• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

An Open Email from Michael Moore

I just love the overall reaction from the Liberal contingency on this thread....

The subject is Moore...The title is Moore...and the conversation is Moore...

so what comes out?

"Oh yeah?....What about Rush Limbaugh?!?!?"

Gotta really appriciate the "I have no defense for "A" so I'll just change the topic to "B"...

Classic move...but expected...:roll:
 
Last edited:
My opinion of Moore is he is like **** on a boar hog useless even for show. We just cant wait to see him down here in gator land. All of us po southern boys done got to meet some of them old boys from the land of the fruits and nuts already. Come on down and misquote some of us sha.
 
I won't address or debate Michael Moore because I have my opinion of him. Michael Moore, just as any ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative individual or group, has an agenda and is so far to one side that even if you allow for the arguments, the bias is so heavy it is a waste of time to read. I prefer someone with, at the least, some moderation; someone that can at least try to see both sides and find a middle. Anything else is just a waste of time. I am not speaking to issues; I am speaking to the bias of the ultra-left/ultra-right.

There are times I can agree with the right or left but that is not usually based on their position but rather what they actually say about a particular issue. Issues are what interest me, not some ultra's this or that inflamatory rhetoric that only spurs argument like all those here in this thread.

I want you to know: I haven't read anything but the opening post in this thread because I'm not going to follow Michael Moore or a Rush Limbaugh. I'm going to look at issues and think of solutions, not blame, not party, not waste my time. The biggest problem we have in getting work done for our country lies with Republicans and Democrats. They don't have me blindly putting them in the ballot box; they should earn that.
:duel :cool:
 
GySgt said:
The "War on Terror" does not mean the terror on America. It means a war on "Terror."

Besides that, when it comes to Saddam and his sons...some people just need killing. Saddam going down by his own people in a court is even better.
Under such loose definitions some of the things the U.S. has done could qualify as "terror". I think of the war on terror as a war on radical islamic extremists like the Taliban, not a generic cop out to attack anyone we please. There are far more terrorizing things going on in other countries than anything that supposedly happened in Iraq.
 
scottyz said:
Under such loose definitions some of the things the U.S. has done could qualify as "terror". I think of the war on terror as a war on radical islamic extremists like the Taliban, not a generic cop out to attack anyone we please. There are far more terrorizing things going on in other countries than anything that supposedly happened in Iraq.

Supposedly? I love that. It's funny.

I say we (your military) should turn our guns around and take out our government. Slaughter our civilians and plant the DOD flag. What do you say?...you know...because we are terrorists too. Phff.

What's this got to do with Michael Moore?
 
GySgt said:
Supposedly? I love that. It's funny.
Just like Saddam supposedly had WMD's.....
 
scottyz said:
Just like Saddam supposedly had WMD's.....

Supposedly? President Clinton, Al Gore and President Bush told us he did. Lots of other Democrats and Republicans and foreign governments told us he did too. I remember him raining down scuds on Israel and them wearing gas masks along with our troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Guess our boys wanted to be safe too. Don't forget John Kerry. He said Saddam had WMD's too along with Hillary Clinton.

I say we get em all. And with a great investigator like Michael Moore I'm surprised he doesn't want them all. Interesting that he only concentrates on "their side".

Saddam was a WMD.
:duel :cool:
 
scottyz said:
Just like Saddam supposedly had WMD's.....


I guess the Holocaust of Jews didn't happen either...right? By dismissing obvious proof, 100's of rape rooms, personal interviews, documented punishments, and their "black & white" written laws, you are laughing in the face of their abuses.

People like you completely shock me. Despite everyone's attempt to mirk the deed by cluttering up the moral issue with "WMD" and "Bush lies", Iraq was a noble act against a ruthless dictator. I got some insight for you...as important as you think your individual safety is...your personal life isn't anymore special than anyone else's.
 
Last edited:
The reason why this debate has turned into a Moore vs Limbaugh thread is because they are both obese demagogues with no substance who lie on a constant basis.

Only difference though, Limbaugh doesn't make "documentaries."

And GORDON TRAVELS, in another thread I stated I was an Independent but you thought I was somehow partisan or involved with the Nader party, which I'm not. I'm non-partisan, and I thought that was just another way of stating that I was "Independent" of political or party affiliation.

You and GYT are also right on the money. Conservatives and liberals alike believed Sadam had WMDS, but people like Moore only focus on this administration making up lies and distorting the truth like the buffoon he is.
 
gordontravels said:
Supposedly? President Clinton, Al Gore and President Bush told us he did. Lots of other Democrats and Republicans and foreign governments told us he did too. I remember him raining down scuds on Israel and them wearing gas masks along with our troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Guess our boys wanted to be safe too. Don't forget John Kerry. He said Saddam had WMD's too along with Hillary Clinton.

I say we get em all. And with a great investigator like Michael Moore I'm surprised he doesn't want them all. Interesting that he only concentrates on "their side".

Saddam was a WMD.
:duel :cool:
Maybe they all lied or were wrong. Bush never said Saddam was a WMD. He said Saddam had WMD's and that's why we had to take him out. Now it turns out he doesn't and we're stuck in this mess while at the same time N. Korea does have nukes.
 
GySgt said:
I guess the Holocaust of Jews didn't happen either...right? By dismissing obvious proof, 100's of rape rooms, personal interviews, documented punishments, and their "black & white" written laws, you are laughing in the face of their abuses.

People like you completely shock me. Despite everyone's attempt to mirk the deed by cluttering up the moral issue with "WMD" and "Bush lies", Iraq was a noble act against a ruthless dictator. I got some insight for you...as important as you think your individual safety is...your personal life isn't anymore special than anyone else's.
Many countries in the middle east torture people and have harsh laws. What makes Iraq special? If it's so evil why is the U.S. sending prisoners to Turkey to be tortured? How are we any better? No prisoners in the U.S. have ever been raped, tortured or killed in prison? Get real.
 
scottyz said:
Many countries in the middle east torture people and have harsh laws. What makes Iraq special? If it's so evil why is the U.S. sending prisoners to Turkey to be tortured? How are we any better? No prisoners in the U.S. have ever been raped, tortured or killed in prison? Get real.


I love this too. People use this as an excuse to be impotent. Your rational is to send troops everywhere or nowhere? It does not matter what President Bush said. Saddam was a future threat to us and he abused his people. Period. What more is there supposed to be? Nobody in the Middle East was near as ruthless and abusive as Saddam. You don't even know the region, yet you feel compelled to hold your opinion with some kind of higher weight? There is nothing special about Iraq except that there is where we went. What's so special about Haiti? What's so special about Bosnia? What's so special about Kosovo? What's so special about Somalia? What's so special about.....

With so much solid contriversy, why do you reach? Your comparing the illegal acts that occur in our prisons to the legal acts that occurred nation wide in Iraq? Weak.

As far as Turkey....let me lift you from your ignorance. In Somalia, we handed over militant Islamists over to the Belgians. Handing over prisoners to nations that are not held accountable for their actions is a long tradition for our country's military. Implying that this a "Bush" problem means you are ignorant or you are on a war path.
 
Last edited:
scottyz said:
Maybe they all lied or were wrong. Bush never said Saddam was a WMD. He said Saddam had WMD's and that's why we had to take him out. Now it turns out he doesn't and we're stuck in this mess while at the same time N. Korea does have nukes.


Another stupid statement. Let's here your bright ideas about attacking a country with nukes? Will you be the one under the nuke blast as we cross the border?

Once they have nukes...it is too late. This is why, we must not allow these Islamic fundamentalists the capabilities. Iran has stated that they will share their nuclear "know how" with all Islamic nations. The threat to our country is the nations of Islam...not North Korea. Just sit back and let the professionals handle it. You don't know what is for your own good.

Isn't this thread about Moore?
 
Last edited:
scottyz said:
Maybe they all lied or were wrong. Bush never said Saddam was a WMD. He said Saddam had WMD's and that's why we had to take him out. Now it turns out he doesn't and we're stuck in this mess while at the same time N. Korea does have nukes.

Well it's good to see that you think they all could have been wrong. At least you aren't saying this one lied and this one didn't because I'm betting that none of them lied. I'm also betting that they all weren't wrong in their assessment; just that the information they all had may have been incomplete or wrong. Still, President Clinton said we would eventually have to attack Saddam as did Al Gore. President Bush actually carried out the previous threats. Our Congress and the U.N. either agreed (Congress) or didn't stand in the way (U.N.).

Of course if you listen to our national media you won't hear the successes we have in Iraq and they are numerous. I have 3 neighbors with loved ones in Iraq and their letters not only speak of the good things happening there but how they can't believe what they see on the American media. They all, every one, wonder why our media is so one sided. They ask, "Why doesn't the news tell everything?" Maybe that's why so many, unlike you, want to blame President Bush rather than understanding that mistakes were made in many administrations.

I salute you for being open minded.
:duel :cool:
 
GySgt said:
Another stupid statement. Let's here your bright ideas about attacking a country with nukes? Will you be the one under the nuke blast as we cross the border?

Once they have nukes...it is too late. This is why, we must not allow these Islamic fundamentalists the capabilities. Iran has stated that they will share their nuclear "know how" with all Islamic nations. The threat to our country is the nations of Islam...not North Korea. Just sit back and let the professionals handle it. You don't know what is for your own good.
Yeah.. we should just let them finish developing ICBM's and then worry about it. :roll:
 
GySgt said:
I love this too. People use this as an excuse to be impotent. Your rational is to send troops everywhere or nowhere? It does not matter what President Bush said. Saddam was a future threat to us and he abused his people. Period. What more is there supposed to be?
If he was a future threat than why can no one find wmds or evidence of the creation of them? The real threats are N. korea and Iran.
Nobody in the Middle East was near as ruthless and abusive as Saddam. You don't even know the region, yet you feel compelled to hold your opinion with some kind of higher weight?
And you do know the region? Your opinion has a higher weight?

With so much solid contriversy, why do you reach? Your comparing the illegal acts that occur in our prisons to the legal acts that occurred nation wide in Iraq? Weak.

As far as Turkey....let me lift you from your ignorance. In Somalia, we handed over militant Islamists over to the Belgians. Handing over prisoners to nations that are not held accountable for their actions is a long tradition for our country's military. Implying that this a "Bush" problem means you are ignorant or you are on a war path.
We are handing over OUR prisoners that we want tortured for information to countries that will do it. Just because we won't do the dirty work personally doesn't mean we are free from responsibility for it. Why will this admin. neither condone nor endorse torture? If we are torturing people we are no better than Saddam.
 
gordontravels said:
Well it's good to see that you think they all could have been wrong. At least you aren't saying this one lied and this one didn't because I'm betting that none of them lied. I'm also betting that they all weren't wrong in their assessment; just that the information they all had may have been incomplete or wrong. Still, President Clinton said we would eventually have to attack Saddam as did Al Gore. President Bush actually carried out the previous threats. Our Congress and the U.N. either agreed (Congress) or didn't stand in the way (U.N.). :duel :cool:
I think the intelligence was bad or being touched up. I also think that if Saddam was real a threat Bush Sr. would have taken Baghdad and Saddam the first time we were in Iraq.
 
scottyz said:
I think the intelligence was bad or being touched up. I also think that if Saddam was real a threat Bush Sr. would have taken Baghdad and Saddam the first time we were in Iraq.
Swing and a miss!

From an earlier post of mine...Bush was only going by what the UN asked...

Bush41 was told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, but NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....That is exactly what was done....

And people accuse him of not doing enough...Doing more would have gone against the United Nation's wishes.

Now Bush43 is told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to wait for the completion of inspections and NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....The exact OPPOSITE was done...

And people accuse him of doing too much...He is already going against the United Nation's wishes.

Let me get this straight....

The right thing to do for Bush41 was to NOT listen to the UN and invade Iraq.

The right thing to do for Bush43 was to listen to the UN and NOT invade Iraq.

There is only one logical reasoning for this, and it is plainly obvious....

The United Nations suck....
 
cnredd said:
Swing and a miss!

From an earlier post of mine...Bush was only going by what the UN asked...

Bush41 was told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, but NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....That is exactly what was done....

And people accuse him of not doing enough...Doing more would have gone against the United Nation's wishes.

Now Bush43 is told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to wait for the completion of inspections and NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....The exact OPPOSITE was done...

And people accuse him of doing too much...He is already going against the United Nation's wishes.

Let me get this straight....

The right thing to do for Bush41 was to NOT listen to the UN and invade Iraq.

The right thing to do for Bush43 was to listen to the UN and NOT invade Iraq.

There is only one logical reasoning for this, and it is plainly obvious....

The United Nations suck....

If Bush Jr. can decide not to listen to the U.N. than why couldn't Bush Sr.?
 
scottyz said:
If Bush Jr. can decide not to listen to the U.N. than why couldn't Bush Sr.?
Because Bush41 didn't have a previous 12 years of sanctions and mass graves to think about...
 
cnredd said:
Because Bush41 didn't have a previous 12 years of sanctions and mass graves to think about...
So Saddam was a upstanding guy before Bush Sr. took office?
 
scottyz said:
So Saddam was a upstanding guy before Bush Sr. took office?
Nice try...

Saddam was to be watched...and watched only...until he jumped into Kuwait.

He was hardly an issue before then.

That's like saying if Putin made Russia Communist tomorrow, we would be to blame because we were friends with him just yesterday...

Before he went into Kuwait...the only thing he was doing(that we know/knew of) was his war with Iran....AT THE TIME, Iran was a larger threat, so we didn't do anything about it...actually helped him no less...

We let smaller screw-ups pass...When it came to invasion, that's when we jumped...
 
cnredd said:
Swing and a miss!

From an earlier post of mine...Bush was only going by what the UN asked...

Bush41 was told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, but NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....That is exactly what was done....

And people accuse him of not doing enough...Doing more would have gone against the United Nation's wishes.

Now Bush43 is told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to wait for the completion of inspections and NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....The exact OPPOSITE was done...

And people accuse him of doing too much...He is already going against the United Nation's wishes.

Let me get this straight....

The right thing to do for Bush41 was to NOT listen to the UN and invade Iraq.

The right thing to do for Bush43 was to listen to the UN and NOT invade Iraq.

There is only one logical reasoning for this, and it is plainly obvious....

The United Nations suck....

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

It appears he many other valid reasons for not wanting to invade that have nothing to do with the U.N.
 
Back
Top Bottom