Fahrenheit 9/11

This is where all the posts that appeared on the old front page (June '04 - January '05) are stored (back when the site was run using IPB Portal).
Post Reply
al k holik
Posts: 48
Joined: 27 Jun 2004 12:03

Post by al k holik » 29 Jun 2004 16:50

All well and good.

Q: So why in the hell did we have to invade when we did? Wait a couple months, then we either know they didn't have SHIT in the way of WMDs or we could go in with full UN blessing.

A: Because politically, if we invaded JUST THEN, we could be out of Iraq before the election. Wait for the UN, and you add another year.

What happened yesterday? Do you think that new Iraqi government will stick? I hope it does, but I am not holding my breath.

Tom
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 06:00

Post by Tom » 29 Jun 2004 17:07

much like having an opinion about a movie you have not seen is deemed as 'crap' so are many of your views regarding soldiers, their duties, and their perspective unless you have actually served. please don't degrade and disrespect those that give up their lives to protect your (and Mr. Moores) freedoms by thinking that your views and political opinions are theirs. the few soldiers shown in the movie are just that, few. the majority understand they have a job to do and are prepared to give up their lives if need be. thats what soldiers do, thats their job.

i had the pleasure of serving while Bubba was in charge. while many of us thought his foreign policy was far from what we expected from the greatest country in this world, we did our job. one of my buds wound up in Somalia. he came back, some of his friends didn't. even worse, they never got to finish the job they were sent to do. the 19 lives lost in that shit hole were for nothing as Clinton decided to 'pull out' because it was bad publicity. (insert whines, cries and knee-jerk reactions for our dead boys from people who havn't a clue). i can vouch that NONE of the people involved there wanted to leave.

be thankful that we have a Commander in Chief who is not affraid to put his neck out there for what he believes is the best for this country. be thankful he will finish (and allow the military to finish) the job that was started. be thankful that those guys (and gals) are doing what many of you would never do, of free will. be thankful that unlike previous campaigns (under Clinton) the lives of those lost will not be in vein (or worse yet, to distract media attention from an office blowjob, travelgate scandal or other 'personal' dilema). be thankful you are allowed to have an opinion about which you have no clue about or got from a pseudo-political mockumentary.

now, go back to bickering about who is right or wrong. its a freedom many are willing to die for. afterall, soldiers swear to protect the Constitution, not the government which issues the orders. keep that in mind.

Sunstrider
Posts: 91
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 15:45
Location: New York

Post by Sunstrider » 29 Jun 2004 17:10

al k holik wrote: All well and good. 

Q:  So why in the hell did we have to invade when we did?  Wait a couple months, then we either know they didn't have SHIT in the way of WMDs or we could go in with full UN blessing.
We waited twelve years! How much more time do they need to show results? In that twelve years they broke the cease fire 17 times. restricted UN inspectors and then kicked them out. When they finally did let them back in they once again restricted where they could go and who they could talk to. How much longer do they deserve? If they couldn't produce results in that amount of time they sure as hell wouldn't do it in a few more months.

A:  Because politically, if we invaded JUST THEN, we could be out of Iraq before the election.  Wait for the UN, and you add another year.
The UN came up with these resolutions and then failed to enforce them. What good is the UN if they won't enforce there own rules. In the mean time every day we wait Saddam is rebuilding his army.
What happened yesterday?  Do you think that new Iraqi government will stick?  I hope it does, but I am not holding my breath. 
I hope it does to. I would love to see our troops come home. Speaking from experience when I was there the first time I was dying to get home but I felt we didn't finish the job. the men I was with wanted to go to Baghdad and end Saddam BUT because the UN said no we left before this could happen. If the UN had any balls back then (not that they do now) we wouldn't even be in this situation today.

even worse, they never got to finish the job they were sent to do. the 19 lives lost in that shit hole were for nothing as Clinton decided to 'pull out' because it was bad publicity. (insert whines, cries and knee-jerk reactions for our dead boys from people who havn't a clue). i can vouch that NONE of the people involved there wanted to leave.

From the men I knew that went there I can also tell you that they were not happy they left. Pulling the men out was a blow to their moral. On top of the fact that it made us look weak and scared of neg. publicity.
Last edited by Sunstrider on 29 Jun 2004 18:05, edited 1 time in total.

Tom
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 06:00

Post by Tom » 29 Jun 2004 17:35

for those of you interested, here is a snipet and sort of 'play-by-play' of my old troop, 4th ID Mech. please pay close attention to the details of the targets and intended targets of the militants and terrorists. may give you an idea why our troops are still there and what job they are doing.

<a href='http://www.jessejamesnow.com/sys-tmpl/4idmechanized/' target='_blank'>OP updates</a>

btw, also the same troop that found Saddam cowering in a hole.

Sunstrider
Posts: 91
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 15:45
Location: New York

Post by Sunstrider » 29 Jun 2004 18:07

Tom wrote: for those of you interested, here is a snipet and sort of 'play-by-play' of my old troop, 4th ID Mech.
Dirty nasty leg. :D

Nuzman
Posts: 26
Joined: 27 Jun 2004 13:18

Post by Nuzman » 30 Jun 2004 03:10

al k holik wrote: Q:&nbsp; So why in the hell did we have to invade when we did?&nbsp; Wait a couple months, then we either know they didn't have SHIT in the way of WMDs or we could go in with full UN blessing.&nbsp;
A: Because we had already waited roughly a year and a half through trying to get the French and Russians and anti-war pacifists (some of whom now say they woulda used more troops... Kerry) to agree on when. The U.N. had already passed multiple resolutions calling for and justifying such action for Saddam's non-compliance with the treaty.

BTW, as we've learned since, France and Russia, as well as many of the top U.N. bureaucrats were skimming BILLIONS of dollars off the Oil for Food program. You think American politics are corrupt, check into the U.N.

Yes, the new Iraqi government will stick. We will see democracy take hold and over time develop and spread. Unfortunately it will be resisted with lots of bloodshed.

al k holik
Posts: 48
Joined: 27 Jun 2004 12:03

Post by al k holik » 30 Jun 2004 03:16

much like having an opinion about a movie you have not seen is deemed as 'crap' so are many of your views regarding soldiers, their duties, and their perspective unless you have actually served. please don't degrade and disrespect those that give up their lives to protect your (and Mr. Moores) freedoms by thinking that your views and political opinions are theirs. the few soldiers shown in the movie are just that, few. the majority understand they have a job to do and are prepared to give up their lives if need be. thats what soldiers do, thats their job.
Just so you know, I served under Bush I in the first Gulf War. I'm not a couch-potato general here. I understand what the troops are going through over there. I spent fearsome nights carefully scanning the shores along the Suez Canal and the Red Sea for locals with rocket launchers. I was extremely young then, but I did my duty, and am proud to have done so.

Just as Clinton didn't finish the job to avoid bad PR, Bush pulled us out too early back then, to get ready for the election he was bound to lose anyway. And so a new generation of troops got to go over there and finish the job twelve years later. They all have my support.

The administration that sent them over, however, does not. I will always suspect their motives. I think their planning was shit. I think that their timing was horrible. I think the execution was horribly flawed. I think a few of their policies, such as interrogation and treatment of prisoners, are evil and un-American. I think that going it alone when we failed to drum up international support was a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to do.

I think we are more vulnerable to terrorism now than we have ever been, mostly because our National Guard is over there fighting a fight they never planned on fighting. And when they come home, they will return to Bush's cuts in benefits for all that served. "Thanks for fighting, boys, now get a job."

I reserve the right, as both an American and as a combat veteran, to criticize this administration. The troops are doing their jobs. The administration is not making things any easier on them or their families. Not even close.

I imagine that the GOP won't be so eager to count the absentee ballots that come in from the bases overseas this time around.

the other
Posts: 31
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 13:25
Location: my comfy cyber womb...
Contact:

Post by the other » 30 Jun 2004 03:33

Tom wrote: for those of you interested, here is a snipet and sort of 'play-by-play' of my old troop, 4th ID Mech. please pay close attention to the details of the targets and intended targets of the militants and terrorists. may give you an idea why our troops are still there and what job they are doing.

<a href='http://www.jessejamesnow.com/sys-tmpl/4idmechanized/' target='_blank'>OP updates</a>

btw, also the same troop that found Saddam cowering in a hole.
I guess you were at Hood....

Tom
Posts: 5
Joined: 18 Jun 2004 06:00

Post by Tom » 30 Jun 2004 12:10

Just as Clinton didn't finish the job to avoid bad PR, Bush pulled us out too early back then, to get ready for the election he was bound to lose anyway.&nbsp; And so a new generation of troops got to go over there and finish the job twelve years later.&nbsp; They all have my support.
i agree with you that Bush Sr. pulled us out too early. IMO, the turkey shoot of the Iraqi troops on the highway back to Baghdad and the bad PR from it helped in making that decision. but, i believe that Clinton's almost non-active role regarding Iraq is even worse. had he (Clinton) shown some sort of a sign of a backbone, this current campaign might not been needed.
The administration that sent them over, however, does not.&nbsp; I will always suspect their motives.&nbsp; I think their planning was shit.&nbsp; I think that their timing was horrible.&nbsp; I think the execution was horribly flawed.&nbsp; I think a few of their policies, such as interrogation and treatment of prisoners, are evil and un-American.&nbsp; I think that going it alone when we failed to drum up international support was a stupid, stupid, stupid thing to do.
again, we swore to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic. i too don't wholeheartedly agree with the current boss. but, i have upmost respect for anyone who does not change their opinion and views simply becuase it may cost him a re-election.

there are plenty of countries supporting this effort. its just that most of them are not big league hitters in the world. countries like France and Spain , who had 'other' intrests to protect in Iraq, don't speak for all of the UN or NATO. some of these countries, like Poland, are fresh entries to the UN so they look forward to prosper from their support in the rebuilding of the Iraq. any which way you slice it, war is good business for somebody. thats not a shot at anything in particular, its just the truth.

i won't touch the interigation comment other than to say that our policies for extracting intel have changed little in the last 25yrs.
I think we are more vulnerable to terrorism now than we have ever been, mostly because our National Guard is over there fighting a fight they never planned on fighting.&nbsp; And when they come home, they will return to Bush's cuts in benefits for all that served.&nbsp; "Thanks for fighting, boys, now get a job."
oh i think we are far from depleting our available reservists or NG. if anything, we are in better shape since we have more troops and support deployed in an area that breeds terrorism since the last Gulf campaign.

and yes, its a dirty job with shitty pay and high risk. cutting benefits for vets is not the best policy.
I reserve the right, as both an American and as a combat veteran, to criticize this administration.&nbsp;&nbsp; The troops are doing their jobs.
i don't think i ever said you, or anyone, shouldn't voice their opinion. hell, i applaud you to do so. the point i tried to make with my original response was directed at those who feel the need to "speak" for those who are currently serving without a clue as to what they are going through or face daily.
The administration is not making things any easier on them or their families.&nbsp; Not even close.&nbsp;
do you think that movies like F-9/11 help them? did it help those deployed in Vietnam to have "baby killer" banners upon their return home waved in their face?
you, of all people, should understand the gravity of morale and its effects on those in the hole with you. movies like this, do not help those fighting or those here trying to understand why they are there.
I imagine that the GOP won't be so eager to count the absentee ballots that come in from the bases overseas this time around.
hell, maybe they can use the ones Gore tried to prevent from being counted. here in Chicago, even the dead vote..................twice even. <_<

Sunstrider
Posts: 91
Joined: 17 Jun 2004 15:45
Location: New York

Post by Sunstrider » 30 Jun 2004 17:20

al k holik wrote: Just as Clinton didn't finish the job to avoid bad PR, Bush pulled us out too early back then, to get ready for the election he was bound to lose anyway.  And so a new generation of troops got to go over there and finish the job twelve years later.  They all have my support.
Just a quick note here about this statement. Bush senior did not "pull us out to early". This was the UNs doing. They were the one who only approved the removal of Saddams forces from Kuwait. If the UN had more balls back then, then they do now we might not be in this situation.

Also some light reading. Here is another interesting article on the inaccuracies of Moores movie from Ex Mayor Ed Koch. People please do at least A LITTLE bit of research before you start believing everything you hear or read and in this case supposedly see. It's a little long but a good read.
Moore's Film Is Shocking Propaganda
Edward I. Koch
Tuesday, June 29, 2004


It is shocking to me that Americans in a time of war, and we literally are at war with Americans being deliberately killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, will attack their own country, sapping its strength and making its enemies stronger.
Story Continues Below



I am not a supporter of the xenophobic slogan “My country right or wrong.”

But I do believe, when seeking to make it right if it is wrong, that none of us should endanger the country, our military personnel or our fellow citizens.


Disagreeing with America’s foreign policy and seeking to change it, responsibly or irresponsibly, is a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment. Shaming those who do it irresponsibly is our only lawful recourse and rightly so.


Senator John Kerry in criticizing United States’ foreign policy and the incumbent president is acting responsibly, albeit I disagree with many of his views.

On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.

David Brooks, in a brilliant New York Times column on June 26, collected some of the statements that Michael Moore has been making in other countries which denigrate the U.S. and, in my opinion, cross the line.


Brooks writes: “Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: ‘You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.’

"In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: ‘It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton…We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants...Don't be like us,’ he told a crowd in Berlin. ‘You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.’

"In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, ‘Should such an ignorant people lead the world?’

"In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: ‘The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.’

"But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: ‘The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.’ Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.”

Undoubtedly, too long a quote, but there is no substitute for the original.

A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV’s “Question Time” show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

“One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary 'Roger & Me.' During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of 'I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.' I was aghast and responded, 'I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.' I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced “Fahrenheit 9/11.”


Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience.

Moore later called President Bush a “dummy,” denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War.

Again, I couldn’t contain myself and said, “That’s what you radicals on the left always do. You don’t debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence.”


In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire.

We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender.

And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy.

How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth.

Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib.

We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies.

A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

I am a movie critic, so I went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11.” The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics.

It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully.

The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.

Newsday reported some of Moore’s misstatements as follows: “At the start of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, ‘under every scenario Gore won the election.’

“What Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the election . . . Moore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House ‘approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis’ who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.


“But the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: ‘Nobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacks.’”


It is clear to me from the tenor of the film’s off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II.

Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction?

Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica?

Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery?

Weren’t we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do? (Edit note:bold lettering added by poster)


Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not.

I think, yes.

The movie’s diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides
Last edited by Sunstrider on 30 Jun 2004 17:26, edited 1 time in total.

Nuzman
Posts: 26
Joined: 27 Jun 2004 13:18

Post by Nuzman » 02 Jul 2004 02:23

New information on this thread... Polish troops discovered a stash of warheads containing mustard and sarin gas.

<a href='http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr2 ... f0949.html' target='_blank'>http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr2 ... 49.html</a>

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests