Lee: The facts that this guy raises are the typical, cliched liberal responses to this issue. But your original comment...
I thought they actually found that Saddam had been donating serious cash to Osama, and that Osama had been working with Saddam for awhile after the first Iraq war (Osama spoke out against him during the Reagan administration, when Reagan was supporting Saddam). I think it was in the last New Yorker. Also, "The fact that you would claim that anyone would be a proponent of violence for monetary gain is sickening." And then, "To this date roughly 400 troops have died in armed conflict in Iraq. They're dying off in order to protect George/Dick's oil interests." Odd how that kind of thing only goes one way.... And, if 9/11 hadn't have happened, Moore might still be working towards gun control. In that context, he wouldn't want school shootings to end, both to secure his power (his voice in our society) and his money. Also, Moore made Bowling to campaign for gun control, then was too lazy to edit when 9/11 happened. If he really cared about violent crime in America, I say again, he would have looked at the common crimes that cause America's murder rate to be so high, not simply adding to the culture of fear he is supposed to hate so much.
You can't speculate that someone "wouldn't want to see an end to school shootings" or is "lazy" as a critique of their views. This is just a matter of opinion and not a particuarly intelligent one.
I can critique his movie on the grounds that he is lazy. Also, my point was just that people are throwing around the blanket statement that Osama and Saddam aren't linked (that wasn't the reason for the war, and Bush is despicable for saying it was), when they were linked. Also, WMD manufacturing plants have been found. But, again, the point was that this war was to end the armistice that the UN and Iraq had spent so long making a joke. To some extent, America's involvement in the first war was about making sure that Saddam didn't get his mitts on Saudi Arabia's oil, so that's why it smells of oil.
I think to say that Saddam was not a threat to America, or Americans is being intellectually dishonest. I'll grant that the state of power that he had amassed at the time of his removal from power was not such that he could pose a threat to America directly. However, considering his past actions (the building of weaponry, and the involvement with illegal activities) the only way the world could have kept Saddam from becoming a threat in the mid-east (and thereby a threat to American interests in that location in general) would to have kept some kind of consistent force at or near his borders. Even then there is no guaranty that Saddam would not be able to amass some kind of weaponry to make a play for power.
Didn't this guy ever hear of paragraphs?
Now, isn't this special. An argument with all the finesse of DU(H). Too bad Mr./Ms. Miller you believe the lies of the left. Why don't you think for yourself or better yet, get a job and buy yourself a clue.
"What if we said that about Hitler? Saddam? Mussolini? Hirohito? "
The only thing Moore could lead an army to is an all-you-can-eat joint.
Dwarfmonkey, yep all your points in respect to History hold water and make perfect sense.
I just thought of something...
On a lighter note...
ZZip"There was recent Gallup poll of Iraqis in Iraq. It showed most of them support the current occupation. Of course, living under Saddam, Iraq's may have learned that it's best to tell whoever is in power what they want to hear."
GoGoPowerrangers, they probably do know things, I'm in no way suggesting conspiracy here, but the US government is hardly gonna rush to get it published if it concludes there weren't WMD's. This is probably their right under the official secrets act anyway, or whatever you have in America. I'm sure they would have thought of it, if we've never heard anything it probably means there wasn't much to tell.
I find it interesting Lee dismisses this guy entirely without actually saying anything...he says a couple of dumb things but he raises some good points.
discard the first comment I made, I see Lee's next post. I also see he posted that weekly standard article as "evidence" of the Sadaam/Al Qaeda link. (No, I didn't see where he said that before making my last post, it's entirely coincidental; but I find it pretty funny)
400 people have died or something like that, eh? I don't mean to downplay the death because it's all bad but, after talking to a friend of mine currently on military leave, the point came up that there are more accidental deaths over the time period for the same population than there have been casualties in Iraq. So Would it almost be safer to say that the soldiors are safer there than here?
Heh... They're not safer over there. Although I'm sure if Michael Moore reads this, he'll pick up on the idea and make a movie called "Nuking for America", or something like that.
Too bad he didn't add the Trilateral Commission, Council On Foreign Relations aor The Bilderbergers. Could have gone from typical dumbass to raving jackass in 5.3 seconds.
"I find it interesting Lee dismisses this guy entirely without actually saying anything...he says a couple of dumb things but he raises some good points."
"What if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild and arsenal of devastating destruction.
Moogi: I really doubt that America wouldn't be in shit if a handful of other countries had sent some troops (indeed, the UN was planning to send fewer troops than were ultimately sent). And while I agree that America's handling (labelling it about terrorism and WMD) was bad, to be against the war because politicians lie is frankly pathetic. I'm sorry to say that, I usually respect your opinions, but that is weak to the point of being immoral.
Oh, and WMD manufacturing facilities were found, and those are illegal. Also, many had no purpose but to create weapons to terrorize and slaughter people. The administration would prefer weapons themselves, but that seems like evidence to me.