A Conservative Reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Page 2

cturtle...hello...your opening statement is EXACTLY how the terrorists manipulate their subordinate nim compoops.

AMEN Uhoosier, so glad to see you back in here.

BTW folks, I posted in current events the facts on Mikey Moore. and the reason I dismissed doing it in here is because it is NOT a debate...but what someone did to find all the LIES Michael made. And how his opinions are WRONG~O.

He takes the freedom ghe has to smear the freedom.

Yea, what a hero....NOT!

Your all so right....WE SHOULD JUST LET ALL THE TERRORISTS IN, AND HECK..we should just let em keep on keeping on.

Never mind Saddam probably has the WMD still...just well hidden.
C'mon...a sadistic man who hates even his own ppl...will pay attn to us?

Well, must be nice living in that fantasy....but someday reality will set in.

Assumptions? Iraq having WMD was never an assumption. Not only did he have them, he used them. Ask any Kurd about WMD. As far as Bush lying, it is just propaganda to get people riled up. Unless one can prove it, one should state this as an opinion.

quote:

---

Well, must be nice living in that fantasy....but someday reality will set in.

---

yes I know this well from our discussions about GOD & His Christ. I certainly pray that He may open your eyes to His Truth one of these dazes!
Thx u D, I appreciate your input.

Just where in my post did I state the reason for the invasion was Saddam using WMD on Kurds? They have courses that can teach understanding skills. The reason for the invasion was 17 resolutions that Iraq did not comply with, specifically, resolution 1441 which states that if they are in none compliance, all and necessary means can be taken.

quote:

---

where in my post did I state the reason . . .
Ask any Kurd about WMD.

---

quote:

---

reason for the invasion was 17 resolutions that Iraq did not comply

---

was that the consensus of the UN or the US?

As you well know, we went before the UN security council to get a consensus knowing it would not pass. We then went about building a 60 nation coalition for the invasion into Iraq.

Let's see, 60 nations. Sixty is such a big number. It must be the majority, right? Only 50 states. 60 is more. Must be the majority of people too, right? India, China, ... oops! Well, what is 60? Some magic number? It isn't a majority. Or does that only work in a DEMOCRACY? Other than a dictatorship or a monarchy, where is less than a majority the winner? (Answer: In the Bush White House!)

Comply? Remember Saadam's books of WMDs? Submitted to the investigators. He said he didn't have any WMDs. Did he comply? Was he right? Did he lie? Can anyone prove TODAY that he lied?

I remember the presidential campaign of 1964. President Johnson said that if we voted for Goldwater that there would be an escalation of the war, a huge increase in the number of troups sent to Viet Nam, many more deaths, and we would end up losing the war. Like a dummy I voted for Goldwater. Everything Johnson said would come to pass did.

It can be proved that he did not comply with resolution 1441. Get a grip squatteam. Why are you asking questions that everyone knows the answer to. You know 60 countries is not a majority as well as the population. Do you think satire helps your cause? The point of 60 countries is that we did not go it alone.

How many of those countries even MATTER?
Spain, Poland, Italy and the UK. 4

How many went in, while their people were firmly against it?
Spain, Italy, UK (I honetly don't know about Poland).

In contrast to Gulf War 1 which only had 34 countries! The number is as MEANINGLESS as your 60, because those countries were :
AFGANISTAN, Argentina, Australia, BAHREIN, BANGLADESH, CANADA, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, EGYPT, FRANCE, GERMANY, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, KUWAIT, MOROCCO, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, OMAN, PAKISTAN, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, SAUDI ARABIA, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, SYRIA, TURKEY, THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Note, this coalition was much stronger given the aid of large rich countries like France, Germany and Canada. The coalition was LEGITIMATE because it featured major arab and muslim countries such as Egypt (the center of the arab world) and even Syria.

If nothing else, Bush Senior is a hundred times more competent then his son.

100 times more competent? I personally disagree. As far as a coalition is concerned, you are correct. Saddam needed to be ousted even without a coalition of 60 countries.

quote:

---

Saddam needed to be ousted even without a coalition of 60 countries.

---

I thing that never ceases to amaze me is how people will justify lies?
Look in a historical perspective at Nazi Germany.
Seeing what took place in hind sight, we could easily say it would have been just for the nations of the world to start a war with before they ever got started? Right
But then how would you convience people that it was necessary? You could not tell them the truth because it didn't happen yet so what could you do but lie?
Hitler's propaganda justified every move to those people but the truth is not a justification.
War at best is the last resort, not a means to an end.
A worthy cause is not bsed on lies & deceit.
In my opinion to give your live for a lie is an outrage against those people who have fought. It shows lack of respect for the people, who have died & for their right to life, itself.

War is a perfectly good means. But it must be used skillfully.

Victory must be certain. And Junior gave us victory against the Iraqi state. But the war is not won.

If Junior had waited for the war. If he had gone in with some large Arab states as allies, no doubt the coalition forces would be stronger. But the insurgency would be much weaker because the coalition would have legitimacy.

Just as it did with Bush Senior.

quote:

---

War is a perfectly good means.

---

As long as some one else is dead or mained for life! War is a living hell.
I talked to my friend, He went to see the movie and said it showed him a lot
but he still sees Iraq as being a puppet for Al Quida & the Talaban, so I asked him what is it?
A nation, a state or a group of people from various & assorted backgrounds?
He called it a militia (of private citizens)?
[please excuse spelling errors]

It is a perfectly good means when the peace costs more then the war.

I'm sure I don't need to throw some statistics at you on the number of dead little children in Iraq each day due to the embargo.

And I don't need to explain how the embargo was necessary I hope.

quote:

---

how the embargo was necessary

---

Actually I think it is a perfectly good question.
A) If for no other reason than to question is it neccessary?
How can we tell? By the word of those:
1) who serve the people of this nation?
2) who serve the government?
3) who serve the self serving, whose service is deception?
Whose word should we accept as true because of their integrity?
B) Let alone to question 'why is it necessary'?