Fahrenheit 9/11...

[surian]

Tyjet, of course I don't "Hate" bush personally, that's rediculous for me to say and I'm not. I think everyone here understands that.

 

As for this:

And another thing, bush said there was "evidence of WMD"... Clinton said "I didn't do it"... big difference...

 

I would like to point out that Bush did NOT say "evidence" until just recently in an attempt to backpaddle out of ****-creek. Did you listen to the state of the union address? I did, he made it abundantly clear that Iraq not only was attempting to make WMDs but that they had already made them and were attempting to use them. Nether of these points turned out to be true. In fact, to date the only weapons that have been found in Iraq of this nature are some 15 year old shells containing nerve agents that America GAVE to Iraq many years back during the war with Iran.

 

And in response to this:

You have to remember that bush didn't do everything on his own. He had the support of 2/3 of the congress that is over 300 of teh 500 people. Don't try and tell me 300+ people are all curupt from bush.

 

You are correct. Congress DID in fact vote to allow Bush to invade Iraq. However they did so under the misaprehention that there were, in fact, WMDs in Iraq and that saddam was attepting to use them against the US. Congress believed in our president and believed that he would not lie to them. They were wrong and the cost to america is the lives of our service men and the cost to Iraq is possibly the deaths of untold numbers of Iraqi civilians. So that's the difference between Bush's lie and Clinton's lie. Clinton lied about a fishystick and caused Monica Lewinski to gain a career as a writer. Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq and caused the deaths of many many people. Which one got impeached? Why is that? I would argue that it's because 1) the religious right in our country has much more power than it should and 2) people in our country are ignorant to what is going on or just don't care.

[Darnoc]

people in our country are ignorant to what is going on or just don't care.

 

There is a joke which fits exactly this situation.

 

The UNO made a survey, the following was asked: "Please give us your honest oppinion about the food shortage in the rest of the world."

 

It was a total desaster, the people just didn't understand the question.

 

In Africa, nobody knew what "Food" meant, in Western Europe nobody knew the meaning of "Shortage", in Arabia nobody knew what "honest" was supposed to mean, in South America the people didn't know what "please" meant, in China nobody understood the word "Oppinion" and in the USA everyone wondered who "The rest of the world" was.

[tyjet3]

I'm not saying our country is perfect... It's far fom it... I just think people complain too much. I swear, there are some people who just complain about everything. It doesn't matter who is in office, these people always hate the president... even more if he is republican.

 

This movie just feeds this hate. Movies like this have lies, facts that are twisted, and slander that people just love to hear and believe because it is about a person they hate. It's just like gossip. If you hear a rumor about someone you don't like you never question if it is true or not, you just are glad to know.

 

If liberals want peace, why are they always the first ones to hate our leaders? Micheal Moore does't have any security pass when it comes to national security. I wouldn't trust anything he says.

[surian]

Moore actually didn't say anything in his movie that wasn't public knowledge already. He just combined it all into a movie. Some of the conclusions he makes are probably questionable but his facts are completely dead on. For example, is Bush only concerned with Saudi Arabia? No of course not, but that doesn't mean that he's not turning a blind eye to lots of things the Saudi government is doing because he has a friendship with them.

 

I'm a pretty informed guy when it comes to what's going on both home and abroad in politics. I make it my buisness to be informed. I read a lot of newspapers and I listen to a lot of NPR along with reading many books. I'm selective in what I let into my brain as far as Propaganda goes. I was reluctant to see Moores movie at first because I wasn't sure if it was just propaganda or not, but after seeing it I have to say that 95% of it is completely true. He didn't say anything in his movie that I didn't already know from reading a newspaper.

 

You also say that the country hates republican presidents more than democratic ones. I would say that's completely not true. This country hates almost every president they've ever had. At least 30-40% of the population isn't happy with any president we get. I remember when Bush Sr. was in office. I didn't like what he was doing but I also didn't want to see him thrown out of office. Liberals are NOT the first ones to hate our leaders. I think what you mean to say is that if a Republican is in office liberals don't like him. I may be able to agree with that. But it happens on the other side too, I don't think I have to remind you again what happened to Clinton. You tell me that what happened to him wasn't a republican agenda and I'll laugh in your face.

 

The difference here is that Bush Jr. is doing such a horrible job that not only liberals want him out, it's unilateral. For a long while Bush was able to pull the wool over a lot of american's eyes by using 9-11 for his own agenda but now we're finally seeing what's going on and if you understand even a little bit of what has been happening during Bush's term in office you would agree also. THe problem here is that, as I said, a lot of Americans don't want to have the wool pulled from their eyes because it makes them more confortable not to know what's really happening, that's ignorance.

[theNemon]

Moore has included 56-59 deceits in F-911, ranging from small to large. I can't take him seriously after "bowling" or the "awful truth"-show...

[ImmortalSnafu]

Moore has included 56-59 deceits in F-911

Can I see your list?

 

If liberals want peace, why are they always the first ones to hate our leaders?

First of all, what connection does hating our leader and wanting peace have in common? It's actually very hard to like Bush and want peace at the same time. Just look at all the peace he's brought us...has there ever been another president to start 2 wars during his term?

 

It's just like gossip.

No, not at all. Moore's movies might twist the facts every once an awhile, but he never has blatant lies or 'gossip'.

 

USA everyone wondered who "The rest of the world" was.

Amen...

 

It doesn't matter who is in office, these people always hate the president... even more if he is republican.

I loved Clinton, he was great. I don't just hate presidents because they are the presidents. You've got to cause serious mayhem/death/destruction to earn my hatred.

 

Movies like this have lies

No.

 

facts that are twisted,

Yes. But there's a difference between 'lies' and 'facts that are twisted'.

[Untouchable1]

You have to understand that any time a president has to make a drastic decision like going to war it doesnt matter who he is EVERYONE will hate him! its part of the narrow american psyche. when 9-11 happened the war that proceeded was not one of revenge, that is just the mindset of millions of nieve american people. bush realized that in fact there was still a thriving terrorist threat to the world, and if it can hijack four planes and place nearly all of them at extremely important targets then it must be dealt with. what would happen if they hijacked an east coast american plane and brought if overseas to crumble the Dome of the Rock in israel? i know someone out there is saying 'uh i dont care about some stupid temple' but that just goes to show you how ignorant and overzealous your fellow americans can be. im so ashamed of them ALL! as for the recession, bush didnt create it, he inherited it. it was bound to come someday and it was only made worse by 9-11. and he did NOT go into afghanistan to destroy everything and officials made a POINT to indicate that it was only terrorist camps he was bombong. plus why would they bomb civilian camps and call it inti terrorism when thats terrorism? as far as Saddam Housein goes, this again is NOT a bout of revenge! again it is just part of narrow minded anti foreigner american thought process (stop! get away from the keyboard and put down the flame! i know you all arent like that, you think im stupid or something? [yeah, u quote me on that you male without a father]) bush noticed that there was a country that was under cruel dictatorship and was showing signs of producing weapons of mass destruction. nobody in this room can tell me you as the president wouldnt be scared when the UN weapons inspections turned up shifty. even though they had found almost no proof of these weapons the components to make them were found. and dont tell me you wouldnt lose a little sleep over the anthrax outbreak. ultimately the point im trying to get across it that no matter what right minded and intelligent person was put into office they would have made the same choices: first, calm the people using religious symbols and make sure they dont get the wrong idea about what we are about to do over there, second take out as many know assets to the terrorists as thye can, third expanding on that go into iraq and rid them of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of said terrorists, and fourth and most important uphold the ideas of liberty where ever we go, in order to do so the US had to make rid of Saddam's regime and restore fredom to the people (some of which are just as nieve and inti foreigner as some dumb americans but still equally are NOT the enemy). they have just recently put into place the new democracy and leaders of iraq. didn't you see how happy htose people looked that the tyranny is no more? it is obvious that bush, as any president would have done, is on the right track and that any unfortunate events that happened along the way are in no way his fault and could have happened to any president. therefore oyu should lighten up on the 'bush this' and 'bush that' cuz if everyone votes Kerry and and theres an even bigger attack you'll all be whinin about 'oh god kerry thiz an that ****'

 

just get your facts straight before you post, or think, or talk. theres nothing worse to me than an ignorant fool flapping his cheeks. you all just witnessed what i am puto on this earth to do. (also see the whole "has any body else realized this?" thread in Morrowind General) anyone who frequently makes uneducated or immature spam posts should get used to being hammered, or get a bigger shield...

[ImmortalSnafu]

Well...lets begin.

 

when 9-11 happened the war that proceeded was not one of revenge, that is just the mindset of millions of nieve american people

Afganistan was not a war of revenge...it was damage control. Bush had to make up for complely missing warning signs of 9/11.

 

bush realized that in fact there was still a thriving terrorist threat to the world, and if it can hijack four planes and place nearly all of them at extremely important targets then it must be dealt with.

There was enough intelligence beforehand, as well as numerous other terrorist attacks that should have alerted him to the probability of an attack.

 

as for the recession, bush didnt create it, he inherited it.

Negative...9/11 caused a massive slump in the economy that turned into a recession when Bush did nothing to fix it. He made 2 wasteful taxcuts for the wealthy that have expanded the national debt tremenously.

 

and he did NOT go into afghanistan to destroy everything and officials made a POINT to indicate that it was only terrorist camps he was bombong.

Bombs didn't fall entirely on terrorist camps. In no war ever will the bombs always be on target. There were cases during the war in Afganistan where villages were hit that had no terrorists in at all.

 

as far as Saddam Housein goes, this again is NOT a bout of revenge! again it is just part of narrow minded anti foreigner american thought process

Many Americans do have very narrow thought processes...but asserting that all Americans are this way is very telling of your own thought process...

 

bush noticed that there was a country that was under cruel dictatorship

Most certainly Iraq was under a cruel dictatorship. But so are dozens of other countries. Why don't we go liberate them? Freeing the people of Iraq had nothing to do with Bush's decision to attack Iraq, it was merely an excuse when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

 

bush noticed that there was a country that was under cruel dictatorship

There was little or no real evidence that weapons of mass destruction were being produced. Much of the evidence given by Bush and his administration was either forged or woefully outdated. In the case of the document that supposedly proved that Iraq was ordering uranium, the forgery was embarassingly bad. The name of the official that supposedly signed the document was an official who had been out of power for over a decade.

 

nobody in this room can tell me you as the president wouldnt be scared when the UN weapons inspections turned up shifty. even though they had found almost no proof of these weapons the components to make them were found.

The inspectors entered Iraq, found nothing. Why should you automatically assume they were lying? I don't necessarily like Blix, but I trust that his inspectors found exactly what they reported finding, nothing.

 

and dont tell me you wouldnt lose a little sleep over the anthrax outbreak.

I live less than two miles away from the post office that those letters were sent from, of course I "lost sleep". But what does that anthrax have to to with Saddam?

 

ultimately the point im trying to get across it that no matter what right minded and intelligent person was put into office they would have made the same choices:

Hell no.

 

first, calm the people using religious symbols and make sure they dont get the wrong idea about what we are about to do over there,

What? When did Bush do this? It probably isn't a lack of religious symbols that might give people the wrong idea...it's probably the bombs raining down.

 

third expanding on that go into iraq and rid them of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of said terrorists,

There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Iraq was no threat at all to America in any way. All that was accomplished by attacking Iraq was drawing further support for terrorist groups.

 

fourth and most important uphold the ideas of liberty where ever we go, in order to do so the US had to make rid of Saddam's regime and restore fredom to the people (some of which are just as nieve and inti foreigner as some dumb americans but still equally are NOT the enemy).

As I said before, we did NOT go to Iraq to free anyone. We attacked because Bush told us, and lied about it, that we were in immediate danger.

 

they have just recently put into place the new democracy and leaders of iraq.

That government is only being held together by American lives, when we withdraw our troops the country will fall into anarchy.

 

it is obvious that bush, as any president would have done, is on the right track and that any unfortunate events that happened along the way are in no way his fault and could have happened to any president.

He's not on the right track, he's landed us into another Vietnam. Any decent president wouldn't have preemptively attacked a country that was in no way a threat.

 

that any unfortunate events that happened along the way are in no way his fault and could have happened to any president.

If you are talking about 9/11, then yes, it wasn't entirely his fault. If you mean the unfortunate events in Iraq, then you're completely wrong. The war in Iraq was preventable.

 

therefore oyu should lighten up on the 'bush this' and 'bush that' cuz if everyone votes Kerry and and theres an even bigger attack you'll all be whinin about 'oh god kerry thiz an that ****'

I'll only whine about "oh god kerry thiz an that" if Kerry is an complete and utter disgrace to his country as Bush has been.

 

just get your facts straight before you post, or think, or talk. theres nothing worse to me than an ignorant fool flapping his cheeks.

I say the same right back to you. It seems that you have very little idea of what you're talking about.

 

you all just witnessed what i am puto on this earth to do.

Thank you Jesus, we've all been enlightened by your posts. Thank God that you've come down from heaven to save our poor souls..*rolls eyes*

 

anyone who frequently makes uneducated or immature spam posts should get used to being hammered, or get a bigger shield...

It seems your a bit over due for a hammering...If your other spam-hammering posts are as solid as this one...you need to find a new title.

 

Also, check this out http://www.u-aizu.ac.jp/~tripp/cap.html you could really learn something here.

[surian]

just get your facts straight before you post, or think, or talk. theres nothing worse to me than an ignorant fool flapping his cheeks.

 

Right back at ya... I don't think I could have seen a more ignorant post than the one you just made. First of all, and please I'm not just trying to be a jerk here, use paragraphs. It's really hard to read through that long post without at least some paragraphing.

 

bush realized that in fact there was still a thriving terrorist threat to the world

Yes, but he realised it much too late. Granted, every other president didn't put much effort into domestic anti-terrorism, but Bush had reports that specifically stated that there were plans from al-queda to hijack planes and crash them into America.

 

as for the recession, bush didnt create it, he inherited it.

I actually agree with you on this. But you show me one single thing that he's done to help out those under the poverty line because of this recession. I think that for every 1 thing he's done for the poor you can find about 10 things he's done for the elite.

 

and he did NOT go into afghanistan to destroy everything and officials made a POINT to indicate that it was only terrorist camps he was bombong.

Despite the fact that many civilians did actually die from bombings in Afghanistan, I'll look past that point and focus on another one that I made earlier. Just before we invaded Afghanistan Bush ordered all the convoys delivering supplies into Afghanistan to be halted. This did nothing except kill hundreds of thousands of Afghani civilians.

 

Now, as far as military action is concerned, the Government can get as high and mighty as it wants when it talks about how it "only targeted terrorist camps" but the fact is that when you go into a country like this you kill a lot of civilians.

 

plus why would they bomb civilian camps and call it inti terrorism when thats terrorism?

Please look up what happened in the following countries before you tell me that the US doesn't participate in terrorist activities:

Nicaragua

Guatamala

Chile

South Vietnam

Panama

El Salvador

Columbia

 

Just to name a few. Almost all of these countries had governements that were founded on democracy and Roosevelt's "new deal". However, they wouldn't let forgin investors from the US run their economy and so in every case we used our military might to overthrow the government. Columbia is a very good example of terroist actions by the US. We overthrew a government that was in place and then set up a puppet regime. Through trade agreements we flooded their economy with cheap US grown food which put almost every single farmer (the biggest job market in columbia) out of buisness. Guess what they grow now? Then when the public tried to overthrow this corrupt government, we funded them (the government) to quell their population.

 

Nicaragua is even better. This is a case almost identical to Columbia except that instead of getting a government to surpress it's own people we couldn't do that and had to find other ways. Nicaragua had never been an enemy of the US until it became a democracy and started to run it's economy like one. The US tried to get a new government installed but failed and so it turned to new methods.

 

We decided to influence the country's elections. Here is a quote from noam chomsky that sums up very well what happened in Nicaragua:

 

Suppose that some power of unimaginable strength were to threaten to reduce the United States to the level of Ethiopia unless we voted for its candidates, demonstrating that the threat was real. Suppose that we refused, and the threat was then carried out, the country brought to its knees, the economy wrecked and millions killed. Suppose, finally, that the threat were repeated, loud and clear, at the time of the next scheduled elections. Under such conditions, only the most extreme hypocrite would speak of a free election. Furthermore, it is likely that close to 100% of the population would succumb.

 

Apart from the last sentence, I have just described U.S.-Nicaraguan relations for the last decade.

 

What happened was this, the US litterally went to Nicaragua and said "if you don't vote for our candidate we'll blow your country to kingdom come!" When the civilians didn't respond to this threat we made good on it by leveling most of the coast of the country. That got through to them.

 

EDIT:: I would also like to point out that the World Court issued a judgement on the US for it's actions in Nicaragua and condemned us for terrorist activities and ordered us to stop. The US vetod the bill. The only reason that this happened only in Nicaragua is because the US usually gets the people's own governement to supress is't people and therefor no one appeals to the world court.

 

But how about Afghanistan? I would consider cutting the food supply to millions of the poorest people in the world a form of terrorism. The idea being to rouse support for the US forces as they work to remove the government. Killing many many civilians in the process.

 

as far as Saddam Housein goes, this again is NOT a bout of revenge! again it is just part of narrow minded anti foreigner american thought process

What?! Of course this isn't about revenge! It's about oil! However, revenge does factor into this quite a bit. Or don't you remember that Iraq was supposed to have ties to the terrorist organization Al-Queda... and we all remember what THEY did.

 

bush noticed that there was a country that was under cruel dictatorship and was showing signs of producing weapons of mass destruction.

Sigh... Bush had NO EVIDENCE of WMDs. His intellegence was flawed and everyone knew it, his staff is backpeddling so fast about that right now that it would almost be funny were it not for the fact that their lies cost untold numbers of lives.

 

Remember how last year's state of the union adress had many very firm points on Iraq? "They HAVE WMDs", "They HAVE connections to terrorists". After a while this changed to "We have evidence that they may possibly perhaps have thought at one time about purchasing the tools needed to build a nuclear weapon... maybe". What happened to the complete conviction that Saddam had these weapons?! Well, it didn't matter becasue Bush has much of this population trained to the point that all he has to do is mutter the word "Terrorist" and people will rally behind him to do anything he wants. I do like how you said "Showing signs" of producing WMDs, because now of course no one can say that Iraq actually HAS these weapons. That's not the way it was a few months ago when we sent our servicemen over to die and to kill.

 

Remember the documents that supposedly proved that Saddam was planning to buy uranium? The documents were false and it seemed that everyone except the US and Brittan knew about these documents and that they were false...

 

Cruel dictatorship? That had nothing to do with it. I can list you about 10 countries right now that have worse dictatorships than Iraq yet we havn't done anything to help liberate those countries.

 

even though they had found almost no proof of these weapons the components to make them were found. and dont tell me you wouldnt lose a little sleep over the anthrax outbreak

I'm not too sure that they actually did find anything like this actually. I do know that we have found 15 year old chemical weapons that the US gave Saddam in the war against Iraq (another US sponsored act of terroism I might add). But I'm pretty sure that's all we've found other than some sites for building shortrange missles (the regular kind). However, I could be wrong. But even if I am wrong there is still the point that had these weapons ever been made there was no threat to the US. His missles could only reach about 100 miles oustide his border and we had him under such tight survalience that if he used these weapons we would know.

 

Tell me this, why did we go guns-ablazing into Iraq knowing that Saddam had WMDs and Chemical weapons galore as well as being a completely insane and cruel man? Dont you think it's not a good idea to corner such a man? What might that kind of person do when they realise the noose is slipping over their head? Of course it's a bad idea to attack a country with WMDs and a fairly unbalanced government, that's why we aren't in North Korea right now. They actually DO have weapons, they actually HAVE threatened to "turn America into a sea of fire", and they actually ARE insane. Bush isn't stupid (no matter what people say) and he wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

 

first, calm the people using religious symbols

...yeah like calling the war on terrorism a "crusade"? Very smart.

 

[i'm gonna ignore your next two 'points' because i've already covered them]

 

and fourth and most important uphold the ideas of liberty where ever we go, in order to do so the US had to make rid of Saddam's regime and restore fredom to the people

Again, i've already covered this but I think it deserves another look. Upholding the ideas of liberty wherever we go? Hmm.... I dont' think we have a very good record on this, and especailly not in Iraq.

 

they have just recently put into place the new democracy and leaders of iraq.

no, they have just put in a puppet regime that has no real power and never will, it's not in our interest to have a free government in Iraq, it's much bettter for us to run it.

 

didn't you see how happy htose people looked that the tyranny is no more?

Did you? Sure, they're happy that saddam isn't there anymore but they sure as heck arn't happy that we are! Actually the general concensus is that things are worse now Iraq than they were when Saddam was dictator. Anti-american rebels are growing by the day due to our occupation and we wonder why.

 

cuz if everyone votes Kerry and and theres an even bigger attack you'll all be whinin about 'oh god kerry thiz an that ****'

As I recall, we all rallied behind Bush when the attacks of 911 happened. Slowly though after he made bad decision after bad decision we started to back away from him. Kerry would have to be just as inept for me to be saying "oh god kerry thiz [sic] an [sic] that ****".

 

just get your facts straight before you post, or think, or talk. theres nothing worse to me than an ignorant fool flapping his cheeks.

Amen to that brother, finally something we agree on.

 

EDIT:: LOL I'd say that 2 posts saying almost the same thing is pretty good... I think you should take this post out of your signature Untouchable... you didn't do a good job hammering us.

 

EDIT2:: I've read your other examples of "hammering". My advice is to stick to debating how which wizard has better HP and stay out of politics.

[Untouchable1]

edit- not directed to Surian, you just posted before i was finished.

 

have a cow... (does he always pick apart people's posts like this?) ...hold onto something, because you're about to recieve a lyrical V2 counter-attack:

 

when 9-11 happened the war that proceeded was not one of revenge, that is just the mindset of millions of nieve american people

 

 

Afganistan was not a war of revenge...it was damage control. Bush had to make up for complely missing warning signs of 9/11.

 

also true. EVERYONE had to make up for ignoring Laden's threats. *a petty handclap* arent you proud

 

bush realized that in fact there was still a thriving terrorist threat to the world, and if it can hijack four planes and place nearly all of them at extremely important targets then it must be dealt with.

 

 

There was enough intelligence beforehand, as well as numerous other terrorist attacks that should have alerted him to the probability of an attack.

 

attacks which probly lulled the government into an 'oh another terrorist attack, overseas again' kind of attitude. if someone on the street mugs at you every day on your way to work but doesnt take any real action you area going to naturally assume he is harmless. untill he pulls a knife on you then it actually becomes a story.

 

as for the recession, bush didnt create it, he inherited it.

 

 

Negative...9/11 caused a massive slump in the economy that turned into a recession when Bush did nothing to fix it. He made 2 wasteful taxcuts for the wealthy that have expanded the national debt tremenously.

 

it was bound to come someday and it was only made worse by 9-11

 

guess you missed that didnt you? his FIRST action in office was the tax cut. yes i agree it was wasteful and perhaps even just a ploy to get people to like him. but it was working and he had already promised and signed on the next one when 9-11 happened. turning the tax cut plan against him. but again, that wasnt his doing.

 

and he did NOT go into afghanistan to destroy everything and officials made a POINT to indicate that it was only terrorist camps he was bombong.

 

 

Bombs didn't fall entirely on terrorist camps. In no war ever will the bombs always be on target. There were cases during the war in Afganistan where villages were hit that had no terrorists in at all.

 

well i tried to tie any loose ends on the post up so people wouldnt specificly look for complications and pick them apart, but i guess i missed this one. of course bombs dont ALWAYS hit their targets. and the gov made an effort to say that they were going after SPSPECTED terrorist camps.

 

as far as Saddam Housein goes, this again is NOT a bout of revenge! again it is just part of narrow minded anti foreigner american thought process

 

 

Many Americans do have very narrow thought processes...but asserting that all Americans are this way is very telling of your own thought process...

 

(stop! get away from the keyboard and put down the flame! i know you all arent like that, you think im stupid or something? [yeah, u quote me on that you male without a father])

 

SCORE! another preemptive flame intercepted by Untouchable1 (just like now when you are most likely thinking of going through my backposts to prove me wrong?) reading too fast again, tsk, tsk.

 

bush noticed that there was a country that was under cruel dictatorship

 

 

Most certainly Iraq was under a cruel dictatorship. But so are dozens of other countries. Why don't we go liberate them? Freeing the people of Iraq had nothing to do with Bush's decision to attack Iraq, it was merely an excuse when no weapons of mass destruction were found.

 

do you remember in Morrowind when you probly asked a guard 'why dont you go kill all the bandits' and he replies 'the legion doesnt have the manpower or the funds to undertake such a task and weed them all out' or something to that extent. I suppose YOU have several Billion $ to give to the government to start programs of global liberation, especially after they suffered such a huge blow? no? well then leave it.

 

bush noticed that there was a country that was under cruel dictatorship

 

 

There was little or no real evidence that weapons of mass destruction were being produced. Much of the evidence given by Bush and his administration was either forged or woefully outdated. In the case of the document that supposedly proved that Iraq was ordering uranium, the forgery was embarassingly bad. The name of the official that supposedly signed the document was an official who had been out of power for over a decade.

 

and like yourself would just assume they have nothing when they deny your inspectors important documents and access to some rooms of the facility. im not talking about forged evidence or what not, but rather the denial of evidence by Iraqi weapons facilities.

 

nobody in this room can tell me you as the president wouldnt be scared when the UN weapons inspections turned up shifty. even though they had found almost no proof of these weapons the components to make them were found.

 

 

The inspectors entered Iraq, found nothing. Why should you automatically assume they were lying? I don't necessarily like Blix, but I trust that his inspectors found exactly what they reported finding, nothing.

 

^ please refer to the above verbal AK assault ^

 

and dont tell me you wouldnt lose a little sleep over the anthrax outbreak.

 

 

I live less than two miles away from the post office that those letters were sent from, of course I "lost sleep". But what does that anthrax have to to with Saddam?

 

the thread went from Farenheit 9-11 to a Bush flame war. dont get me wrong im not tryna defend bush but instead just trying to put a stop to people hating bush and not really knowing why or understanding how really all of this could have happened to anyone. like if Gore was pres it would be generally the same way except youd all be whinin about him. anthrax has almost nothing to do with saddam but more with how the pres that ur flaming handled it.

 

ultimately the point im trying to get across it that no matter what right minded and intelligent person was put into office they would have made the same choices:

 

 

Hell no.

 

so... you're telling me and all the americans in this room that after 9-11 you, as pres, would just sit back, arms crossed and let all hell break loose over there and in here. if thats the case im sure anyone would pick bush over you for prez.

 

first, calm the people using religious symbols and make sure they dont get the wrong idea about what we are about to do over there,

 

 

What? When did Bush do this? It probably isn't a lack of religious symbols that might give people the wrong idea...it's probably the bombs raining down.

 

apparently you were too busy flaming bush back in 02 to see all his speeches on tv. hes trying to appeal to two audiences. first the survivors of 9-11 with words of compassion and patriotism. then to the military and political critics with the 'shock and awe' routine.

 

third expanding on that go into iraq and rid them of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of said terrorists,

 

 

There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Iraq was no threat at all to America in any way. All that was accomplished by attacking Iraq was drawing further support for terrorist groups.

 

no duh the terrorist groups were outraged at this. but why would Saddam act like he's hiding something when hes not? why wouldnt he allow inspectors to make a full survey of the facilities? oh and in case you havent noticed (still u are too busy flaming bush to see) we have Saddam in custody. accomplishment? i think so.

 

fourth and most important uphold the ideas of liberty where ever we go, in order to do so the US had to make rid of Saddam's regime and restore fredom to the people (some of which are just as nieve and inti foreigner as some dumb americans but still equally are NOT the enemy).

 

 

As I said before, we did NOT go to Iraq to free anyone. We attacked because Bush told us, and lied about it, that we were in immediate danger.

 

if not then why the hell are we doin it? and why did we look so hard for saddam? and why are the Iraqu children singing and dancing and burning flags of him? and why did Bush SPECIFICLY SAY were going in there to liberate them? (too busy mast... or flaming bush again to see huh?)

 

they have just recently put into place the new democracy and leaders of iraq.

 

 

That government is only being held together by American lives, when we withdraw our troops the country will fall into anarchy.

 

well if it does we can always ask em if they want more help to start anew. they even tossed around the idea of putting whites in office there but that would be an atrocity. unless they specifically asked us to.

 

it is obvious that bush, as any president would have done, is on the right track and that any unfortunate events that happened along the way are in no way his fault and could have happened to any president.

 

 

He's not on the right track, he's landed us into another Vietnam. Any decent president wouldn't have preemptively attacked a country that was in no way a threat.

 

^ revisit the 'hiding weapons' and 'if you were pres' post because i bet you didnt read it the first time ^

 

that any unfortunate events that happened along the way are in no way his fault and could have happened to any president.

 

 

If you are talking about 9/11, then yes, it wasn't entirely his fault. If you mean the unfortunate events in Iraq, then you're completely wrong. The war in Iraq was preventable.

 

yes it was his call to go into iraq.... so? again if you wouldnt do the same thing given the situation you would have reached an even greater pennacle of hatred from the american people. especially if something worse happened as a result.

 

therefore oyu should lighten up on the 'bush this' and 'bush that' cuz if everyone votes Kerry and and theres an even bigger attack you'll all be whinin about 'oh god kerry thiz an that ****'

 

 

I'll only whine about "oh god kerry thiz an that" if Kerry is an complete and utter disgrace to his country as Bush has been.

 

oh you mean like by trying to prevent another 9-11 while simultaneously liberating a severely over-oppressed country? are you John Walker Lindh by any chance?

 

just get your facts straight before you post, or think, or talk. theres nothing worse to me than an ignorant fool flapping his cheeks.

 

 

I say the same right back to you. It seems that you have very little idea of what you're talking about.

 

have you ever had anyone say something they thought was really bad@zz but really its so moronic and pointless that you are left speechless because nothing ever said in any language can negatively match the severe braindeadness of the statement that just entered your ears? yeah, thats how i feel right about now :o

 

you all just witnessed what i am puto on this earth to do.

 

 

Thank you Jesus, we've all been enlightened by your posts. Thank God that you've come down from heaven to save our poor souls..*rolls eyes*

 

when someone flames you so bad your like above :o and i come in and lyracly save the day, effectively demoralizing that user from ever posting such nonsense again, you'll th... oh wait no you wont. humans...

 

Also, check this out http://www.u-aizu.ac.jp/~tripp/cap.html you could really learn something here.

 

well it looks like you effectively sucked my post to death and picked it apart easy enough without capitalization. and thats all you really need to feed, righ Post Vamp?

 

anyone who frequently makes uneducated or immature spam posts should get used to being hammered, or get a bigger shield...

 

 

It seems your a bit over due for a hammering...If your other spam-hammering posts are as solid as this one...you need to find a new title.

 

*works hard to pull the bloody Warhammer of Verbal Smiting out of the carcass of Post Vamp and walks off*