What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NFT: Fahrenheit 9/11

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,938
er...they sat back for 30 years and let him do whatever he wanted to the people of Iraq. I'm not going to swallow the "liberating Iraq" crap.

i'm prepared to criticise Moore when he is wrong - I have done it all the way through this thread, and the other Moore thread you started. you are the one with the issues - you openly admit you are so anti-Moore you wont give him credit for what he is right in?
 

Terminator

First Grade
Messages
6,303
Alex28 said:
ahhh...but Termi...Iraq didn't do anything wrong in regards to 9/11 - they have no proof that Hussein has any connection to Bin Laden. It was convenient to go into Iraq while they were over in Afghanistan (or to be more precise - when they failed to get Bin Laden). It is also convenient that dubya's dad failed to get Hussein as well.
Alex28 said:
They both hate the US and its allies, isnt that a connection?
Bush senior choked at a vital point in history, and the brave citizens of Basra payed a horrible price for being let down, he should have kept going onto Baghdad, strike while the irons hot as the saying goes.

if bush was retaliating to 9/11, he would have stayed focused on getting Bin Laden. he couldn't get him, so they got the next best thing.

Well why not, if your over there you might as well do something good, your expecting too much too soon for this kind of war, which puts conventional forces against guerillas, it'll take a bit longer to get Osama, but they will get him.
All they have to do is keep trying, he cant run for ever.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,938
you attack everyone who doesnt like you? here's one for you - China isn't very fond of the States, and have a track record of not treating their people very well (particularly in Tibet). do you invade China?

hell no! they have nothing the US wants, and is now becoming an important trade partner. you overlook the treatment of their people when there is money to be made.

there was money to be made in invading Iraq as well. not only gaining control of one of the world's largest oil supplies, lots of US countries make alot of money in re-building Iraq.


Mate - I'm all for going after Bin Laden. 9/11 was a tragedy that should never be allowed to happen again and he should be brought to justice. Iraq is a completely different matter...
 

Terminator

First Grade
Messages
6,303
Alex28 said:
er...they sat back for 30 years and let him do whatever he wanted to the people of Iraq. I'm not going to swallow the "liberating Iraq" crap.
Alex28 said:
But thats not the point Alex, the point is nobody in the public cared, about the Iraqis until their governments sent troops into the middle east, and then their all of a sudden their incredibly concerned for the health and well being of the Iraqis.

i'm prepared to criticise Moore when he is wrong - I have done it all the way through this thread, and the other Moore thread you started. you are the one with the issues - you openly admit you are so anti-Moore you wont give him credit for what he is right in?

Hes right about some things, anyone is capable of that, he used to have a show on telly about busting corperations for false advertizing, and generally exposed other bullshit merchants, but now he is attacking his own government at a really bad time, which says he's only trying to make some money, because thats what Mr.Michael Moore really cares about.
Although I detest him and I'm not any wishing harm on him, I dont give him much longer.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,938
Thats right...nobody cared...so why go in now? Their initial reasons for invading Iraq were flawed so they justify it by 'liberating Iraq'. I assure you if they didn't make their hatred of American and their alies so public Hussein would still be there torutreing his people...or would he? They still have an awful lot of Oil they control as well...


You are right about 'The Awful Truth' - brilliant show - worth getting on DVD if you can. He also attacked the government on that show as well about the treatment of the poor in the US (there was a clip on the show where he rented storage units to house homeless americans as a protest about the American Welfare System) - note that was when Clinton was in power...so he isn't just anti-Bush - he is anti-dodgy american president.

He isn't aiming to profit out of 9/11. He is aiming to educate American voters in what exactly Bush is doing and how he is doing it. It is flawed I admit that. I'm sure he didn't aim to make a loss in making the film, but it should be noted that he didn't actually produce the film, so he wont get the lion share of the profits.
 

Terminator

First Grade
Messages
6,303
Alex28 said:
you attack everyone who doesnt like you? here's one for you - China isn't very fond of the States, and have a track record of not treating their people very well (particularly in Tibet). do you invade China?
Alex28 said:
Its not a schoolyard Alex, declaring war on a nation is an incredibly serious matter, and not one undertaken lightly.
China isnt fond of anyone really, and the States would not invade China for any reason as it would be sucicidal to do so, its a case of just doing what you can.
If things got that heated between the States and China the US would nuke China not invade it.

hell no! they have nothing the US wants, and is now becoming an important trade partner. you overlook the treatment of their people when there is money to be made.

Trade is important and the US having more interests in China could be beneficial for the Tibetanese in the long term if human rights are bought up during trade deals.

there was money to be made in invading Iraq as well. not only gaining control of one of the world's largest oil supplies, lots of US countries make alot of money in re-building Iraq.

So if that the case about the oil, why didnt Bush Senior invade, he had Baghdad at his mercy.
Companies always make profits from war, thats just a natural spinoff, I dont believe it was the US governments main intention for invading Iraq.


Mate - I'm all for going after Bin Laden. 9/11 was a tragedy that should never be allowed to happen again and he should be brought to justice. Iraq is a completely different matter...

Still a matter that had to be dealt with, dont forget the US put Saddam up there in power back in the seventies.
And if you make a mistake you should clean it up.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,938
So it is alright for corporations to make a profit out of war, but not alright for Moore to make money out of a film based around the war? quite the double standard you have there...

Bush Senior did invade - the bombed the shit out of Iraq and didn't get Hussein. Bush Junior finished off what Senior started.

Of course you dont invade China...it is an example of not invading every country that doesn't like you...

And if Bin Laden is "still a matter to be dealt with", why the hell aren't they in Afghanistan getting him?
 

Kaz

junior
Messages
6,376
Terminator said:
Kaz said:
Bush was planning to attack Iraq before 9/11 happened.
Whats your proof?
And try to come up with something Moore hasnt fed to you first.


http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President


By Neil Mackay


A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.

The PNAC report also:

l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';

l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';

l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;

l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';

l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';

l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;

l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool';

l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide command-and-control system'.

Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.

'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html

Corroborating O’Neill’s Account
Official Confirms Claims That Saddam Was Bush’s Focus Before 9/11

By John Cochran

Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in a book written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.
 

Misanthrope

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
47,627
:shock: Eep.

Makes you wonder if Iraq is who we should really be worrying about, downunder.
 

Alex28

Coach
Messages
11,938
come on Termi...i've enjoyed tonights discussion without the name calling...you've done pretty well so far. dont stoop to that stuff...
 

Terminator

First Grade
Messages
6,303
Alex28 said:
come on Termi...i've enjoyed tonights discussion without the name calling...you've done pretty well so far. dont stoop to that stuff...
Yeah well its not like their anyone important.
 

millersnose

Post Whore
Messages
65,223
Alex28 said:
ok...your faults in the media challenge...

your challenge is rediculous - 60 errors in a 2 hour movie, and you want 6 errors in a 2 minute maximum news clip? you dont want much...

plenty of news peices run for aver an hour

bbc cnn fox and thousands of others put on peices that go for some weeks tallying up hours of air time


it seems to me you are unable to back your claim

if that is the case you should concede the point
 

Latest posts

Top