Fahrenheit 9/11

Ah yes, those countries whos populace was against this almost as much as the populace in France and Germany yet whos governments decided to go along with it for some economic handouts by the US;

Tell me who said: We were fooled by the US.


[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:

I was talking about Milosevic, not WW2.

And while we're on the topic of WW2, your statement that the US intervened mainly due to money is the most retarded dissolusioned cynical outpouring I've ever heard from a whining conspiracy-theorist like yourself.

If our goverments were as corrupt as you so ridiculously claim why didn't the United states claim mainland Europe after it helped liberate it from the Nazis?

Also, the idea that nations help other nations out of self interest is hardly a revolutionary statement. Isn't that basic fucking human nature? Yes. Saddam was removed becasue Iraq is strategically, militarily and economically more important that other troubled parts of the world, but that goes withoput fucking saying dosen't it? It still dosen't take away from the fact that removing Saddam was a positive thing to accomplish, particularly for the peopel of Iraq. Please let's not forget them when you dribble out our self-rightious nonsense.

Nowhere did I say the coalition acted solely.out a crusading moral cause, although I did mention that this was certainly a part of the equation especially for nations like Romania who've been butt fucked by oppressive regimes in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

what hopper is talking about is very far from conspiracy-theory. there are many ugly facts about that period of time which don't get much mention.

here's one little tidbit illustrating just a few of those ugly facts. hopefully it'll knock some of the ignorance out of your simpleton head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

 

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:

It’s easy for him, and anyone for that matter, to sit back in the comfort of his safe western lifestyle and wave his finger and bitch all day about the war and the terrible loss of civilian life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, actually, it is easier to sit back and say nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
But has this man EVER once provided an alternative strategy to the war or asked himself why Eastern Europe is so keen to help in the struggle in Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, they are mentioned in the film.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Bungle said:

what hopper is talking about is very far from conspiracy-theory. there are many ugly facts about that period of time which don't get much mention.

here's one little tidbit illustrating just a few of those ugly facts. hopefully it'll knock some of the ignorance out of your simpleton head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

You can find something in anything of you look hard enough, and clearly you'd rather pick hairs out of your shit than see the real world around you.

So fucking what if individuals, companies or goverments profit from their endevours. Until the world is one happy family of hippies stoned out of their cakes, nations will always act in self-interest and make decisions to benefit the masses residing within their historically defined borders.

I'd like to see you frett over such nonsense if Uncle Sam wasn't protecting your white-ass, or guarding your right to give utterance to anal facts.

 

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:
You can find something in anything of you look hard enough, and clearly you'd rather pick hairs out of your shit than see the real world around you.

I'd like to see you frett over such nonsense if Uncle Sam wasn't protecting your white-ass, or guarding your right to give utterance to anal facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe GM was one of the largest corporations in the world (if not by then, certainly in the 50's, their employment worldwide was second in number only to the Soviet Union state workers). I don't think that is nonsense or anal. I think it's hard to find info because a lot of people don't want to hear about such things.

I don't think the president is doing much to protect our asses these days. I think he's making it worse for us the world over.

 

Altough thinly veiled here we have that old shit again, you are free to air your grievances so you better dont.
Maximum you fucking idiot.
How about actually addresing the points we bring forward instead of more stupid attacks.
i told you why the Hungarian government(not the people) supported Bush, so did Moore in the movie, others pointed out other falacies in your reasoning.
How about fucking addresing the legit points brought forward instead of baseles attacks becouse the discusion is turning against you and everything you held to be true seems to be crumbling around you.

 

George II

Bush would be more likely to attend a conference of the National Association for the Marginalization, Incarceration, and Execution of Colored People.

I actually met this dumb bitch who said that Bush has done a lot to help minorities because Rice and Powell are in his cabinet!

 

Fishie, I thought I had spelled out my point of view on this whole matter. I'm trying to find some balance in this debate while all you can do (and others) is bang on and on about how countries entered the coalition for cash. My reponses to this in general were a) money isn't the main motivataion from the action taken in Iraq (although I can't proove this) and b) who gives a fuck if some profit or advantage is made from a political situation? That's human nature.

Also, several posters here insulted me before I said anything back you could consider derogatory. I see you've just called me a fucking idiot...thank you...and for the record, you're an arse.

 

[ QUOTE ]

If our goverments were as corrupt as you so ridiculously claim why didn't the United states claim mainland Europe after it helped liberate it from the Nazis?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because our government is run by people who are elected, not by those who are in power forever. They have to gain popular support for their actions, or they're out on their ass. All governments manipulate people into hating 'their' enemies. Why do you think George Bush Jr. bothered lying to us?

The common US citizens were tired of war. They'd just finished fighting the bloodiest war of the 1900's. What a wonderful way to set the entire world against you - backstabbing your allies at the end of the war. By the end of World War 2, we were enemies with Germans and Japanese, and friends with the Russians, English, and French, despite the fact that Stalin was just as brutal if not more so than Hitler. Russia essentially tried to expand into Europe, and it set all of Europe against it. If we had tried, we'd have been in the same situation Germany was, except we'd have been fighting across an entire ocean against countries that were perceived as our friends in a war bloodier than the one we'd just fought. Starting a war at a point where all armies are concentrated and mobilized is not a great strategic manuever, either.

Let's look at the list of what we would have faced. Our general population would have opposed it. We'd be fighting our greatest allies, and one of the few nations that could be percieved as an equal threat. We'd have supply lines into hostile territory across an ocean. We'd need manpower to occupy all of Europe. Think we'd get that done without a dictator at the helm? Or do you think that the party that advocated this would have been out on their ass at the next election?

As far as claiming part of Europe, well, uh, hate to say it, but we technically did. Britain, France, Russia, and the US each got a part of Germany to 'oversee'. The three Allied zones were merged together to form West Germany, as a buffer zone against Russia's openly expansionist Communism. This was essentially the start of the Cold War. Was Italy divided up in a similar fashion? Did Ethiopia get to oversee part of Italy because they were invaded?

Could we have done it? Yes, we could have expanded at first. We had the atomic bomb, and no one else did. Until someone else stole it from us, no army could have stood against us, and no nation could have refused us. How can you, when someone can destroy your nation's largest cities with just a few bombs? But we'd have had to occupy every nation we invaded, and the casualties on both sides would have been horrible. Look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, where just a portion of the populace was against us. Now turn the entire population against us, and estimate the casualties. We'd have had to atomic bomb entire cities, and butcher large portions of the populace. We'd have made people long for the days of Hitler, and we'd still be at war today following that policy. Do you think that with our political system we'd be able to sustain a war effort of that magnitude for that long, against the VAST majority of public opinion? Do you think that kind of inhumane war can be sustained under any type of non-tyrannical government? Hell no.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see you frett over such nonsense if Uncle Sam wasn't protecting your white-ass, or guarding your right to give utterance to anal facts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Much better that our government be able to utter lies to us and the world unopposed, than me utter anal facts that challenge the bullshit front they're presenting, right? Doesn't it bother you that we were lied to about why we went to war, even over a 'small detail' like the utter lack of WMDs or an established link to al'Queda? Doesn't that make you wonder what else they're lying about? You actually trust people that have lied to you to tell you the truth?

Didn't you ever lie to your parents about where you'd been and what you'd done? I know I did. I had three and four layers of lies lined up. They had to poke and pry to get the truth about where I had been and what I was doing. But once they found that first lie, they kept picking at it until they found out the real truth if they were really concerned. I never got into drugs or into trouble with the police, so they never really bothered most of the time.

The government isn't staying out late, or getting drunk over a friend's house. It's spending billions of tax dollars in rebuilding a foriegn country. People are dying as we speak. An entire nation has been overthrown. And you're going to say, "Oh, well, I know there were no links to al'Queda proven, and we haven't found any WMD's, and Iraq was not classified as an immediate threat to the US, but I believe you when you say that we invaded so that these people could be free and happy"?

That's like my parents saying ,"Ah, I see. Tonight, you went, ate some hamburgers, saw a movie, then went over Tony's house and played video games, and when you went outside to come home, your car broke down halfway here. Well, I called Tony's house, and his mom said you weren't there. I see pizza stains on your shirt, but you went and ate hamburgers. You were able to fix your car since you just drove up in the driveway, but your hands don't have any grease or dirt on them. You went and saw a movie, but you don't have a ticket stub, and you can't tell me anything specific that happened in the movie outside of what I've seen in a commercial, despite you telling me in detail about the movie you saw last week. But I still believe you." (Yes, I got busted by all of those at one time or another, if you're curious.) Sound ridiculous, Maximum? You're doing the exact same thing.

And if you still think our freedom of speech is being protected, read the following articles:
Moore being asked about Congressional proposals to classify F911 as a political ad

"The conservative Citizens United wants the ''propaganda'' off the air by July 31, claiming it breaks McCain-Feingold rules barring the use of corporate money for ads showing a presidential candidate in the 30 days before his party's convention and the 60 days before the Nov. 2 general election"

More on the McCain-Feingold law

"Under an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Moore may be prohibited from advertising his controversial new documentary, which is sharply critical of President Bush, after July 30. Under McCain-Feingold, corporate-paid radio or TV ads that identify a federal candidate are illegal to broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election"

Just in case you're as ignorant of the Constitution as you are of history, Maximum, here's the First Amendment:
[ QUOTE ]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me about how they're protecting my right to free speech. They're trying to take it away. Go look at the current FCC censorship issues. Look up the FCC definition of obscenity. There's no real definition. It's so vague, it can be applied to anything.

To close: Maximum, I really hope you don't think I'm attacking you as a person. I simply want you to go out and look at things, and really think about why they happen, instead of taking at face value why things happen. Too many people are in the herd, and we're just being fattened up and led to the slaughter. Post some facts to refute my points, instead of making personal attacks. I'm not demanding that you agree with me. I'm demanding that you think, instead of turning away from unpleasant ideas.

 

Stop using miss-direction as a answer you fucking suite!!!!

Oh yeah don't think you're pretty clever by gaving those kinds of answer.

 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see you frett over such nonsense if Uncle Sam wasn't protecting your white-ass, or guarding your right to give utterance to anal facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's extremely arguable that uncle sam is doing either. that's what this thread is about, directly and indirectly. dipshit.

"nonsense"? "benefit the masses residing within their historically defined borders"? did you even attempt to read the article, or did your retarded bitchmonkey ass just act out of knee-jerk defensiveness?

the effort it takes you to maintain your proud, willful ignorance and stupidity is enormous compared to the effort it takes to find such "anal facts" and put some actual thought into it.

your rationalizations are utterly pathetic and disgusting; "human nature" is a supremely obvious explanation of what is going on in the world today; using it to rationalize and excuse the scale of murder, blatant lies, corruption (i could go on an on here...) that continues today is beyond the pale.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Bungle said:

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see you frett over such nonsense if Uncle Sam wasn't protecting your white-ass, or guarding your right to give utterance to anal facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

your rationalizations are utterly pathetic and disgusting; "human nature" is a supremely obvious explanation of what is going on in the world today; using it to rationalize and excuse the scale of murder, blatant lies, corruption (i could go on an on here...) that continues today is beyond the pale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well murder, blatant lies and corruption does indeed continue today, moreso in rogue states under dictatorships like Iraq . Our goverments are far from perfect but I think you grossly under-appreciate the liberties and human rights we have in constrast to millions of our fellow human beings, and spastically exaggerate the falsehood and corruption.

Any yes, it does take considerable effort to justify my point of view against biased copy & paste media hyperlinks from Google searches. Any self-rightious idiot can spam out links to articles as a way of justifying their shaky opinions, or becasue they lack the gumption to formulate their own conclusions.

If we were to argue the point as to whether Neil Armstrong actually reached the moon or not, a cynic could bombard the debate with google hits from various conspiracy theorists and media sites claiming all sorts of minutae about how the goverment lied or certain (largely irrelevant) facts do not add up. Does this body of literature prove the moon landings didn't take place?

No, because basic fucking common sense prevails.

 

I have to go to work, but you are in for the Ramrod treatment when I get back! Use this time to purchase some Cyber-Vaseline.

 

No you havent, you continue to insist that countries like Hungaria supported the effort becouse they have felt decades of oppresion themselves, while it is true that they have felt oppresion it has nothing to do with their support as the support the government showed simply does not live with the public in those countries(you know, all those people who actually were oppresed for decades) the public support in those countries for the Iraqi effort is hardly any higher then it is in countries like France, germany and Belgium(the three most outspoken opponents) so your argumentation was shot down almost instantly yet you continue to insist on it and spout it as fact.

That sir is why I called you an idiot.

 

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:
Any yes, it does take considerable effort to justify my point of view against biased copy & paste media hyperlinks from Google searches. Any self-rightious idiot can spam out links to articles as a way of justifying their shaky opinions, or becasue they lack the gumption to formulate their own conclusions.


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like research to me. I like to do it before formulating conclusions. I think ALL media is biased. If I offer an opinion not based on research, I'll listen to what people reply with an open mind.

I think Iraq is better off without Saddam. I think the means used to capture him were overkill (destroying Iraq, etc.). I think the published reasons are lies (WMD, threat to the US, etc.). I think if there wasn't a profit motive (oil), we wouldn't have done it. I would've liked it better if Bush had been honest - "Fuck you, Iraq. We want your oil, so we're going to take it," not to mention "Thank you, Osama, for attacking the US, now I have an excuse to tie all you evil Muslims together so I can bomb the shit out of your countries. It'll be easy for me to convince my public that you and Saddam are in cahoots. Fucking brown people. God is on our side, damnit. We're good. You're evil."

I was greatly disturbed when I read the article about GM and Ford being involved with the Axis and the Allies at the same time. It opened my eyes a little wider. I don't see WWII as so much altruism and revenge anymore. It's about the money. Follow the money. Insert some other money related phrase here.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Fishie said:

No you havent, you continue to insist that countries like Hungaria supported the effort becouse they have felt decades of oppresion themselves, while it is true that they have felt oppresion it has nothing to do with their support as the support the government showed simply does not live with the public in those countries(you know, all those people who actually were oppresed for decades) the public support in those countries for the Iraqi effort is hardly any higher then it is in countries like France, germany and Belgium(the three most outspoken opponents) so your argumentation was shot down almost instantly yet you continue to insist on it and spout it as fact.

That sir is why I called you an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a particular goverment's policy differs from the views of its electorate does not imply its policy isn't influenced by the history of its people.

Seeing as we seem to be set on throwing links and quotes at each other in this debate here's a statement made by Latvia's foreign minister concerning the decision to support the coalition:

"Latvia made the decision to support coalition forces in Iraq, because in 1940 Latvia lost its independence, the declared neutrality was ineffective, and the West couldn't take on position in relation to two "empires of evil" - Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.

During my recent visit to Iraq, I had the opportunity to look into the faces of the Iraqi people and get a glimpse of the situation on the ground. In the eyes of Iraqis I saw freedom, as well as intelligence, pride and courage. I also saw a mix of hope, doubt and uncertainty. These were the same feelings the people of Latvia experienced when we regained independence. Speaking with Iraqi ministers and senior staff, I thought I was going back in time. We faced the same challenges of monetary and economic reform, building state institutions - including raising administrative capacity. Those who have lived under a totalitarian regime know the hardest work begins after the gaining of independence - the introduction of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, creating a functional economy, rule of law and democracy, all of this requires incredible effort. "

I do think my views differ to a certain extent from being Scottish, and particularly coming from the Highlands. Althouh I have no resentment whatsoever towards my fellow English countrymen, I have seen what meddling and bullying from a neighbour has done to the highlands over a period of time. My father is a Mackintosh from New Zealand because his family were forced to emmigrate to the colonies to make ground for grazing cattle. This was around the same time the clans were disbanded and Gaelic was outlawed as the natural language of northern Scotland. Even today the highlands suffers from severely low population and lack of investment, and only in the last 50 years has it started to prosper again.

It actually brings me allot of satisfaction to see Iraq freed from a tyrant and it's people allowed to speak freely and worship openly. Perhaps this personal satisfaction overrides the import of the validity for the war and its political correctness. To be honest I believe the job in Iraq should have been done years ago.

 

[ QUOTE ]
yes, it does take considerable effort to justify my point of view

[/ QUOTE ]

you haven't justified or backed up any of your opinions with solid facts. you have sat back with blinders over your eyes, your hands over your ears, while screaming idiot rationalizations. what opinions you have given that haven't been shot down are not backed up with anything more substantial than "human nature" or the unbelievably disgraceful "ok. so what?" type response.

conclusions do not form in a vacuum. they are formed with information and evidence gathered. i presented you one bit of information, and all you did was purposefully ignore it with extreme prejudice - and now all you can do is try furiously to rationalize your ignorance.

regarding the link - how would you have preferred that i show you a dissenting report? mail you the actual newspaper? osmosis? telepathy? you sound as if expect me to have written the report personally. you have to rely on journalists for information so often. but from what i can tell, you wouldn't know objective reporting if it up and chopped your tiny penis off and fed it to you in a poppy-seed bun.

and "biased"? "shaky"? yeah. i should have thought twice before choosing that article to show you, as the fucking washington post is a such a well known bastion of flaming left-wing anti-corporate lying jew bastard hack writers...right.

keep up the duckspeak, Parsons. you are built for it.

 

Ok, a few points here:

1. As Mr. Bungle correctly pointed out, people here have not been linking to obscure, extremist media outlets to find stories that support their views. It is silly for you to bitch about links to mainstream news outlets, especially after the way the media rolled over for Bush when he was putting out the bullshit rationale for this war. Fuck what the right wing says: the corporate media bends over backward to give the facts less than equal time with the Bush Administration's lies.

2.It is ridiculous to say "Any self-righteous idiot can spam out links to articles as a way of justifying their shaky opinions, or because they lack the gumption to formulate their own conclusions." Maybe you could rephrase this and say "Fuck information. Reading only makes you dumber." ?

3. Oh, thank god for fucking Latvia. What the fuck have they given to the coalition? They are window dressing for Dubya so he can pretend that this is a multinational effort. France doesn't go along, so no rebuilding contracts for French MNCs. France gets the stick. Here Latvia, have a carrot.

4. Iraq is a hellhole. Every month in Baghdad there are around 600 unsolved murders. This gives the city a crime rate 10 to 15 times higher than the most dangerous U.S. cities. A recent poll of Iraqis shows how they feel about the coalition. Here's some of the more disturbing numbers:

80% say they have “no confidence†in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.

1% feel that the Coalition forces contribute most to their sense of security

54% agreed with the statement that “all Americans behave this way,†in regards to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

61% said they believed no one would be punished for the abuses.

61% said they either strongly oppose or somewhat oppose Allawi, a former exile once backed by the CIA, and now Iraq's puppet Prime Minister.

81% of Iraqis also expressed “no confidence†in Coalition forces.

55% of Iraqis say they would feel safer if Coalition forces departed right away, even though the Bush administration has indicated they would stay on at least until the Iraqi elections in 2005.

69% want the CPA to play no role at all in the selection of an independent election commission.

MAXIPAD, you do not suffer from any cognitive disorders. It seems like have put a lot of effort and artistry into creating the cocoon of bullshit in which you reside. Maybe as a wee Scotsman you wacked off to Braveheart a few times too many and it has permanently fucked up the part of your brain differentiates between just wars and dishonest, dangerous, avaricious wars. I don’t know, but people like you and Christopher Hitchens really piss me off, because you are smart enough to know better, but you would rather be imperial stooges. Peace.

 

[ QUOTE ]

Well murder, blatant lies and corruption does indeed continue today, moreso in rogue states under dictatorships like Iraq . Our goverments are far from perfect but I think you grossly under-appreciate the liberties and human rights we have in constrast to millions of our fellow human beings, and spastically exaggerate the falsehood and corruption.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wars are expensive. Very expensive. That's why nations don't get involved in them unless it's a matter of national defense, or massive money is involved. An article I read (I forget where, it's been many years) stated that we could have covered every square inch of Vietnam with napalm with the money used up one week of the US involvement in that war.

You know what happens when you go to war and win? You have an economic depression. You know what happens when you go to war and lose? You have a bigger economic depression. Why does that happen? Because the government spends tomorrow's budget today, and when tomorrow comes, there's no money to spend. Look at the economy of any nation a couple years after they've been involved in a war. It's on the downside.

Here's an exercise for you. Name a war where an invading country has initiated the war and invaded for no other reason than to liberate people from an oppressive regime. You'll never find one. There are three reasons nations invade other nations: defense, economic gain, and to expand. Any war you want to name has one of those underlying reasons. I challenge you to name a war that doesn't have one of those.

Now, name a war that doesn't have 'Humanitarian liberation' as a historically recognized goal. Hrm. Let's see... World War I, World War II...The War of 1812...The Falkland engagement....Iran-Iraq MCMLXXVIII...The 7 Day War....

Now, let's look at some of the biggest lies in history that leaders have told:

"Germany invaded the Rheinland to liberate the oppressed German people living there."

"The Crusades were fought to liberate the Holy Land from the infidels."

"Julius Caesar was an evil tyrant slain to free the people of Rome."

Gee. Do those bear any resemblance to what you're proclaiming as the reason for the war? Do you believe those proclamations as well?

 

Wars

You are right to point out that Keynesian military spending helps the economy and that every war has had its profiteers. I do not believe that money was the sole or even foremost reason for the U.S. entry in WW2. I do not necessarily buy all of the "Greatest Generation" Saving Private Ryan bullshit, but I think that genuine concern for the world and its future were the deciding factors in our choice to go to war. FDR and American leaders were also much more honest about the reasons for the war than people were in Vietnam or Iraq.

As an aside, it is a tragedy that the only politically viable Keynesian spending in America today is military spending.