Stupid White Men - Michael Moore

[Synergistic]

You mean we invaded Iraq for other reason!

Like maybe we invaded it because Saddam is an evil dictator who has killed many of his own people for opposing him?

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=nlatimer link=board=99;num=1054548667;start=20#20 date=06/05/03 at 05:02:34]You mean we invaded Iraq for other reason!  

Like maybe we invaded it because Saddam is an evil dictator who has killed many of his own people for opposing him?[/quote]

Liberia - Charles Taylor
Zimbabwe- Robert Mugabe
Cuba - Fidel Castro
North Korea - Kim Il Sung
Libya - Khadaffi
Birma - Military Junta
Somalia - Chaos
Laos - Communist regime
China (!!!) - Communist regime

These countries have one thing in common: theres nothing to get

So dont gimme that crap about how the US saved the Iraqi people...Wolfowitz bluntly admiited the US falsified their reasosn for invading. Even Blair didnt know and put his political career on the line, his own fault true, but still...

Theres dozens of countries with dictators out there still...but theres nothing to gain for the US, not politically, and certainly not socially...

Bush lied through his teeth, and thats it...

 

[Synergistic]

Of course there was something to gain, which is why we went in first. We will go after North Korea eventually (who wouldn't even have nuclear materials if not for Clinton).

If you're seriously suggesting war with China, you're crazy. Thats the point of stopping Iraq and North Korea now, before they become powerful enough to pose a serious and likely threat. Any threat China would pose to us is serious, yet unlikely.

And all I'm asking for is proof that Bush lied.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=nlatimer link=board=99;num=1054548667;start=20#22 date=06/05/03 at 10:09:39]Of course there was something to gain, which is why we went in first. We will go after North Korea eventually (who wouldn't even have nuclear materials if not for Clinton).

If you're seriously suggesting war with China, you're crazy. Thats the point of stopping Iraq and North Korea now, before they become powerful enough to pose a serious and likely threat. Any threat China would pose to us is serious, yet unlikely.

And all I'm asking for is proof that Bush lied.[/quote]

1 paragraph: you said first that you invaded Iraq for the people, now you admit you musta done it for selfgain....hm......are you secretely a Congressman for Texas?

2nd paragraph: I corect myself...youre not a congressman...im guessing youre from the Pentagon, cause no...i wasnt referring to going at war with China...thats the perspective only Republicans take. I was making a point, figure it out dude...

3rd 'remark': Do i need to quote Wolfowitz for the 3rd time man....plz watch some news or visit a website that does not require an age check man...www.cnn.com www.bbcworld.com www.nytimes.com ....just some random suggestions..

ouch...-getting too involved-

 

[jay_too]

nlatimer...

hey man, i just read this thread trying to understand your point/assertion about north korea would not have nuclear materials without clinton's help. please expand.

perhaps a discussion on the intersection of reality and docu-drama should morph into bush vs. the rest of the world. i think a large number of americans have reservations on the misuse of power and national resources in foreign adventures.

as i remember, saddam hussein promised before the war that in the search for iraqi wmd we would find smoke and mirrors. to date, this appears correct. could it be that he had complied with u.n. resolutions but preferred to maintain a suspicion/fear that he still had wmd? why? well, possible reasons might be to keep the kurds and shiites in check, and to ward off attacks by iran.

may i float another conspiracy theory on why iraq and why now? awright, i was going to anyway. maybe the u.s. military had been encourged to leave saudi arabia...duh, now where could be re-deploy them so they would maintain a presence in the gulf...bingo!! iraq is strategically located and even has oil for exploitation. besides, dubya doesn't like saddam anyway.

it this reality? i do not know...but it does connect a few dots.

jay

 

[Synergistic]

Thats my point jay, we gained a vital outpost in the Middle East, and the trust of the Iraqi people. I'm afraid attack Cuba wouldn't have had quite the same effect on attempting to get Syria and Iran to straighten up either.

http://history.searchbeat.com/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-program.htm

Clinton had the oppurtunity to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons but did little more than give them a slap on the wrist, then went on his way, trusting that they'd stop. Didn't Europe try the same thing to appease Hitler? A little slap on the wrist, don't invade a country again. It certainly worked, didn't it

But you know, Saddam only killed his own people, it really wasn't any of our business.

 

[jay_too]

hey nlatimer..

thanks for the url on north korea weapons program. that is essentially what i remembered.

i don't know if this helps your understanding. generally, light water reactors are fueled by enriched uranium (less than 3 percent u-235). weapons grade uranium is enriched to more than 90 percent u-235 [though i seem to remember from a college course, a very low yield weapon can be engineered with say 75% u-235...but this is a real challenge.] uranium enrichment is a very difficult technical and engineering problem...requiring massive amounts of money, technical skills, and dedication of resources. i assume that the u.s. technical community advised decision makers in the 1990's that they doubted that north korea's technical and engineering capabilities could enrich reactor grade uranium into weapons grade. as you probably know for all the problems in handling radioactive liquids, the chemical separation of plutonium-239 from uranium is much easier than uranium enrichment.

to experts, i think, this looked like a safer bet. so to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, the u.s. and south korea made a treaty we give energy and you give up your weapons programs. this was not a departure from ongoing policy; it was a continuation of american foreign policy going back to eisenhower.

here again, i ask the question...are you sure that all that say they have nuclear weapons or wmd really do? maybe they do...maybe they don't...maybe the stakes (japan, south korea, and china) are too high to call the bluff. i think diplomacy is still the only way out of a sticky situation...nuclear strikes in that densely populated area might result in the death of millions.

i really doubt a preemptive strike policy serves america's long term interest....and it is my impression that preemptive strikes without cause are defined as agression. the latter of course is against international law.

jay

 

[jay_too]

ya know, i think the jury is still out on whether we won the respect of the iraqi people. it is my impression they would like for us to go home.

jay

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1054548667;start=20#24 date=06/05/03 at 12:07:30]nlatimer...
may i float another conspiracy theory on why iraq and why now?  awright, i was going to anyway. maybe the u.s. military had been encourged to leave saudi arabia...duh, now where could be re-deploy them so they would maintain a presence in the gulf...bingo!! iraq is strategically located and even has oil for exploitation. besides, dubya doesn't like saddam anyway.

it this reality? i do not know...but it does connect a few dots.

jay[/quote]

It is reality, like i said before, Wolfowitz openly declared that weapons of mass destruction wasnt the real reason for invading Iraq. He told the press that having troops in Saudi Arabia was not ideal cause of recent terrorist attacks and rebbellion there. I think your theory, jay, is very correct.

I did want to say though, that although i think the discussion on N-KOrea and Iraq is very interesting, that theres already a thread exactly like that -Bush and the greatest country in the world-

I was hoping some of the people here might have read the book this thread holds as a subject, and what they think about the points made in it. The book was written even before the september 11 terrorist attack, its mainly about US society.

But since i havent seen any posts on the book, im guessing nobody read it.

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=Javierdude23 link=board=99;num=1054548667;start=20#28 date=06/06/03 at 02:31:38]It is reality, like i said before, Wolfowitz openly declared that weapons of mass destruction wasnt the real reason for invading Iraq.[/quote]

Sorry, Javy, but you misquoted Mr. Wolfowitz. Here are his spoken words:

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his U.N. presentation." (emphasis added)

Part of the reason for the confusion over Mr. Wolfowitz's statement is that the Vanity Fair reporter who interviewed him purposely ignored the actual words and put is own interpretation, or spin, on their meaning. Then Vanity Fair compounded the whole mess the reporter had made of it by mischaracterizing his words!

The quote above speaks for itself.

Pecker

 

[jay_too]

javier..

i picked up a copy of stupid white men sometime last year. i expected it to be entertaining and to ask probing questions and tell a compelling story. awright he is known to be a little sloppy with facts and chronologies since roger and me, but i expected a good read and story line. wrong.

i think he had better stick with docu-dramas and a tighter script....man, he was all over the place and with inaccurate facts. i wish i had read the review on salon.com before buying the book.

oh yeah, i only made it through a third of the book...if that.

jay

 

[Pecker]

Javy, Jay, I read the book piecemeal - that is, I started out reading it from page one but quickly realized that there was no flow from page to page, so I put it in the bathroom where I could read it in small snippets, in random order.  It reminded me of James' Ulysseys in that it is kind of mad stream of consciousness.

The subjects appropriately matched the smell in the room.

Pecker

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=bilbobagginsx link=board=99;num=1054548667;start=20#31 date=06/07/03 at 06:31:03]

The subjects appropriately matched the smell in the room.

Pecker[/quote]

Lol...haha....well finally some un-nuanced replys, thats what i was looking for. Thank you...

I agree with you guys that its a badwritten book, style wise....and the numbers are not particurely accurate, but i think theyre just meant to support him making a point. But i see what you mean.

I think some questions raised are very valid though...i have many friends in the US and they seem to agree with a lot of the points made...or is that just cause its California?...i havent really talked to many people in other states, although i did see most of the Southwest.

Most seemed to agree that theres still a substantial racism problem. That teacher are totally underpaid and scaughed when we DO expect them to take perfect care of our children. And ofcourse the gun issue...i dont care what the numbers are but obviously guncrime would be MUCH lower if it were illegal (ill get some response to that im sure).

Concerning what Wolfowitz said...i didnt see anything about re-locating troops from Saudi Arabia to Iraq in the qoute. Like Jaytoo said, i read in several independent newspapers that that was the actual reason. And if what Wolfowitz said wasnt all that a-politically correct, then why is Blair under fire? Why is Europe thinking about sanctions? I dunno...

Greetz

 

[jay_too]

javier

I think some questions raised are very valid though...i have many friends in the US and they seem to agree with a lot of the points made

dude,

i agree that some of the questions/points raised by michael moore are valid; however, when they are combined with inaccurate information and rantings [yeah, this is probably a little strong...but i could not think of a better word.}, the points lose much of their validity and power.

in my opinion, bush and moore are idealogues; the difference is that one has a right-wing agenda; the other, a left-wing. both approach decisions in the same manner...i believe this; now let's find the facts and rationale to support my belief/thesis. don't fit....no problem, let's bend them.

me? well, i guess that i am a pragmatist...what are the facts? which theses are supported by the data/facts...what is the impact of each thesis? so what is the best outcome for each decision path? yeah, this is not for seat-of-the-pants, air-jockey wannabes....too much trouble.

jay

 

[jonb]

Oh, looks like the Iraqis are revolting (Okay, that's enough laughing.) because the US won't let them elect their leaders. But hell, we don't even do that here.