Disproving Fahrenheit 9/11 on Iraq (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

All the class warfare-obssessed rhetoric, the lame conspiracy theories, the habitual lying about Bush's motives, the outrageously dishonest portrayals of Iraqis before and after the war, the distortions about what a threat Saddam was....Somewhere along the line, every hysterically misinformed liberal halfwit on the planet became convinced that the world needed to hear them regurgitate left-wing banter; something specific radicalized the Left into this comically oblivious group of rabid fanatics who repulse voters at a casual glance.

It all originated with one event...

The release of Farenheit 9/11. So let's behead the BS factory at the source...


Here is the most comprehensive proof ever compiled thoroughly debunking both the specifics and the underlying sentiment of this propaganda flick:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Enjoy.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Disproving Liberal Hysterics on Iraq

All the class warfare-obssessed rhetoric, the lame conspiracy theories, the habitual lying about Bush's motives, the outrageously dishonest portrayals of Iraqis before and after the war, the distortions about what a threat Saddam was....Somewhere along the line, every hysterically misinformed liberal halfwit on the planet became convinced that the world needed to hear them regurgitate left-wing banter; something specific radicalized the Left into this comically oblivious group of rabid fanatics who repulse voters at a casual glance.

It all originated with one event...

The release of Farenheit 9/11. So let's behead the BS factory at the source...


Here is the most comprehensive proof ever compiled thoroughly debunking both the specifics and the underlying sentiment of this propaganda flick:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Enjoy.

Maybe you can just save us the time and show us the part where it proves that Iraq really did have WMDs.

 

[shuamort]

Mod note:

I changed the title from "Disproving Liberal Hysterics on Iraq" to be more friendly to this forum instead of moving it to the basement for partisan bickering.

 

[aquapub]

Re: Disproving Liberal Hysterics on Iraq

Maybe you can just save us the time and show us the part where it proves that Iraq really did have WMDs.

It does discuss Saddam's use of WMD to commit genocide on his political enemies (not that Saddam was a threat or anything :roll: )

Perhaps if we hadn't given Saddam 9 months to move them to Syria while we publicly debated invading, maybe then it would be valid to assume the WMD were never there-despite us watching him use them.

Bush offered numerous reasons for invading. If your entire counterpoint to all this proof of the Left's habitual lying about Iraq is that, in this one case, there is no proof either way, then conservatives have already won this argument.

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Disproving Liberal Hysterics on Iraq

It does discuss Saddam's use of WMD to commit genocide on his political enemies (not that Saddam was a threat or anything :roll: )

Perhaps if we hadn't given Saddam 9 months to move them to Syria while we publicly debated invading, maybe then it would be valid to assume the WMD were never there-despite us watching him use them.

Bush offered numerous reasons for invading. If your entire counterpoint to all this proof of the Left's habitual lying about Iraq is that, in this one case, there is no proof either way, then conservatives have already won this argument.

I'm pretty sure Moore makes the point that Iraq didn't have WMDs, the reason why Iraq was an urgent threat that required the rush to war. I guess he's debunked by the old "the WMDs-were-secretely-moved-to-Syria" scheme, eh?

 

[ProudAmerican]

this ridiculous tool of propaganda has been debunked plenty. anyone that would buy into such garbage is the ultimate dupe.

and those that would ask for proof of something that was used to KILL PEOPLE previously are simply in denial.

I would ask for proof of where it went. how it was destroyed.

the burden of proof is on YOU this time. because we know they existed. the kurds know they existed. even the left admits AMerica GAVE THEM TO HIM.

so where are they?

 

[aquapub]

Re: Disproving Liberal Hysterics on Iraq

I'm pretty sure Moore makes the point that Iraq didn't have WMDs, the reason why Iraq was an urgent threat that required the rush to war. I guess he's debunked by the old "the WMDs-were-secretely-moved-to-Syria" scheme, eh?

The argument you are making here is known as, an "argumentum ad ignorantiam." It is a fallacy that means, "If I assert something and it isn't disproved, it must be true."

Asserting that the WMD never existed is an unprovable claim that gets you nowhere-especially since we watched him use them to commit genocide on TV; especially since we gave him 9 months to get rid of them while we openly talked about invading.

Additionally, you falsely portrayed the WMD as THE reason for going in. In Bush's State of the Union speech (and from many other speeches) there were many, many reasons listed. The WMD were merely the most compelling reason.

The legs have been knocked out from under your fallacy-based argument. Try again. :2wave:

 

[aquapub]

this ridiculous tool of propaganda has been debunked plenty. anyone that would buy into such garbage is the ultimate dupe.

and those that would ask for proof of something that was used to KILL PEOPLE previously are simply in denial.

I would ask for proof of where it went. how it was destroyed.

the burden of proof is on YOU this time. because we know they existed. the kurds know they existed. even the left admits AMerica GAVE THEM TO HIM.

so where are they?

One cannot blow off this work of fiction as debunked garbage (even though it is) because it is the source of the contagion that has infected and radicalized the Left beyond repair.

 

[Saboteur]

I haven't seen the whole film so I can't comment on 'disproving' it. But what I did see of it was president Bush speaking. I don't know how you disprove what the president said.

 

[KCConservative]

I would ask for proof of where it went. How it was destroyed. The burden of proof is on YOU this time. because we know they existed. The kurds know they existed. Even the left admits America GAVE THEM TO HIM. So where are they?

Excellent post. If the radical left wants to always remind us that we were the ones to arm Saddam with WMD, then how can they also insist Iraq had no WMD?

 

[Thorgasm]

How is the war working out for Bush? His people said that they were certain that he had WMD. Fine. I just have one question. How can you be certain that something exists yet not know where it is?

 

[KCConservative]

How is the war working out for Bush? His people said that they were certain that he had WMD. Fine. I just have one question. How can you be certain that something exists yet not know where it is?

We are certain they were there - Even the most rabid Bush haters insist we gave Saddam his WMD. So now the question is where did they go? Here's an even better question. How can it be said we armed Saddam with WMD in one breath and then say Iraq had no WMD in the next breath?

 

[Thorgasm]

Excellent post. If the radical left wants to always remind us that we were the ones to arm Saddam with WMD, then how can they also insist Iraq had no WMD?

The weapons we gave them had expired.

 

[Iriemon]

this ridiculous tool of propaganda has been debunked plenty. anyone that would buy into such garbage is the ultimate dupe.

and those that would ask for proof of something that was used to KILL PEOPLE previously are simply in denial.

I would ask for proof of where it went. how it was destroyed.

the burden of proof is on YOU this time. because we know they existed. the kurds know they existed. even the left admits AMerica GAVE THEM TO HIM.

so where are they?

Destroyed years ago like the Iraqis said?

 

[cnredd]

Off topic - WMDs existed...They were tagged by UN Inspectors in 1998 before they were kicked out...In 2002 when a new team of inspectors showed up, some of the WMDs that were previously tagged were missing and unaccounted for...This is not up for negotiation...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/93821-post1.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/94181-post7.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/94512-post12.html

This from the actual UNSCOM report, so skip all of the op-ed pieces and stuff thrown out from individuals with biases...

49. The Commission has a certain degree of confidence in the accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed during the 1991 Gulf war. The Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 34,000 special munitions and 823 tonnes of key precursors. Outstanding issues remain. These include the accounting for 2,000 unfilled and 550 filled special munitions.

50. The Commission has a lesser degree of confidence in accounting for proscribed items declared by Iraq as having been destroyed unilaterally. These include 15,900 unfilled and 100 filled special munitions, the CW agent VX and 50 tonnes of a precursor for the production of VX. Nevertheless, the Commission has accepted through its verification the destruction of 13,660 special munitions and about 200 tonnes of key precursors. However, residual questions remain with respect to proscribed items destroyed unilaterally. The presentation by foreign suppliers of information on the delivery of munitions and precursors requested by UNSCOM could be helpful in the verification of this area.

51. The priority should be given to the resolution of the most important outstanding issues. These include: material balance of chemical munitions (including verification of the expenditure of special munitions in the 1980s, which is required to increase a degree of confidence with respect to Iraq's declarations of chemical weapons remained in Iraq in 1991; the accounting for 550 artillery shells filled with mustard; verification of the unilateral destruction of R-400 chemical and biological aerial bombs); accounting for the production of the chemical warfare agent VX, and; verification of the completeness of declarations provided by Iraq on the material balance of CW production equipment removed from the Muthanna State Establishment (MSE) prior to the UNSCOM inspections.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/

Back on topic - Saying Michael Moore provides truthful documentation is like saying NAMBLA is just a group of hopeless romantics...

 

[Thorgasm]

cnredd, I am not defending Moore. Although, even under the premise that the WMDs exist, invading Iraq surely didn't resolve their potential danger. Now we don't know who has them.

Now if you think that fighting the terrorists there instead of here (we would win here), then wouldn't you rather they be used on Kurds instead of Americans?

 

[cnredd]

cnredd, I am not defending Moore. Although, even under the premise that the WMDs exist, invading Iraq surely didn't resolve their potential danger. Now we don't know who has them.

Now if you think that fighting the terrorists there instead of here (we would win here), then wouldn't you rather they be used on Kurds instead of Americans?

That would only be true IF physical WMDS were the only reason to go to war, which is not the case...

I could bring up House Resolution 114 for the umpteenth time, but for some that won't suffice, so I'll try to this route and see if things become more clear...

We're all in agreement(at least we should be) that the sanctions didn't do crap except hurt Iraqis...Saddam used any money procured from oil distribution(legal and, as we now know, otherwise) for creating lavish palaces and giving to himself and his regime instead of medical supplies and grub...It has been said that as many as 100,000 children died in Iraq because of these sanctions...

Now these sanctions were to keep Saddam in check, but we now know that it ended up hurting others more, so they were going to be lifted by the UN soon...every so often there were votes to keep the sanctions intact, but it was becoming increasingly obvious that the votes probably weren't going to be there the next time the sanctions came up...

This was going to be the UN's way of saying, "uhhh...nevermind...we failed to push you around, so we'll stop trying."...

With sanctions lifted, Saddam would be free to conduct business with other countries and their companies without being checked on...Do you see the problem yet?...

If a guy went through life stabbing people, don't you think it a little disturbing that he would be free to go wherever he likes and buy knives?

That's what we have here...These are indisputable facts...

1) Saddam gassed his own people.
2) Saddam killed as many as 500,000 of his own people
3) Saddam attempted to creat nuclear weapons before and Isreal attacked and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor
4) Saddam invaded Kuwait
5) Saddam attacked Isreal with scud missiles when they had nothing to do with the coalitin against this invasion
6) Saddam paid Palistinian homicide bombers' families money in compensation for their relative attacking Isreal through terrorism
7) Saddam has had, at the least, preliminary discussions with Al Qaeda
8) Clinton's reasoning for attacking the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan was that Saddam sent Iraqi scientists to work on chemical weapons
9) Saddam threw out weapons inspectors on more than one occasion

And THIS is the issue that some try not to recognize...

10) Saddam STILL had the knowledge, the scientists, and the ability to create WMDs once the sanctions were lifted...

Now you tell me...with what you see above, can you honestly believe that Saddam's intention was not to wait out the sanctions, then continue his weapons program without the international community on his back?

And more importantly, if you were the President of the United States, would you be willing to take that risk?...

 

[MrFungus420]

I haven't seen the whole film so I can't comment on 'disproving' it. But what I did see of it was president Bush speaking. I don't know how you disprove what the president said.

If it's the part that I'm thinking about, when Bush is making a toast with a comment about the people being rich and powerful and that they are his constituency, then it is easily explained.

It was a toast given at club that does them regularly as a charity event. If I remember correctly, the money they raise goes to several children's hospitals. In an election year, the candidates show up and make fun of themselves. That was what it was, Bush making fun of himself. Gore was also there and made fun of the Social Security "lockbox", and him inventing the internet.

It is a beautiful example of something being taken entirely out-of-context.

What I would recommend is watching Farenheit 9/11 immediately followed by Farenhype 9/11.

 

[aquapub]

Destroyed years ago like the Iraqis said?

Sure, except for the fact that Saddam kept expelling inspectors every time they got too close to his WMD.


The point here is that, of all the assertions liberals like Michael Moore have made about this war that can be proved or disproved have been disproved. This particular one can't be proved. Lack of proof doesn't constitute proof for the other side. Your reasoning is based on a fallacy and is invalid.

 

[Thorgasm]

And more importantly, if you were the President of the United States, would you be willing to take that risk?...

If I were POTUS I would not be crapping my pants about every country you just labeled. Yes, every country I said. All you have to do is substitute a leader's name with Saddam.

Conservatives seem to act strong as overcompensation for being scared of the boogyman. I thought Reagan was a hero because of MAD. Saddam wasn't going to attack us. He knew what that would mean. Also, as POTUS I would only send troops to defend America. They would not become mercenary forces.

 

[Iriemon]

Sure, except for the fact that Saddam kept expelling inspectors every time they got too close to his WMD.

The point here is that, of all the assertions liberals like Michael Moore have made about this war that can be proved or disproved have been disproved. This particular one can't be proved. Lack of proof doesn't constitute proof for the other side. Your reasoning is based on a fallacy and is invalid.

Sure it could be proved -- if they found those reconsituted nukes and hundreds of tons of chemical weapons the admin assured us Iraq had, it would be proved.

Your argument is that because no evidence of WMDs was found, it cannot be proved that Iraq did not have WMDs. That is requiring proving a negative, that is faulty and invalid reasoning.

 

[cnredd]

Conservatives seem to act strong as overcompensation for being scared of the boogyman.

Well that just ended this conversation...

Started out pretty good too...

 

[cnredd]

Sure it could be proved -- if they found those reconsituted nukes and hundreds of tons of chemical weapons the admin assured us Iraq had, it would be proved.

Your argument is that because no evidence of WMDs was found, it cannot be proved that Iraq did not have WMDs. That is requiring proving a negative, that is faulty and invalid reasoning.

False...

As stated in the links I've previously included, the burden of proof was upon Saddam and no one else...

If, in 1998, there are 2000 shells physically seen by the inspection team, and in 2002 when a different team shows up and doesn't see them where they were left, it was Saddam's obligation to inform them what happened to them and to provide proof of it...

Read the UNSCOM report to get the full details of the unaccounted for weapons destined for destruction before they were kicked out...

 

[ProudAmerican]

I haven't seen the whole film so I can't comment on 'disproving' it. But what I did see of it was president Bush speaking. I don't know how you disprove what the president said.

I couldnt agree more. see my sig for further evidence that we finally agree on something.

 

[Iriemon]

False...

As stated in the links I've previously included, the burden of proof was upon Saddam and no one else...

Patently riduculous.

A rule were one country can invade another based upon assertions that the other has to disprove would mean that any country could invade another based upon unnegated assertions. Which is what happened here.

For example, under your logic, the US would be justified invading Canada on the grounds that Canada has nukes, even though it denies it, because the Canadian Govt couldn't prove it did not have them.

That is an absurd thing to suggest.

We invaded another country on the grounds that it had WMDs. It was the US Govt's burden to demonstrate a legitimate justification for violating the sovereignity of another nation.

If, in 1998, there are 2000 shells physically seen by the inspection team, and in 2002 when a different team shows up and doesn't see them where they were left, it was Saddam's obligation to inform them what happened to them and to provide proof of it...

The Iraqis said they destroyed them all. We were not justified invading because they did not keep records that were satisfactory. Besides, there were other reasons to believe they did not have WMDs and our intellegence to the contrary was unreliable -- not the least of which was every time our inspectors went where our intellgence said the WMDs were located they found no evidence of them -- and all the other stuff that is coming out not indicating the intellgence was unreliable and any objective person would have realized that.

Read the UNSCOM report to get the full details of the unaccounted for weapons destined for destruction before they were kicked out...

Read the inspectors reports were time and again they did not find WMDs were our sources said they would be.