Fahrenheit 9/11

Originally posted by Curtis@Jul 11, 2004 @ 02:28 AM

When people say "he should have known", they mean "he shouldn't have used intelligence that wasn't verified/verifiable".

Alright, I see where you're getting at, but isn't that the job of the Central Intelligence community? To provide the President with accurate and verifiable intelligence? Don't they check their work?

"we went with what we knew at the time and, oops, it turned out to be wrong"

That is a true and honest statement. We aren't fortune tellers. We are now realizing our mistakes, but that's because we are IN Iraq to verify our intelligences.

The hope that democracy might grow out of this war is a big gamble,

It will. Look at Germany and Japan.

one that as yet hasn't been justified.

So what if we haven't found WMD? Still, the removal of Saddam Hussen is _justified_!. In the long run, Iraq is better off that way.
 
Alright, I see where you're getting at, but isn't that the job of the Central Intelligence community? To provide the President with accurate and verifiable intelligence? Don't they check their work?

Do you honestly believe that the White House didn't pressure the CIA at all, despite the fact that the President obviously wanted to go to war from the very beginning?

That is a true and honest statement. We aren't fortune tellers. We are now realizing our mistakes, but that's because we are IN Iraq to verify our intelligences.

"We executed a man even though we didn't have sufficient evidence to convict him. We later found out he was innocent, but it's too late now." ... that's the equivalent statement. I don't believe we should ever go to war unless our reasons are 100% verifiable.

It will. Look at Germany and Japan.


To compare the culture of Iraq to that of Germany or Japan is ludicrous beyond measure.

So what if we haven't found WMD? Still, the removal of Saddam Hussen is _justified_!. In the long run, Iraq is better off that way.

The question is, was the threat sufficient to justify the loss of over 10,000 human lives? And I think it's the Iraqi people's place to judge whether Iraq is better off, not yours. I read an opinion poll not too long ago that stated that Iraq was split about 50/50 on that issue. So it's not as clear cut as you're trying to make it.
 
Originally posted by Lyzel@Jul 11, 2004 @ 04:43 AM

Alright, I see where you're getting at, but isn't that the job of the Central Intelligence community? To provide the President with accurate and verifiable intelligence? Don't they check their work?


I'm not saying the CIA are blameless, I'm saying that your president isn't blameless either. It was his words and actions that took your country, and others, to war not the intelligence community. I don't know about you, but if I were the president and someone told me that Iraq had WMD spilling out onto the streets, the first thing I'd say would be "prove it".

It will. Look at Germany and Japan.

So what if we haven't found WMD? Still, the removal of Saddam Hussen is _justified_!. In the long run, Iraq is better off that way.


Both Germany and Japan were annihilated by invading forces. By the time the final bombs were dropped, major cities were destroyed and millions dead. The people of those countries had little choice, or will, but to accept the rule of the victors. Iraq is not so clear cut since you've gone out of your way to avoid the deaths of civilians. You're occupying a country full of energetic human beings - they all want a piece of the action and have the spirit to fight for it. You've got foreign individuals entering the country who set out to destroy anything they can. You've installed a Government that has little connection with the people, due to the fact that you're protecting them from all the petty and not so petty criminals running around with RPGs and AK47s. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but the only thing achieved in Iraq to date is a smidgen of hope - hope that this won't all blow up in everyone's faces and some good will come out of it.
 
Do you honestly believe that the White House didn't pressure the CIA at all, despite the fact that the President obviously wanted to go to war from the very beginning?


Let me ask you this then, can you honestly say for a fact that they were? Personally, I see this as mere politics. Democrats and Republicans attacking each others. The only people that have the answers is Central Intelligence. It appears from this report that even if they did, they still came to the same conclusions as before.

Did Bush Pressure CIA?

CIA slated over Iraq intelligence

"We executed a man even though we didn't have sufficient evidence to convict him.  We later found out he was innocent, but it's too late now." ... that's the equivalent statement.  I don't believe we should ever go to war unless our reasons are 100% verifiable.

This doesn't hold any water. The fact is, Saddam is not any ordinary man. He killed thousand of his people before we even went in.

If we go by your statement though. The same has happened with the US Death Penalty. A few men have been put to death, even though we realized they were innocent later on.

You know.. we aren't perfect. No matter how much we try to have accurate info, sometimes it escapes us!

To compare the culture of Iraq to that of Germany or Japan is ludicrous beyond measure.

What is so ludicrous about this? Japan has a culture different than ours. The only thing I see from this is that the middle east are centuries apart from us.:)

Heh, as for this poll. I'll believe it when the country is stable, when the population realize once and for all that Saddam is not returning to power, and when people can freely express their views without fearing for their lifes.

(by the way, the links above also confirms some of my previous comments in this thread)
 
Strangely, sadly, and an indicator of the impending apocalypse, I going to agree with Lyzel here, on a few limited points.

Firstly, if the CIA is truly to blame, then some of the blame certainly gets shifted from GWB. While it couldn't be verifiable, we must remember the CIA is supposedly the best and most capable intelligence gathering system the U.S. has. And considering this a country that now demands answers and seeks retribution, if the CIA had promulgated reports to the affect that Iraq was to blame, if I were GWB I would have certainly acted on it, since there was a failure in the past to act on intelligence.

However, when there was fiece opposition to the plan to take over Iraq, I would have demanded those countries prove us wrong. And demand their help in doing what's right. Realistically we wouldn't have had someone in charge that is so incompetent in dealing with world leaders that ties wouldn't have already been strained and the 'much to do' that came up wouldn't have. That's neither here nor there, though.

Sad state of affairs though. Really sad... the same occurred in the Bay of Pigs.
 
The fact is, Saddam is not any ordinary man. He killed thousand of his people before we even went in.

Yes, but does that justify the United States engaging in an action that caused the deaths of thousands more people? I think we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than "not as bad as Saddam".
 
Let me ask you this then, can you honestly say for a fact that they were? Personally, I see this as mere politics. Democrats and Republicans attacking each others. The only people that have the answers is Central Intelligence. It appears from this report that even if they did, they still came to the same conclusions as before.


No, I can't state it for a fact, but let me restate something that I just heard Sen. Feinstein say. Whenever there were conflicting opinions about Iraq's possession of weapons, the CIA's opinion was what was used by the White House - and these opinions, even though erroneous and based on scant information, always reinforced GWB's case. True, the CIA is the top foreign intelligence agency in the US. But the conflicting opinions included military and FBI info that was overlooked. If there was conflicting intelligence about WMDs, why weren't we made aware of it? And why wasn't Congress aware of it (perhaps some were, but from the information we get from the report, the majority weren't)?

This doesn't hold any water. The fact is, Saddam is not any ordinary man. He killed thousand of his people before we even went in.

If we go by your statement though. The same has happened with the US Death Penalty. A few men have been put to death, even though we realized they were innocent later on.

You know.. we aren't perfect. No matter how much we try to have accurate info, sometimes it escapes us!

First of all, Saddam's tyranny was not our supposed reason for going in. We went in because we were told that Iraq had WMDs and that they were a threat to national security. Saddam's actions are irrelevant to the discussion, because we are talking about the perceived threat to the US, not whether the Iraqis are better off or not (which, again, is debatable).

Yes, of course men have been put to death when innocent. Does that make it right? Of course not, I believe that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent. The law of the United States agrees with me on this, in spirit. I believe the same priniciple should apply to war. Your very statements above are practically an admission that we made a mistake in invading Iraq. If that is so, how can the war be justified? You may call it a 'justifiable mistake', but I say that any president who makes a mistake that leads us to war and causes thousands of innocent people to die should not be in office. Do you really want to reelect a man who says 'Whoops! I screwed up' (of course, he won't say that, nor admit to any mistakes whatsoever), when the cost of screwing up is so very high?

edit- oh, and just FYI, I wasn't making a parallel to Saddam, but to the war itself.

What is so ludicrous about this? Japan has a culture different than ours. The only thing I see from this is that the middle east are centuries apart from us.smile.gif

Heh, as for this poll. I'll believe it when the country is stable, when the population realize once and for all that Saddam is not returning to power, and when people can freely express their views without fearing for their lifes.

Well, as Curtis stated, there is a massive differene in the outcome of the war that will affcet people's attitudes. But, I believe more importantly, you can't compare a third-world Muslim country with an heavily industrialized Buddhist/Shinto or Christian one. Although Saddam was a secular leader, these people are not only used to religious leaders controlling the political scene, they also favor it. And of the religious leaders themselves, many are power hungry, and they fight with each other. This is not a situation that leads to stability. Additionally, of course, you have the influence of the terrorists as well as neighbor states, which wasn't a factor in Germany or Japan either.

As for your second statement, people don't fear for their lives now. They realize that Saddam is not returning to power, although I have heard statements to the effect that some don't think it's fair for him to be on trial now (I don't agree with that, but I don't live there, either). They can freely express their views; there haven't been any bombings targeting normal people talking about politics - only Coalition forces, provisional government officials, and other political figures have been attacked. Do you really think people are so in fear that they won't respond to an anonymous opinion poll? I think that's stretching it a bit. It's true that such polls may not be as statistically accurate as they could be because of the telephone situation and so forth, but I still think it says something.

edit - one more thing. We'll find out about whether Bush pressured the CIA, or at least get more information about it, when the second investigation occurs. Personally, I believe that his doing so would be grounds for impeachment. Unfortunately, by the time the investigation occurs, it may be too late.
 
Originally posted by racketboy@Jun 29, 2004 @ 03:41 PM

My opinion: Michael Moore is an idiot.

I'll leave it at that.

But I have heard (even from liberal media outlets) that this movies was deceiving and full of crap.

I will fully agree with this... He is democratic. All he does is bash the one side.... Now don't get me wrong I hate Bush, down right HATE him. We shouldn't be there in the first place.

But, I am sick and tired of these documentaries he makes. They are one-sided, and if you watch CNN or read the paper you know about stuff like this. But the majority of youth don't do this so here comes Moore to the rescue right? Blah.
 
There were a couple of things in the movie that I didn't know about, but in general I agree with you. Anyone who keeps up with the news is aware of most of these issues. However, at least Moore approaches things in a factual manner, unlike the majority of right-wing propaganda. And I believe these issues are important enough that people, young people especially, need to have them crammed down their throats by _someone_. I'm pretty sick and tired of the apathy the younger generation tends to show towards political issues. You might not like Moore's techniques (and I can't fault you for that), but at least he truly wants to get people involved. He doesn't tell or expect people to blindly listen to what he's saying, either... in fact he has stated numerous times in the past (and I've seen him state this) that he wants people to question the issues and form their own opinions. If his movies can act as a catalyst for independent thought, so much the better.
 
Originally posted by Jaded God@Jul 15, 2004 @ 05:38 AM

I will fully agree with this... He is democratic. All he does is bash the one side.... Now don't get me wrong I hate Bush, down right HATE him. We shouldn't be there in the first place.

But, I am sick and tired of these documentaries he makes. They are one-sided, and if you watch CNN or read the paper you know about stuff like this. But the majority of youth don't do this so here comes Moore to the rescue right? Blah.

Yea, all he does is bash republicans in all his movies, ignore the part in bowling for columbine where he blasted clinton for kosovo.
 
And the part in F9/11 where he shows that the Democrats in the Senate decided to not contest the election results even though several in the House (particularly Jacksonville, Florida Rep. Corrine Brown) considered the situation unacceptable.

On a related note, I happened to be watching C-SPAN yesterday when this happened. Say what you want about Rep. Brown's remarks (I think they were ill-worded), but to strike them from the record seems to be nothing more than heavy-handed partisan punishment, probably intended to make an example out of her for speaking out against the Republicans in plain terms instead of crafty doublespeak euphemisms. <_<
 
Yup. IMHO, being a Congressperson is kind of like being in this secret brotherhood where no matter how much you disagree, you can't actually say anything that will make Congress as a whole look bad. It's one of those weird power games - they all have to make concessions to each other. Kind of like "you don't hurt my chances to get reelected - I won't hurt yours", except with attack ads and the like that are considered fair play.
 
Back
Top