I've recently seen Farenheit 9/11, it's quite a title in Europe, after all the chaos it caused in Amerika. Most Americans seemed to have made up their mind about it's Director; Micheal Moore. He's an evil truth twisting liar that hates America.

As someone from Netherland (europe) I'm confused now:

Is everything he says in the movie not treu?
Didn't Osama's relatives leave the country without problem even with the airban in place?
Didn't the Bush family have strong connection with the Saoudi goverments and the Taliban?
Didn't Bush invite Saoudi's over to discuss Eastern Affairs while less then a few kilometer away the Pentagon burned?
Isn't the Goverment constantly hammering on "terrorist threat" while in the mean time, home defence, disaster prefention, etc. is cut?
Isn't the US constitution being ripped apart by such things as the "Patriot act"
Isn't it treu that Amerika constructs their own natural recource harvest operations faster then that they dispatch Elite forces to hunt down terrorists?
and the list goes on.....

And can't a rational thinking person , make a few little conclusions out of this all?

yes off course, he shines up all of this, into something more severe then it really is,
but all movie makers do that. But there is a thruth in it isn't there?.

Or is it just that facing these facts makes Americans deny everything in a flair of patriotism and make them say such things as: You're evil, You're soft on terror, You lie yadda yadda.


please enlighten me.

Well, I've just gotten hold of Farenheit, so I can't really say yet.

I'm sure he does distort the truth at times, don't all grown-ups do that? but I also think he would put down the truth - otherwise, you would see Congress tryin' to nail his ass.

At the moment, I think he's neither a liar or truth seeker. I think he's a filmmaker and political commentator.

p/s: EDIT: I don't like him though. I feel he's gotten rich off of slagging Bush. Not that I like Bush either. He has only brought this kind of hatred on himself.

I read an article about farenheit 9/11, that pointed out some of the faults of the movie. For example, the thing about the Saudis that left. Turns out it was after the airban, and all of the passengers were given thorough background checks before they left the country.

The Bush family's connection to the bin Laden's was quite distant. I believe it was something like them owning shares in the same company or something.

And that's all I can answer off the top of my head, but I think the article mentioned how Mr. Moore manipulated his findings to get the audience to draw conclusions that it was all the Bush admionistrations fault that 9/11 happened.

The way I see it Moore never explicitly lies but he tends to draw you towards outrageous or false claims. Like you specified he never specifically said that the Bin Laden family left before the airban was lifted(which is false) although he hinted they got special treatment which leads you to that conclusion. I personally think he is lower than scum but I also give that title to some right wing idealogues too.

oh now I'm definitly shure that it was stated that the Bin laden's managed to escape WHILE the airban was in place. <----- fact out of video tapes and airport registration. They weren't even questioned about Osama by the FBI

and when I see actual movies of G, W Bush and high American officials shaking hands and laughing about jokes with members of the Taliban and other leaders of countries that are now on the "evil" list just a few years back, I wouldn't call that very vague distant relationships. They even invited a high-ranking Taliban member to tour America a year before 9/11 to improve relationships. Off course that went wrong; feminists groups questioned the man about such things as the elaborate headgear for females, didn't win much popularity there with such quotes as "I'm sorry you're husband has to live with you."
The tapes were off course never aired in america, but they were in Brittain.

And come on; America just hops into war with Iraq and when Osama boms America he is given 2 months head start. Yes that's right, screw the world when it comes to Iraq, but when America itself is bombed it takes 2 whole months before a single American soldier gets even near Osama's possible hide-out.

After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people,mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf

Nope off of Micheal Moore's website itsself they left after airspace reopened.

“Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.

And also off of Moore's website all of the people that were flown out were checked by the FBI and cleared to leave.

As to having a senior Taliban member over, it was done to help open communications and to promote positive change in their country. Or do you think we should not try diplomacy with nations that we fundamentally disagree with? Maybe we should have just walled them off and sanctioned them till there country collapsed?



Uh we had to prepare, confim it was Osama, try to get the Taliban to hand him over peacably. That all takes time. What if we had immediatly bomed Afghanistan killed hundeds of thousands and then found out he slipped out on September 10th because he was expecting that? We didn't just hop into war with Iraq either. It had been justified since they violated their first U.N. resoultion over 9 years ago. We should have invaded after they kicked out weapons inspectors. It was around that time when all of the major politicians were quoted as saying Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with yet all we did was impose tougher sanctions that hurt his people while he built more gold palaces off of corrupt oil for food program money.

I'm sure the movie implied that they flew of while the airban was in place, but this makes me rethink that. Moore can't that a hard fact. These things were twisted in the movie....... but they do have merit. Things were denied like the plane picking up high officials and they weren't questioned as thuroughly as they should have been, it's still strange. But I think I can agree now that the movie over-exagurates at that point.

No, I'm not saying you should have bombed the hell out of afghanistan. Sending Elite forces to capture Osama though, would have been loggical but none were sent. THAT would have been a time when the world would have understand aggresive actions. Saying, "we were trying diplomacy" makes no sense with a terrorist faction in a corrupt country.
And please don't start with, let's try diplomacy. Saddam was about to let UN inspectors back in after diplomacy by the UN when Amerika invaded, under the guise of false reports while the UN said the chances are high Saddam doesn't have anything. If you want to go rescue the world against tyrranie, there is worse things going on in Afrika.
Do you really think bush cares how the Iraqi poeple feel? America was dealing with Iraq while sanctions were in place, half of those shining palaces were build with willing american money.
North korea HAS ABC weapons and it has been confirmed why not attack THAT country? nope, that particular country IS tried with diplomacy even though they break every single sanction in the booklet.

That is what Micheal Moore does on almost all of his points. He points you towards a false charge and then when he is questioned about it he claims I never really said that. Well he didn't say it but he implied it.



I think you overestimate the abilities of our elite forces. America has the best military in the world but we couldnt just helicopter in 20 guys and drop em off and capture Osama. First off we didn't know where he was. We had a general idea but not an exact idea. If we knew exaclty where he was we would have just bombed it and been done with it. Plus Osama is no idiot and he knows the wrath he brought onto himself because of 9/11. He was hiding the best he coiuld and I am sure had a couple hundred men with ihm ready to die to protect him.



If we had left well enough alone and let the weapons inspectors do their jobs how long before he kicked them out again? A month? A year? Who knows. To say the very least Saddam was as uncooperative as he could be while meeting the bare minimums for what the U.N. was requiring. Why even make U.N. resoultions if you are not going to back them up. The best political cartoon I ever saw had a picture of Koffi Anon(sp) saying "If you do not stop with your current actions and abide by the resolutions we have set then we are ready to take action. We will write you a very nasty letter but then continue to do business with you." And while you are true some American businesses did use the Oil for food program there number is tiny compared to France, Germany, and Russa. You know the three major voices against the war. And even if all of the Oil for Food corruption was because of American businesses that doesnt negate our right to be outraged over it and do something to fix it. The argument its okay because you did it too doesn't work for me.



America along with several other nations is currently in talks with North Korea to disarm. It is a tight balance to keep them in check and we may someday have to go to war with them. I think if military action was really needed China would step in and squash them. China is becoming a dominant player in the world economy and doesn't want anyone to mess that up. I don't necessarily think that is truly the best course of action but neither I nor you are informed enough to really know the best way to handle it so I leave it up to the Bush administration.

You see, I agree Moore's movies are indeed, elusive at times, he is a movie maker after all. There is plenty of thruth in them though, that the common American just doesn't want to see. So many stange things have happened the last past 4 years and nobody wants to see it.

You're absolutely right that when it comes to breaking arms sanctions Europe and Amerika are just about evenly matched. The multitude of weapons left prior to the Iraqi invasions were French, American, German and terrorists everywere are still having a field day with al the weapons they've gotten from the collapse of the USSR. (by the way, Europe has after the Gulf War dealt in far lesser numbers then the US, active trade with terrorist countries was still big before 9/11.)

But let us not begin comparing Europe to Amerika, we all have our shady bussinessmen who deal with countries who might put world peace in jepardy.
Like certain poeple on the board of Carlyle, perhaps the worlds biggest military contractor, snuggly discussing arms trades, with poeple like relatives of Osama.
Wait, wasn't Bush on Carlyles board?

He ignores every single warning that something might be going on in America on terrorist activity. He even CUTS terrorist investigastion budgets in halve and goes fishing.

And then we invade Iraq, out of a thousand places that are far worse then that country in any given perspective, under false pretences and little preperations.
Maybe the war was right, you're right sanctions aren't the most effective way of dealing with it, but under Bush?
Now we have Vietnam only with a lot more sand. A place were there are more building contractors then soldiers, so little in fact, that Manhatten has a bigger police force then soldiers in Iraq (even after the budget cuts on home defence.

Now, how to still stay elected? What did other powerfull historical leaders do after they cheated the democratic system (more poeple voted for Gore then Bush), cut civil rights in halve (Patriot act), make poeple think they dependant on their leader thanks to media and religion (the pope). Putting poeple in camps (guantanamo) and creating a list of "evil countries''
With Fear. You have an alarm code system, canceled random events.
and to make that all believable, Bush cut disaster prevention and home defence in halve. ??
Bush is juggling the media around like a knife circus act, pointing out things that suit him and his campaign while pressing mathers that could be resolved with the same attention you've bene giving Iraq are left in the dark.

Even with Moore exagurating, there are just way to many shady points attachable to Bush for someone like him to become a president.

BTW I don't hate America, most Europeans love(d) you. But I'm just shocked at what's happening and poeple getting away with it. Please don't make mistakes we made on this continent with 2500 years of strife, 6 poeple bent on world domination and 2 world wars. The reason why I'm so upset is that I'm seeing historical reocurence.

Dude, we did. Most of them. Didn't you hear the news stories about special forces riding horses with afghan rebels while using lasers to target bombs?

Most Americans don't let the media control them. At least in the part of America I live in. I'm sure in places like California the media is like God and anything they say goes, but that's not everywhere. If you asked me the terrorist alert level right now, I'd laugh and say I don't know.

Bush doesn't ignore terrorist warnings. When new messages about possible terrorist attacks were intercepted, security was stepped up. And the president can't just cut funding for things like homeland security. Only Congress can, so it would take a bill from Congress to cut the budget for anything.

We invaded Iraq. Look at Saddam. Would you want someone like him in power anywhere in the world? The man deserved to be toppled from power. He used mustard gas on citizens of his own country. How sick is that. If you ask me, the WMD thing Bush came up with was just a reason to take Saddam out of power. Which needed to be done.

Our democratic system has something called the Electoral College. That is what elects the president. Popular vote, though a usually good indicator of the future President, is not the true electoral vote.

So what if Bush is kinda shady. Many others and I feel that Kerry's lack of a solid position on anything is really shady.

To me, Micheal Moore exaggerates just a little too much for the truth to be found.

around the time there were files going around, Ashcroft cut the FBI's terrorist response budget by 12 percent.

"This question of resources will also come up in the commission's questioning of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was brand-new on the job in the fall of 2001 and on September 10th cut the FBI's request for new counterterrorism money by 12 percent.” John Dimsdale, “Former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General John Ashcroft to appear before 9/11 commission tomorrow,” NPR Radio: Marketplace, April 12, 2004. See also, 2001 budget documents including Attorney General John Ashcroft FY 2003 budget request to Office of Management and Budget, September 10, 2001, showing $65 million offset in the FBI budget for counter-terrorism equipment.

Congress REALLY isn't all what it's cracked up to be as it even let things like the patriot act through, with more then half the congress NOT knowing what it was all about.

"Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a ‘first order threat’ and not a routine problem being exaggerated by ‘chicken little’ alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10;

and when the US got hit, Bush didn't rush to office to take charge, nope he just sat there, minutes on end and took his time. How's that for decisive action?

You sure are right about Bush not ignoring terrorism now, Bush now cries wolf even if nothing is going on. Even while close to half of the New York firehouses are closed during budget cuts. and states like Oregon have less protection then ever, Osama can unload half a thousand troops and a marching band and walk half way across Amerika in these regions without encountering a trooper. And cutting soldiers pay and veteran care.

I always believed Democracy was all about the voice of the poeple? Better ask those thousand of caucasion amerikans all over Amerika who weren't haerd by a single senator. And isn't popular vote what democracy is about?

I hdislike Saddam, him being squashed like a bug couldn't be happening to a nicer dictator. But regardless why pick that country? With thousands of Africans worse of then poeple in old Iraq, hundreds of oil barrons who are even worse dictators only an arms length away in banana republics who Europe and America still, generously deal with daily? Why force what could have been a good war with a strong coalition into a second ill-prepared Vietnam? Either there are background reasons, or bush is a horible chief in command.

Bush is about as solid as a water; first ignoring things, then overexagurates. being pals with one group of poeple, then putting them on his terrorist list. warning everyone there's danger, while he makes the world a more dangerous place. creating a turbulent world were nobody knows what to think.
And I find this whole : "Kerry thinks, therfore he's weak." amusing. Off course poeple change their minds over time as the situation changes in these turbulent times. A large portion of the world agreed that war was a correct course guided under a strong honest shining beacon that was once America.
We changed our minds, the British almost empeached Blair, the Spanish crushed the old goverment in their last elections who tried to use terrorism as a means of getting voters, Kerry saw things were done wrong, watever country joined the "Coallition" is withdrawing, not wanting to Bush's lackey's.
I'm amazed things are going to get even close in the american elections.

Oh well, in about two days this thread isn't going to mather anymore. Moore might exagurate, but he does exagurate the truth, I wished we had more abnoxius fat guys armed with camara's in history.

I'm no Republican....nor a Democrat.....or even an American.With that said, I have a degree of respect for Michael Moore and his work.I do not believe the things he says 100%....BUT those matters which he mentions which I have trouble believing or doubt, probably have a few ounces of truth in them.

If anyone has been reading the political-related threads here in OB's Social Boards, you'll probably know thta I am no big fan of Bush and oppose the war in Iraq immensely coz I believe it is not only justified.....but also a wrongful criminal act towards a sovereign country. Whether a country is being ruled by a communist system....dictatorship....democracy.....monarchy.....it doesnt matter much to me. What's done in Iraq is wrong.The information was flawed, no WMDs were found even till this day mind you and plenty of lives and resources were wasted practically for nothing.PLUS.....its already been said and proven before and after that Iraq is not linked with Al-Qaeda.Afghanistan was....Iraq na-da/zero/zilch terro link.....but thanks to the war, its probably a great place now to get more support.
With that said, I think Bush is bad for America.I know little of Kerry.....but I think a change is needed to the USA,so he seems to me as America's chance to repair itself from the mess of what George W. Bush has made.

Oh yeah...as for Saddam, he deserved to be removed and punished for the crimes he has committed. I'd prefer to see him being removed by his own people though....through a coup de tat by his generals or better yet by the Iraqi people themselves(Democratic spirit,yes?) which was the reason why i strongly disagree with the whole Bush Gung-ho 'lets go attack Iraq w/o the UN support' method.....

Well, guess this is it then, election day, I'll be glued to the TV here in Yurp........ Thanks for the replies Alucard and Kaneda, I know I'm an overzealos hard headed debater but thanks for arguing with me.

Hope America does well over the next 4 years.

Urgh.......... oh well, I'm happy Bush won a fair and square, descisive victory.

There's overall dissapointment here in Europe among the poeple about the results, but he, what are we going to do about it?

Though we may find Bush distastefull and arrogant in many ways, Europeans and Americans alike should remind themselves that in the long term, the americans and the europeans have the same goals. We just wished that there would be a more friendly president over there.

I liked the French comments, they were actually happy with the results. They weren't planning on joining the war on Iraq right away no mather what and it's much easier saying no to an arogant Bush then to a friendly Kerry.

I still don't thrust that man though............ I hope things won't escelate world wide and tensions don't rise.

I don't know if any of you guys saw The Republican Convention when they showed that Michael Moore was there. He got booed so bad. It was funny to see him there since he hates Bush.

Here's my two cents in this. I hate Michael Moore. I give him credit for stirring up the world about his movies. People don't like Bush, they think he is shady. What President isn't.

Our intelligence was so bad from Clinton and it trickled to Bush and we kind of knew about 9/11. We had so much information that we didn't put the pieces together until after 9/11. It's easier to see your clues afterwords then before the big event.

We invaded Iraq because Bush wanted no other country to use or have Nukes. Even though USA has over 20,000. We had inspection agents over in these countries and Iraq wouldn't let us in. So that's kind of a heads up that there is something that shouldn't be happening over there. So we invaded. You can't just ignore something like that, even if you have another problem.
*It is true that Iraq got a good amount of their Chemical weapons from the USA from the Gulf War, I think.

Michael Moore saw an opportunity to make another film that bashed someone. Bush was an easy target at this time.

Hopefully Bush will get some stuff done, but its up to the USA's senate and congress to get his stuffed passed. So if it looks like he isn't doing anything, its because the senate and congress aren't passing it.

I heard Michael Moore is making another film. I dont' know about what so if anybody knows what that is then feel free to respond to this.

You should watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and Farhenhype 9/11

Two sides of the story, kinda.

Michael Moore is a schmuck. He came to PSU to talk about his movies and all it ended up becoming was a giant political rally against Bush.

It's pretty obvious that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a liberal propaganda. Biased crap shouldnt be passed as a fact, even if it's objective.

What I can't stand is Moore's "Holier-Than-Thou, I-Told-You-So" smugness when he "uncovers" Bush's incompetence. C'mon, it's Dubya Bush here. A coke addict with one glass eye could have found Bush's incompetence. It's usually lying next to "Al Gore Votes 2000".

I think it's just a lot of us can't stand being preached to. I mean, Bowling For Columbine was a good documentary and a good social commentary about the problem of guns and gun control in the U.S. But after he took those highschoolers to K-Mart to buy bullets, he started getting all preachy. He's not stopped since, unfortunately. Somewhere, he's still holding up his Oscar and saying "Shame On You, President Bush. Shame on you that I've used up valuable Academy Awards time to slag you and make my next documentary based on your incompetence that I can preach to the rest of the world who already knows the truth, yet need me, a fat guy with a beard which makes me look like a bigger version of Peter Jackson to reiterate the point. I love you mom."

p/s: I 've seen t-shirts that say "Good Bush" (and show a woman's... well, you know) and "Bad Bush" (which shows Dubya). I'm thinking of making T-shirts that show a direct correlation between Michael Moore & Dubya Bush.

I'll call them the "Moore Bush" shirts. Also the "4 Moore Years Bush." Maybe even "Mount BushMoore". (Like Mount Rushmore, not Bush & Moore mounting each other - that's just sick).

You know, it's a shame.

Michael Moore is a great cinematographer and director on a technical level. A damn shame to see what he's using it for.

.......Dude,I think its time for you to lay off reading those Frodo-Sam love fanfics. :sweatface: :laugh:

Speaking of M.Moore....I read somewhere that his next work will be focusing on Medicare?(or was it Medicaid?) That I am looking forward for coz after watching John Q(that Denzel movie?), I am intrigued to know how the whole deal works and the issues raised by it.

Cool Idea buy my last name is Moore so since i like President Bush having that would make a butt end of a joke. Moore for Bush talking about me is ok. Moore Bush would get confusing to other people. Seems like i'm running for Prez and Bush is my Vice. Very odd.

Mount BushMoore just sounds funny. A better t-shirt to go with Mount BushMoore would be have both their heads mounted on a wall next to each other.

Hey, that's a great idea. And easier to photoshop than Mt. Bushmoore.

Since I'm not american - is this covered by the freedom of speech (and expression) or is this considered an act of war?

Prez Bush: That foreignie has gawn too far. I can take it that he's got my head mounted on the wall. I can take it that it's right next to muh mortal enemy, Michael Moore - but golly gosh darnit - the T-shirt is not made in America and therefore must be duh work of Al-Kaena... huh? that was an animated movie with Kristen Dunst? Ay-Karamba!. die mo-f*cker die!

If i understand the laws correctly for America, you can say what you want as long as you don't threaten and then take immediate action. Making a T-shirt is covered by freedom of speech. In America there is a lot of Anti Bush t-shirts and other propaganda.

I think if you don't like them then don't vote for them. If you can't vote for them then you can have your opinions but does it change anything because you have an Anti symbol of that person? I hate a lot of politicians and other people but I don't have anything that is Anti symbolic of them mainly because me disliking them isn't gonna change anything. That's how I feel.

Since I dispise Michael Moore I don't watch his movies. He makes some interesting points in the past about Columbine and other stuff but the stuff against Bush is nonsense. Did it effect the election? Nope. Did Bush stop the wars? Nope. All it did was have Michael Moore gain enemies and not trust Hollywood EVEN more.

I personnaly think Hollywood should stay out of politics. It just hurts them when they choose a side. Like the Dixie Chicks for example. After their little incident, people burned and trashed their CD's and radio stations refused to play their songs for a while. And yet so many other musicians have come out and publically said they hated bush. So WTF?

You hate Bush. You want a medal or something?

Not a good idea to invade a country over oil. It'll leave Iraq in civil turmoil for along time IMO.

Everybody here is entitled to an opinion, but please at least back it up with facts or a logical theory. I could say of World War II, "Not a good idea to invade Germany so we can steal their technology," but even if that was my opinion, it would be a completely baseless claim.

There's no substantial body of evidence that the war was to seize Iraq's oil; quite the contrary, it was a given going in to the war that the conflict would DISRUPT Iraqi oil operations due to sabotage, terrorism, and logistical issues.

Do you honestly think that Bush is an evil oil baron who would spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stage a war which would allow oil companies to save perhaps half a billion dollars on their cost of crude? If he was really out to serve the oil interests, wouldn't those billions have been better spent on tax breaks for the energy industry? The oil argument just doesn't make sense at all.

If every barrel of oil produced in Iraq over the last YEAR was GIVEN FREELY to the oil companies, that oil would be work almost one billion dollars.

Let's look at the numbers again:
Cost of the war: $200 billion
Value of the oil: $1 billion

Please reconsider your argument.

I'd like to know where that fact came from for a start.. FOX News? Ok then, that's fair enough I'll back it up. For what reason exactly would Bush, out of the blue deside to invade Iraq. A country which his father supplied arms to just over a decade ago, and I'm not talking about the oil buiness now, think in the long run. 20 years down the line when one of Bush's cousins is (just like he was back in the day) a leading oil buisness chairman. Also let's look at his public reasoning, "The War on Terror". Look at Saudi Arabia, technically the Saudi's own 11% of America (Fahrenheit 9/11) would this be the reason maybe he chose to ignore that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's?

"Your math goes against my opinion, so your numbers must have come from Fox news"? I'm sure you can construct a better argument against my numbers than that. I'll even help you! Let's take a look at where we'll actually BE in 20 years! :biggrin:



Let's determine the profit margin of one barrel of oil. Factor in all of the following expenses:

Research
Repairing the oil infastructure post war and while coping with ongoing terrorism
Drilling (and manpower)
Production (and manpower)
Security
Transportation (from Iraq AND domestically)
Refining
Taxes and any applicable tarrifs (Iraqi, Federal US, State US)
Economic factors (including the looming oil crash devaluating each barrel of oil by 50% or more)

Take whatever money is left (the profit!) and multiply by 1.5 million barrels per day, which is ABOUT what Iraq is actually producing right now (estimated, could be slightly higher, just as likely much lower).

Unfortunately, Iraq's production peak before the war was 2.5 million barrels per day, generating a profit of $4 billion or so a year. Even at the HIGHEST production levels ever, it would take 60 years to pay for the war with Iraq's oil.

It gets worse, we're nowhere near that level of production.

The first time I did the numbers, the oil companies would actually be LOSING money in Iraq right now, so I did some math giving them some more generous, optimistic figures (largely by eliminating the cost of security and rebuilding operations - I counted them as war expenses), and I came away with about 1 billion dollars in profit to be had in Iraq each year at the current production rate. Let's say it's even rosier, and oil companies can make a combined TWO billion a year.

At that rate, the war will have been paid off in about 112 years or so. And that's if they were just GIVING us the oil!

What a bad investment!



Off the top of my head?

1) Because Iraq was in direct violation of international law by banning weapons inspections.

2) Because Iraq was openly violating the treaty they signed with us when they surrendered some ten years prior.

3) Because President Clinton attacked Iraq -- without UN approval, on the eve of his impeachment hearings.

4) Because Iraq expressed an interest in aquiring nuclear weapons.

5) Because Iraq had ALREADY attacked it's neighbors with chemical weapons just a decade prior.

6) Because Iraq was proactively attacking American forces on a daily basis.

7) Because Iraq openly supported terrorists and extremists, and while they did not directly support the 9/11 attackers, they supported and applauded their cause.

8) Because under Hussein's rule, people were being tortured and killed by their own oppresive government while living in 3rd world conditions in spite of their country's relative wealth.




That is completely false.

"According the Census Bureau, the top countries which own U.S. stocks and bonds are the United Kingdom and Japan. Foreign investors owned $1,690 billion in corporate bonds in 2002. The Census Bureau lists the major national holders, and then groups all the minor holders--including Saudi Arabia--into "Other Countries."

All of these other countries combined (including Saudi Arabia) account for only 6 percent of total foreign ownership of U.S. corporate bonds.

Likewise, all "Other Countries" combined account for only 7 percent of total foreign ownership of corporate stocks. (And of course the large majority of U.S. corporate stocks and bonds are owned by Americans.)"

Emphasis added

And that's just the stock and bond market. America's wealth also includes private businesses, real estate, etc., of which the Saudis do not have a cut of.

Saudis own at MOST 4% of foreign investments in the United States. The US' GDP alone is over 11 trillion dollars, and foreign investments in the US total under 2 trillion of that.

Saudi Arabia owns less than one percent of America. Probably FAR less, I'm too tired to do the hard numbers right now.

So yeah. Anything else?

yah... i know about this. this is actually why i dun understand why they pick on dubya when he went through all that trouble of getting UN approval, and on top of that, had a good 9/11 "excuse." :confused:

(also, i watched "iron jawed angels." i liked it. and i dun understand how democrats can say they pioneer liberal laws like gay rights when they didn't even pioneer women's suffrage back then.)

Well maybe not Fox, perhaps ITN? :sigh:



I'm not disagreeing with this point but lets look at input and output, who pays for research, drilling etc - the US Taxpayer let's say and perhaps the UN I'm not 100% sure but I'll hazard a guess but because it would come under economic regeneration. The oil companys arent paying for anything besides cheap oil. True?



Just like Iran at the minute? Think about it! Just take away the current waiting deadlock and they've been in the Nuclear buiness longer surely!



Sounds like somewhere else I've heard of. According to the US goverment 5.6% of the entire population is unemployed. Last year, for example, the Census Bureau declared there were 36.5 million poor Americans - nearly 14 percent of the U.S. population. I think you stating that Iraq torturing their citizens is a bit hypocritical when the U.S. denies basic human rights when detaining "suspected terrorists" in Guantanamo Bay. Sure why not, we'll ship them all to Cuba so we can do whatever the f*ck we want with them.



Yeah actually, you touched on my "incorrect" quote from Farenheit 9/11 about the Saudi's foreign investments in but yet you never mentioned the fact about the 9/11 hijackers, look at Saudi Arabia, then look at your list for reasons for Bush invading Iraq. And cross-reference.

As bad as Iraq was, war wasn't the answer. They did start to comply with demands but no, let's rely on our intelligence services and bomb family homes (a.k.a. bomb factories) because they're the ones to blame. Someone once asked me who my favourite serial killer was, I said George W. Bush

I like this discussion, it's insightful to get your opinion but I may not be able to reply to later :happy:

I'm not American, so I'm not qualified to criticize or judge a political system that I'm not a part of, or even particularly understand. Even if I was, it's not my intention to.

This post is in no way connected to Iraq and the war there, though it does have troubling consequences stemming from this costly war - and the troubling thing we have brewing in North Korea.

I have heard rumors that the Pentagon is tabling a bill to Congress that gives them a First Strike Nuclear Response policy.

The policy is rumored to state that if any nation or organization working in a particular geography has nuclear launch capabilities and has expressed/shown to be a viable nuclear threat against the United States, the Pentagon has the right to launch Nuclear weapons first to eliminate the threat before it comes to fruition.

Now, this may not be true - I mean I don't trust the source it's from - but it's a rumor that is going around - a worrying rumor. I'm just questioning, with the controversy the war in Iraq has sparked internationally, what are the odds of this actually being true?

Secondly, this has nothing to do with Michael Moore - which is what this topic about - so maybe we're all skating a little too far from base here.

False, and a bogus argument. We're fixing the oil fields because they were destroyed during the war (by the other side no less) to get Iraq on their feet. US oil companies are assisting in the rebuilding process. We are BUYING the oil, just like we buy it from every other OPEC nation, South America, etc. We are NOT getting it 'cheap'.

If you want to talk about unethical cheap oil, let's talk about France and Germany opposing the Iraq conflict because they were getting discounts from Hussein's regime in exchange for their support in the UN.



Heeeey, aren't we imposing sanctions and pursuing this in the UN? The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran is researching illegal weapons, Iraq HAD them and USED them on innocent people. That's comparing apples and oranges, going on apples and trees.



5.5 actually. Compared to a high of 7.5 under Clinton, 8 under Carter, and 10 after Carter left office. 5.5 is low.



Coincidentally, I'm financially independant and my yearly income is WELL under the poverty line. My annual income is in the four-digit range. I have my own house, a car, and a range of consumer electronics. I'm healthy and I eat well. In the next few years I'll go back to school to finish off my bachelor's and start in on my master's to ensure that I can afford to raise a family some day. Being poor in America does not equate to suffering. Very little in my life would change if I had a million dollars in the bank right now. Don't try to bring class warfare in to this, because you're losing this argument to one of the poor people. :tongue:



Wow, so it's okay for Hussein's regime to torture, rape, and murder because we're imprisoning prisoners of war? What kind of logic is that? If you seriously think that Gitmo is the same thing as an Iraqi rape room, you have issues dude. That blows my mind that you'd even make that comparison. That's insane.



That paragraph doesn't make any sense. None of the reasons I listed had anything to do with terrorism (except for #7, where I was explicit that Iraq was not behind Sept 11th).

My response to the fact that 15 hijackers were of Saudi decent would be that we don't start sh*t with the Mexican government every time an illegal immigrant from Mexico commits a crime, because Mexican government isn't supporting or endorsing those crimes. The Afghani and Iraqi governments WERE endorsing and supporting terrorists.

Now, would you like a list of all of my points that you haven't refuted? :wink:



When?



Back this statement up with PROOF that Iraqi homes were bombed after being mistaken for weapons production facilities and we'll get in to it. Otherwise I'm going to dismiss it as heresay.



That's a very immature and unrealistic thing to say. I'm sorry you feel that way.

This is kind of tricky, so let me get in to it as best as I can.

This is basically an update to policy which was enacted under Clinton. The key here is that current US policy is obsolete. Our nuclear engagement policies were written with a nuclear war against the Soviets in mind.

The draft in question basically says "If we're attacked with WMD by another nation (or by terrorists), we can respond with the full force of our military. If we find out that another nation (or terrorists) are about to attack us with WMD, we can preempt them."

The word that needs to be noted here is "WMD". We're not talking about nuking the middle-east if a suicide bomber kills a dozen people, we're not talking about bombing China just for having nukes, we're talking about using our full military might against Iran or North Korea if they attempt (or god forbid, succeed) in detonating a nuclear device in New York or Los Angeles. The Pentagon is specifically concerned with a defensive/retaliatory engagement.

One example would be using a nuclear device to destroy a weapons cache before it can be used; for example, "[to prevent] imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy." Using a conventional explosive on a bioweapons facility would just scatter the bioweapon in to the air. That's when a small nuclear device may be appropreate.

And one more thing I want to stress is that this is still being discussed. The Secretary of Defense has not signed off on it, so it's nowhere near the legislature. It's just something that's being discussed and investigated.

I deeply oppose the use of nuclear weapons, but I'm also of the mind that I'd rather have the rules for their use determined well in advance instead of making the decision in the heat of the moment.

American policy is EXTREMELY CLEAR that a nuclear device can NEVER be used offensively, and that they are absolutely a weapon of last resort. If the US government ever attacked innocent bystanders with a nuclear device, they had better target the American people themselves -- because I promise you that if our government ever did such a thing, the American people would be the first ones taking up arms and invading Washington D.C. :biggrin:

One last thing, which I'm going to bold.

As of this morning, North Korea has agreed to give up their Nuclear program and resume cooperation with the international community!

That's some of the best news I could have hoped for today. :)

Article Here

---

I'd wish people would stop taking potshots at Fox News. Yes they do lean towards right (which automatically makes them not a news organization in some circles) but they do make an effort to have a politically diverse set of talking heads. Compared to news organizations like the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and CNN, Fox has yet to be involved in a major news scandal.

Okay, thanks for the clarification, Status.

But the term WMD covers a very broad range, ranging from missiles to biological attacks (e.g: anthrax) - but if I'm not mistaken, WMD must be targeted at American civilian targets and American civilian masses before the First Strike Nuclear policy can be applied right? I mean, that's one of the things they are talking about.

I guess the real worry here isn't whether the US has a policy like this. It's meant to be a deterrent obviously - however, US Intelligence Agencies haven't been covering themselves in glory recently. From the missile that hit the Chinese HQ in Kosovo to... other more recent wrong information episodes (mentioned so many times, it's getting old).

I hope that the powers that be, consider, what exactly is "ENOUGH" information to strike? Too late, the US is open... hmm, just like the movie "War Games" (starring Matthew Broderick). And let's hope that "ENOUGH" information is accurate.

In absolutely no way am I defending what happens in Iraq, what the militants are doing is wrong, any form of murder is wrong. There's very little argument for that in my opinion, but how the f*ck can intelligence services be so wrong every month? According to freelance researchers working in London, including a professor of psychology and a senior Lecturer in international relations at Keele Uni, in England, call the amount of civilians reported killed as a result of military intervention in Iraq between 24,770 and 28,030, US-led forces killed 37%of them. Basically well over 24,000, I've never heard of 200 pound car bombs exploding every other day in Iraq before the "liberation effort". And these "rape rooms" look at one of the worlds biggest "young adults" holiday destination; Faliraki, the rape capital of the world. Millions of 18-25 years olds visit if every year. Around 14.7% of female visitors are raped and only 2.6% are reported and 0.5% of offenders are convicted. Don't see the US yakking on about that torture. And I didn't compare G.B. to the abuse that Iraq women alone have suffered over the years, that's ridculous. I simply wanted to make the point that any type of inhumane abuse is wrong. Who are you to say that one human's suffering is worse than anothers?? Check out the picture below, taken in 1983, three years after the 8 year Iran-Iraq war broke out, over a waterway none the less. I'm using this picture to illustrate the happy families vibe between Iraq and the US pre-Desert Storm. He was a dictator then, when the $ was flowing, why the angry feelings now? :sad: As you wanna talk about how the U.S. can't make sh*t from the oil, to be honest, they didn't know the war was gonna take $300 Billion before they started it, did they? And we know that they've had intrest in Iraq's oil before, the USA headed UN 1995 "Oil-For-Food" scheme wasn't exactly Christian charity. I can't see the US asking Africa for land or labour in return for $300 Million in aid somehow. I live in a country that's had civil turmoil for 30 years, now after several peace processes and ceasefires between paramilitaries we're starting to get some peace. Talking democratically works. There is no excuse for war. And I'd just like you emphasize the way you say they HAD W.M.D's. Did they actually find any? I never heard...

Mega :sleep:


[img]http://eyedot.blogspot.com/rumsfeld_hussein.gif[/img]

Amen to that man.Kimmy.....you did good for your country today.

Sorry to join the fray all of a sudden like this.....but I just gotta disagree with a few things with Status here whom I love and adore as a friend(online friend since I can't actually touch him or anything......not that I want to touch him or anything....not that I am implying its wrong to touch him or anything....uhhh....let's just move on,shall we?).


I am a simple person who basically believes in a few little something called facts and proofs.Fact;up until now the world has yet to see any form of WMDs or illegal weapons in Iraq and there's no proof that anything of that sort was present in Iraq before or during the attack on Iraq.

I do believe Iraq once had WMDs and a huge bigass arsenal of weapons in the past.......which was given to them by the Americans to fight against Iran,but from I've been seeing these past few years those weapons may have already been exhausted from killing Kurds(or enemies of the Iraqi govt) or been seized by the US during the Gulf War. Point is....there's no WMDs in Iraq.



Afghans maybe but up until now there is no concrete evidence material or otherwise which supports that Iraq is backing up Al-Qaeda.From my understanding Saddam is sympathetic to the Palestinians and does not like Israel,to say the least.He compensates families of suicide bombers but didn't actually pick up a dozen guys from the street and train them to use explosives with his Republican Guards,right?(or am i wrong at this? :sweatface: ) Its probably his way of charity.(He is a dictator, y'know?)


And I thank both elfboy and Kyubi for raising and explaining the whole First Strike Nuke Repsonse Act Bill thingy.I am a bit unclear about that so it was much appreciated to me.I am however worried about the thing nonetheless.Hasn't anyone learn anything in the last 50 years that says "No pile of crap is worth using nukes.".

Note:Just for the record, I am not Pro-Saddam or an Anti-American.I just dun agree with Bush(his actions and such), that's it.I have nothing but love and respect for the American people, and I believe Status when he posted....



Human decency and righteousness is universal after all. :biggrin:

ps: Happy birthday Kyubi.Sorry this wasnt in the B-day thread.....I'm just lazy to post on 2 threads when I can just post on 1.

Thanks, but this is about 6 months early. :sweatface:

Briefly...

[quote=MegaManEXE,Sep 19 2005, 08:26 AM]the amount of civilians reported killed as a result of military intervention in Iraq between 24,770 and 28,030, US-led forces killed 37%of them. [/quote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html

At the end of major combat, independant groups reported 5,000 to 7,000 civilian casualties. The mounting civilian casualties are the result of terrorist actions.

Let's put that in perspective with a look at how many Iraqis Hussein killed. An estimated 200,000 Iraqis disappeared at the hands of Hussein's secret police. The total deaths on Hussein's hands - Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwatis - could run in to the low millions.

The loss of civilian life is always regretable, but the burden of the blame lies on the dictator who tortured his people for decades and loosed the hounds of war by defying international law.

[quote]I've never heard of 200 pound car bombs exploding every other day in Iraq before the "liberation effort".[/quote]

Bogus argument. That's because the secret police was torturing and murdering people in prisons and rape rooms instead of using car bombs.

[quote]And these "rape rooms" look at one of the worlds biggest "young adults" holiday destination; Faliraki, the rape capital of the world. Millions of 18-25 years olds visit if every year. Around 14.7% of female visitors are raped and only 2.6% are reported and 0.5% of offenders are convicted. Don't see the US yakking on about that torture.[/quote]

1) Stop making up numbers. In 2002, Faliraki saw a total of 23 reported rapes out of hundreds of thousands of visitors. That number was higher in 2003 I believe, but I wasn't able to find conclusive numbers. There is no POSSIBLE way you could have a solid number like 14.7%. You've been making up arbitrary numbers in every post. Stop.

2) The US isn't "yakking on" about it because American tourists are discouraged from visiting areas which are known to have high rates of crime. I believe most visitors to that part of Greece are from the UK... what are YOUR people doing about it?

3) You're comparing crimes commited by gang members which have prompted a police crackdown to crimes in Iraq which were being commited by the people in power. Once again you compare apples to oranges. 23 rapes commited by criminals isn't the same as thousands of rapes sanctioned by a government.

[quote]Check out the picture below, taken in 1983, three years after the 8 year Iran-Iraq war broke out[/quote]

You gloss over the fact that we were in the middle of a cold war which easily could have resulted in the death of every man, woman and child in the world in a nuclear apocalypse, and that forced us in to some uncomfortable alliances. Small detail, I know, the whole end of civilization. :tongue:

[quote]why the angry feelings now?[/quote]

Because he commited atrocities and started an unjustified war of aggression, prompting the US - newly freed of the burden of the cold war - to take action against him?

[quote]they didn't know the war was gonna take $300 Billion before they started it, did they?[/quote]

Actually, yes.

[quote]the USA headed UN 1995 "Oil-For-Food" scheme wasn't exactly Christian charity.[/quote]

No, and if memory serves, the corruption was on the UN side of things, all the way up to Annan himself. And if I'm not mistaken, America is calling for the heads of all of the dirty politicians involved. Don't pin corruption at the UN on us.

[quote]And I'd just like you emphasize the way you say they HAD W.M.D's. [/quote]

Don't take my word for it.

[quote]In 1982 Iraqi forces reportedly started deploying chemical weapons against Iranian troops. In 1983 the use was reportedly greatly increased.[/quote]

[quote]On 23 March, 1988 western media sources reported from Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days before Iraq had launched a large scale chemical assault on the town. Later estimates were that 4000 people had been killed.[/quote]

[quote]Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions. Many others were hit by Mustard gas.[/quote]

[quote][Iraqi biologist Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha] admitted to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin; [5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/2734305.stm) 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver failure; Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor-bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniqes as smallpox, but which is safer for researchers to work with.[/quote]

All from Wikipedia.

Lol, erm I do seem to get the impression that you're missing the point. Your opinions on the country's dictator I'm not disputing, in fact I completely agree. He is a f*cking money hungry inhumane evil soul and I hope Karma come knocking on his door soon. But if it happened in the 1980's what exactly took so long? I mean seriously. I'm also kinda offended by some of your remarks in the last post but I should have relised that you were looking for an argument with a random user when you latched on to me indiscrimiately when I was simply giving my opinion on something. And I don't have to back it up to anyone, that's why it's my opinion. For a start, I'm not British. I'm Irish, so I dunno where you're getting the "YOUR people" stuff from. Secondly, you don't seem to know very much about the British Press if you're quoting The Gaurdian...Don't rush into things so much, check the date on your "Special Report Iraq" and then look at mine, and where I quoted mine http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ Updated and corrected on the basis of double checking and cross refrencing every report of a death :happy: And just to back that claim up, as I'm sure you'd like me to do. The websites' press release can be quoted as stating, Not a tabloid newpaper pretending to be a broadsheet. I also seem to be touching on nerve when I mention the "Food-For-Oil" program but maybe things aren't always as they seem. Maybe your right, maybe your wrong. An upcoming report soon should get to the bottom of it if memory serves :mellow:

Now we can quote all we want, all day every day but honestly I'm gonna leave it at this. Fundamentally I believe your outlook on the whole situation is hazy at best, at the foundation of your views is where the problem lies in my opinion(which isn't necessarily correct). Through my eyes, the loss of civilian life isn't regretable, it's not a darn shame, it's not a pity but that's war for you. It's disguisting. No peaceful agreement to adhere to UN rules and regulations was asked for, you need to give things time. And if he was such a dictator then why are they *key random media spawned buzz-word for militants* still out there taking their own lives to end others. And why Iraq anyway? It's not like he's the only dictator in the world.

I wish I had more knowledge on the subject in it's entirity to argue my point, but I'm not an expert as much as I might pretend to be. Just a guy who hates to see the ugliness of war rearing its head every few years. I've seen enough in my lifetime and don't really wanna see anymore. By the way, as a Mod I must ask, are we in violation of any rules or fine-lines of this forum with our discussion?

Edit: I just relised this thread is about Micheal Moore ^_^ The glory of heated debate

It's 12:30 in the afternoon the next day here, so I'm about ready to throw in the towel too. I don't really have much to add - my opinions on the matter are pretty clearly stated at this point and I think I've provided enough supporting information to validate them. My main points speak for themselves, so anything else we got in to would be trivial side-points and speculative bickering.

As far as the rules go, we're okay. We both grazed the limits a bit (you had some bogus numbers, I shot a mild insult at you), but obviously if I felt like things were getting too heated I would have backed off and let another mod clean things up.

Also, my Irish friends are largely from the Belfast area, so I associate "Ireland" with Northern Ireland. I'm of Irish decent (mother's side) and certainly meant no offense by guessing you to be on the wrong side of the Irish border. Apologies for that.

I must agree you conveyed your views well and got straight to the point when delivering them. I've seen debates like the rage on for several days and I'm sure you'll agree that they can just become silly, statistic-slinging rambles alot of the time. Til you've kinda lost the will to type because you're repeating what you've already said.

Let's all just go watch some anime.

Four More Years! Four More Years! :baaa:

Yup MeganMan, just a few more years and we will never have to have this seemingly feeble argument ever again, because this man will never be president of our country again. And that is a great thing, in my opinion.


Just want to note that the mass majority of Americans aren't and haven't lost any sleep over Mr Moore. The intelligent American doesn't waste time worrying about if he is evil or good or whatnot, he's just yet another person expressing his views. Whoop-de-doo.

It doesn't matter if some things or anything he said in the movie is true or false. The fact of the matter is, America is a divided country under the leadership of Bush Jr whether movies like this exist or not. Roughly half the country supports him, roughly half the country doesn't. Those who support him have their reasons, and they strongly stick by them. No "logic" or "rationale" from the opposing view really seems to matter much. And vice versa - you can give the Bush Burners all the justification in the world for Bush's actions, but it isn't really going to change the "facts" the way they see it. Both sides think the other side is brainwashed or misinformed. In reality, I think both sides are under-informed and over-sensitive about the entire subject, personally.

I can tell you that a movie has about just as much of an impact on what the pro-Bush people think or what the anti-Bush people think as these debates do. Very little, if any. I seriously doubt that it would move any politically neutral parties one way or the other either. If someone is still neutral after all of the events that been taking place, this movie won't mean a thing. I myself loathe Bush and his administration, but even I have no interest in this movie. I've got this country, hell the entire planet on my mind right now, that I'm worried about. Screw Michael Moore and his point of view.