StevieD said:
The "RIGHT TIME"
If you were HANGING by your ELBOWS and getting YOUR NADS LIT UP YOU would think it was the 'RIGHT TIME"::
For C-sake , how many more people have to TELL you HORROR stories Stevie before you get a CLUE:shrug:
The lunacy of Michael Moore & Friends
- Thread starter ferdville
- Start date
The "RIGHT TIME"
If you were HANGING by your ELBOWS and getting YOUR NADS LIT UP YOU would think it was the 'RIGHT TIME"::
For C-sake , how many more people have to TELL you HORROR stories Stevie before you get a CLUE:shrug:
Pro, I have a clue. I am not know or have I ever supported Saddam. See that is the problem you guys are having. It is either we support the war or we support Saddam. I still want you to pick out one instance where I said I supported him. If you can't find one where I said it then see if you can find one where Moore or anyone said it. And a stray protestors sign does not count. I do not even support the protests that have stopped traffic and of course I am against the so called protestors who tried to interfer with shipments to the troops.
Chaman, I don't think I have supported Clinton either. I just didn't think a blow job was worth the millions of dollars and man hours of time spent trying to prove it one way or the other.
Just because we do not have the people with the diplomatic skills to pull this off without massive military action does not mean I think Saddam should of stayed.
We threw an aful lot of money at this war. We had casualties. Fortunately not many. There will be more to come as we try to harness that lawless society that is now Iraq.
I think it could of been avoided. I think the people we elect owe it to us not to get us involved in wars. Yeah, I know Hitler sorry but this ain't the same thing.
Chaman, I don't think I have supported Clinton either. I just didn't think a blow job was worth the millions of dollars and man hours of time spent trying to prove it one way or the other.
Just because we do not have the people with the diplomatic skills to pull this off without massive military action does not mean I think Saddam should of stayed.
We threw an aful lot of money at this war. We had casualties. Fortunately not many. There will be more to come as we try to harness that lawless society that is now Iraq.
I think it could of been avoided. I think the people we elect owe it to us not to get us involved in wars. Yeah, I know Hitler sorry but this ain't the same thing.
Respect your opinion StevieD, BUT agree to disagree. I thought it was a waste of $ on Clinton too-he brought it on himself. You are responsible for your actions. What did he expect- Oh Yeah- everybody does it so who cares excuse. Ferdville did not say he would leave the country during Clinton's Term, but he probably would have unlike some Hollywood types. I think WAR should be avoided if at all possible. Guess the WTC, four airplanes & 3000 lives aren't enough hmh
StevieD said:
Clinton had 8yrs to pull it off with his "Diplomatic skills" hmmm didn't SEE that Happen either:::
You saw WHERE Diplomacy got the U.S., the FINGER and Humiliation:::
"I think it could have been AVOIDED" that is the usual banter that rolls out from the left, All Frill but NO Substance, BIG PROTEST but NO ANSWERS to the PROBLEM::AVOIDED, HOW DAMMIT, I want an ANSWER ,not "I THINK":::
When you get done in PARIS and get to your next stop, the UN and Qofi Annans office, the Soldiers and Iraqi people want you to deliver another Heartfelt GIFT:nutkick:
Chan we can agree to disagree. WTC was terrible but don't confuse Hussein with Bin Laden.
Pro, you are too hung up on that conservative radio Fox News right wing crap. I never said Clinton was right. I never said anyone in his administration had the skills to pull it off without bombs. I just said it is a shame we do not those types of people representing us.
Next time you see Limbaugh and Perle tell them I said hello.
Pro, you are too hung up on that conservative radio Fox News right wing crap. I never said Clinton was right. I never said anyone in his administration had the skills to pull it off without bombs. I just said it is a shame we do not those types of people representing us.
Next time you see Limbaugh and Perle tell them I said hello.
The other night on the chris matthews show i saw an interview with someone from the iraqi-american league who said based on their estimations saddam & his crew killed about 3million people since he took control of iraq.
i also saw an interview with a resident who lives in one of iraq's towns who told about about a prison/torture chamber that saddam had installed for boys who refused to serve in the military.This iraqi said that if a boy refuses to join saddam's army the boy would then serve 5 years in prison & be constantly tortured.
The above two examples are not much different that what hitler did.So, i don't know why people refuse to compare saddam to adolph.There are some similarities on the way they ruled.
StevieD,
You keep implying that this administration does not have any diplomatic skills. I disagree with that statement because I feel that Powell has as much diplomatic skills than anyone in any administration, in my lifetime.The problem is, that the administration was playing against a "stacked deck" when they went in front of the un security council.france,germany, & russia had their mind made up to go against any resolution that the US or Britain would propose.Chirac admitted that he would veto any resolution, even without knowing what the resolution would say.And a few weeks ago I posted an article about the german delegate admitting that it would be in germany's best interest to vote against any American resolution, because then the US would come begging to them to change their vote, & germany would be able to make demands on the US.Do a search on that article, if you would like to read it. So, I don't think any diplomat would have succeeded.Additionally, these three countries had illegal deals with saddam & would lose billions of dollars if he would be overthrown.
I read a quote by Richard Roeper(movie critic)that was aimed at the hollywood anti-war crowd that I thought was right on:
"Even though you are among the luckiest and best-rewarded human beings in the history of civilization, you have moaned long and loud about life in the oppressive United States of America. And you have complained that free speech is practically an endangered species--though it's not as if you've been kidnapped, bound and gagged for expressing your views...But I'm just wondering: If you're such a crusader for kindness and decency and the rules of fair play, when are you going to say something about the atrocities committed by Iraqis since this war broke out?"
i also saw an interview with a resident who lives in one of iraq's towns who told about about a prison/torture chamber that saddam had installed for boys who refused to serve in the military.This iraqi said that if a boy refuses to join saddam's army the boy would then serve 5 years in prison & be constantly tortured.
The above two examples are not much different that what hitler did.So, i don't know why people refuse to compare saddam to adolph.There are some similarities on the way they ruled.
StevieD,
You keep implying that this administration does not have any diplomatic skills. I disagree with that statement because I feel that Powell has as much diplomatic skills than anyone in any administration, in my lifetime.The problem is, that the administration was playing against a "stacked deck" when they went in front of the un security council.france,germany, & russia had their mind made up to go against any resolution that the US or Britain would propose.Chirac admitted that he would veto any resolution, even without knowing what the resolution would say.And a few weeks ago I posted an article about the german delegate admitting that it would be in germany's best interest to vote against any American resolution, because then the US would come begging to them to change their vote, & germany would be able to make demands on the US.Do a search on that article, if you would like to read it. So, I don't think any diplomat would have succeeded.Additionally, these three countries had illegal deals with saddam & would lose billions of dollars if he would be overthrown.
I read a quote by Richard Roeper(movie critic)that was aimed at the hollywood anti-war crowd that I thought was right on:
"Even though you are among the luckiest and best-rewarded human beings in the history of civilization, you have moaned long and loud about life in the oppressive United States of America. And you have complained that free speech is practically an endangered species--though it's not as if you've been kidnapped, bound and gagged for expressing your views...But I'm just wondering: If you're such a crusader for kindness and decency and the rules of fair play, when are you going to say something about the atrocities committed by Iraqis since this war broke out?"
AR182- didn't read your post before I read same Roeper article. I think some people just have that Bunker Mentality and nothing will change their minds. I was thinking what you put into words.
The administration has failed diplomatically since the beginning. Rumsfield calling out "the old europe", ridiculing the UN's place and it's decisions and Bush's use of Texas' expressions at every major speech when we were supposed to showing the world that we weren't acting like a Cowboy. We use Spain and Portugal to make it look like our coalition is more than the US and Great Britain and then neither are invited to Camp David leaving them out to dry with their oppositions in their governments on a war that is unpopular with their constituents anyway. And we then release the bravery of the Polish Special Ops teams that were in Iraq to again make it look like more countries are involved, but their Government hasn't even told their people that they're involved.
The lack of common sense in foreign relations is "the" weakness of the Bush administration. But, they were selected at a time when our government was going to be more isolationist.
And why this straight-shooting talk is an attribute that is commended by some, it also will cost you and I money in the long run.
The lack of common sense in foreign relations is "the" weakness of the Bush administration. But, they were selected at a time when our government was going to be more isolationist.
And why this straight-shooting talk is an attribute that is commended by some, it also will cost you and I money in the long run.
does anyone think
does anyone think
that if nothing were done,that we wouldn`t be revisiting this issue 5 or 10 years down the road?....at some point,enough is enough....especially for a guy who was on the way to getting nukes in the mid 80`s....and probably would`ve used them in the gulf war on israel,instead of scuds(he professed to that)....if his FRENCH BUILT nuclear reactor wasn`t bombed by israel...the guy is ballsy and crazy....a war with israel,starting a middle eastern holy war...maybe ww3.....fecking up the whole middle east and the world`s oil supply....whoa....
we are a bit hamstrung by n korea`s nuclear capability....next iran...maybe old russian cold war nuclear weapons that are unaccounted for floating around....the cat`s kinda` out of the bag...
somebody had to say,"hold it right there".......and maybe send a message to these maniacs that sombody may be willing to take a stand...not just sit on their hands...
does anyone think
that if nothing were done,that we wouldn`t be revisiting this issue 5 or 10 years down the road?....at some point,enough is enough....especially for a guy who was on the way to getting nukes in the mid 80`s....and probably would`ve used them in the gulf war on israel,instead of scuds(he professed to that)....if his FRENCH BUILT nuclear reactor wasn`t bombed by israel...the guy is ballsy and crazy....a war with israel,starting a middle eastern holy war...maybe ww3.....fecking up the whole middle east and the world`s oil supply....whoa....
we are a bit hamstrung by n korea`s nuclear capability....next iran...maybe old russian cold war nuclear weapons that are unaccounted for floating around....the cat`s kinda` out of the bag...
somebody had to say,"hold it right there".......and maybe send a message to these maniacs that sombody may be willing to take a stand...not just sit on their hands...
I welcome all the opinions, but still maintain that some people will never be satisfied. No Matter what you think- you can bet that those Iraqi pictures were worth a thousand words to N. Korea.
Nick - having attended and graduated from USC myself, I am pretty sure you can read.
Stevie - you appear to be very literate and I assume you can read as well.
My comments were directed at the hypocracy shown by Moore and his ilk. He says the election was "fictitious". Well, if so, that has some pretty serious implications. As I said before, if this election was "fixed", what would stop "them" from fixing all elections? Similarly, if this war is all about helping Cheney's friends at Haliburton make money, more very serious implications. This would mean that this would be the most corrupt and immoral administration in the history of the United States. If I felt this to be the case as Moore has stated, why stay? The deck is stacked against you.
Somehow you have extrapolated from these comments that I should have left when Clinton was president. May I suggest that you take a course in logic. Nick - you have no excuse, I know they have classes in logic at USC. At what time have I or did I accuse Clinton of rigging elections? Go ahead - point that out. At what time did I accuse Clinton or his cronies of starting a war for financial gain? Go ahead - point it out.
While we all wait for you to make this leap in logic try to understand how the technique of distorting the truth works - especially for the simple minded that won't take the time to actually read and attempt to comprehend what is being said. I anxiously await your attempt to tie the statements in my post or any other post to words where I have accused Clinton or anyone else of winning a "fictitious" election or starting a war for personal gain. Put up or shut up.
Stevie - you appear to be very literate and I assume you can read as well.
My comments were directed at the hypocracy shown by Moore and his ilk. He says the election was "fictitious". Well, if so, that has some pretty serious implications. As I said before, if this election was "fixed", what would stop "them" from fixing all elections? Similarly, if this war is all about helping Cheney's friends at Haliburton make money, more very serious implications. This would mean that this would be the most corrupt and immoral administration in the history of the United States. If I felt this to be the case as Moore has stated, why stay? The deck is stacked against you.
Somehow you have extrapolated from these comments that I should have left when Clinton was president. May I suggest that you take a course in logic. Nick - you have no excuse, I know they have classes in logic at USC. At what time have I or did I accuse Clinton of rigging elections? Go ahead - point that out. At what time did I accuse Clinton or his cronies of starting a war for financial gain? Go ahead - point it out.
While we all wait for you to make this leap in logic try to understand how the technique of distorting the truth works - especially for the simple minded that won't take the time to actually read and attempt to comprehend what is being said. I anxiously await your attempt to tie the statements in my post or any other post to words where I have accused Clinton or anyone else of winning a "fictitious" election or starting a war for personal gain. Put up or shut up.
Ferdville -- you wrote this:
Imagine for a moment that you believe firmly, as does Mr. Moore, in the utter, absolute truth of the following:
1. Bush is a fictitious president who "won" a fictitious election.
2. The war in Iraq is a fictitious war fought for oil, Cheney's friends at Haliburton, and Jrs revenge.
If you honestly believed this, I can only see 2 courses of action you could take. One would be to leave the country. Two would be to start an armed revolution to take over the government. I notice that Moore, Penn, Streisand, et al have done neither.
Cutting through some of it, you basically asked "if you don't like what this administration is doing, why stay?"
StevieD asked you back: Did you like all of what Clinton's administration was doing and if not, why did you stay?
Your original question is what was so illogical, and StevieD's question was an attempt to point that out.
You wrote "I can only see 2 courses of action you could take. One would be to leave the country. Two would be to start an armed revolution to take over the government."
Well . . . try to expand your USC-educated mind to consider a THIRD reasonable course of action. Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)
There are other options besides leaving the country or rising up against it in arms.
Imagine for a moment that you believe firmly, as does Mr. Moore, in the utter, absolute truth of the following:
1. Bush is a fictitious president who "won" a fictitious election.
2. The war in Iraq is a fictitious war fought for oil, Cheney's friends at Haliburton, and Jrs revenge.
If you honestly believed this, I can only see 2 courses of action you could take. One would be to leave the country. Two would be to start an armed revolution to take over the government. I notice that Moore, Penn, Streisand, et al have done neither.
Cutting through some of it, you basically asked "if you don't like what this administration is doing, why stay?"
StevieD asked you back: Did you like all of what Clinton's administration was doing and if not, why did you stay?
Your original question is what was so illogical, and StevieD's question was an attempt to point that out.
You wrote "I can only see 2 courses of action you could take. One would be to leave the country. Two would be to start an armed revolution to take over the government."
Well . . . try to expand your USC-educated mind to consider a THIRD reasonable course of action. Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)
There are other options besides leaving the country or rising up against it in arms.
I don't think anyone has a problem w/your last paragraph Shrimp. But its the people like Chrissie Hyndes, San Francisco protestors, etc. that p*ss people off. It really makes one wonder what would happen to these types if it was as bad as they say. Read some of their comments. I'm sure the parents of slain Columbine HS students feel better about Moore's "Documentary." Is it going to change anything-No. Is it going to make him $- Yes. Easy to run down the powers that be isn't it? How about some constructive criticism? Flash called him an American Hero. Really!We are in deep sh*t if that is the case.
Even his most recent thoughts on the war are "snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory." How about a Documentary on Iraq ? And remember the definition of a Documentary.
And 'Thank God' the Wooden Indian, (Gore), isn't Commander -in-Chief.
We have it so good compared to most other countries that we often forget to stop and reflect.
Moore does has a right to his opinions- the fat piece of Sh*t.
Even his most recent thoughts on the war are "snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory." How about a Documentary on Iraq ? And remember the definition of a Documentary.
And 'Thank God' the Wooden Indian, (Gore), isn't Commander -in-Chief.
We have it so good compared to most other countries that we often forget to stop and reflect.
Moore does has a right to his opinions- the fat piece of Sh*t.
Well Shrimp, in your imaginary world, staying here to "work within the system" shows another complete disregard for the facts. How would you work within a system that was going so far as to rig an election? How would you work within the system to curb the power of an administration that would wage war for personal gain? Good luck working in that system. Your next distortion is that my premise was illogical. Please - take your time - point out the many ways it is illogical. Attempts at distraction, throwing in a red herring or ad hominem attacks won't do. Stick to black and white. I suppose you would have urged the Iraqui citizens to
" Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)." I wonder why that didn't work for them? Maybe the Germans and the world would have been better off if their people had simply listened to your plan - "Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)" Your words not mine. I would suggest that any administration that would fix elections and start wars for personal gain as Moore clearly suggests, would hardly be swayed by someone whose plan of action was to "Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)."
" Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)." I wonder why that didn't work for them? Maybe the Germans and the world would have been better off if their people had simply listened to your plan - "Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)" Your words not mine. I would suggest that any administration that would fix elections and start wars for personal gain as Moore clearly suggests, would hardly be swayed by someone whose plan of action was to "Stay in the country, disapprove of what the administration is doing, and work with the power you have within the system to change it (e.g. vote, write letters, campaign for the opposition, etc. etc. etc.)."
Dear Stevie , Shrimp, and Nick;
WTF is wrong with you, the Bush Statesmen are not competent to attain victory through Diplomacy, 8 yrs of Clinton produced NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cut to the FACTS::
Many of the Iraqi people would still be either impoverished,tortured,raped,gassed,executed,starved,etc etc if you nitwits were in charge ::
You have been proven Blatently wrong about the War so NOW you attack the next aspect;Iraqi Reform:OH MY GOODNESS there is some looting and lawlessness, WHAT THE HELL IS RAPE,TORTURE,PLUNDER, MURDER etc etc:::FOR DECADES NOT DAYS!!!!
9 months from now Iraq will be the Envy of the Middle East, with some Flaws, but if they had your way during and after the next 9 months people would still be hung by there elbows and be getting High Voltage run through there NUTS!!
WTF is wrong with you, the Bush Statesmen are not competent to attain victory through Diplomacy, 8 yrs of Clinton produced NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cut to the FACTS::
Many of the Iraqi people would still be either impoverished,tortured,raped,gassed,executed,starved,etc etc if you nitwits were in charge ::
You have been proven Blatently wrong about the War so NOW you attack the next aspect;Iraqi Reform:OH MY GOODNESS there is some looting and lawlessness, WHAT THE HELL IS RAPE,TORTURE,PLUNDER, MURDER etc etc:::FOR DECADES NOT DAYS!!!!
9 months from now Iraq will be the Envy of the Middle East, with some Flaws, but if they had your way during and after the next 9 months people would still be hung by there elbows and be getting High Voltage run through there NUTS!!
PRO190,
You are an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. I just want to get that out of the way.
How on earth are people who opposed the invasion of Iraq "wrong"? What, you think people thought that Iraq would win? You think people thought that Iraqi's would not embrace the fall of a brutal dictator? YOU ARE CLUELESS. Shut up already about the Iraqi invasion because every time you post you make yourself look like a bigger idiot and as a proud Wisconsinite I don't want to be painted with that brush.
You are an idiot when it comes to foreign policy. I just want to get that out of the way.
How on earth are people who opposed the invasion of Iraq "wrong"? What, you think people thought that Iraq would win? You think people thought that Iraqi's would not embrace the fall of a brutal dictator? YOU ARE CLUELESS. Shut up already about the Iraqi invasion because every time you post you make yourself look like a bigger idiot and as a proud Wisconsinite I don't want to be painted with that brush.
