about these things, much as it's in your interest to lie why you shot your neighbor and took his things, if you can find a lie.
Click to expand...
Governments are run by people for people. I mention the obvious since people forget this simple truth and fall into the trap of referring to the gov't as 'they'.

The governments, especially in demoracies, do better when their publics support their wars than when they are against them, and so they say what they can to get support.
Click to expand...
So the people in the gov't aren't all-powerful. They have to listen a little.

The reason is larger for the Iraq war - the US has long been part of efforts for international law, in particular the UN Charter, which the US signed, which greatly limits the situations in which one country can invade another. Now, while the enforcement is lax against a nation as powerful as the US, which has a veto, it helps to pretend you are following the rules so you can still demand others follow them. WMD fit this perfectly, since the only exemption in the charter in the ballpark for our war was the one allowing attack when imminently threatened by another nation - the idea being when one nation amasses forces on the border about to invade, you can attack first. So, suddenly, Saddam was an 'imminent threat' with his WMD, so we could pretend to follow the UN charter.
Click to expand...
The reaction to the u.n. by u.s. politicians (and politician wannabes) has always been confusing. Sometimes it's proclaimed as being the voice of reason and other times it's useless and should be disbanded.
 
I was very pleasantly surprised by Supersize Me-I was expected a heavy-handed piece of propoganda, and it really was quite entertaining, informative and enjoyable at the same time.

The new movie, from its title, also sounds like propoganda, but I read a review that made it sound pretty good. Coupled with your impressions, GTaudiophile, maybe I will actually break down and go to a movie theater to see it (probably the first time in a couple of years at least).
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Web Site

You guys remember the movie Super Size Me?

Well, Morgan Spurlock is at it again, off to several countries in the Middle East including Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and even Pakistan to literally ask the big question, Where is Osama Bin Laden?

In the process, he interviews people like you and me living in these places, asking them about Americans and America, asking them about what they want in life, asking Muslims about the role of Islam in the world, etc. He also asks friends, family members, and relatives of some of the "most wanted" terror masterminds of the past decade.

The most chilling interviews take place in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

All in all, I went into the film with low expectations, but combined with his humor, I think Spurlock truly gets to the heart of the matter. I hope it is a movie, that like Super Size Me, slowly grows to become a national phenomenon.

Yes, I voted for GWB twice. Yes, I love the US military and will support our soldiers and generals blindly. But our foreign policy is what is at issue here, and I think this movie will open the eyes of many Americans as to the better options we have and should consider.

I often wonder, how would the world view us in 2008 has GWB taken all that international support in the days following 9/11 and simply turned the other cheek? That thought always reminds me of the scene in Schindler's List when Oscar Schindler teaches the concentration camp commander the power of the words, "I pardon you."
Click to expand...
Look at and understand, (truely), the nature and magnitude of the world that you live in. No wondering needed....
 
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Craig234
Did you read the first link?
Click to expand...
That's why I posed the question.

It was not a mistake for them, because it achieved their goals, for the most part.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I asked, because the first link answered your question, that the people who were behing the Iraq war don't view it as a mistake - it got them their desires for an increased role in the Middle East and a boatload of money for their domestic allies. Some things didn't go as they wanted, but a lot more did than not having invaded.

You ask why they had to lie? Because their goals were not the American people's goals, and this is still to some degree a democracy.
Click to expand...
So the real problem is that their goals were for the benefit of a small proportion and not all of us. It would be interesting to see a wish list of their goals.
Click to expand...

The first link summarized them as above, the goals of an increased US role in security in the region, another step towards their longer term goals for the region, and plenty of $.

The PNAC document also laid out the goals pretty clearly. While it was a political document with plenty of politically correct goals, it also included fairly blunt ones, too.

The answer is that it's in the government's interest to lie about these things, much as it's in your interest to lie why you shot your neighbor and took his things, if you can find a lie.
Click to expand...
Governments are run by people for people. I mention the obvious since people forget this simple truth and fall into the trap of referring to the gov't as 'they'.
Click to expand...

Governments are supposed to be run by people for people; it doesn't always work out that way. We have to choose whether to refer to them as they should work or as they do work.

I think 'they' is perfectly appropriate for a lot of the government, even if 'we' has a place too, it is still our government.

When I say 'they' the Bush administration went after Chavez, the distinction is appropriate; it'd also be correct to say 'we' did, though. My taxes were part of the funding, too.

I don't think 'they' and 'we' causes much real confusion.

The governments, especially in demoracies, do better when their publics support their wars than when they are against them, and so they say what they can to get support.
Click to expand...
So the people in the gov't aren't all-powerful. They have to listen a little.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a little trickier than that; 'do better' isn't quite the same as 'have to'.

Let's say the Bush administration has decided to attack Iran in the coming months. They may well choose to tell some lies to increase the public support.

If those lies are completely exposed as false, and the public opposes the attack, it doesn't necessarily mean they 'have to' listen and not attack.

I think the issue was clearly shown in Dick Cheney's response to the poll showing 2/3 of America against his Iraq policy, when he said "So?"

Another good example was the Plame outing out of vindictiveness. They may have hoped the leaker wouldn't have been an issue, but it was, and lies were told - Bush saying he saw it as a terrible wrong, and he'd really like to know who did it because he'd get rid of them, but it could be any of thousands of people in many agencies, and it was unlikely to be found out. For PR reasons, he lied and took the chance that he could get credit for the outrage without paying the price. He lost, when the leakers were exposed as key aides.

At that point, he didn't 'have to' listen; and he didn't. He simply reversed himself, and rode out the clock with the 'while it's still in the process' excuses, and then just ignord it.

He blatantly broke his word and showed his earlier outrage to be a lie - and the question is, what are you gonna do about it, he almost dares you.

The reaction to the u.n. by u.s. politicians (and politician wannabes) has always been confusing. Sometimes it's proclaimed as being the voice of reason and other times it's useless and should be disbanded.
Click to expand...

Those who more want world peace with diversity of power, who want real democracy, tend to support the UN and want to improve it.

Those who are simply after more power for the US without limit, an agenda with a real but unstated goal of US hegemony, tend to oppose the UN as restricting their options.

That's the undebated debate in the US. Those who want empire don't say so, but they pursue it. Everyone says they are not aggressive, for peace, and so on. So, no debate.

You will not find a number of important issues debated. The Bush administration is trying to change our very government with its 'unitary presidency' doctrine, but you don't see them debating it, either in the campaign or now in office; they are simply pursuing the power silently as much as possible, not asking the public permission. Instead, they simply used 'code words', harmless phrases disguising their real agenda, such as 'believing in a strong presidency'.
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Yes, I voted for GWB twice.

I often wonder, how would the world view us in 2008 has GWB taken all that international support in the days following 9/11 and simply turned the other cheek?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "turning the other cheek"?

You see no other way to get our thirst for oil quenched other than putting the majority of our military in Iraq permanently?
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Yes, I voted for GWB twice.

I often wonder, how would the world view us in 2008 has GWB taken all that international support in the days following 9/11 and simply turned the other cheek?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about "turning the other cheek"?

You see no other way to get our thirst for oil quenched other than putting the majority of our military in Iraq permanently?
Click to expand...

Funny. He never mentioned oil. YOU did. Fuckin hijacking troll.

Put words in people's mouths much?

Please, let's calm down and refrain from personal insults.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top