Fahrenheit 9/11

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

22 Jun 2004, 02:30 PM
Diff-chan

Also:

Quote:

The tipping point for the world was America's unilateral push towards war

For the countries I named, our war with Iraq threatened their economic interests. That's really it. Unilateral or not, we threatened their economic interests in Iraq. Every other country on the planet could've been for the war and they still would have resisted.

Now, they have every right to protect them, we protect ours, but that's really why the said countries (who are, really, the biggest, most powerful in the US Hate Brigade) hate us now and it all stems from that.
22 Jun 2004, 02:58 PM
sleeve

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Now, they have every right to protect them, we protect ours, but that's really why the said countries (who are, really, the biggest, most powerful in the US Hate Brigade) hate us now and it all stems from that.

How is this viewpoint any more sophisticated than the reverse, i.e. the US is interested in Iraq only for its oil?

Both are equally stupid (and wrong) arguments.
22 Jun 2004, 03:02 PM
Diff-chan

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

How is this viewpoint any more sophisticated than the reverse, i.e. the US is interested in Iraq only for its oil?

Both are equally stupid (and wrong) arguments.

I can tell you that the US is not interested in Iraqi oil because we are not in control of it. In regards to France/Germany/Russia, there have been documents found in Iraq which outline Iraq's trading partners, which include businessmen who are buddies with the highest levels of French/German/Russian government, and evidence of a massive scandal and tons of corruption regarding Oil-for-Food which even has ties to Kofi Annan's son.

So care to tell me why this argument is wrong and stupid instead of merely saying so? You're a lawyer for heaven's sake, so use some of your skills to educate this stupid fucking math student.
22 Jun 2004, 03:18 PM
sleeve

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I can tell you that the US is not interested in Iraqi oil because we are not in control of it. In regards to France/Germany/Russia, there have been documents found in Iraq which outline Iraq's trading partners, which include businessmen who are buddies with the highest levels of French/German/Russian government, and evidence of a massive scandal and tons of corruption regarding Oil-for-Food which even has ties to Kofi Annan's son.

So care to tell me why this argument is wrong and stupid instead of merely saying so? You're a lawyer for heaven's sake, so use some of your skills to educate this stupid fucking math student.

Straw man. You are presupposing that France/Germany/Russia have entirely self-motivated interests in Iraq, yet you are not making the same presupposition vis a vis the US. Yes, there are people in those countries who may have benefitted from the oil-for-food program, but there are also US companies that stand to benefit from the US's new attachment to Iraq, several of which have close relations with members of the current administration. I'll give you a hint, one of them begins with an "H".

Public opinion polls in these three countries regularly show more than 3 out of 4 people against the war. Is it because three out of four people in these countries have a vested interest in the corrupt oil-for-food program, or is it because opposition to this war runs deeper than the interests of a few plutocrats? You tell me.

To assume that France/Germany/Russia's Iraq policy is ENTIRELY based on those contacts is as simplistic, stupid, and wrong as saying the reverse about the US.

I would think that even a stupid math student such as yourself would grasp that.
22 Jun 2004, 04:01 PM
Diff-chan

However, looking at the facts as they are now, Iraqis control the oil pipeline from start to finish (just like we said would happen, and exactly the thing that liberals said would not happen).

And how much is the opposition from the public thanks in part to the campaigns from Chirac, Shroeder, etc.?

And is it the only reason? No, probably not. But it is a major reason, and one that is conveniently glossed over by many. It's a huge, huge, HUGE reason, and one that needs to be addressed. Had these countries not been leeching off Hussein's teat I think the situation would have been very different. And I dont see anybody placing the blame on these nations for the suffering the Iraqi people underwent during the sanctions, was they so often did with the US (1 million dead babies and other horse manure). The seriousness and depth of this UN corruption scandal is not getting the attention it needs to get.
22 Jun 2004, 04:09 PM
sleeve

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And how much is the opposition from the public thanks in part to the campaigns from Chirac, Shroeder, etc.?

I'm willing to bet that the high Muslim population in each country was a more significant factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And I dont see anybody placing the blame on these nations for the suffering the Iraqi people underwent during the sanctions, was they so often did with the US (1 million dead babies and other horse manure).

Considering that the movement to abolish the sanctions was extremely strong in France, I don't see how this argument makes any sense.
22 Jun 2004, 04:15 PM
Dragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Criticizing Bush is worthwhile but the lunacy that has gripped so many on the left has made the cause of "criticizing Bush" monotonous, redundant, and functionless. I go to the library and see at least 100 books criticizing him, most with ridiculous and infantile names like "Why Bush Is Stupid And You Shouldnt Vote For Him". All one nowadays has to do to get praise and money is talk shit about Bush. And Moore proves it with this movie. As for this movie, if it is so virulently anti-Bush and so virulently anti-America that a fucking terrorist organization that has a mission to destroy America wants to help distribute it (I dont think its unreasonable to infer that they would want to distribute to, I dont know, potential recruits) then that goes so far beyond worthwhile and important that it need not be mentioned.

I see more for Bush Shit out there than Fuck him stuff... you're being hipocritical, just because you can say, Bush is good, that doesn't mean another persons opinion is valued, I'm honestly against Bush, the moment I saw his face on 9/11, the fear and confused look of the most powerful man in the world... I lost all faith in him.
22 Jun 2004, 05:27 PM
Brisco Bold

To be fair, Dragon, how would you have reacted to 9/11? Fuck, how did you react to 9/11?

He may be the most powerful man in the free world, but he is human.
22 Jun 2004, 05:52 PM
station82o

i can't wait for a day long in the future when we can have political debates and discussions without the words liberal and conserative in the mix. This may be a fairly basic observation - but it seems to me that discussion over such topics always boils down to this basic liberal vs conservative fight that comes to BOTH SIDES (notice the emphasis) painting each other with broad strokes of a generalization paintbrush, not to mention the snide insults, and off-the-cuff knee jerk remarks that from an outsider or bystander's perspective looks like two groups of kids in a large wet sandbox throwing mud at each other.

I'll probably get flamed for that but fuck it I dont care - I hate the fact that a person can't talk about politics or social ideas in this country without THOSE TWO FUCKED WORDS APPEARING IN EVERY CONVERSATION. Fuck liberals and fuck conservatives. I'm so sick of this shit.
22 Jun 2004, 05:56 PM
Diff-chan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragon

I see more for Bush Shit out there than Fuck him stuff... you're being hipocritical, just because you can say, Bush is good, that doesn't mean another persons opinion is valued, I'm honestly against Bush, the moment I saw his face on 9/11, the fear and confused look of the most powerful man in the world... I lost all faith in him.

Are you kidding me?

01. Step into any bookstore and look on the shelves and compare how much stuff there is for vs. against. I would honestly say we're talking about a 1:50 ratio, if not even lower.

02. How am I being a hypocrite? Did I ever even say "Bush is good"? Now you're just putting words into my mouth.

Quote:

Considering that the movement to abolish the sanctions was extremely strong in France, I don't see how this argument makes any sense.

While the US had sanctions against Iraq, French/German/Russian businessmen were becoming rich and making Saddam rich on corrupt oil contracts.

Quote:

I'll probably get flamed for that but fuck it I dont care - I hate the fact that a person can't talk about politics or social ideas in this country without THOSE TWO FUCKED WORDS APPEARING IN EVERY CONVERSATION.

Those two words are loaded but they are simply descriptors for the two main political camps in the US. What would you prefer to be used? Im not gonna start saying some trash like, "antiwar" because "antiwar" implies that a "prowar" exists and that's a poor way of describing the situation. Same with "anti-Bush".

If you would like to suggest concise alternatives, by all means. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and dont post in political threads.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page