by catchthis 102 Replies latest social entertainment
I wish they'd play this movie in my area, but since this is a conservative, Christian, republican area they probably won't. A friend called one of the movie theaters and they basically laughed at him when he asked if they were going to show this movie.
I'll have to travel to the left side (I mean west side ) of the state to see this movie.
What was the difference? "See" or "understand"? What are these vast differences you speak of? That the U.N., France and Germany didn't want to lose those Oil for Food kick backs in Iraq? One President was a Democrat, the other a Republican? That Bill Clinton/Wesley Clark/NATO bombing killed more civilians then the Serbs acts of genocide did with their 70+ day non-stop bombings? That Bill Clintion attacked multiple countries that never did anything to the USA or it's allies and call it "preventative", while Bush rightfully targets Iraq for targeting our planes in the No-Fly-Zone, did target our allies and US Interests, but then it is called "preemptive"? That Bush actually FOLLOWED local law (The US Constitution) by getting approval from congress AND by following International Law by attempting to get approval from the United Nations before hand (before bombs dropped), while Bill Clintion did neither in any of his cases?
Michael Moore supported General Wesley Clark for president. The very guy who ran that operation. Almost started WWIV by provoking the Russians on the ground. Ended up getting relieved over that incident. General Clark wanted a wider war... more bombs! And in Bowling for Columbine, MMoore was trying to make a case against violence. Yet he supports a man that admits NATO mostly targeted Civilian targets/infrustructure but didn't stop the bombing. Peace has yet to be accomplished there to this day.
Even a San Francisco newspaper says Iraq is more justified then just one of Clintons wars. San Francisco for crying out loud!
President Clinton gave this reason for going to war: "to protect thousands of innocent people...to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg...the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting...dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests... key U.S. allies could be drawn into a wider conflict - a war we would be forced to confront later, only at far greater risk and greater cost. ...our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free Europe." Clinton acted without ever requesting U.N. approval. In fact, Clinton never sought U.N. approval prior to striking Serbia, Sudan, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
Did Clinton lie to get his wars? http://eagleforum.org/column/1999/nov99/99-11-24.html
Can't forget Rwanda.
President Bush had this to say about the Iraq war: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied... some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. The United States...will work to advance liberty and peace in that region...the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence...Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent." Bush spent a great deal of time getting U.N. approval, but was thwarted by Saddam's friend, Chirac of France.
Well Daga, let's turn it around. Please, answer intelligently and honestly. How many shells filled with Sarin or mustard gas (which we've all been well aware of for a very long time) would you be willing to give you or your child's life for? How many shells (which we've all been well aware of for a very long time) would you say merit's killing innocent people with "collateral damage" (which is a fact of war)?
Here is the comment I made on FMZ's Michael Moore is an apostate thread:
Andy and I went to see this movie last night. It was a very good one, too. One thing I want to stress here: this movie doesn't let the democrats off the hook either. If you're conservative. If you're a republican. If you're moderate to the left or moderate to the right. If you're a democrat. You should see this movie. It's very eye opening. Go in with an open mind.
Flyin'
One thing I gleaned, doncha love that word gleaned, is that the wealthy elite are behind more than we could all ever dream and a lot of it is very bad.
From the movie and summarized by me: George Bush is speaking at a gala affair. He addresses them as the "Have and have mores." He tells them that some people call them the elite. He tells them he calls them his base. He knows which side his political bread is buttered on.
Flyin'
Daga, you aren't even close, and worse, you seem to be using news clippings as proxy for a brain. As it happens, Clinton was right about Bosnia and Kosovo (and why wouldn't he be right? he applied formidable brainpower and he listened to people who actually knew what they were talking about) and Bush was and is wrong about Iraq (and why wouldn't he be wrong?). This much is obvious.
Why are you calling me "Daga"? I will assume you're thinking I was another poster. *sigh* If you think I'm using multiple nicks/handles, contact the site admin and confirm my IP & traceroute. Is it because someone else is posting things that don't fit your world view, you jump the gun and assume these people are the same person?
Daga, you aren't even close, and worse, you seem to be using news clippings as proxy for a brain.
Where's your proof to backup your claims? Why is it that violence has been erupting, and rising? Why do the majority want Milosevic freed and restored to power?
As it happens, Clinton was right about Bosnia and Kosovo
Evidence? What exactly was Clintons justification for going into those countries? A humanitarian issues. And he inflated the numbers in order to get support from the American public.
(and why wouldn't he be right? he applied formidable brainpower and he listened to people who actually knew what they were talking about)
Who are these people? Who are these people that caused in 78 days of bombing, 100 billion in damage for a small country? Who are these people who killed more civilians then then the Serbs did before we started bombing?
and Bush was and is wrong about Iraq (and why wouldn't he be wrong?). This much is obvious.
{sarcasm}Yeah, and it's much obvious that in 1914 Jesus came to Earth invisibly, making it so that 1914 would be the end of times. And in 1975 the world will end also. Why, because I said so.{/sarcasm}
What about Somalia? 19 US soldiers dead in one day. 1000+ enemy/civilians killed. Bill Clinton was right! Why would he be?
:Why do the majority want Milosevic freed and restored to power?
Speaking for myself:
Please, answer intelligently and honestly. How many shells filled with Sarin or mustard gas (which we've all been well aware of for a very long time) would you be willing to give you or your child's life for?
I think it would be wise to stop using the word "child". These are grown men and women you're talking about. Young adults. You are trying to use baby words to envoke the heart strings, while ignoring reality. The majority of parents who's son's and daughter's join a military field end up feeling very proud of them. In my opinion, it would be up to my sons or daughters choice. It's their decision. If they feel they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for others, that is their choice. Would I want them to? No. But then again, that's not my choice. It's theirs. Once they're 18, the world is their oyster. And if they choose to join the military, I will not dishonor them if and when they are deployed by becoming an Anti-War "We Support our Troops when they shoot their officers" activist.
Few people understand why someone will be willing to sacrifice themselves for others who spit venom from their mouths on them. We just celebrated D-Day anniversary and memorial day. Why in the world would those crazy men take the beaches of Omaha and Normandy? Why in the world would colonials fights for others inorder to bring freedom? Why in the world would white people die for black people? Why in the world would Christians & Jews die for Muslims?
In regards to WMD. Keep in mind. That stuff is hard to detect and easy to conseal. It's easy to transport (not the same with radioactive/nuke WMD). It doesn't take much bio-weapons to do damage in a large buildings water supply.... Or working at McDonalds. Chemical-Weapons can be placed in a buildings HVAC system. Sucked right in and dispersed through out an entire building. All you need is a beaker of some chemical agent. If Timothy McVeigh could do it stuff with chemical fertilizer, anyone can. USS Cole proved that.
Certain groups have been trying for over a decade to obtain various types of WMD. And once they do get ahold of that stuff, good luck trying to detect it from coming across ANY countries borders. Then you would definetly need a police state in place to catch that stuff.
How many shells (which we've all been well aware of for a very long time) would you say merit's killing innocent people with "collateral damage" (which is a fact of war)?Since you seem to be "well aware of" these shells: Who has them, how many are there total, and where are they? You seem to be playing both sides of the fence. Those against the Iraq War says Saddam destroyed them (which is why the UN inspectors couldn't find them before March 20th.) Or Saddam hid/moved them. Which story is it that you believe? Obviously Saddam didn't destroyed them, or you wouldn't have brought up this "well aware" stuff. To me, it's not the number, it's who is in possession of them that worries me. Certain groups would love to get their hands on the stuff. I hate collateral damage.
colonel, many of the rest of us who feel the same way you do have had many of the same types of discussions you now find yourself having. good luck!
