Fahrenheit 9/11-What's your opinion?

[newbie]

If thats what you think then there is little I can do to change your opinion......but I must still query; if you think America is not the cause then what/who is ?

 

Did you acctualy believe all that was presented in Farenheit 911 were facts or do you wish to challenge them as well ?

I don't believe any facts were presented in Farenheit 911, there is nothing to dispute. Michael Moore loves to edit. He loves to edit because he loves to manipulate facts. Moore edits for time, placing event B before event A in his movies to create the impression that B caused A (....).

[budullewraagh]

I don't believe any facts were presented in Farenheit 911

ok, let me take a random example. do you not believe that bush sat around for 7 minutes or so after hearing of the attacks on new york? if you believe this is fact, you are contradicting yourself. if you believe this is fiction, you disagree with a great number of researchers, and more importantly, unedited video footage (not from moore's film but from the live coverage).

 

also, could you give some examples of moore "placing event B before event A in his movies to create the impression that B caused A (....)."?

[pulkit]

I don't believe any facts were presented in Farenheit 911

 

Do you discredit even the interviews with the US soldiers ?

Or the statements of some of the Iraqi people that were shown ?

I don't see how that could have been edited to suit Moore's opinion.

[newbie]

ok' date=' let me take a random example. do you not believe that bush sat around for 7 minutes or so after hearing of the attacks on new york? if you believe this is fact, you are contradicting yourself. if you believe this is fiction, you disagree with a great number of researchers, and more importantly, unedited video footage (not from moore's film but from the live coverage).

[/quote'] Wow, your 'fact' even if it was such a thing is insignificant, I do not agree that that is 'fact' but there is some truth to it. That is not all he did and that is not all that Moore tried to present as 'fact'.

 

 

 

also' date=' could you give some examples of moore "placing event B before event A in his movies to create the impression that B caused A (....)."?

 

 

[/quote'] This one is easy, Moore gives the distinct impression in the film that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to when clearly that is false, they were allowed to leave when everyone else was and not a minute sooner.

[LucidDreamer]

As I seem to have started a raging arguement here' date=' I must say something too.

 

I certainly don't think that claiming the loss of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan is an exaggeration. It can never be when someone decides to go about carpet bombing a country, you probably will wipe out entire villages without trace. I don't even trust all of the intelligence that the Americans worked on during both operations (If it were all that trust worthy they'd have got Bin Laden or atleast killed him for sure with one of their bunker busters - his fate we may acctualy never know). I am sure there could have been mistakes. And then the worst thing was attacking countries with nominal resistance, so a mistake = tens of lives.

 

When I said American press seemed to glorify war, I said it because I really thought so. All you ever got to see on an American news channel was some reporter following the American force, reporting in how they had succeded in capturing yet another city and were ruthelessly marching on. The fact is that the suffering of the people was hardly ever brought forward. One allied soldier loses his life and it is in honour - stuff headlines are made of. Ten Iraqis lay down their lives and nobody cares....... I thought this was a war fought under the pretext of establishing freedom and democracy. Isn't freedom related to equality in any way ?

 

If at the very face of it you start to glorify your army and look down upon the other side as some militia who represent all the evil in the world - you are glorifying war, as now you are now fighting "to help the entire world and make it safer". The moment I used to see George Bush delivering a speech to his "successful" troops I would shut my TV off, its too much to take in, thats just plainly supporting his ideology. How come you never saw some orthodox Iraqi on television saying out loud that America is killing them and they don't won't Saddam removed -aren't they entitled to an opinion .

 

The fact remains the Iraqi side was hardly ever covered by the press. And as for the world being a safer place now, I don't think so. I for one feel more unsafe, maybe tomorrow Mr.Bush will think of some pre-text to attack my country and then there'll be nothing I can do.[/quote']

 

Ouch. I'm an American and I'm no warmonger. Looking back on our history, if I was president there are not many wars I would have committed our troops too. I believe in speaking softly, but carrying a big stick. I also believe that alot of these problems could have been avoided with diplomacy and most of these problems were none of our concern. I also believe that America has failed many countries that really needed and wanted our help, but who we choice to ignore because we had no economic or political motive to help. America, like all other human institutions is flawed. But I still love my country like I love my fellow man, despite the flaws (man, that sounded corny).

 

Also, no American asked for, knew about, encouraged, or deserved 911. I believe that our response in Afghanistan was justified. I'm not saying that the loss of innocent lives was not horrendous, just that we needed to do it. By failing to take action we would have been encouraging a repeat of 911. I don't usually think in terms of black and white, but the extreme fundamentalist Muslim terrorists are as close to evil as I would claim a man to be. They don't just hate Americans. They hate Jews, Britons, practically all Europeans, conservative Muslims, and Indians. They actually hate everyone that is not a fundamentalist terrorist Muslim and want to kill or subject every last one of us. They are taught to hate us at an early age. They are on a holy jihad against the world. By doing nothing or not enough we give them room to destroy us.

 

I don't believe that going back into Iraq was a good idea. If we could have somehow have gone into Iraq, picked up Saddam without any resistance, and then established a beneficial democracy where everyone in Iraq was happy then we should have gone in. But, we knew ahead of time that wasn't going to happen. All we did is stir up the hornet's nest and waste lives.

 

Many people in America were not in favor of invading Iraq and most of America is unhappy with the way Bush handled it. Bush might have had a personal vendetta against Saddam, but most of America only went to war because we thought we would be fighting the war on terror. We naively thought that in the end we could help the Iraqis people. America would never support Bush if he decided to invade your country, because most of the American people are just like you in the sense that we want peace. I see the world as one community now where we all have to learn to get along and work together.

[budullewraagh]

Wow, your 'fact' even if it was such a thing is insignificant

it is a fact. if you consider the president not taking action to defend his country to be insignificant i highly question your support of your country.

 

I do not agree that that is 'fact'

so you don't agree with the video footage taken at the time? sorry, but those eyes of yours show you things you don't want to see sometimes; it happens.

 

they were allowed to leave when everyone else was and not a minute sooner.

care to cite a source or two?

 

I believe in speaking softly, but carrying a big stick

augh, not theodore roosevelt! he thought war was glorious until his son got killed in the first world war. from that day on he lived a life of sorrow.

 

I believe that our response in Afghanistan was justified.

do you believe it was done effectively?

 

By failing to take action we would have been encouraging a repeat of 911

do you not believe that we are supporting terrorism with every civilian we kill? the vicious cycle continues: 1.us blows up house. 2.household on streets starving, will die if not helped. 3.terrorist/resistance group approaches family, offers food, shelter, education for children if the patriarch fights for them. 4.children taught to hate the west through education and real life when their father dies.

fundamentalist Muslim terrorists

careful; fundamentalist islam is not violent. these people are called "quasi-muslims". the kkk isn't protestant; they're "quasi-protestant".

 

please be careful not to stereotype by saying "they". rather, could you please use words to the effect of "some"?

 

I don't believe that going back into Iraq was a good idea.

good call.

[LucidDreamer]

 

do you believe it was done effectively?

Do I believe that we made a significant strike against terrorism-somewhat.

Do I believe that the Afganastanias are going to be better off in the end-I have no clue.

Do I believe we could have done a better job-probably.

 

do you not believe that we are supporting terrorism with every civilian we kill?

 

the vicious cycle continues: 1.us blows up house. 2.household on streets starving' date=' will die if not helped. 3.terrorist/resistance group approaches family, offers food, shelter, education for children if the patriarch fights for them. 4.children taught to hate the west through education and real life when their father dies.

[/quote']

I certainly agree with you up to a point. But the way you say that you act as if our objective was to kill civilians and blow up civilian houses. The reason that civilians are killed and we blow up houses is because the terrorists hide among civilians to use them as shields. If we went in and fought them with hand-held arms there would be just as much civilian loss but there would be more dead coalition soldiers. When we consider the advantages and disadvantages of fighting terrorist in their own land we have to consider the alternatives. They already hate us and want to kill us. They proved that with 911. Yes, I know that we provoked them with the first Iraqi war, but who started this is not the issue. Btw I am only suggesting that in the Afghanistan war we might have come out ahead.

 

Should we just try to improve our security? I don't think that is enough and I believe it would result in more repeats of 911 and the Spanish train bombings. We were basically ignoring them before 911 and look what happened. Of course they don't think we were innocent, they claim vengeance for the Gulf War. But most of the terrorists from 911 were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. They aren’t claiming vengeance because their loved ones died. They are angry because we interfered in their affairs. They are angry because they think we made them look bad by winning a war against a Muslim country. They hate us because we are rich. They hate us because we have power that they fill they should have. They feel that this world is theirs because they are the chosen people. They have a holy obligation to take the world from the right hand of Satan who are called Americans, Jews, and the west. They are not going to go away if we ignore them and add more metal detectors in the airports. They are smart and organized and they will find ways around our security. They will wait in hiding until the most opportune moment arrives to strike at us. They will not go away. They are at war with us whether we are at war with them.

 

Yes I agree that we have made a mistake with this new Iraqi war. Going into Iraq under the pretense of fighting terror is either total Bs or just plain stupidity. I'm guessing a little of both. I disagree with the decision to go into Iraq, but I think we should be very proactive in our response. Instead of blowing up the poor Iraqi people we should have concentrated on the root of the problem. All of NATO should have put pressure on the Muslim royalty who are one of the largest contributing factors to terror. They play both sides by pretending to be friendly to the west while they are really in league with the extreme faction of the Muslims that promotes terror. Do you really believe that the terrorist would let the royal family get away with siding with the west? No. The terrorists mostly leave the royal family alone because they are financing them. The royal family and other rich Saudis are in league with the terrorist because a, they received to some extent the same extreme indoctrination, and b, if they give the terrorist money they will leave them alone to fly around in their jets and live in their palaces. They don't want the anger of the terrorist directed at them; they want it safely directed at the Jews and the west. They are the ones we should be concentrating on.

 

So no, I am not suggesting that that it’s a good idea to go around blowing up civilians, but we should have forced the royal family to stop funding them. We should have used diplomacy so that the Arab governments would work with us to find the terrorist and stomp them out. We should force all of the Arab governments that are encouraging terrorist to stop. We should encourage the countries that ignore it to help us. And we should have enlisted the governments that are against it. But in order to get the terrorist that are hiding in these countries we will have to go in and fight them on their own territory to some extent, and I'm afraid their is no avoiding the fact that some innocents are going to be sacrificed when the terrorist hide among them.

 

careful; fundamentalist Islam is not violent. these people are called "quasi-muslims". the kkk isn't protestant; they're "quasi-protestant".

 

please be careful not to stereotype by saying "they". rather' date=' could you please use words to the effect of "some"?

[/quote']

 

When I say fundamentalist Muslim terrorist, I am referring to people who are both a fundamentalist Muslim and a terrorist. I wasn't calling every fundamentalist Muslim a terrorist.

[newbie]

it is a fact. if you consider the president not taking action to defend his country to be insignificant i highly question your support of your country.

[/Quote] Bush has defended the country so you have no argument.

 

so you don't agree with the video footage taken at the time? sorry' date=' but those eyes of yours show you things you don't want to see sometimes; it happens.

[/Quote'] What Moore tried to portray in that footage do I believe in? I certainly do not; since you apparently do maybe you could tell us how Bush could have proceeded? Give us an example of what you would have done.

 

care to cite a source or two?

[/Quote] You want my source? Please don't tell me you don't know? C’mon you have been posting redundant messages here and this is the last straw. Really we should not continue this conversation. Since you don't know maybe you should watch the movie yourself, BECAUSE THAT IS THE SOURCE! You have to pay attention to the movie but Moore did not lie about the flights, but he was very deceitful in the presentation though, you have to watch and listen carefully. So please do yourself a favor and watch the movie. If you watched it before please do it again, this time pay attention. I will not point it out for you either.

[budullewraagh]

But the way you say that you act as if our objective was to kill civilians and blow up civilian houses. The reason that civilians are killed and we blow up houses is because the terrorists hide among civilians to use them as shields.

not in israel.

not necessarily always in iraq either. to iraqis this isn't relevant; their media states that the targeted houses were not at all military targets.

 

also i would like to add that the people fighting in iraq are 99% not terrorists. they are 99% resistance fighters who want their country back.

 

a great reason why some arab countries hate us is because of our neo-liberal economic policy as well as our neo-conservative political policy.

 

When I say fundamentalist Muslim terrorist, I am referring to people who are both a fundamentalist Muslim and a terrorist. I wasn't calling every fundamentalist Muslim a terrorist.

that's not what i was saying. i was saying that they do not represent islam and thus they are quasi-muslim.

 

Bush has defended the country so you have no argument.

no; he sat around doing nothing for 7 minutes. his cronies "defended" our country. actually they mostly wasted our surplus and made the world hate us more while creating more terrorists than they eliminated.

 

What Moore tried to portray in that footage do I believe in? I certainly do not; since you apparently do maybe you could tell us how Bush could have proceeded? Give us an example of what you would have done.

1. instead of looking dumbfounded, he could have looked concerned.

2. he could have stood up and told the class that he had urgent affairs he had to attend to and that he was truely sorry but he had to leave.

 

You want my source?

naaaw, you don't say?

C’mon you have been posting redundant messages here and this is the last straw.

you asked me to cite a source and i did. now you won't?

Really we should not continue this conversation.

how many times have you said or implied this? funny thing is you keep coming back. i have even more relevant things to say. if you stop insulting me, i may even gain some respect for you. at the moment i'm sitting here looking up screaming "mods, where are you now?"

You have to pay attention to the movie but Moore did not lie about the flights

well, apparently i was absent-minded while watching moore's film. i am truely sorry. i do not feel like pirating the film now, nor do i feel like going to theatres now, so could you please substantiate your thought and share with me your analytical literary genius?

[newbie]

.....

 

If you think I tried to insult you then you need to read more, you have not given anything to this discussion, only bogus beliefs. My source as you asked for is the movie it self, you make your agruments as if the film tells you all your 'facts'. My point is you are wrong, I told you I would not give you the fact because it is not mine to give, you only need to watch the film again. Pay careful attention to the dates shown on the flights, its just that simple.

[budullewraagh]

then you need to read more

nice try. i read everything. don't pretend to be innocent.

 

you just proved nothing in that post. you stated your opinion and did not justify it. i requested for you to justify it. you failed to do so. you wrote a response that stated nothing. that is hypocritical. i'd even call it spam.

[Guest lelandroncorey]

I personally have no desire to see that stinking film. I have read transcripts of Michael Moore's accusations and Moore is clearly a liar, a fraud and nothing short of a sideshow freak.

 

I am sick of all these liberal weenies attacking the president.

 

I just read this ridiculous post at http://www.patrioticforums.com about how Bush is a criminal and a drug addict. I mean, give me a break. I'd like to punch the guy that wrote that post.

[Thales]

Michael Moore's film may have presented an unashamadly bias opinion on the Bush saga, but most of what he said was true. Sure he used emotive language and impassioned pleas, but if you examine the quality and take on the situation provided by the worlds media(particularly those of the US, Australia and UK) he was merely providing a voice for the counter arguement that had been largely ignored by the conservative networks. Let's put it this way, if the news reports were more objective their wouldn't have been a need for a film like Moore's.

 

People who judge this movie before they see it are naive. Its a harsh comment but if you fear information because it will contradict what you believe in then it is very hard to 'grow' as a person.

[Sayonara]

nice try. i read everything. don't pretend to be innocent.

you just proved nothing in that post. you stated your opinion and did not justify it. i requested for you to justify it. you failed to do so. you wrote a response that stated nothing. that is hypocritical. i'd even call it spam.

I suggest going through newbie's posts with the fine-toothed comb of logical fallacy.

 

 

I just read this ridiculous post at http://www.patrioticforums.com[/url'] about how Bush is a criminal and a drug addict. I mean' date=' give me a break. I'd like to punch the guy that wrote that post.[/quote']

The fact that some people exaggerate or slander deliberately does not mean that everyone else is wrong.

 

Furthermore you cannot sweep away problems and criticisms that people have just by labelling them "liberal weenies".

 

The fact is that as a man, George Bush is not a very nice person, and as a President of one of the world's most powerful nations he falls well below expectations in terms of intelligence, tact, and strategic insight.

[budullewraagh]

I have read transcripts of Michael Moore's accusations and Moore is clearly a liar, a fraud and nothing short of a sideshow freak.

on the contrary, a horde of people checked his facts before the film was released and it turns out that he had them all correct. cite your source, please.

 

I just read this ridiculous post at http://www.patrioticforums.com about how Bush is a criminal and a drug addict.

he did plenty of opium and god knows what else in college. opium is highly addictive. -> he is was/is a drug addict.

criminal? how about the hundreds of thousands of innocents he has slain? he is therefore guilty of that much MANSLAUGHTER. how about defying the constitution with laws? TREASON!

 

People who judge this movie before they see it are naive.

good call. i'll second that.

 

i'll also second the second half of sayo's post.

[newbie]

nice try. i read everything. don't pretend to be innocent.

 

you just proved nothing in that post. you stated your opinion and did not justify it. i requested for you to justify it. you failed to do so. you wrote a response that stated nothing. that is hypocritical. i'd even call it spam.

on the contrary' date=' a horde of people checked his facts before the film was released and it turns out that he had them all correct. cite your source, please.

[/quote']

Please you really need to give it up. I will do this one more time, but really I am getting bored.

 

In your 'fact full' film, Moore trys to make you believe that the Saudi's flew out of the country on 9/11. He was misleading since they did not leave until all flights resumed on the 14th-like everyone else. Please do not try to dispute that without watching the film over again. You are telling everyone to 'cite' their source when clearly you are ignoring it. Just to stop this right here and now the film shows the Saudi's did not leave until AFTER September 13! There did you get that? That clear enough for you? I don't care how many "hordes of people" do not belief, the film speaks for itself.

 

PS. I did end this conversation but you keep it going by repling to me when I have not directed a comment to you. (see post #77)

 

pulkit[/b]]

Do you discredit even the interviews with the US soldiers ?

Or the statements of some of the Iraqi people that were shown ?

I don't see how that could have been edited to suit Moore's opinion.

You know what, your right I apologize. I stand corrected, I certainly cannot discredit the soldiers ot the Iraqi people, but they did not help Moore's opinion at all. The Soldiers did not say anything bad about Bush though.

[budullewraagh]

Please you really need to give it up. I will do this one more time, but really I am getting bored.

no i don't because it is the truth. moore did not say the bin ladens left on 9/11. he said they left before the airports were opened.

I did end this conversation but you keep it going by repling to me when I have not directed a comment to you. (see post #77)

and yet you look to get the last word.

The Soldiers did not say anything bad about Bush though.

they felt deceived.

[newbie]

no i don't because it is the truth. moore did not say the bin ladens left on 9/11. he said they left before the airports were opened.

 

and yet you look to get the last word.

 

they felt deceived.

The concept you are not getting is that Moore presented that the Saudi's left on 9/11' date=' but when in reality they left with everyone else on the [u']14th[/u] and not before. Because you do not believe that doesn't change that to be fact. Since you have not actually seen the film and rely totally on 'your sources' then please do not keep this going

[budullewraagh]

The concept you are not getting

i'm not getting that because he didn't say it.

Since you have not actually seen the film

when did i say i hadn't seen it? i saw it 5 days after it was released.

[Thales]

The concept you are not getting is that Moore presented that the Saudi's left on 9/11,

 

Have you seen the movie? He clearly states they left before the commercial airlines were in operation. He never states it to be ON 9/11. My suspision leads me to believe you have not seen the movie. Why would you? You've obviously already decided who's telling the truth.

[Phi for All]

The concept you are not getting is that Moore presented that the Saudi's left on 9/11, but when in reality they left with everyone else on the 14th[/u'] and not before.

Sorry, Newbie. I suggest you go see the film again. Moore never asserted that anybody left on 9/11. There is documentation all over the internet that supports Moore's claim that the bin Laden family and other influential Saudi families were flown to evacuation points to facilitate their exit from the country due to anti-Middle East sentiments at the time. Only Saudi's were extended this privelege. Moore asked the question, "At who's expense?" because it is still not clear who paid for their exodus. Certainly the initial roundup could have been paid for by the US taxpayers through the FBI, though the Saudis probably arranged for their own flights home.

 

They were questioned cursorily by the FBI (their were a lot of them--the bin Laden family is huge), but all were released TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY a few days later. If someone from your family had been responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center towers do you think the FBI would have let you off so easily? Dale Watson, the FBI's former head of counter-terrorism, said the Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations". According to many eye-witness sources, our government seemed much more interested in protecting the Saudis than in finding out their connections to Osama bin Laden.

 

I'd like to move on to another point that really bothers me. I have always had what I consider a pure American work ethic. Perhaps I've overdone it on occasion, but I dislike the very thought of slackers taking advantage of their employers and giving less than top job performance. George W. Bush, by 9/11/01, had already taken more vacation time than any US president in history. He had just gotten back from the longest single presidential vacation in history when this country suffered it's greatest terrorist attack. I would LOVE to hear someone defend Bush on this point.

[pulkit]

I certainly agree with you up to a point. But the way you say that you act as if our objective was to kill civilians and blow up civilian houses. The reason that civilians are killed and we blow up houses is because the terrorists hide among civilians to use them as shields. If we went in and fought them with hand-held arms there would be just as much civilian loss but there would be more dead coalition soldiers. When we consider the advantages and disadvantages of fighting terrorist in their own land we have to consider the alternatives. They already hate us and want to kill us. They proved that with 911. Yes, I know that we provoked them with the first Iraqi war, but who started this is not the issue. Btw I am only suggesting that in the Afghanistan war we might have come out ahead.

 

I must say that even if you think there are terorrists hiding in civilian areas, there is no way you can justify bombing these areas. Going about carpet bombing, and shelling areas is just slaughter. Once you decide you wanna kill terrorists, there is no easy way to do it and history has several examples to show this (Closer to where I am, look at India-Pakistan).

 

You enter into a "war", you want to kill terorrists, you claim not to want to kill civilians but then why the hell do you blast houses? Its like running away from difiifculty. Its as simple as this, either the allied troops had to suffer more losses (in a ground battle only situation) or there could be loads of civilians dead. And frankly, once you as a "protector of fredom and democracy" decide to embark on such a clensing of terorr, you MUST accept these losses in advance. Its not ok, to kill civilians.

 

Who started it is certainly an issue. Why did the US retaliate ? because it was attacked. Why was there 911 ? because of what US did in the past to make extremist elements turn anti-US.

 

I don't know how much you can judge sitting in the US, but I can tell you for sure that because of all this in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US did gain a very negative image in several places (even here). I do think of Bush as a war-monger (This is not an asssertion just an opinion - and I never meant to call every American a war-monger and apologise if thats the impression you got). The fact is that I found Frht 911 a brilliant documentary (A growing Anti-Bush feeling might have contributed to this.).

[LucidDreamer]

I must say that even if you think there are terorrists hiding in civilian areas' date=' there is no way you can justify bombing these areas. Going about carpet bombing, and shelling areas is just slaughter. Once you decide you wanna kill terrorists, there is no easy way to do it and history has several examples to show this (Closer to where I am, look at India-Pakistan).

 

You enter into a "war", you want to kill terorrists, you claim not to want to kill civilians but then why the hell do you blast houses? Its like running away from difiifculty. Its as simple as this, either the allied troops had to suffer more losses (in a ground battle only situation) or there could be loads of civilians dead. And frankly, once you as a "[i']protector of fredom and democracy[/i]" decide to embark on such a clensing of terorr, you MUST accept these losses in advance. Its not ok, to kill civilians.

 

America is currently between a rock and a hard place. If we use military force to fight terror you get situation like Iraq. If you do nothing or not enough you get 911. You are describing just the problems of one side and acting as if the other side did not exist. I wasn't saying that it’s ok to kill civilians. It's wrong to kill civilians. But by doing nothing or just beefing up security we would be essentially killing civilians. If we don't proactively fight terrorism then we are responsible for any civilians that are killed because we didn't act. I don't know that exact number of people killed in 911 but I think it was tens of thousands of people. That's no small amount of civilian loss. I live on the other side of the country and I knew someone who died that day. We are responsible for those civilians who die because of the war on terror and we are responsible for the civilians that die because we don't fight the war on terror enough.

 

I did support the action in Afghanistan even though I knew some innocent people would die. If I had been alive I would have also supported America's participation in WW2. We killed thousands of civilians in both Germany and Japan, which cannot be avoided during a war. If we had not joined the war all of Europe and eventually the whole world might have come under the control of Hitler. So joining the war meant that we were going to kill young soldiers, who are usually not responsible for the war, and civilians. But it was better then the alternative. Afghanistan was a country filled with terrorist training camps and we did a decent job of cleaning out those camps.

 

You cannot attribute all of the carnage of Iraq to my argument because I do not support it. But know that we are there it would be irresponsible to leave it without setting up some form of stable government. If we don't then violent extremist will overtake Iraq and create a state that is impoverished, shaky, and violent, while establishing stronghold for terrorism.

 

Who started it is certainly an issue. Why did the US retaliate ? because it was attacked. Why was there 911 ? because of what US did in the past to make extremist elements turn anti-US.

 

The who started it argument never solves anything. What you end up with when you start a who started it argument is an endless amount of "I didn't start it you started it. No I didn't start it you started it. Do you think Israel believes it started the violence? Do you think Palestine believes it started the violence? The who started it thing just encourages more violence. If you say that we started it with the Iraqi war I could just respond by saying; no Iraq started the war by going into Kuwait. If you say that we started it with our other policies I could just say, no, Muslim terrorists were hijacking planes before that. Just making a point in that its futile to do the who started it argument. No one can change the past anyway so it doesn't matter who did what because we are where we are regardless. That paragraph can also be interpreted as we got what we deserve with 911. I am going to assume you did not mean that.

 

I don't know how much you can judge sitting in the US' date=' but I can tell you for sure that because of all this in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US did gain a very negative image in several places (even here). I do think of Bush as a war-monger (This is not an assertion just an opinion - and I never meant to call every American a war-monger and apologise if thats the impression you got). The fact is that I found Frht 911 a brilliant documentary (A growing Anti-Bush feeling might have contributed to this.)[/quote']

 

 

I didn't vote for Bush because I suspected that he was just the kind of President that he turned out to be. I'm hoping Kerry and Edwards will be elected and will be somehow able to improve this mess. I didn't see the film yet so I can't comment on it. However I suspect that the film won't change much. Republicans will interpret it as lies and consider Moore a scumbag and Democrats will only view it a reaffirmation of what they already believed. I do feel that documentaries like F911 are needed in a time when big corporations with their own agendas control our media. They seem to think that we will forget about the issues if they just give us another story about who Britney Spears is dating or another picture of Jennifer Lopezes butt. I am afraid that they are right to some extent.

[Sayonara]

America is currently between a rock and a hard place. If we use military force to fight terror you get situation like Iraq. If you do nothing or not enough you get 911.

Call me cynical but I don't think you can get away with claiming that 9/11 resulted from "doing nothing".

[LucidDreamer]

Call me cynical but I don't think you can get away with claiming that 9/11 resulted from "doing nothing".

 

You're right. But what I mean is if we did nothing now we would still be in trouble and we were doing less to anger them before and we got 9/11.