'Michael Moore Hates America' -- reviewed.

[seinfeldrules]

lol. You haven't seen me discuss economics or taxes, have you? Or abortion and military spending? I'm very republican on those issues.

Yet you still voted Kerry


NRA-> :sniper: -------- :afro: <-Blah

:smoking:

 

[Neutrino]

Yet you still voted Kerry


NRA-> :sniper: -------- :afro: <-Blah

:smoking:

I know you're kidding around a bit here, but none the less I think it is an widely accepted and misunderstood idea that republicans must vote republican and democrats must vote democrat.

I'm not saying you think that, but many people seem to.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I know you're kidding around a bit here, but none the less I think it is an widely accepted and misunderstood idea that republicans must vote republican and democrats must vote democrat.

I'm not saying you think that, but many people seem to.

not true.. some kerry-acs came by and made me sign a contract ;(

 

[Neutrino]

not true.. some kerry-acs came by and made me sign a contract ;(

Did you atleast get some ramen noodles and underwear for your trouble I hope?

 

[blahblahblah]

Yet you still voted Kerry


NRA-> :sniper: -------- :afro: <-Blah

:smoking:

Sweet. I have a 'fro now. :O

Did you atleast get some ramen noodles and underwear for your trouble I hope?

No. I got a bottle of arsenic and a box of depends.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Did you atleast get some ramen noodles and underwear for your trouble I hope?

yeah.. but they made me eat the underwear and shove the ramen noodles up my.. well, you know.. i wish they had softened them up first ;(

 

[seinfeldrules]

Are we talking about Zel Miller here?

 

[qckbeam]

No. I got a bottle of arsenic and a box of depends.

You too?

 

[CptStern]

Are we talking about Zel Miller here?

this guy?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Michael Moore seriously has the most boring voice in the world. Instead of getting angry while watching F9/11, I am getting sleepy.

 

[blahblahblah]

this guy?

He's my idol now. Thanks for the link. I nominate him for president in 2008.

 

[qckbeam]

Michael Moore seriously has the most boring voice in the world. Instead of getting angry while watching F9/11, I am getting sleepy.

Must not be paying any attention then

 

[seinfeldrules]

this guy?

Emperor: Zell, I am your father.
Zell: Nooooooooo

 

[seinfeldrules]

Must not be paying any attention then

Nah I just need little bits at a time.

Holy shit just found something else out. All ex-Presidents can receive the CIA breifings, that is awesome. I would be all over that.

 

[OCybrManO]

Dude, your logic is so far off, its unbelievable. A country without a ready army is just asking to be conquered. In the event of an invasion, there is really no time to prepare and organize a military force. I mean, you COULD do this, but history has proven that peasant armies(what we would *BE* if you didn't want to maintain an army) get squashed mightily easily. If we didn't maintain an army, we wouldn't have military equipment flowing around, and without that military equipment, we wouldn't have very effective means of defending ourselves should the time arive.

We already have a significantly large enough army mostly populated by people that don't follow the same principle of only fighting in self-defense. Does it matter what political party they are from if we have enough volunteers? Did I ever say we shouldn't have a military force for defense? No. On the contrary, a defensive military is very important... but a lot of people don't agree with the USA's history of offensive conflicts. If only the people that supported the conflict were sent to it this wouldn't be as big of an issue... because the people that are willing to defend the country would be able to freely do so without worrying about being shipped out to Iraq (or whatever country we are occupying at the time) to fight for a cause they are against that doesn't involve defending the USA. Even then, there would still be plenty of people willing to go fight (I can think of at least 5 guys I know that would) in conflicts that we start.

its acceptable to refuse to defend your country because its a conflict of interest. why not join the army to defend your right to have a conflict of interest in the first place?

How does that work? They don't want to fight in what they see as unjustified pre-emptive wars... so they should join and then be forced to participate in them? Perhaps if the USA didn't get so deeply entangled in foreign affairs they wouldn't have to worry about being sent off to kill people in a war they don't support. Perhaps if the military was used only for defense of our nation (and in certain extremely important conflicts like the World Wars, where a country/group is trying to take over the world) more people would join. It seems almost like the government doesn't like the military to stay inactive for too long... so they start fights to validate its existence (or to keep it in good shape, like a muscle).

 

[FortisVir]

qckbeam my comment wasn't aimed at you .

The argument that "Kerry was shown the same information and came to the same conclusion" is getting tiresome. The information provided to Congress to rationalize the Iraq war was cherry-picked by the Bush administration in order to make Iraq seem like more of a threat than it really was.

What I find sad is that as the Bush administration skips from one justification to the next, people just follow along with it instead of asking questions.

There were NO WMD's. There was NO connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Period. Of course the President likes to paint this picture of Saddam and Bin Laden sitting around chatting it up, but the fact is that Bin Laden disliked Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden repeatedly denounced Saddam's socialist Baath party, calling them "infidels". They were not friends.

Now, however, Al-Qaeda is recruiting more people from all over the world, young men who have been invigorated by what they see as an illegal war and occupation of a muslim nation. President Bush can stand at his podium all day, pounding his fist repeating the phrase "America is now safer", but I don't buy it.

Not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed so far, who knows what the actual number is, since the military isn't keeping an official record for some reason, I guess its not important. Oh well......night all.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The argument that "Kerry was shown the same information and came to the same conclusion" is getting tiresome. The information provided to Congress to rationalize the Iraq war was cherry-picked by the Bush administration in order to make Iraq seem like more of a threat than it really was.

Kerry has said that it was. He gets the briefings from the CIA, not Bush anyways. Bush isnt down in Congress passing out the briefings.

 

[qckbeam]

qckbeam my comment wasn't aimed at you .

Oh, I see

Well leave it to me to miss sarcasm

 

[othello]

Thanks for the sentiment, but I hadn't discounted the Al-Queda threat either. That threat has been there ever since 9/11.

What I am opposed to, however, is now having the Al-Queda Jihad and the Iraqi people hating the west.

lol watch cnn much? try listening to the actual statistic, or hell... even the soldiers and the stories they have. the vast, vast majority of iraq people are extremely happy we have removed saddam. you think those are iraqis defending iraq? some, to be sure, but most are members of al-qaeda and islamic radical groups. kind of that they would defend a country they have no ties too

One group was enough, thank you very much. But two is obviously worse. Especially since it is clear to me that Iraq should not have been given a reason to hate the west.

This is why I would have much preferred dealing with Al-Queda effectively before spending ten times as much on a seperate conflict. Saddam needed to go, but definitely not like this.

as has been shown many times, saddam was perceived as a larger threat by anyone who viewed the intel given to the bush administration by the CIA, or by russia, or by france, or by germany, or by britain, etc... therefore, our efforts turned more towards saddam. was this a completely infallible decision? in hindsight, no... but whats done is done, and it doesnt help anyone or anything to try and accuse sole discretion on bush himself. john kerry wouldve made the exact same decision based off the intel available at the time... and those are his words, not mine.

 

[Raziaar]

The only thing I agree with that is currently wrong about this war, is that there is still a war. We have won, we removed saddam from power, we should pull out. However, going into the war in the first place was right and justified, even if they didn't have weapons of mass destructions.

I personally wish we'd get involved in more wars with such evil men, or at least have more secretive operations against them. People who butcher their civilians like that don't need to be in power.

Some of you would be content in not fighting a war, but knowing that innnocent civilians are being murdered by their leaders. That doesn't concern you, you have no pity or compassion for them, you just think about yourselves and how war might affect you, not them.

EDIT: And to add to what I just said... i'd gladly have my country go to remove these evil dictators if they knowingly butcher their civilians, even if it puts me and my country at a greater risk in doing so. You guys honestly act like people that would see someone being murdered in the streets, and walk away and not try to confront the murderer or help the person being murdered. Sounds offensive, but that's exactly how I view some of you to be.

 

[Neutrino]

as has been shown many times, saddam was perceived as a larger threat by anyone who viewed the intel given to the bush administration by the CIA, or by russia, or by france, or by germany, or by britain, etc... therefore, our efforts turned more towards saddam. was this a completely infallible decision? in hindsight, no... but whats done is done, and it doesnt help anyone or anything to try and accuse sole discretion on bush himself. john kerry wouldve made the exact same decision based off the intel available at the time... and those are his words, not mine.

You might want to try reading his words again then. He very clearly states his position during his speech to congress when the authorization of force was passed. He very explicity says that the authorization given was given with the terms that the president would try evey avenue of diplomacy and use war as a last resort. He said that then and he says it now. He has not changed position on the war.

Some of you would be content in not fighting a war, but knowing that innnocent civilians are being murdered by their leaders. That doesn't concern you, you have no pity or compassion for them, you just think about yourselves and how war might affect you, not them.

Don't presume to know what others think when you clearly do not understand their position. Being against going to war for the wrong reasons is not the same thing as not being concerned over civilian deaths.

If I wanted to I could say the same about you.

The only thing I agree with that is currently wrong about this war, is that there is still a war. We have won, we removed saddam from power, we should pull out. However, going into the war in the first place was right and justified, even if they didn't have weapons of mass destructions.

You are for going to war, but you are not for finishing it. So in other words you are for going in to the country, decapitating the government, laying their infrastructure in ruins, killing a few thousand civilians and then abandoning the population to their own means? Is that what you want? You are hardly in a position to blame others for not caring about civilians.

 

[Raziaar]

You might want to try reading his words again then. He very clearly states his position during his speech to congress when the authorization of force was passed. He very explicity says that the authorization given was given with the terms that the president would try evey avenue of diplomacy and use war as a last resort. He said that then and he says it now. He has not changed position on the war.



Don't presume to know what others think when you clearly do not understand their position. Being against going to war for the wrong reasons is not the same thing as not being concerned over civilian deaths.

If I wanted to I could say the same about you.



You are for going to war, but you are not for finishing it. So in other words you are for going in to the country, decapitating the government, laying their infrastructure in ruins, killing a few thousand civilians and then abandoning the population to their own means? Is that what you want?

Nope, I want the chance for a new non violent government to be set up, damages repaired, and the troops to be pulled out, while monitoring the situation from afar until things have the chance to stabalize without the presence of our military forces. Simple as that.

 

[Neutrino]

Nope, I want the chance for a new non violent government to be set up, damages repaired, and the troops to be pulled out, while monitoring the situation from afar until things have the chance to stabalize without the presence of our military forces. Simple as that.

That doesn't quite sound the same as:

We have won, we removed saddam from power, we should pull out.

Have you been reading the news for the last year? Because Iraq is far from stable and there is no way we should be pulling out troops right now. I imagine we'll probably still have a military presence in Iraq 5 years from now.

 

[Raziaar]

That doesn't quite sound the same as:



Have you been reading the news for the last year? Because Iraq is far from stable and there is no way we should be pulling out troops right now. I imagine we'll probably still have a military presence in Iraq 5 years from now.

So what is this then about all the liberals saying we've been in iraq long enough already? They want us to pull the troops out.

EDIT: And it's been unstable because of Saddam, the civilian butchering, economy destroying dictator they had.


EDIT: Heh, forgot to respond to your post about my previous statement. We have been actively working on getting a new government set up, there is one set up now and its working on stabalizing the country. We have also been rebuilding the damages that are done there. We should pull out. I don't change anything I said.


EDIT 3: DAMN alot of edits!

Saddam Hussein and his regime led a life of privilege and luxury, while leaving the Iraqi people with an essential services infrastructure shattered by decades of neglect and mismanagement. As a result, northern and southern Iraq suffered a severe lack of electricity, water, health care, education facilities, and other vital resources. While it will take years to fully modernize Iraq's infrastructure in the wake of Saddam's decades of neglect, much progress has been made.

Food and electricity are now distributed more equally across the country. And the international community has pledged at least $32 billion to improve schools, health care, roads, water, agriculture, and electricity.
Electricity levels are stable, even as terrorist elements continue to attack Iraq's electricity grid and power structure.
Schools and clinics have been renovated and reopened; power plants, hospitals, water and sanitation facilities, and bridges and roads are being rehabilitated.
Iraq's oil infrastructure is being rebuilt, with the Iraqi industry capable of producing nearly 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.
The Saddam Hussein regime spent $16 million in 2002 on health care, less than one dollar per Iraqi per year. Today, the 2004 budget for the Ministry of Health has been dramatically increased to over $1 billion.
More and more Iraqi children are attending ever-improving schools where they are now free to learn new ideas. Attendance in the 2003-2004 school year is as high as or higher than pre-conflict levels. Over eight million textbooks have been distributed around the country.
Iraqis now have access to an ever-growing number of independent sources of news, including newspapers, radio stations, and satellite television networks.
Small businesses are thriving in the streets of Iraq - creating new jobs for Iraqis.
Iraq has a stable currency -- the value of the new Iraqi dinar has already risen 25 percent.

 

[Neutrino]

So what is this then about all the liberals saying we've been in iraq long enough already? They want us to pull the troops out.

Who exactly wants us to pull out troops right now? I know Kerry wants to pull out many troops as soon as it's possible. He has stated that he would like to pull out some in six months time, which is backed up by a recent report by the whitehouse.

I would disagree with anyone who thinks we should pull out our troops right now.

EDIT: And it's been unstable because of Saddam, the civilian butchering, economy destroying dictator they had.

Sure there is no doubt that Sadam's regime affected how things went in the post war situation. However, to blame the stability on him would not be accurate in my opinion. When you go into a country and dismantle the government, bomb the cities, and ruin much of the basic infrastructure of that country you are going to create massive instability no matter who was the leader beforehand. You can't lob off full resposibility for that on Sadam.

EDIT: Heh, forgot to respond to your post about my previous statement. We have been actively working on getting a new government set up, there is one set up now and its working on stabalizing the country. We have also been rebuilding the damages that are done there. We should pull out. I don't change anything I said.

And I think if you want to pull out right now you really don't care about the Iraqi people. You're position is a contradiction in itself. You justify the war based on the idea of saving civilians from a dictator (Note: not the reasons we went there in the first place), while at the same time you ignore those civilians now. The reality of the situation in Iraq is that we cannot pull out now. Go read any news article on it and go read the positions of both Presidential candidates. We cannot pull out right now.

You see, I personally believe in something called responsibility. We were responsible for starting the war and turning the Iraqi people's lives upside down so I think we have the responsibility to finish the job.

Do you seriously think if we left now Iraq would have a democratic government in 10 years? They can't even hold fair elections right now because there is too much violence in some areas.

As long as we're quoting things about Iraq I'm game:

Violence mars start of Ramadan in Iraq

Suicide bombers kill five in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone

Airstrikes set the stage for an offensive to retake city

Violence clouds Iraq aid summit

And all those are just within the last two days. Does this sound like a stable region to you?

 

[Raziaar]

Who exactly wants us to pull out troops right now? I know Kerry wants to pull out many troops as soon as it's possible. He has stated that he would like to pull out some in six months time, which is backed up by a recent report by the whitehouse.

I would disagree with anyone who thinks we should pull out our troops right now.



Sure there is no doubt that Sadam's regime affected how things went in the post war situation. However, to blame the stability on him would not be accurate in my opinion. When you go into a country and dismantle the government, bomb the cities, and ruin much of the basic infrastructure of that country you are going to create massive instability no matter who was the leader beforehand. You can't lob off full resposibility for that on Sadam.




And I think if you want to pull out right now you really don't care about the Iraqi people. You're position is a contradiction in itself. You justify the war based on the idea of saving civilians from a dictator (Note: not the reasons we went there in the first place), while at the same time you ignore those civilians now. The reality of the situation in Iraq is that we cannot pull out now. Go read any news article on it and go read the positions of both Presidential candidates. We cannot pull out right now.

You see, I personally believe in something called responsibility. We were responsible for starting the war and turning the Iraqi people's lives upside down so I think we have the responsibility to finish the job.

Do you seriously think if we left now Iraq would have a democratic government in 10 years? They can't even hold fair elections right now because there is too much violence in some areas.

Maybe I should specify exactly how many troops I want to be pulled out from the country, because obviously it is either All or 0 eh? <rolls his eyes> I was talking about our vast military presence, not every last soldier.

 

[Neutrino]

Maybe I should specify exactly how many troops I want to be pulled out from the country, because obviously it is either All or 0 eh? <rolls his eyes> I was talking about our vast military presence, not every last soldier.

Yes, maybe you should have clarified that in the beginning as you implied pulling out the majority of the troops.

Just how many do you think we should pull out right now? And what evidence do you base such a move on?

 

[clarky003]

you know thinking about all these threads, and all these opinions just makes me realise that this really isnt about whats best for the American people, or whats best for progression into the future (where things inevitably change for better or for worse),

its about what certain types of people want to see happen, for whatever reason they see fit to justify it all, their nice lifestyles, their guns, their leverage over other's, their patriotism (you know all the material stuff that makes 'Ones' life worthwhile).

we still wadge wars, and kill each other as a species, so Im begining to wonder exactley whats worth saving in our race, because all I can see is a corrupt system that uses wars to generate profit, and morally weaken and tear people apart, to maintain a heirarchy of rich and poor, throughout the system... If you look deep into the system the only way to solve any of it is to goto the stem, the Elite, the Freemasons who run our world..... they officially maintain and create this reality to keep control, and sorted order , at the cost of moral rights, lives and human freedom throughout the world.

This isnt an argument about whats better for the country , its become an argument of belief, almost religious. But that's what happens when people dont know the truth and have to assume thing's, it just all end's up confusing everyone. even though some people think they see all through the eyes of the media :| ..... we are all being played for dummies right now, just argueing and getting frustrated over it.... when we should seek the truth that was never layed out in the first place.

 

[Raziaar]

Yes, maybe you should have clarified that in the beginning as you implied pulling out the majority of the troops.

Just how many do you think we should pull out right now?

Hmm, how many do we have over there exactly? I'll provide an exact number, down to the last man. No rounding off for me!

Seriously though, in 'my opinion' we need enough troops left to cover the key infrastructure that is under continous attack by terrorists, as well as foiling attacks on the budding iraqi government. The number of military equipment that would impose more animosity and fear from the public than practical use should also be scaled way down.

EDIT: What we don't need, is an overwhelming military presence in most civilian areas of the city, which would cause unneeded amounts of unrest.

EDIT 2: God, I seriously need to start thinking of this stuff so I dont have so many edits. ANyways...

We also need to think about what the iraqi's want as well. The vast majority of them wish for the armed forces to leave, despite the fact that it could jeapordize their infrastructure. So we can kind of meet them half-way here, sending the excess troops home and leaving slightly more than a skeleton crew to protect the critical ifnrastructure.

 

[Neutrino]

Hmm, how many do we have over there exactly? I'll provide an exact number, down to the last man. No rounding off for me!

Seriously though, in 'my opinion' we need enough troops left to cover the key infrastructure that is under continous attack by terrorists, as well as foiling attacks on the budding iraqi government. The number of military equipment that would impose more animosity and fear from the public than practical use should also be scaled way down.

EDIT: What we don't need, is an overwhelming military presence in most civilian areas of the city, which would cause unneeded amounts of unrest.

There are currently about 135,000 US troops in Iraq.

 

[Raziaar]

There are currently about 135,000 US troops in Iraq.

Hmm, just because I said i'd give an answer, despite knowing that i'm no where near qualified in knowing what a proper number is, i'll say... send 70,000 troops home for starters.

Now, after saying that, I don't know shit about how vast the iraqi infrastructure is, or what would be a good number of troops to protect those assets until the new government can continue working on making life even better for the iraqi people and protect the infrastructure themselves.

Kinda reminds me of Rome. frusterating to say the least, because as i'm conquering the world, I have to keep some of my elite conquering troops in the cities until I can train more peasants to keep the happiness level up before I remove them to go conquer another country.

Anyways... time for bed!

 

[sublidieminal]

your girlfriend is ugly to me, but thats just me. does she smell like wet dog when she gets rained on?


-quoted from www.blackpeopleloveus.com

 

[Lil' Timmy]

*excised words*

sublidedileminilal = :flame:

 

[othello]

your girlfriend is ugly to me, but thats just me. does she smell like wet dog when she gets rained on?


-quoted from www.blackpeopleloveus.com

dude **** you. is this any better? asshole.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

is that you on the right? (i hope )
sara is prettier than you

 

[Ikerous]

Is she wearing a gir necklace...?
Thatd be so awesome

 

[othello]

is that you on the right? (i hope )
sara is prettier than you

yes it is me on the right, and yes... she is much prettier than i am :E

 

[othello]

Is she wearing a gir necklace...?
Thatd be so awesome

what is gir? the necklace is actually her name is colorful letters... sorry

 

[Ikerous]

It looks like gir
The robot from
Invader Zim
He's just neat.

 

[DoctorGordon]

All i see is a bunch of tentacles and mucus flapping around in the picture