Fahrenheit 9/11

[it290]

Heh, how can you say the President lied to the American people, when the info he provided at the time was the best info he had (from the intelligence community)? You think he's a psychic? I think you're watching too much TV. People like Michael Moore would make you believe everything they film is the real truth.

At the time the address was given, that information (regarding the Nigerian yellowcake) had already been discredited by a few higher ups at the CIA as well as British intelligence agencies. They tried to make Tenet take the fall for it, but it later came out that he didn't support the decision to use that information the address. Bush may not have been aware of it, but if he wasn't, he should have been.

Additonally, there is the issue of the Saddam-9/11 link. Even to this day, the President and Vice-President claim that such a link existed, even though the 9/11 comission declared that was not the case, and no such link has been found elsewhere.

edit- If you had read the rest of the thread, you'd realize I'm pretty critical of Moore's methods in many cases. I don't watch TV, but I have read a lot of articles and essays about the war, and try to keep up as much as possible. I also view everything with a critical eye, so I have to say I'm somewhat offended by your comment.

The United States has every right to defend itself if it believes its security is under threat. It does not need ANY approval from the United Nation, or the international community.

Hmm, so you honestly believe the US' security was under threat by Iraq? That's pretty laughable, in my opinion.

 

[it290]

Yes again he had momentum he didnt start the "deception" until after his 2 time before the un if i remember right he went before them 4 times and pleaded his case #3-4 he started reaching ...I wouldnt really calling it decieving . This strecthing is what the media refers to as his reasons for war .

What? I have no idea what you're referring to. Although I should point out that Bush only went to the UN at all with the urging of Colin Powell; he hadn't intended to originally, and obviously he didn't care what the outcome was. 'Exhausted all diplomatic options' my ass.

Both russia and france were both caught illegally buying oil from Iraq . Sadam was the one who signed for these debts hes the one who owes most of them + most are illegal and cant be collected on in plain view of the international community .

Russian and French companies, not the governments themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some US-based companies that had illegal purchased oil from Saddam, as well. More to the point, do you think that it's right for a country to go to war when the overwhelming majority of its population opposes that war?

THere next , Irans been pretending to comply , and weve been letting China and Japan deal with korea and trust me war with north koreas a real decision 850 casualities so far in a year in and 3 months in Iraq thatll happen in korea in a month .

Yes, it would be a bloodbath. However, 'they're next' doesn't answer the question... why was Iraq attacked, when it posed far less of a threat than either Iran or North Korea?

Now this I disagree with more than anything you said dont let your eneamy know your weakness's . Thats part of why we didnt win vietnam no clear aganda and we let them know alot of people didnt like it . If it was a number tally we certainly won . 50,000 to 2 million . but that doesnt mean anything .

You, my friend, were the one criticizing Gore for his censorship policies. You're saying freedom of speech should be suppressed? Because I'm afraid you can't stop dissent from getting out and around the world in the information age. 'You don't let your enemy know your weaknesses?' That sounds like something straight out of a strategy textbook. It may apply to the military, but it doesn't hold much water when it comes to the exchange of ideas. Personally, I don't think we should have ever entered Iraq in the first place, so the saying 'as ye sow, so shall ye reap' comes to mind.

Also, you're wrong about Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were NEVER going to give up, no matter how many casualties they endured. The way they saw it, they were defending their homeland. I don't think American public opinion had anything to do with it. Did public opinion affect the troop's morale? Sure, but the fact that there were a large number of draftees had a lot to do with it as well, plus the war was pretty much considered hopeless by a lot of troops because of the situation on the ground as well... after all, they had firsthand experience.

 

[Xavier]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 4, 2004 @ 08:10 PM



What? I have no idea what you're referring to. Although I should point out that Bush only went to the UN at all with the urging of Colin Powell; he hadn't intended to originally, and obviously he didn't care what the outcome was. 'Exhausted all diplomatic options' my ass.

Russian and French companies, not the governments themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some US-based companies that had illegal purchased oil from Saddam, as well. More to the point, do you think that it's right for a country to go to war when the overwhelming majority of its population opposes that war?

Yes, it would be a bloodbath. However, 'they're next' doesn't answer the question... why was Iraq attacked, when it posed far less of a threat than either Iran or North Korea?

You, my friend, were the one criticizing Gore for his censorship policies. You're saying freedom of speech should be suppressed? Because I'm afraid you can't stop dissent from getting out and around the world in the information age. 'You don't let your enemy know your weaknesses?' That sounds like something straight out of a strategy textbook. It may apply to the military, but it doesn't hold much water when it comes to the exchange of ideas. Personally, I don't think we should have ever entered Iraq in the first place, so the saying 'as ye sow, so shall ye reap' comes to mind.

Also, you're wrong about Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were NEVER going to give up, no matter how many casualties they endured. The way they saw it, they were defending their homeland. I don't think American public opinion had anything to do with it. Did public opinion affect the troop's morale? Sure, but the fact that there were a large number of draftees had a lot to do with it as well, plus the war was pretty much considered hopeless by a lot of troops because of the situation on the ground as well... after all, they had firsthand experience.

Untrue about powells urging and I believe twelve years dozens of exiled un inspeters and dozens of trips to the UN over a decades time does qualify as exhausted diplomatic options . What I was refering to was bush had gone to the un 2x before getting the blank check from cogress . THese first two trips before oct 2002 i believe it was dicussed only about sadams infactions against humanity and non un wepons inspections compliance . Very truthfull but still was voted no 5-whatever 80 . He got the balnk check and went before the un two more times last vote 2no 1 nuetral , he was going before the un again for a fifth time and kernals got impatient and raided Iraq .

No this was the government theres dozens of open inquries and investegations against france last president . He has no commments .

Well Iraq makes a good staging ground for Iran and Yes sadam hated America we were the great satan , in his schools and on sadam tv he preached all day about the isreal , Iran and the us . who knows what the real deal with Iran and korea , many people believe Koreas bluffing and just wants a better deal and attention .

No free speech is important your right but being ingnorant and sympathizing with your enemy more than your own people and telling them there baby killers and just dieng for coporate contracts break on treason . Like who was it sean penn wanted to go and interview sadam , hopefully theydve caught him and beheaded him . Hes a very fine actor but a dumbass when it comes to life and politics .

I submit another point war was more humane than continued bombing campiegns and santions .

 

[it290]

No, Powell was pretty much behind the whole UN thing. I think Bush went along with it because he knew it was a good idea politcally (although it kind of backfired), but initially he hadn't planned on it.

No free speech is important your right but being ingnorant and sympathizing with your enemy more than your own people and telling them there baby killers and just dieng for coporate contracts break on treason . Like who was it sean penn wanted to go and interview sadam , hopefully theydve caught him and beheaded him . Hes a very fine actor but a dumbass when it comes to life and politics .

It's not ignorance to oppose a war, nor does sympathizing with the 'enemy' border on treason. I don't support the foreign fighters who are manipulating things behind the scenes in Iraq, but I can understand the roadside bombings, attacks on mercenaries, etc... you would do the same if America were occupied by a foreign power, regardless of whether that power called itself a liberating force or not.

I submit another point war was more humane than continued bombing campiegns and santions .

That's one way to look at it, but let's face it: are the Iraqis that much better off now? From what I understand the opinion of the Iraqi people is pretty much split on that point. Even if you contend that they are, it doesn't mean that the ends justify the means. Attacks like this set a precedent for other countries to follow, giving them the right to feel that they can use military force whenever there is a 'security threat'. Regardless of whether it was more humane or not, it doesn't change the fact that we had no right going in there in the first place. It was an act of unprovoked aggression.

No this was the government theres dozens of open inquries and investegations against france last president . He has no commments .

Fair enough, but if you're going to use that line of reasoning, you have no choice but to accept the Cheney-Halliburtion contention as well.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 4, 2004 @ 06:50 PM



At the time the address was given, that information (regarding the Nigerian yellowcake) had already been discredited by a few higher ups at the CIA as well as British intelligence agencies. They tried to make Tenet take the fall for it, but it later came out that he didn't support the decision to use that information the address. Bush may not have been aware of it, but if he wasn't, he should have been.

Huh? That makes no sense. The President is still a human being who makes mistakes. If the information that he got at the time he believed was correct, how could you say he should have known better? We have gotten smarter now, a year from that war, and are finding out that things may not have been how they seem. The fact is: We knew Saddam had WMD. The whole world knew that.. That's what he made us believe.

Another thing, Do you think Powell would have gone to the United Nation to make the US case for war with Iraq if he knew this info!?? Obviously no, right??

I know you're just finding anything to criticize the President, but what you're saying is making no sense.

As for Moore? In your first post you claim what a great movie Farenheit is, and that everyone should go watch it, even though the movie is propaganda. I know it gives Democrats or people against the war a boost because it is what they want to hear, but fact is many of its points are inaccurate. (And No, I'm not a Republican or Democrat... but I will respect any President because they make the tough decisions. You can't please everybody)

 

[it290]

It makes perfect sense. By 'he should have known' I mean he should have been advised that the facts were taken from questionable sources, and were not 'the best the intelligence community had to offer' by any means. In other words, they were grasping for straws, and ending up giving him inaccurate information because they didn't have anything else. Why did they do that? A good part of it was the White House putting on pressure. You say 'the whole word knew Saddam had WMD', but that was not the case. The IAEA and the UN investigation squad didn't find any WMD. The only illegal weapons that they found, IIRC, were a few missiles with a range beyond what Saddam was allowed to have. There were quite a few people questioning him having WMD, by no means was the world united on that point. The WMD thing was just a pretense; it was supposed to be a 'sure thing', but Bush's bet didn't pay off.

Also, Powell presented different information to the UN; he did that only a week or two after the State of the Union. Of course, his information proved to be inaccurate as well.

About the movie, yes, I think it is a good movie. Does that mean I take everything in it completely literally? No way! But, since you claim the points made in the movie are inaccurate, I'd love to see you defend that statement by posting which points you feel are incorrect.

edit - BTW, you didn't answer my question. Do you honestly feel that Iraq presented an imminent threat?

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 4, 2004 @ 10:38 PM

It makes perfect sense. By 'he should have known' I mean he should have been advised that the facts were taken from questionable sources, and were not 'the best the intelligence community had to offer' by any means. In other words, they were grasping for straws, and ending up giving him inaccurate information because they didn't have anything else. Why did they do that? A good part of it was the White House putting on pressure. You say 'the whole word knew Saddam had WMD', but that was not the case. The IAEA and the UN investigation squad didn't find any WMD. The only illegal weapons that they found, IIRC, were a few missiles with a range beyond what Saddam was allowed to have. There were quite a few people questioning him having WMD, by no means was the world united on that point. The WMD thing was just a pretense; it was supposed to be a 'sure thing', but Bush's bet didn't pay off.

Also, Powell presented different information to the UN; he did that only a week or two after the State of the Union. Of course, his information proved to be inaccurate as well.

About the movie, yes, I think it is a good movie. Does that mean I take everything in it completely literally? No way! But, since you claim the points made in the movie are inaccurate, I'd love to see you defend that statement by posting which points you feel are incorrect.

Heh, who else is higher than the FBI, the CIA, etc for the President to get this reliable information? Hrmms... Hrmms..? Last I checked, they are the intelligence community for the US..

Oh well, you keep assuming that the President knew this or that.. and that he should have "known better". That he had other "political" motives, etc. I'm not sure how you're able to put yourself in the President's head to be able to hear what he was thinking or what he wanted to do. You must have an ancient talent that many of us don't yet posess.

Ahh well, I'm out.

 

[it290]

As I said, at that time there were many, CIA agents included, who did not believe that information to be accurate or reliable. I don't know if the President was aware of that at the time, but my point is that he should have been told. I have never claimed that I know what's going on in his head, but apparently your reading comprehension skills are not sufficient enough to allow you to process that.

 

[ExCyber]

Heh, who else is higher than the FBI, the CIA, etc for the President to get this reliable information?

There is, of course, No Such Agency. 😉

Incidentally, it290 said "higher-ups at the CIA", not "people higher up than the CIA". At least, I assume that's what you're responding to, since the post you quoted seems poorly connected to your statement.

The President is still a human being who makes mistakes. If the information that he got at the time he believed was correct, how could you say he should have known better? We have gotten smarter now, a year from that war, and are finding out that things may not have been how they seem. The fact is: We knew Saddam had WMD. The whole world knew that.. That's what he made us believe.

And "everyone makes mistakes" might resemble an explanation instead of a doublethink cop-out if he actually admitted that it was his mistake instead of trying to pawn it off on the CIA, which Cheney was apparently manipulating into producing "actionable" intelligence instead of accurate intelligence on Iraq.

As for Moore? In your first post you claim what a great movie Farenheit is, and that everyone should go watch it, even though the movie is propaganda.

I think you should go back and read that post again. It clearly mentions several shortcomings of the movie in a way that indicates that it290 was viewing it critically and not as the sheep you're painting with your overbroad brush.

 

[Xavier]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 4, 2004 @ 11:38 PM

You say 'the whole word knew Saddam had WMD', but that was not the case.

Sadam said he had them

 

[mal]

Originally posted by it290@Jul 5, 2004 @ 09:33 AM

As I said, at that time there were many, CIA agents included, who did not believe that information to be accurate or reliable. I don't know if the President was aware of that at the time, but my point is that he should have been told. I have never claimed that I know what's going on in his head, but apparently your reading comprehension skills are not sufficient enough to allow you to process that.

Don't worry, it's not an isolated political phenomenom.

In Australia the (conservative) Prime Minister and his government have been playing the ignorance/misinformation card for over four years.

John Howard and his ministers have defended their dubious words and actions in many ways, usually blaming public servants for either bad information, or information conveniently being with held from them. Once of twice is credible, but they've just done it too often.

The "Children Overboard Scandal" is a prime example.

 

[mal]

Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 5, 2004 @ 04:15 AM

The United States has every right to defend itself if it believes its security is under threat. It does not need ANY approval from the United Nation, or the international community. I think the United States should have went into Iraq because of Saddam Hussein many actions against its people, not because of WMD. He was paying terrorist families for their children blowing themselves in Palestine.

Since when is Palestine, or Israel for that matter, part of the USA?

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by Xavier@Jul 4, 2004 @ 06:19 AM

Sadam said he had them

And so did N. Korea and Iran, but we didn't invade them.

The curious thing, at least in my view, is that several people keep diverting to the importance of dethroning Saddam. We spent little to no time in Afghanistan, then we moved onto Iraq. Why is no one discussing the importance of finding bin Laden? He was apparently sighted in Pakistan, and the caves of Afghanistan, and Iran, etc., but no such reports in Iraq... so why invade Iraq? Let's assume there's a connection between bin Laden and Saddam - why not get bin Laden first? If there was a tenable argument between the dethroning of Saddam and the capture of bin Laden, how is it nearly a year later, bin Laden is still not captured, and al Qaeda is still operating? I know the current administration likes to stress that a terrorist organization has been crippled, but has it truly been crippled? Or are we taking the view that if a story is told three or more times, it's automagically true ala Reagan in his last years in office?

Note this isn't justifying keeping Saddam in power... however, considering all these operations were to 'get the terrorists', I think the priority should have been to get the terrorists first. Saddam being removed from power was overdue, however, the fact that Saddam has been captured for several months, and that we're still on a constant state of alert, that something, somewhere wasn't thought out correctly.

Even more ironically, one of the reasons cited why we didn't send more troops into afghanistan was the prohibitive cost of fighting a ground war. Couldn't the same be said of the ground war in Iraq?

Having seen Fahrenheit 9/11, I still don't like Michael Moore, but I would hope that it at least gets people to question this administration. I'd honestly would like to believe that none of this info is/was true (mostly because I dislike Moore), but at least some portions should alert people on questionable actions taken by the administration. It's clearly propaganda, but some of that stuff, even in context (I imagine), sounds suspicious.

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by mal@Jul 5, 2004 @ 02:28 AM

Since when is Palestine, or Israel for that matter, part of the USA?

Heh, you missed the point. All I am saying is that he was paying these families for their son/daughters/etc carrying out suicide attacks.

Are you too naive to believe this never happened?

 

[mal]

I had heard that it happened, but I don't know that it happened. For the sake of this discussion I will believe you.

I guess you missed my point. Surely it should be up to Israel to deal with it, not the US.

(edited for clarity)

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by mal@Jul 5, 2004 @ 03:42 AM

I don't know that it happened, but I will believe you.

I guess you missed my point. Surely it should be up to Israel to deal with it, not the US.

Heh, again you're missing the whole point. I never said the US should deal with it. It was only a statement that Saddam was paying the families for their sons/daughters/etc commiting suicide attacks. (Geez)

Here are some references, take your pick.

Saddam paid families

Same here

 

[mal]

So why did you include it in that block of your reply where you were justifying the US invasion?

Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 5, 2004 @ 04:15 AM

The United States has every right to defend itself if it believes its security is under threat. It does not need ANY approval from the United Nation, or the international community. I think the United States should have went into Iraq because of Saddam Hussein many actions against its people, not because of WMD. He was paying terrorist families for their children blowing themselves in Palestine.

You know, the bit I quoted in the first place.

 

[Caelestis]

You know, I can't help but laugh every time I hear liberals whining about the fabled al qaeda connections.

You know where the belief in those connections originated? It certainly wasn't in the Bush administration. The connections had been stated as fact by the Clinton administration on numerous occassions.

But that probably didn't quite make it into Moore's film, did it?

:bs

 

[Lyzel]

Originally posted by mal@Jul 5, 2004 @ 04:17 AM

So why did you include it in that block of your reply where you were justifying the US invasion?

You know, the bit I quoted in the first place.

Oh my gosh! I give up! Geez!!!

 

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by Caelestis+Jul 4, 2004 @ 08:27 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Caelestis @ Jul 4, 2004 @ 08:27 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> You know where the belief in those connections originated? It certainly wasn't in the Bush administration. The connections had been stated as fact by the Clinton administration on numerous occassions. [/b]

So wait, that justifies skipping bin Laden and going straight for Saddam? Intelligence from a previous administration?

That still doesn't address what I was getting at earlier.

To make it clearer:

What is the justification for diverting resources from the pursuit of the leader of a recognized leader of a world-wide terror organization, who had claimed responsibility of the attacks on the USS Cole, the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, to dethroning a dictator whose connection to al qaeda was at best plausible but generally considered untenable (depending on who you ask; if we go by the 9/11 commission, then the latter)?

Whatever the numbers are, I think it's fairly certain that the number of troops sent to Afghanistan are far fewer than those sent to Iraq.

And, even more to the point, why just Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? Most of the assailants of 9/11, including bin Laden, are Saudis.

Why is there such a major concern about rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, but not as much attention delegated to Afghanistan?

Clearest:

Before 9/11, no one was thinking about Saddam. Shortly after 9/11, Saddam is enemy #1. Almost all resources directed at getting him. Yet bin Laden hadn't been caught yet.

Why?

<!--QuoteBegin-Lyzel@Jul 4, 2004 @ 08:43 AM

Oh my gosh! I give up! Geez!!! [/quote]

You know, the support of Israel in this feud is out-moded. What the US should do is simply disband both Israeli and Palestenian governments and reorganize both states.

No, I'm not being sarcastic and I'm not joking. If the U.S. (more specifically, this administration) is going to take it upon itself to be world peace keeper and protector (or cite that as a reason), it should go about resolving this issue properly.

Much like Iraq, diplomacy (as cited in a previous argument) has failed numerous times (over a much longer period of time) between the two countries. And both countries have terrorized each other, though the generally pro-Israeli reporting may see it otherwise.

Same should be done for India and Pakistan over Kashmir.