Moore sued for falsifying newspaper headline for movie - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-01-2004, 08:35 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


Yes, it was over a letter to the editor...but who writes the headlines over the letter to the editors? The letter writers? NO...the paper!

Yes, in fact the dates were smudged. I bet Moore settles the $1 lawsuit, unlike Bush who will continue to lie, or, send our troops into a war situation based on incorrect information.

someone lied about the WMDs - and in the end, Bush is the Commander in Chief, and told us this is why we need attack Iraq - it was NEVER sold to the American public as a humanitarian mission...It was sold as a way to protect the world againt terror and potential attack using WMDs - but now that there are no WMDs, and the Iraq link to terrorism is weak....the Bush admin will sell it off as a Humanitarian campaign....I guess, like Moore, make the situation fit the picture you want.

Back to the lies...I do not approve of lies, but, has anyone lost their lives due to Moore's movie touch ups?
Saddam never verifiably disarmed of all WMD which is why the war became a necessity. Today, Saddam has yet to account for numerous stocks and other materials as sited by the UN inspectors report from November of 1998. It is not incumbent upon the USA or any other country to find these stocks to prove the case for war. The Case for war is there because Saddam would not disclose where these stocks were regardless of whether they were intact or dismantled.

A Lie is when one knowingly says something that is false. To date, Bush has not lied about ANYTHING!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:40 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:46 AM
The irony is that I thought the WMD argument was weaker than a humanitarian argument. Yes, I remember the occasional mentions of torture and such, but they barely used this argument. After the fall of Baghdad I was shocked at some of of things I'd heard were going in Iraq and wondered why in hell's name no one told me these things!
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:41 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,292
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Normal nothing drives home a point like using the word "fuck" !!!!!11!!!111!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by BluberryPoptart
But no matter, dragging something off the back page and making it look like a headline is still fraud. Your big stupid fat white man is a fucking fraud. Just like Bush! No more hero for you!
Who is calling Moore a hero?

And if this is directed at me...I do have a hero.

It is the first perosn I ever voted for when I turned 18. It is a person who raised two children, instilling strong values and educating them at every turn. It is a person who struggled through three lay-offs late in his "career"and the death of his wife, yet was still able to keep his children out of trouble and doing well in school - and providing for a college education for both of the children.

My sister and I may not be the most succesful people in the world (yet... ), but I do have to say, my hero is my father!
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:43 PM   #49
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
A Lie is when one knowingly says something that is false. To date, Bush has not lied about ANYTHING!
Really?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 08:49 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,292
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
A Lie is when one knowingly says something that is false. To date, Bush has not lied about ANYTHING!
Yes, again, thank you for the definition.

Why do they keep changing the reason for why US troops are in Iraq everytime something is debunked (WMDs not found...Iraq/Al Qaeda connection WEAK at best)?

Bush's admin sure responds like someone caught in a lie.
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 09:09 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


Yes, again, thank you for the definition.

Why do they keep changing the reason for why US troops are in Iraq everytime something is debunked (WMDs not found...Iraq/Al Qaeda connection WEAK at best)?

Bush's admin sure responds like someone caught in a lie.
Why do you keep on screaming LIE, LIE, LIE, when there is not evidence of a Lie at all?

The Central case for the invasion is the same today as it was in March 2003. Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD per the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement. 12 years of attempts to achieve disarmament without using military force had failed.

There continue to be thousands of stocks of WMD that Saddam has yet to account for. You conclude that because the USA has not found these stocks in Iraq that they don't exist. Iraq is the size of Texas and stocks of WMD could easily be hidden underground anywhere in the country. The UN inspectors already documented the existence of these stocks back in 1998 and I found it absurd that you want to presume they do not exist based on the word from a man like Saddam!

If you believe insuring that Saddam was disarmed, at what point would you be willing to use military force, in light of the fact that all peaceful attempts had failed to achieve the goal over the past 12 years. Also realize that the disarmament process when one is cooperating does not take that long at all. Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and South Africa all disarmed in under a year!

It is a fact that Saddam failed to Verifiably Disarm of all WMD and even the French would not dispute that.

By the way, I've never changed my reason for believing why the invasion of Iraq was the right course of action so I don't know where your getting that from.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 09:12 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy


Really?
If you had indisuptable evidence that proved otherwise, the President would be facing impeachment and the election would already be essentially over.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 09:24 PM   #53
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 01:46 AM
If we had a democratic controlled House he freakin would be.

Afterall the R on the Senate Intelligence Commitee has stated he wouldn't have voted for the war. I think Dubyah is a modern day war criminal.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 09:34 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zoney!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: six metro locations
Posts: 11,292
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
By the way, I've never changed my reason for believing why the invasion of Iraq was the right course of action so I don't know where your getting that from.
Are YOU the Bush admin? I have said that the Bush Admin. keeps changing the tune.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
There continue to be thousands of stocks of WMD that Saddam has yet to account for. You conclude that because the USA has not found these stocks in Iraq that they don't exist. Iraq is the size of Texas and stocks of WMD could easily be hidden underground anywhere in the country. The UN inspectors already documented the existence of these stocks back in 1998 and I found it absurd that you want to presume they do not exist based on the word from a man like Saddam!
So the UN inspectors confimred it five years ago...and then, in that time, Saddam has been to take "thousands of stock" and make them dissapear to the point that we have not been able to find anything? Suddenly, "thousands of stock" becomes a needle in a haystack?

I am not relying on Saddam's word here...I am going on the fact that little or nothing has appeared.
__________________
zoney! is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 09:54 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by zoney!


Are YOU the Bush admin? I have said that the Bush Admin. keeps changing the tune.



So the UN inspectors confimred it five years ago...and then, in that time, Saddam has been to take "thousands of stock" and make them dissapear to the point that we have not been able to find anything? Suddenly, "thousands of stock" becomes a needle in a haystack?

I am not relying on Saddam's word here...I am going on the fact that little or nothing has appeared.
Substances such as Anthrax, Mustard Gas, and other chemicals do not require large facilities for storage. All of this stuff could be buried and hidden in a matter of weeks.

Think about it this way, if I take a container of Juice or something from your house and buried it 100 feet underground somewhere over 200 miles from your house, what do you think your chances of ever finding that container again would be?

The WMD exist in some form, even someone like Hans Blix admitts that. The question is where is it and what condition is it in. If Saddam did dismantle the WMD, it was his responsibility to show the remains to prove that he had done so. If the WMD is still intact, it was Saddam's responsibility to hand it over for disposal by the inspectors. Saddam did neither. Saddam always had the capability to hide and bury his WMD so that it would be unlikely that anyone could find it.

It is not a question of whether or not Saddam has WMD, he does, the question is did he dismantle it as he claims or is it still intact. In either case, Saddam never did what he was required to do, which is why military action was justified.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-01-2004, 10:09 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
If we had a democratic controlled House he freakin would be.

Afterall the R on the Senate Intelligence Commitee has stated he wouldn't have voted for the war. I think Dubyah is a modern day war criminal.
Nope, most democrats voted for the war in Iraq and for any impeachment to succeed one would have to have indisputable evidence that the President had lied.

In addition, the central case for war was not these various pieces of intelligence that later turned out to be inaccurate, but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. I understand many in here don't care about that fact, but it is true. The United States and other member states of the United Nations have been attempting to carry out the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire as well as insure that the UN resolutions were enforced for the past 12 years. These actions were never based on some little piece of intelligence here or there. It was an ongoing process in which all peacefull means of disarmament had been tried and failed. That is why war became a necessity in order to achieve the objective.

A lie is when one says something that they know to be false. There is no evidence the President has lied about anything.

To use a phrase similar to what John Kerry has used, simply saying the President lied does not make it so!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 02:48 AM   #57
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In addition, the central case for war was not these various pieces of intelligence that later turned out to be inaccurate, but Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. I understand many in here don't care about that fact, but it is true.
You know, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Because the way I saw it, and the way many others saw it, this war was sold to us as war based on the #1 threat to America, a great and increasing threat, and not just that, an imminent threat, and a threat from a terrible terrorist who had ties to Al Qaeda and who at any moment may decide to give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists to wreak havoc on our soil.

When the Bush administration made it's case, sure, they started off with Resolution 1441. But do you honestly think that that's what sold the American people and Washington on this?

BA: He failed to verifiably disarm - let's go get em!

Us: Um...why now?

BA: Because he's an imminent threat! Any day now he could hand over a biological warhead to a terrorist group, any day now he may strike us hard, we have satellite pictures showing locations of weapons bunkers and manufacturing plants. We have intelligence that shows ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda!

Us: Woah, really? I didn't realize he was this big a threat - we better get him!

The way they got this country to back the war was to create the illusion that Saddam was an imminent threat - more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda, and one that if we didn't deal with it immediately might mean an attack against us. The way they got us to back the Resolution authorized use of force was to show us those bunkers and weapons photos, and to constantly tell us what a great and increasing and powerful threat Saddam was.

If the Bush administration had not misled the country at all, then why would the majority of the American people, when polled before major ground operations began in Iraq, believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

But anyway, it's clear you believe your view, and we believe ours. So lets just leave at that, because it's clear after all these posts and threads that no one's opinion is changing on this matter.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 10:14 AM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:46 AM
President Bush has publicly come out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I love how it is somehow his fault that Americans in whatever poll, think otherwise. Maybe they think otherwise because they believe the evidence has not been found.

We were under a biological attack after 9/11. Saddam had WMD capabilities based on information from the UN and intelligence agencies (Germany) from outside the US. The president acted because Iraq has been an active sponsor of terrorism, and because Iraq had not proved itself clean.

It was sold that we were in danger. I agree with you there, just not on your interpretation of the facts.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-02-2004, 09:36 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


You know, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Because the way I saw it, and the way many others saw it, this war was sold to us as war based on the #1 threat to America, a great and increasing threat, and not just that, an imminent threat, and a threat from a terrible terrorist who had ties to Al Qaeda and who at any moment may decide to give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists to wreak havoc on our soil.

When the Bush administration made it's case, sure, they started off with Resolution 1441. But do you honestly think that that's what sold the American people and Washington on this?

BA: He failed to verifiably disarm - let's go get em!

Us: Um...why now?

BA: Because he's an imminent threat! Any day now he could hand over a biological warhead to a terrorist group, any day now he may strike us hard, we have satellite pictures showing locations of weapons bunkers and manufacturing plants. We have intelligence that shows ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda!

Us: Woah, really? I didn't realize he was this big a threat - we better get him!

The way they got this country to back the war was to create the illusion that Saddam was an imminent threat - more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda, and one that if we didn't deal with it immediately might mean an attack against us. The way they got us to back the Resolution authorized use of force was to show us those bunkers and weapons photos, and to constantly tell us what a great and increasing and powerful threat Saddam was.

If the Bush administration had not misled the country at all, then why would the majority of the American people, when polled before major ground operations began in Iraq, believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

But anyway, it's clear you believe your view, and we believe ours. So lets just leave at that, because it's clear after all these posts and threads that no one's opinion is changing on this matter.
Some quick points briefly:

Most people following the situation in Iraq throughout the 1990s and into the new century realized the difficulty and threat of the situation. For those that were not keeping up with or informed on the largest embargo and sanctions regime in history, as well as the difficult UN inspections, bombings and no flow zones, I could see how everything would be a surprise in September of 2002.

You often ask why now, and the answer to that is that there was no other way short of the use of military force to insure the disarmament of Saddam. Saddam had cooperated to some degree for 7 years up to the end of 1998. There was hope in 2002 that Saddam would comply with the UN inspectors and resolve the problems of disarmament that were left from November of 1998, but he did not.

In addition, the President's campaign to get approval to use military force only lasted for 1 month. The President laid down his firm decision and policy on September 12, 2002 and got the over 75% of Congress including the majority of Democrats to approve the use of military force to disarm Iraq on October 13, 2002.

It had already been agreed years ago and affirmed once again in 2002, that military force was indeed authorized if Saddam failed to meet his obligations. At no point before the war did a majority of Americans or Congressman disagree with this. The President had the support to remove Saddam if need be from day 1 (September 12, 2002) that he set his policy down, which was confirmed by the overwhelming vote in support of his policy in the October 13 vote, as well as the congressional elections taking place in November which were essentionally another show of support for the President.

But let me ask you a question:

Considering that all means to disarm Saddam peacefully had failed after 12 years despite some cooperation in the first 7 years, at what point would you vote to use military force to bring Saddam into compliance with UN resolutions, which were passed and authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations, because of the seriousness of the threat Saddam posed to the region and the world?

How long would you let one of the planets worst dictators go, without insuring they were fully disarmed as the United Nations had mandated? I remind you that the United Nations Inspectors reported that Saddam had failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, and thousand of bio/Chem capable shells. In light of that fact that Saddam will not resolve the issue, when do you think force would be justified to finally disarm Saddam as required by the United Nations resolutions?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2004, 01:13 AM   #60
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 12:46 AM
I would've at least waited until the job in Afghanistan was done and Bin Laden was captured.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com