Fahren-hype 9/11

[Mad Mardigan]

After Micheal Moore puts his personal agenda movie out to promote the size of his wallet, there is a documentary dedicate to proving him wrong. In the major rental stores, there will be only a couple of copies there compared to Moores 40. I havent seen either movie, but for you Moore fans, why dont you watch it and see for yourself. I really do hate politics and hollywood. Actors, directors, singers, and so on just need to quit putting there own agenda out there. Too many people these days trust everything they read, hear and see on tv. People just need to research and make up there own mind.

[budullewraagh]

speaking of people who have too much faith of those in power...

 

you know, moore may have, just may have made f911 for the better good of the nation. you never know... perhaps thats why he removed it from the selections for the academy award, or perhaps thats why he continues to urge people to pirate his film online

[Pangloss]

you know, moore may have, just may have made f911 for the better good of the nation. you never know...

 

One could make the same hypothetical extrapolation about Sinclair, but *you* would never make that extrapolation. What does that say about *your* objectivity, bud?

 

 

perhaps thats why he removed it from the selections for the academy award, or perhaps thats why he continues to urge people to pirate his film online

 

Unless something has happened that I don't know about, he removed it from selection for the *documentary* award. He did that not so that it would be seen before the election, but so that it would be considered for *best picture*. He wants to upset the entire Oscar applecart, no less.

[Mad Mardigan]

Why does it seem that books by certain authors always sell the same number of books? I sometimes wonder what the US would be like without freedom of speech, just think how many people like would be locked up.

[budullewraagh]

actually, it's funny you mention that, as the patriot act has allowed the government to arrest quite a few people without a warrant

[Mad Mardigan]

I dont support the Patriot Act, I didnt realize it at first, but after researching, I know what is going on.

[Pangloss]

I do. And so should you. Almost all candidates for any public office support Patriot Act, including both of Florida's senate candidates, and both of the current presidential candidates. Kerry even voted for it.

 

PA's not perfect, but it's not the repressive 1984 scenario that the far left crowd makes it out to be. And it certainly doesn't do this:

 

actually, it's funny you mention that, as the patriot act has allowed the government to arrest quite a few people without a warrant

 

Patriot Act has nothing to do with my decision to vote for Kerry, and if anything what it is is a logical exploration of how legislation can proceed to further the war on terror. The fact that it's become a buzz-word for fear-mongering by one extreme shouldn't scare you away from it, it should tell you that there's something there worth having.

[budullewraagh]

the patriot act itself does nothing. the government uses it to back up their actions...like arresting and deporting people

 

perhaps something is needed but the patriot act is just a sham by the neo-cons to let us know that they can screw us over all they want

[Pangloss]

Well, if that were true we'd be looking at thousands of people in prison without due process instead of between ONE and SIX (depending on who you ask).

 

Spinning the issue off into the hinterlands resolves nothing. That's how we end up divided and unable to resolve issues.

[MolecularMan14]

thank you Pangloss! You continue to be the voice of virtue in these type of debate threads. The fact is that, if people, none mentioned here :cough, friggin cough cough:, continue to keep their minds fixed on something in a bias fashion, they cannot possibly see the other side of anything (just for the fact that they dont like being wrong). I keep my mind open to both parties. I cant say that I agree with any of Bush's domestic policies, incuding the patriot act, or outsourcing. But Kerry's Iran plan scares me to death! So I dont consider myself to be liberal or conservative, I vote on whos policies agree with mine. So, vote for me!

[Pangloss]

Mol, what kind of a crazy Beverly Hills resident are you? I thought that was serious hinter-lands, tin-foil-hat territory, but you sound WAY too open-minded.... ;-)

[Mad Mardigan]

check out http://badnarik.org/

 

That is who I support.

[MolecularMan14]

Mol, what kind of a crazy Beverly Hills resident are you? I thought that was serious hinter-lands, tin-foil-hat territory, but you sound WAY too open-minded.... ;-)

lol, ya know i never did fit in

Thanks man. I would gladly see both movies, to get a better perspective. Most of the people around here love f911, but would never think of the new one. I personally never saw either, but I still watch the news, and do some political research now and then; as well as the frequent political debates around here. But I like to keep an open mind, to make myself a more intelligent voter, to make the right decision

[Tetrahedrite]

I pose a question to all of the Bush supporter I read here:

Why doesn't Bush pre-emptively invade North Korea, Iran, Sudan etc who are known to have wepons of mass destruction (some even brag about it!) and/or are knowingly committing crimes against humanity. Its seems to me that these regimes pose a much, much bigger threat to US safety than a countries that had no weapons of mass destruction, and until the US invaded it, no links to al quaeda.

 

The answer to this question, I believe has three parts:

1/He knows the US would get it's butt kicked by a country like N. Korea. Only ever illegally invade a country you know you can slaughter,

 

2/Suddam Hussein "tried to kill his daddy"

 

3/ North Korea doesn't have the biggest oil field in the world.

 

Michael Moore makes points like this and they are legitimate. He is just trying to enlighten the large percentage of US citizens that have got their heads buried in the sand

[JohnB]

Perhaps the truth is that the solution to a problem depends on the problem.

 

Direct military confrontation in Korea has a very good chance of nukes being used. You may be willing to accept perhaps 10 million deaths, but most others would not. Hence Diplomacy is probably the best option.

 

Iran has a growing Democratic movement and will probably change in the relatively near future. So pressure on the Government while encouraging Democratic reform is a good option.

 

Sudan, the UN has that in hand in it's usual inimitable multi lateral fashion. There will be a complete investigation by the Commision on Human Rights. Should there appear to be anything wrong, they will probably send a severe note to the Sudanese Government. See, with the UN on the job, there is no need for the US to do anything.

[Sayonara]

Direct military confrontation in Korea has a very good chance of nukes being used. You may be willing to accept perhaps 10 million deaths, but most others would not. Hence Diplomacy is probably the best option.

10 million deaths?

 

Where are you getting that figure from?

[Pangloss]

Just guessing here, but I imagine he's referring to South Korea. Since NK can't actually hit the US with an ICBM yet (or at least not reliably, with a deployed weapon system), their logical target for a nuclear exchange is their neighbor to the south.

 

It's a common speculation.

[Sayonara]

That doesn't really answer my question.

[budullewraagh]

im not going to support the figure of 10 million, but i will say that invasion of north korea would surely result in millions of casualties. the korean army is like a bunch of bloody robots, and they consist of 6.3 million soldiers. of course, they wouldnt ALL fight to the death, but quite a bunch would, i would imagine. also, factor in the prospect of kim jong il using nukes and novichok agents and you have a very disturbing picture forming

[Tetrahedrite]

You all paint a picture of North Korea as a very dangerous country, capable of killing say 10 million people. Does this not support my first answer:

 

Only ever illegally invade a country you know you can slaughter.

 

You have to remember that Bush and his allies said that Saddam also had nuclear ambitions and could have a nuclear weapon within six months

North Korea spends 22% of its GDP on its military while its people starve, surely the US should unilaterally invade to "make the world a safer place and to liberate its people from an evil tyrrant" bringing American style "democracy" as they go.

[budullewraagh]

oh, i totally agree that we'll never invade korea because an invasion would be nearly impossible

[JohnB]

Sayonara, the 10 million was a guess.

 

We are talking an area (both North and South Korea) about the size of 2 US states. A combined population of over 70 million people. Seoul alone has a population of over 10 million. A nuclear exchange on the Korean peninsula with say 4 bombs hitting Seoul?

 

I don't think that 10 million is too far out of the ballpark, but it is just a guess.

 

Tetra, my point was that it is simply better to not have a war when you know the civillian casualties would be in the millions. It has nothing to do with only attacking those you can beat. It has to do with not being willing to sacrifice that many innocent people.

 

I notice that you throw the word "illegal" around, you are aware that the intervention in the Bosnian crisis was also "illegal"? As would any intervention in Sudan without the express request of the Sudanese Government?

 

You are aware that if a government were to set up gas chambers and start wholesale slaughter, provided they do not interfere with their neighbours, the UN is powerless to intervene? They may impose sanctions, but that is all. So long as the slaughter is kept as a purely internal event, the UN Charter forbids the UN from taking military action.

 

Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 7.

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;"

 

Sometimes "illegal" is "moral". I just wish it didn't have to be that way.

[Sayonara]

I thought it might be a guess.

 

Typically, with a tactical nuclear weapon (assuming it detonates on target), you can usually expect 2/3 buildings destroyed but only 1/3 population mortality - and that includes deaths from radiation in the first five years after the explosion.

 

Obviously population density in the target area is a major variable, so unless you know exactly where bombs are going to hit it is a bit tricky to work out how many people will die.

[Tetrahedrite]

I notice that you throw the word "illegal" around' date=' you are aware that the intervention in the Bosnian crisis was also "illegal"? As would any intervention in Sudan without the express request of the Sudanese Government?

 

You are aware that if a government were to set up gas chambers and start wholesale slaughter, provided they do not interfere with their neighbours, the UN is powerless to intervene? They may impose sanctions, [i']but that is all[/i]. So long as the slaughter is kept as a purely internal event, the UN Charter forbids the UN from taking military action.

 

Iraq is basically on the other side of the world from the USA. Iraq was not threatening to invade any allies of the USA. It was not threatening to invade any sovereign country. It posed abolutely no threat to any of the coalition members with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. It had no links to terrorist organisations that do threaten the USA (as proved by an inquiry after the fact). Weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq to check for WMD and found none (for good reason). Most of the rest of the world opposed the action through the UN. The invasion did not have UN backing. So what justification does the USA have to invade Iraq? Using this logic Australia could go and invade, say, Canada and would not be held accountable.

Do you understand why I consider the war illegal?

[Pangloss]

That's why I didn't bother answering your question. You've already made up your mind.