micheal moore vs bill orielly

[CptStern]

because the iraqi soldiers were telling the UN inspectors where to look. of course they're not going to find anything. you forget that Saddam closed Iraq to inspections for close to 10 years. if he had nothing to hide why would he close the country to inspections?

so if iraqi soldiers were limiting the inspectors from finding anything why havent the US found anything after a year of searching with no opposition?

no, the US and the coalition had to take care of Saddam because the UN cowards didn't keep their word.

you havent a clue. There is international rules and laws to follow, you cant just invade a country on a whim (although the US showed that you can)

Ok you're right, Iraqi people had a better life under Saddam.
/sarcasm

nope, my point is that you gave erroneous information

if we had invaded congo instead of iraq you'd be asking why we haven't invaded iraq. it's a lose/lose situation with you people.

nope ...the Congo actually needs help ...this wasnt a matter of politics. Millions of women children and men were butchered. Oh and when you use the term "you people" it conjures up images of rascist people that used words that put themselves above minorities. As in "you cant trust those "people". Dont do it again

just think of how many lives would have been saved if we would have killed hitler before he began taking over europe.

too bad that wasnt your motivation. You needed Japan to bomb pearl harbor for you to stand up and take notice.

it might not have worked though because people like you would have called it an unjust invasion, or said we are sending our children off to die.

there's that "people like me" sentence again ..it really points to your ignorance when you stereotype like that

your are blinded by your seething hatred for president bush and the US.

and you're blinded by your fanatical patriotism to see the truth ..it's in your face ...who's the bigger fool the person who argues against the norm or the person who defends the norm even though the evidence pointing to the contrary is overwhelming? BTW I absolutely hate that right wing scapegoatism: "you must be anti-american" if someone even questions the motivations of the US. I say you are being unpatriotic for not holding your government accountable for it's crimes. what utter bullshite.

 

[clarky003]

and you're blinded by your fanatical partiotism to see the truth ..it's in your face ...who's the bigger fool the person who argues against the norm or the person who defends the norm even though the evidence pointing to the contrary is overwhelming. BTW I absolutely hate that right wing scapegoatism: "you must be anti-american" if someone even questions the motivations of the US. I say yopu are being unpatriotic for not holding your government accountable for it's crimes. what utter bullshite.

quotes for maximum effect

 

[Korgoth]

Richard Clarke-Former Counter Terrorism Chief for the Bush Administration

CLARKE: Well because I was there and I saw it. You know, the White House is papering over facts such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Even though they knew at the time from me, from the FBI, from the CIA, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/23/ltm.03.html

Read IT!

 

[Sprafa]

Richard Clarke is the greatest witness to the blindness necessary to vote for Bush in November...

 

[Korgoth]

hold on.........
Misread the above post, please excuse

 

[Andy]

Appreciate it Sai. I used to study American Politics and 'm taking a great deal of interest in the elections ATM.

 

[No Limit]

OMG!!!11 A political debate, let me slide in here.

First let me say that I have little respect for Moore and absolutely no respect for O'Reilly. If any of you think O'Reilly is credible visit http://www.oreillysucks.com .

because the iraqi soldiers were telling the UN inspectors where to look. of course they're not going to find anything. you forget that Saddam closed Iraq to inspections for close to 10 years. if he had nothing to hide why would he close the country to inspections?

Saddam let inspectors in on many occasions. He wasn't perfect but he did let them in. As far as I know the inspectors were allowed to inspect everywhere in Feb and March of 2003. In fact, if you remember, UN inspectors were still inspecting when the white house told them to get out as Iraq will be bombed in 2 days.

no, the US and the coalition had to take care of Saddam because the UN cowards didn't keep their word.

I'm glad that the US knows more than the rest of the world combined (UN) :rolling:. This type of attitude is exactly the thing that makes the rest of the world hate our government. The UN was doing its job with the inspectors but for some weird reason Bush was in an extreme hurry and made it seem like Saddam was about to launch a nuclear strike against the US, there was absolutely no evidance of that. Even if Iraq was developing weapons of mass distruction it would have taken them years to have something functional, the UN would have stepped in before they ever completed anything. Remember all those photos of sites of weapons of mass distruction? All these turned out to things perfectly legal but the US never sent the UN inspectors to go check those sites out, istead we had to go and bomb Iraq and its people because Bush was in a hurry.

Ok you're right, Iraqi people had a better life under Saddam. /sarcasm

Currently they did have a better life under Saddam. Did you ever hear of a terrorist attack in Iraq before we invaded? I haven't. Now after our 'help' Iraq is the perfect place for terrorists and thousands of Iraq's people are dying. How do you tell countless children that its ok that their parents died because life will be better once the US forces clean everything up? How do you tell a person that they will be better off with Saddam gone eventhough they lost both their legs in an attack? I'm sure Iraq will eventually be a better place but currently it is a nightmare. If the administration took smarter steps (aka not bombing the people) to take out Saddam we wouldn't have this nightmare.

just think of how many lives would have been saved if we would have killed hitler before he began taking over europe. it might not have worked though because people like you would have called it an unjust invasion, or said we are sending our children off to die.

Why don't we just kill everone? That way think of how many lives we will save since there will be no killers left.

your are blinded by your seething hatred for president bush and the US.

This is the retarded talk that is the reason I moved away from respecting republicans (yes I am implying you are a retard for saying that). People do not have to agree with the president, that is what makes America America. Republicans love to spin hatred of Bush to being anti-american and unpatriotic.

 

[No Limit]

Was it worth 1000 American lives to take out Saddam? Yes.

Was it worth 400,000 American lives to take out Hitler? Yes.

I wish I read that before I posted the above reply as now I have no respect for you. Sure, its extremely easy to say it was worth the 1000 American lives since you didn't lose anyone in the war. Would it be worth it if you lost your father or mother in Iraq?

A war should be fought when there is reason for that war. I do not care how the republicans want to spin this, the fact is that the reasons the administration gave to go into Iraq isn't a good enough reason to kill thousands of people especially since all the facts were proven wrong. It was the duty of the US government to confirm all intelligence before going in and killing all these people, Bush and everyone working under him failed in this regard and in my book they killed thousands of people.

However, nothing I say is going to make you see the light as you have no respect for human life. Though I'm sure you would gain respect if it was you that got killed by a road-side bomb.

 

[Andy]

Was it worth 1000 American lives to take out Saddam? Yes.

Was it worth 400,000 American lives to take out Hitler? Yes.

Be careful with that point of view.

In Starship troopers the Federation has manipulated the thoughts of the entire population into that kind of glib and statisical mindset. That kind of system of society wins wars by simply throwing its population into the grinder until it wins, trusting that thier determination fanned by righteous beleif will lead them to battle unerring. SERVICE GUARRANTEES CITIZENSHIP.

It is Internationally Illegal to invade a country just because you don't like who's in charge. Do you know why the all the inteligence commitees said the same thing? They where all clinging to each other like drunks to a lampost becasue they bust a gut for months and came up with NOTHING.

Why where the weapons inspectors given such a short time? Where where the alternatives? This war was wrong and that's it. It wasn't that Sadam needed to be removed, it was that the West needed to be in charge.

Was it worth American and British lives to take out Mugabe? He's a criminal.
No, there is no oil.

Is it worth American and British lives to take out the Saudi Royal Family? They have one of the the worst Human Rights records imaginable.
No, they have too much invested in the West.

Is it worth American and British lives to end the crisis in Sudan? Nope, we will wait 30 days more.
Is it worth American and British lives to end the crisis in the Congo? What crisis?

We shouldn't have gone it to start with. Now we are in Iraq we must finish the job, but no invasion is ever justifiable. Ever.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Here's Innervision's link again, because I think everyone should read it:

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/23/ltm.03.html

President Bush himself said in a book, when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said [after 9/11] I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus; it was not the focus of my team.

Also, I thank CptStern Andy and No Limit for expressing their opinions more eloquently than I could. :thumbs:

Edit: BONUS O'REILLY QUOTE!

"If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?"

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-10.htm

 

[Rico]

I hate to drag your shouting match off-topic but I just saw an ignorant remark and I had to step in to correct it.

Oh and when you use the term "you people" it conjures up images of rascist people that used words that put themselves above minorities. As in "you cant trust those "people". Dont do it again

The term "you people" wouldn't bring up any sort of rascist imagery if rascism weren't deeply rooted into your brain. Deep inside you're actually being racist yourself by refusing to let go of the very idea of difference between people. I find that the most racist of all people are the ones inclined to impose their "politically correct" attitude on people who mean nothing of the sort by their comments.

"You people" is a perfectly good way to refer to your opposition, any resemblance to "racist speech" is entirely in your head and nowhere else.

Continue your discussion please... I won't get into political arguments as in the end I have found any discussion on the matter is entirely worthless.

 

[CptStern]

I hate to drag your shouting match off-topic but I just saw an ignorant remark and I had to step in to correct it.



The term "you people" wouldn't bring up any sort of rascist imagery if rascism weren't deeply rooted into your brain. Deep inside you're actually being racist yourself by refusing to let go of the very idea of difference between people. I find that the most racist of all people are the ones inclined to impose their "politically correct" attitude on people who mean nothing by of the sort by their comments.

"You people" is a perfectly good way to refer to your opposition, any resemblance to "racist speech" is entirely in your head and nowhere else.

Continue your discussion please... I won't get into political arguments as in the end I have found any discussion on the matter is entirely worthless.

so you're accusing me of being racist? me of all people? lets see, I come to the defense of same sex marriages, the special needs population, minority groups etc ...and I'm racist? that's laughable

I pointed that out because he meant it in a pejorative sense

 

[Rico]

I'm just pointing out what I saw. Politically correctness is nothing more than legally abiding by the rules of respecting others but not really believing in the concept. This is a generalization from my part of course but until this day, I have yet to be proven wrong in my beliefs.

I was born and raised in Venezuela so I think I just have a slight advantage on the topic I guess, back home everyone is pretty much the same no matter what their color and instead you judge people based on character and of course social level (like everywhere else, no matter how much you'd rather hide it). There it is not uncommon for people to call black people black or anything like that, in fact it is accepted because it is infact a true statement, people ARE black and people ARE white. It also helps to mention that the whole country was founded by ethnically diverse cultures, all Venezuelans like me have a combination of black, indian (natives from the land) spanish, french and english genes.

He may have expressed it that way to demean "you people" but that doesn't have any sort of correlation with racism, that is simply a trigger that went off in your head.

 

[CptStern]

what does that have to do with anything?

 

[moz4rt]

man... what have i started.

i didn't mean for any of what i said to be taken personally. i say what i say because i don't agree with your opinions. i state my opinion and then get crucified for it. i may not agree with everything that's said here (probably most of what's said here), but i still have respect for each and every one of you... especially cptstern. if i didn't, i wouldn't stick around.

i don't agree with everything that bush has done, and i'm not a republican. i just say what i think. isn't that what this thread is all about?

 

[TheUnkillableDot]

Ok.....this is my point of view.

Both had good points.....

I agree with Moore about Bush misleading his troops (telling them it was for weapons of mass destruction)....I'm not saying Iraq didn't have them, but more concrete evidence should be gathered before going to war.

I'ts good that Saddam is no longer in power but Iraq was no more of a threat then Saudi Arabia or North Korea.....In fact, Pakistan sold weapons to many middle eastern countries except Iraq.

Moore (I think) assumes that all soldiers are forced to join the military and don't want to protect there country, witch is far from the truth.

I think the real reason Bush went to war with Iraq was for.......

*Drum Roll*

OIL!

 

[No Limit]

man... what have i started.

i didn't mean for any of what i said to be taken personally. i say what i say because i don't agree with your opinions. i state my opinion and then get crucified for it. i may not agree with everything that's said here (probably most of what's said here), but i still have respect for each and every one of you... especially cptstern. if i didn't, i wouldn't stick around.

i don't agree with everything that bush has done, and i'm not a republican. i just say what i think. isn't that what this thread is all about?

I don't want to bring this back up but I enjoy these types of threads and I wasn't online for the last 3 days.

Nobody was really taking anything you say personally; we are simply defending our opinion because, frankly, you are wrong. If you were right you would put up a good argument. I suggest that you go out and do some research and then post back here if you want to counter any of the points made.

Ok.....this is my point of view.

Both had good points.....

I agree with Moore about Bush misleading his troops (telling them it was for weapons of mass destruction)....I'm not saying Iraq didn't have them, but more concrete evidence should be gathered before going to war.

I'ts good that Saddam is no longer in power but Iraq was no more of a threat then Saudi Arabia or North Korea.....In fact, Pakistan sold weapons to many middle eastern countries except Iraq.

Moore (I think) assumes that all soldiers are forced to join the military and don't want to protect there country, witch is far from the truth.

I think the real reason Bush went to war with Iraq was for.......

*Drum Roll*

OIL!

I actually don't think the reason was oil, Bush simply wanted to bomb Iraq and was in a hurry to do it. Not sure how many of you heard the speech where Bush wanted to get back at Saddam because Saddam tried to assasinate his daddy. This completely ruined Bush's credibility in my eye and it should have in everyone's eye, the problem was that we still went to war a couple weeks later.

What scares me is that Republicans will protect Bush to the grave, no matter how badly he f**ks up. I hear some of the dumbest people defending actions like an amendement to the constitution for gay marrige even if most of the country disagrees with it.