Fahrenheit 9/11

[Dirty Meg]

George W. is the 42nd president. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms. Only if you count Grover Cleveland as the 22nd and 24th president, would Bush be 43rd.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, I'll go by common vernacular. Bush and Bush refer to each other as 41 and 43, you know. Anywho, thanks for the explanation.

[Gxc]

score! yes oh yes! i finally get to see this stupid theatre here never showed it.. woo im going to get to see it tonight. well thats all. goodbye

[Morgan_Corbesant]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: As for the Bin Laden terror links your ignorance astounds me. No such links have ever been proven and are ever likely too. Bin Laden was a bad man, Saddam was a bad man, but that doesn't mean they had links. Meanwhile we know quite a few places Bin Laden certainly did have links with, for example the Saudis, but we aren't bombing them are we? This war was not about terror, or about freedom, it was about cold hard cash. [/QB]

If I'm not mistaken, we are friends with the Saudi's. Bin Laden was an EXILE from Saudi Arabi, meaning he is not liked there. So why is it bad that we are friends with a family that has made Bin Laden and outcast BEFORE we knew of 9/11? Of course Bin Laden has links with the Saudi's, he WAS a Saudi. I'm by no means saying Bush is a "great" man, but he isn't all that bad. He isn't too well spoken, but that doesn't make him dumb. The fact that chemical weapons existed, and signs of the remnants have been found recently suggests that he is hiding them somewhere. He and his will never say where they are because he knows what NOT finding them is doing. It's turning the world and all of its liberals against America, including "Americans".

How could this war be about "cold hard cash"? We spend BILLIONS a week in Iraq, I don't think Iraq's oil is going to make much of a dent in that kind of defecit. When we went and liberated Kuwait, we took all of their oil right? WRONG! Kuwait still maintains control of their own oil. Iraq would if the idiot terrorists there would stop destroying the pipelines and fields that carry their only true source of economic income. We went in to take out Saddam and his punks. They are hiding in the crowds where its hard to find them. They attack us with terrorist type tactics to keep us guessing. They sabotage anything we do to try and stabalize the situation. If we were able to create a standing military and police force, and rebuild the damn country, then we could leave. The fact that these morons won't allow it makes that task just a tad bit difficult wouldn't you say? It's easier to rebuild when you have help than it is to rebuild when someone keeps destroying what you've started.

Sure we want some financial compensation. And why not?! We have spend hundreds of billions of dollars over there. All we ask is a bit of compensation to help with the cost of liberation. Call it what you want, it was liberation. Since America became a country we have been helping all others in need. We have always been there when others needed it. Some presidents refuse to properly help those who really need it (cough, Clinton, cough). So we get a guy in office who tries to help, has difficulty, and all of a sudden is a "horrible person". That is retarded. He is only human, he isn't perfect. Clinton screwed up the fiasco in Somalia. If he was so good, why didn't he help out in Rowanda, or Sudan, or Sierra Leon, or Angola, or any of the other war torn countries where attrocities were happening? Most didn't complain when we took out Hitler's army's. I'm sure someone was protesting and whining, and crying over it. For the mostpart however we were considered hero's for our assistance. We try the same type of thing today though, and we are a "conquering empire". You just can't please some people. I will tell you this. All most of you know is what the media tells you, and I'll bet that you don't get the full truth if any at all. I would stake my life on it. Most media personell don't tell the truth, they just want a story so they can make front page news and win a Pulitzer. I can tell you this because I have witnessed things that happened and compared it to what the media portrayed. The fact that I'm an aspiring journalist kinda helps too.

All I'm saying is its easy to point fingers, but its a different ballgame when YOU are the one behind the desk. I've seen things that people shouldn't see and will be on my way oversea's again shortly. I don't want to fight for a country or world that is ungrateful. Our people are dieing overseas. We need to band together and end the problem there. Then we can worry about our problems here. We can't just leave Iraq, but we need to get out of there. If we band together as a "Free World" and end the hostilities, we can work on promoting peace.

I'm sure that alot of my views are not shared by many on this site. I'm sure I'll get alot of responses with contrary views. By all means feel free, thats what a debate is all about.

"To secure peace, is to prepare for war".

Thanks for your time that you wasted reading my ranting .

[shamrock_uk]

Well, I personally didn't really rate this film and found it very disappointing. Some of it was funny in places, most of what he pointed out I already knew, and I thought it wasn't a patch on Bowling for Columbine. Most of that film was well-written and executed (Charlton Heston interview aside) whereas Fahrenheit 9/11 just came across as bashing Bush for the sake of it.

Maybe it needed to be done to an American audience, but it was just same old same old as far as I was concerned...

Edit:

Whilst I think, as it's been brought up, I was reading an interview with a senior Bush administration official a couple of weeks ago, basically admitting that al-Zarqawi is much more of a mythical figure than we have been made to believe. To paraphrase him, they were giving informants $100k a time and basically being told what they wanted to hear. He said that al-Zarqawi was originally a fairly low ranking fighter desperate to make his name, but the evidence linking him to all these atrocities is actually virtually non-existent (consider in the videos the figure is always masked) and there have been cases where he is apparently in several countries at once. Apparently lots of separate groups have been carrying out terrorist attacks and just using his name without him really being involved. I'll see if i can dig out an online source...

[ 10-14-2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Stratos]

The only real link I've seen presented between al-Zarqawi and the beheadings are some statement in the news awhile ago saying that CIA were 'fairly sure' (or somesuch) that the voice in a execution clip belonged to him. Over here, media usually say something along the lines 'a group believed to be linked with al-Zarqawi' when refering to the groups that kidnap and executes foreigners (or anyone else they don't like, which is basically everyone.)