Support NeoGAF

[Hournda]

This wasn't a clash of the titans, it was like watching a lakers-clippers basketball game. O'Reilly destroyed Moore because O'Reilly is a much better debater than Moore is. When O'reilly said to Moore, "The CIA said Saddam had WMDs, Russia said Saddam had WMDs, Britain said Saddam had WMDs and so Bush didn't lie, he was misinformed. How can you keep calling him a liar?" What Moore should've said is, "Bush went to war because he wanted to, not because he had to. Saddam was contained. He had sanctions and the no-fly zone (which was being enforced), while he may have had WMDs, he was not aiding terrorists, he was not working on nuclear weapons and he was not exporting WMDs. If he attacked anyone he'd be beaten back by an international coalition like in the first Gulf War. If we went to war with Saddam, why not go to war with all the other brutal dictatorships in the world? The bottom line is Bush didn't go to war out of necessity, he went to war out of choice. [Then he could've given reasons why he went to war like oil, etc.]"

Instead, Moore just flubbed around and made dumb analogies that even if Bush was told Saddam had WMDs, it was still lying. He also tried to pull that lame "Would you sign your own kid up for the army?" trick from his movie and while it works in a film in which you, as filmmaker, have complete control over, it doesn't work in person against anyone with some debate skills. Moore did all his followers an extreme disservice with that awful performance.

 

[SKluck]

I don't see the connections with "other peoples' kids" and the administration's children.

Like in the interview, O'Reilly said he would sacrifice himself, as I would hope any humanitarian would, but your child? No sane parent would do that. Does this mean we should never go to war because parents won't let their children cross the street or come into harm? Everyone is someone's kid.

Any senator or congressman that voted for the war, should be willing to sacrifice themselves if need be, if they wouldn't, they are cowards.

IMO, they don't owe the parents of these soldiers anything. They signed up for it of their own will, granted, not to go to war, just for the military, but that is an obvious result of joining the military.

 

[Boomer]

I don't get all the O'Reilly hate? I mean he seemed pretty spot-on to me in the interview.

 

[Belfast]

Too much bullshit in this thread, so I'm just going to say this:

Just because most soldiers might volunteer for the army and know what they're getting it doesn't mean we have the right to put them up on the chopping block any old time we want to. Oh, they'll fight because they're told its the right thing to do and its being patriotic, but that doesn't mean making them fight over "misinformation" is the moral thing to do. The government simply misused its ability to send troops to war.

 

[KilledByBill]

I don't see the connections with "other peoples' kids" and the administration's children.

Like in the interview, O'Reilly said he would sacrifice himself, as I would hope any humanitarian would, but your child? No sane parent would do that. Does this mean we should never go to war because parents won't let their children cross the street or come into harm? Everyone is someone's kid.

Any senator or congressman that voted for the war, should be willing to sacrifice themselves if need be, if they wouldn't, they are cowards.

IMO, they don't owe the parents of these soldiers anything. They signed up for it of their own will, granted, not to go to war, just for the military, but that is an obvious result of joining the military.

The point I think Moore was trying to get across was that the people in power in the U.S. have the responsibility to vote to send the country to war but don't have to face the direct consequences. They can say they would give their lives for the cause but as memembers of the government they now they would never realistically be forced into that position.

While there is thankfully no longer a draft in this country government figures have historically used their positions to keep loved ones out of the army or at least out of frontline duty. What would make today's politicans any different?

 

[DCharlie]

AA : Analogyst Anonymous

If lots of friends tell me that they sell the worlds best tasting apples at an out of store town for 30c an apple, then when i go to the store and find they sell no apples, i come back and tell everyone that they sell Apples and they are only 1c an apple and we should all organise a trip there... then that's lying.

Even worse, is when i turn around and say "Apples?? WTF?? we are here to buy Pears anyways!!!"....

 

[FightyF]

Again, deserting from the military is nothing new. I've covered that. It sounded to me like you were trying to say that the civilian population was going to Canada to avoid military service. If you said military members have deserted to avoid going to Iraq I would have agreed with you.

Ah, so when I said, and I quote, "American troops", it left the impression that I was talking about civilians. I see.

Oh, the rest of that post of yours? Um...yea, ok buddy. I'm right with you on that one...haha.

I don't think you are. You've consistantly demonstrated that you have trouble grabbing simple concepts.

You probably would find something like that funny. I'm just sorry that you will never understand it.

ROFL...I'm guessing you haven't realized that you spelled it wrong?

Never understand it? The fact that I question the lies told to me, while you sit quietly and accept it like a sheep, shows us who here has got courage.

 

[Zaptruder]

This wasn't a clash of the titans, it was like watching a lakers-clippers basketball game. O'Reilly destroyed Moore because O'Reilly is a much better debater than Moore is. When O'reilly said to Moore, "The CIA said Saddam had WMDs, Russia said Saddam had WMDs, Britain said Saddam had WMDs and so Bush didn't lie, he was misinformed. How can you keep calling him a liar?" What Moore should've said is, "Bush went to war because he wanted to, not because he had to. Saddam was contained. He had sanctions and the no-fly zone (which was being enforced), while he may have had WMDs, he was not aiding terrorists, he was not working on nuclear weapons and he was not exporting WMDs. If he attacked anyone he'd be beaten back by an international coalition like in the first Gulf War. If we went to war with Saddam, why not go to war with all the other brutal dictatorships in the world? The bottom line is Bush didn't go to war out of necessity, he went to war out of choice. [Then he could've given reasons why he went to war like oil, etc.]"

Instead, Moore just flubbed around and made dumb analogies that even if Bush was told Saddam had WMDs, it was still lying. He also tried to pull that lame "Would you sign your own kid up for the army?" trick from his movie and while it works in a film in which you, as filmmaker, have complete control over, it doesn't work in person against anyone with some debate skills. Moore did all his followers an extreme disservice with that awful performance.

Good post... ideally that's what Moore should've said... but been somewhat long winded, and dealing with O'Reilly... I'm guessing he meant to say if he could elaborate: it's a lie, because Bush pushed for war with weak justification. That is he lied about why he went to war; he sought weak justification and got it and then sounded the signal for wars, without allowing time for the U.N. Inspectors to do their jobs. Back then they were getting impatient that nothing was found. Now they know that nothing was found because there was nothing to find.

And while people may sign up for the military knowing they may die... no one expects to die. To justify their deaths by saying, they knew they put themselves at risk is so... so... I just can't summon the words to express my disappointment, that people would actually think like that.

 

[LuckyBrand]

Why is it always about Saddam being bad, or WMD?

Why cant it be about:

-WMD programs
-Saddam supporting terrorists ( suicide bomers families got $25,000)
- Saddam being a brutal, evil dictator, and helping to foster a sense of despair across the middle east, contributing to the rise of terrorism
-national security in the region, ie: new ally after freeing them of saddam, ie: huge oil control with our bases on it to secure a region of the world and allow us better mobility and influence in our war against terrorism

the iraq war was genius in my mind....

 

[HAOHMARU]

OMG T3H Sp3LLING 3RRoRs!!!!!11! I better prof reed next time!

We have a similar option in Canada, but that doesn't explain all the Americans coming up to Canada to avoid serving the Army. Now they cannot even visit the States.

You also said and I quote, "Americans" which sounded like everybody to me. I just mistook what you were trying to say, again which I already covered. This isn't like some kind of rebellion like there was in Vietnam. I'll ask you one more time, how many U.S. active troops have fled to Canada? You never answered that question.

The fact that I question the lies told to me, while you sit quietly and accept it like a sheep

When the FUCK did I ever say anything about believing Bush and his administration? NOT FUCKING ONCE. I have my opinion about Michael Moore and that makes me a Bush supporter? I'm a sheep? How the in the FUCKING HELL did you come to that conclusion?

I don't think you are. You've consistantly demonstrated that you have trouble grabbing simple concepts.

That was me being sarcastic...which you obviously didn't catch. Just a misunderstanding...I'll forgive you if you forgive me.

 

[Hournda]

And while people may sign up for the military knowing they may die... no one expects to die. To justify their deaths by saying, they knew they put themselves at risk is so... so... I just can't summon the words to express my disappointment, that people would actually think like that.

Apparently there are some idiots who sign up for the money and benefits and buy into the Army's marketing campaign of all that and then when there's a war they say, "Wait, I didn't sign up for this!"

And from reading the earlier posts, how can anyone say that Moore won the debate? He got shellacked by O'Reilly from beginning to end and O'Reilly's comments at the end basically summed it up when he said, "As you can see, Michael Moore is an example of someone whose ideology blinds them from the facts." Though that isn't true and if Moore argued something along the lines of what I put in my earlier post, the debate could've been totally different. Moore doesn't debate people on TV for an hour, 5 days a week and didnt' really come prepared with many facts (though O'Reilly didn't really blast him with any fact intensive questions) and it clearly showed.

 

[Uno Ill Nino]

I will predict:

Bill: Welcome to the show mr moore, first off, I just wanna know why. Why would you make a film that could cause our troops to die?

Moore: Well Bill I think you'r....

Bill: Let me tell you what I think BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Moore: No listen, I....

Bill: Cut his Mic, this is bullshit, oh and fathers day is only a year a way, buy copies of my shit book and coffee mugs.






Funniest thing I've read all damn day. I'm still fuckin laughin over it....

 

[DrForester]

While I don't like O'Riley much, I find Moore to be a very paranoid person. I don't how much praise he gets for his "documentaries" when he's just as manupulative with his so-called facts as the people he's vocal against.

Moore can stop makign films any time, movie industry only has room for one big, fat, unshaven ape. And he's doing king kong ironicly

 

[pnjtony]

I just saw Moore on Larry King and he said something I really liked. Larry asked him if he thought the Bush administration had "evil" intentions sending us to war. Like was Rumsfeld evil in saying we need to go to Iraq or was he truely thinking that we needed to based on the evidence (WMD and such). Moore said that giving the absolute benefit of the doubt. Assuming they weren't mislead. Assuming Bush & Co. thought they were justified. He said that they need to go (lose election) because we don't need people like that in office that make such huge mistakes.

 

[Thaedolus]

I'm so sick of people dodging the question about 'WOULD YOU SEND YOUR CHILD TO IRAQ???'

Of course I wouldn't want my child in Iraq, unless that child signed up to go where he's told, when he's told, do what he's told when he's told and shoot at people when he's told to shoot at people. It's not like these kids were drafted.

Oh, and I know Moore makes the points that these people are supposedly forced into the military lifestyle, but they still made the choice to serve.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

After 8 years of the Clinton Admin, war seemed looked like something that wasn't even in the near future. Wolfowitz was pushing for this war, during the Clinton Admin, but he failed to convince Clinton. Then we get Bush, who saw 9/11 as his back door to a war based around oil, and a chance to get the man who supposedly tried to have his father asassinated.

We as Americans have to question why Bush wanted to go to war so badly that he was willing to ignore the UN inspectors findings. I'm amazed at how people could ignore the fact that Richard Clarke himself said Bush was making a push for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11.

Russia, hmm. Are they a part of this so called coaltion.

 

[Zaptruder]

Yes... they did 'make the choice' to serve... but given the pressure tactics and the incentives the military offer... vs the risks

signing up for death is no bodies primary intention.

Moreover, saying that they had choice to sign up, is disingenious, ... similar to saying that a poor black person from the wrong neighbourhood has the choice to study hard and work well to get into a prestigious universities; it ignores the fact that they're underlying pressures and circumstances that ultimately cause a person to gravitate towards some major decision like signing up for the military.

While signing up with the military may not be as severe as a black kid growing up in a crappy neighbourhood, trying to escape that kinda poverty, the analogy does hold true in many respects.

 

[Mumbles]

And while people may sign up for the military knowing they may die... no one expects to die. To justify their deaths by saying, they knew they put themselves at risk is so... so... I just can't summon the words to express my disappointment, that people would actually think like that.

More importantly, regardless of precisely why people sign up for the armed forces, we're ultimately discussing the administration. The Soldiers have put their lives in the hands of the US government and the president, and so the president has a responsibility to them, at the very least to see that their lives aren't wasted in wars that serve no real purpose for the US. A president who fails to do so, IMO, has abandoned one of his most important responsibilities. Guess how I feel about Bush, based on this.

I don't get all the O'Reilly hate? I mean he seemed pretty spot-on to me in the interview.

I've seen enough of O'Reilly to notice that he's quite happy to lie in order to push his political views, and bring in more viewers who will get outraged over the crap he spews. Eg. the NPR interview that he called off - with 2 minutes out of an hour left, his outright lies against the ACLU, his accusations that black leaders don't speak out against violence in rap (even though black leaders were talking about it back when O'Reilly was talking about thong bikinis on Inside Edition), the whole "evil secularists want to get rid of all religion" crap (in response to suits that keep the government from espousing particular religions), and so forth.

And no, I don't care much for Moore, either.

 

[DJ_Tet]

We as Americans have to question why Bush wanted to go to war so badly that he was willing to ignore the UN inspectors findings. I'm amazed at how people could ignore the fact that Richard Clarke himself said Bush was making a push for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9/11.

As an American, I've got a long term memory that remembers hearing about Saddams WMD for about 10 years now. No one even questioned the fact that he had them UNTIL we couldn't find them. He's even USED WMD before, but all of a sudden he posed no threat. It's sad people can't think for themselves anymore, guess that's Bush's fault as well.

 

[duderon]

Why is it always about Saddam being bad, or WMD?

Why cant it be about:

-WMD programs
-Saddam supporting terrorists ( suicide bomers families got $25,000)
- Saddam being a brutal, evil dictator, and helping to foster a sense of despair across the middle east, contributing to the rise of terrorism
-national security in the region, ie: new ally after freeing them of saddam, ie: huge oil control with our bases on it to secure a region of the world and allow us better mobility and influence in our war against terrorism

the iraq war was genius in my mind....

Why not invade any of the other middle eastern dictatorships? Most of those things can be said about other countries in the area.

Plus if we do establish a successfull democracy in Iraq, it will be like a big target for terrorists to attack. They won't have to attack the states to affect americans. They could disrupt the oil reserves in Iraq and screw us over. This can be already seen in the captures of truck drivers in that area. Just imagine if they really put some effort into trying to destroy the oil reserves...

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

As an American, I've got a long term memory that remembers hearing about Saddams WMD for about 10 years now. No one even questioned the fact that he had them UNTIL we couldn't find them. He's even USED WMD before, but all of a sudden he posed no threat. It's sad people can't think for themselves anymore, guess that's Bush's fault as well.

When you say "UNTIL we couldn't find them", do you mean before or after the invasion? Because obviously things became pretty solid after the invasion when they couldn't be found, but I'd say the UN inspectors not finding anything was pretty big evidence. "No one" questioning the fact is clearly wrong; I did, for example.

Illegal weapons were used, sure, 20 years ago with the full knowledge of the Reagan administration. And it's not "all of a sudden" he posed no threat. It's after a war more than a decade ago, heavy sanctions, and being contained in his country.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

As an American, I've got a long term memory that remembers hearing about Saddams WMD for about 10 years now. No one even questioned the fact that he had them UNTIL we couldn't find them. He's even USED WMD before, but all of a sudden he posed no threat. It's sad people can't think for themselves anymore, guess that's Bush's fault as well.

Had or have. We're about the present, you can't pose a threat when you don't have the weapons to do so.

I guess they were destroyed a week before the invasion. I assume Saddam wanted the Shock and Awe campaign or should I say made for T.V movie. You know you have a fucked up administration when they make war sound like a movie title for a low budget action film.

Or how about this, Shock and Awe Rated M, coming to the Xbox, PS2, and GC.

Who do you think the American people want gone more Osama or Saddam?

 

[FightyF]

I'll forgive you if you forgive me.

Forgiveness for all!

Hoahmaru, I apologize for making the wrong assumption that you took a stance, which in reality you didn't. You seemed pretty pissed about that. :/

 

[Slurpy]

What bullshit. It is a fucking LIE. it was all a LIE. When you're makikng a fucking presentation using 3d diagrams as evidence bc you cant get pictures of the real thing, when you use footage of a plane that was destroyed 15 years ago to elicit fear, when almost every piece of evidence is superficial and can no way be proven, when you hve faked dossiers,when you ignore all intelligence that you dont like ..etc etc.. what the hell is that called? It is called twisting the facts. It is misinformation. It is blatantly disgusting. It is a downright lie.

 

[Che]

The president didn't lie and the soldiers are there of their own free will.

...and then you woke up.

 

[cvxfreak]

Here's what my parents taught me: values!!!

President Bush is absurd for not apologizing for his lack of foresight. I don't care if it was bad information or misinformation, IT IS PRESIDENT BUSH'S FAULT. It is his fault and anyone who says otherwise is in denial.

If a friend told me cocaine was good when my family told me it was bad and I took cocaine, I still have to apologize for my idiocy even though I was hit on bad information. President Bush is pretty much a remorseless asshole.

 

[DSN2K]

I always like the way he said "child"

there are no children in the army.

 

[The Promised One]

One thing.

FACT: When you join the military, you join with the possibility that you might go to war. PERIOD.

It makes no difference why you may be going to war, the fact still remains that you signed up with the full knowlegde of this possibility. Now, of course, fighting for the "right" reasons is highly prefferable, but that's not the point. When you sign up, you sign up to serve your Country, and they train you, and pay you, to do that. The "rightness" of the service is moot. Granted, there are some things I would refuse to do, but bitching about having to serve in the war in Iraq, is like a cop bitching that he didn't sign up for the force to get shot at by drug dealers.

The military is run like a dictatorship, and for very good reasons. If you don't want to take the chance of possibly having to serve in a war you disagree with, I HIGHLY suggest that you just simply don't join the military. After weighing the options, and deciding to still join though, you have no right to bitch, because you have no one to blame but yourself. Again, I'm not going to become a janitor. You know why? Because I don't even want to get remotely close to the possibility of having to clean up after someone pisses all over the seat, or take a really sloppy dump in whatever place I happen to work for.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you have to agree with what the military is having you do, but it does mean that you do have to do it (barring any prisoner torture, to which I'd suggest going AWAL.)

 

[maharg]

Granted, there are some things I would refuse to do, but bitching about having to serve in the war in Iraq, is like a cop bitching that he didn't sign up for the force to get shot at by drug dealers.

Maybe it's more like a cop bitching that he didn't sign up to be on the take to a bunch of drug dealers.

At any rate, this is a complete bullshit tangent to begin with. No one is saying that US servicemen should leave their posts and violate their codes of conduct. However, if they were put there for false reasons, they have every right to know that, and the people who put them there have a responsibility to make them aware of that.

That they should and would continue to serve even under orders they see as wrong is a great testament to their commitment, but it doesn't mean people should keep quiet about the truth just to avoid what essentially comes down to hurting their feelings.

 

[Tritroid]

Moore TOTALLY owned him. That transcript made my afternoon.

Uh..where?

 

[myzhi]

Here's what my parents taught me: values!!!

President Bush is absurd for not apologizing for his lack of foresight. I don't care if it was bad information or misinformation, IT IS PRESIDENT BUSH'S FAULT. It is his fault and anyone who says otherwise is in denial.

If a friend told me cocaine was good when my family told me it was bad and I took cocaine, I still have to apologize for my idiocy even though I was hit on bad information. President Bush is pretty much a remorseless asshole.

Think he should apologize or something along that line because he did make a mistake and the Prez is were the bucks stops, but your example is flawed. Using your example, it would be like this " If my friends (England, Russia, Israel, and etc.) told me cocaine was good and my family (former Prezs, advisors, CIA, NSA, FBI, and/or etc.) also said it was good, ..."

 

[cvxfreak]

Uh..where?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

 

[cvxfreak]

Think he should apologize or something along that line because he did make a mistake and the Prez is were the bucks stops, but your example is flawed. Using your example, it would be like this " If my friends (England, Russia, Israel, and etc.) told me cocaine was good and my family (former Prezs, advisors, CIA, NSA, FBI, and/or etc.) also, ..."

Yeah it's not a perfect analogy, but it was the best I could come up with - your example is MUCH better though. But basically all I think he should do is apologize. I'm not saying the war is justified and unjustified, or such, but an apology is in order.

 

[Tritroid]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

Yeah, so back to my question.

Uh..where?

 

[Baron Aloha]

Fuck it.

I think Bush out-and-out knew he was lying all along. I never believed that Iraq had WMDs for one second and I've been saying that since day 1. I knew Bush was lying the night he stood in front of the American people and laid out the reasons for going to war. I could see it in his eyes, the same way I could see that Clinton was lying about Monica, and the same way I can see it in regular people in my day to day life. Shit, anyone who knows me will tell you I know a lie when I hear one.

Bush didn't want to wait for the weapon inspectors to finish their jobs because he knew that they would not find any WMDs and without those, he wouldn't be able to go into Iraq to avenge his daddy. So what does he do? He throws them out and goes to war. To top it all off, we were in Iraq for less than one week when suddenly the entire focus of the war changed. All of the sudden members of the administration were saying that the reason that we went to war was to overthrow a dictator. I'm sorry, but don't you think that if Bush and the administration truly believed that there were WMDs in Iraq that they would have spent some more time seriously looking for them before changing the story? It seems to me like they had already thought of the excuse ahead of time. There's nothing wrong with coming up with excuses to cover your ass in case you were wrong but hell, they didn't even spend a week looking for the WMDs to find out if they were right or not. This tells me they knew they were wrong from the start. The reasons for going to war in Iraq were just another bait-and-switch done by the administration.

 

[impirius]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

Holy smokes. FOX News really uglied up their website.

 

[Oni Jazar]

Cmon people when Bush goes into Richard Clarke's office after 9/11 and basically orders him to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq you KNOW that bastard is going to be blind to any rational doubts on the issue.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

That's the [non sequitur] used each time I debate the war with someone: Do you think things would be better if Saddam Hussein, a cruel and malevolent dictator, stayed?

That's not why we went to war, guys. I'm sorry that Saddam murdered and tortured as many people as he did, but the U.S. government never told us, until it was convenient, they were going to war because of this. Now, anytime you get into an argument about the war, someone will take the position that it's great we've installed a democracy -- puppet government -- in the Middle East, and we've ousted an evil dictatorship.

People are an easy bunch to manipulate, and some things I hear from others really makes me sad. I think believing this malarky about ousting Saddam Hussein to be in the best interests of the Iraqi people to be as difficult to fathom as it is when I hear someone who honestly believes Iraq "attacked us" on 9/11. Every time my mom says, "We were attacked on 9/11. How can you not support this war?" a piece of me dies. It's just so sad.

But so it goes...

And soldiers aren't just faceless, heartless contract killers. They signed up to defend their country and to defend democracy. Sending some kids into Iraq to die for a specious cause is indefensible and wrong. I know these guys signed up of their own volition, but that does not mean what this administration has done to them is correct. You can say that for the 900 Americans who have died thus far, they died for democracy. But that's such a nebulous term. And it begs the question, what did they really die for? I sure don't know, and that is why it is so tragic. For those of us unwilling to accept the administration's reasons for this war, it seems just plain evil.

 

[pnjtony]

You mean Richard Clarke?

Anyways, how many of you have ACTUALLY SERVED in the armed forces? Cause I have. You're there to protect the US and it's interests. Iraq wasn't our "interest". It was Bush's and a few other individuals interest.

I guess the whole thing is moot cause bush doesn't have that much longer at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave anyways. Not that I think too much will change, but one can hope.

 

[Yossarian]

That's the ad hominem used each time I debate the war with someone: Do you think things would be better if Saddam Hussein, a cruel and malevolent dictator, stayed?

You look really stupid when you don't understand the terms you're using. You're talking about a straw man argument, not a personal attack.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

I ACTUALLY MEANT TO SAY NON SEQUITUR. AND THANKS FOR ADDING TO THE DISCUSSION, YOU FUCKING TROG>

TRY BETTER FIVE MINUTES AFTER YOU'VE WOKEN UP, AND THEN FUCK OFF WITH IT. I DON'T CARE.

 

[Oni Jazar]

You mean Richard Clarke?

Oops ya.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

Oops ya.

Gosh, you're lucky you didn't get called a moron for making a mistake!

 

[Yossarian]

Gosh, you're lucky you didn't get called a moron for making a mistake!

Notice how I did not call you a moron or anything similar. I said you "looked stupid". Now I know you may not understand the distinction, but I never made any claim on your actual intelligence but rather the impression you gave as you misused the term.

 

[mjq jazz bar]

Hey, let's argue semantics while we're already ahead of the curb on unnecessary preening!

 

[Yossarian]

You seem a little sensitive. Is everything OK? Do you want to talk about it?

 

[EviLore]

Hey, mjq, looks like some time off is in order. Might not want to post unless you're in your right mind, eh?

 

[effzee]

how could it be bush's fault? i mean really everyone....EVERYONE told him it was there...EXCEPT for the UN inspectors that were actually in IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!

i really dont feel like mentionining the same points over and over and i remember there was this huge ass war thread and in that thread people opposed to this war mentioned over and over how the UN found nothing and it seems Bush is going to war for the sake of war. most of these people were laughed at cause you know how inept the UN is. they were told when the weapons are found they would look like fools, but now more than a yr later we are still arguing if the war was legitimate???!!!!!?? Wtf?


IMO Bush and Co knew he wasnt that big of a threat. he was cornered into his little whole with sanctions and survellance. i mean if everyone believed he had these weapons and we didnt find any, imagine if he did have them.....

we won the war literally in less than a month, sadam used none of his weapons, there was no imminent threat. only thing imminent was victory, a victory that could be used to present as proof of the success of the war on terror since the war in afghanitan failed to produce osama. so who is #2 behind osama in terms of muslim villains? well sadam ofcouse and it was rather easy to get him. he was the trophy capture.

 

[heavy liquid]

I don't know which is worse. O'Reilly, or FOX "Fair and Balanced" News. There are a lot of people who need to watch the Outfoxed documentary.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFD9133AF933A15754C0A9629C8B63

Watching Bill O'Reilly's belligerent, boorish ''interview'' with Jeremy Glick, whose father died in the attack on the World Trade Center and who came to oppose the administration's military response to 9/11, is enough to make you wish that the ghost of Joseph Welch would enter the studio and inquire, at long last, after Mr. O'Reilly's sense of decency. But those days -- when Welch undid Senator Joseph R. McCarthy on live television, and when that medium was new enough to bring a promise of transparency and truth-telling into the public consciousness -- are long past.

Here's a 30 sec. trailer showing O'Reilly making the claim that he has told a guest to "shut up" only one time in six years, followed by ... well, take a guess. Does anyone care that O'Reilly constantly lies?

Of course, I know I'm mostly writing this to a brick wall, and the people who should see this the most never will:

Mr. O'Reilly's fans are about as likely to watch ''Outfoxed'' as the patrons of that bar in Williamsburg are to tune in to ''Fox & Friends.'' For the foreseeable future, there will be more shouting, finger-pointing and tuning out, as each side accuses the other of bias, distortion and dishonesty.

I'm no huge fan of Moore, but in my book O'Reilly and FOX "News" are WAY worse...

 

[human5892]

Idle thoughts I had while watching the interview/reading the thread:

- Nobody owned anyone. That was quite possibly the most baseless debate I've ever seen. The only hint of any fact citing was O'Reilly talking about intelligence, and even that was flimsy at best (British Intellligence was proven faked, for example). More hot air in that transcript than a balloon of the same category.

- I believe I saw a hint of a few people complaining about Michael Moore's fact manipulating in this thread, and oh boy, you don't want to open up that can of worms. Not only because nobody's ever given a solid concrete example of a blatant falsehood in F9/11, but because that's a recipe for a 10 page thread, easy.

- If the U.N. and ten million protestors marching country-wide in the February before the war could tell that the evidence of WMD was completely transparent, why couldn't our commander-in-chief and his administration? Bush is either more of an igorant idiot than I give him credit for, or he's a liar who was fully aware of the lie he was trying to sell.

- "But Saddam was a bad man!" Yeah, we've heard it before. He was, of course. But so is the crackpot in North Korea, and dozens of other despotic oppressive dictators worldwide -- some of whom have WMDs much more real than Iraq's were. Where are our "pre-emptive" strikes against them? Maybe we're afraid that attacking countries with real-live WMDs without serious provocation is actually a very bad idea.