Michael Moore

[Paco]

For those of you who have read this the last FIVE times I've posted it, sorry.  Apparently there are still people out there who just don't get it.

103795[/snapback]

I wish we could pin this.

[Gene Frenkle]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I was not a proponent of the war in Iraq but I understand why the choice was made.

103795[/snapback]

You have stated that you did not support the decision to invade Iraq - with all of this compelling evidence, how could you not? Why were these not the reasons stated to the American people pre-invasion? Why were we instead told that Iraq definately had WMDs and posed a direct and immediate threat to the United States? I don't argue the merits of the results of the war, but the ends do not justify the means. Either we were blatently decieved or the people making the decisions were incompetent. Either way, the loss of American lives in Iraq is a constant reminder of this adminstration's failure to make the correct decision.

[KD in CA]

You have stated that you did not support the decision to invade Iraq - with all of this compelling evidence, how could you not?  Why were these not the reasons stated to the American people pre-invasion?  Why were we instead told that Iraq definately had WMDs and posed a direct and immediate threat to the United States?  I don't argue the merits of the results of the war, but the ends do not justify the means.  Either we were blatently decieved or the people making the decisions were incompetent.  Either way, the loss of American lives in Iraq is a constant reminder of this adminstration's failure to make the correct decision.

103839[/snapback]

 

But how do you know if wasn't the correct decision? How do you know that the ends will not justify the means? Do you really think our involvment in the Middle East should have ended with the dismantling/scattering of the Taliban?

 

Re-read his post. He is exactly right in saying we will not know these answers likely for decades.

[GG]

You have stated that you did not support the decision to invade Iraq - with all of this compelling evidence, how could you not?  Why were these not the reasons stated to the American people pre-invasion?  Why were we instead told that Iraq definately had WMDs and posed a direct and immediate threat to the United States?  I don't argue the merits of the results of the war, but the ends do not justify the means.  Either we were blatently decieved or the people making the decisions were incompetent.  Either way, the loss of American lives in Iraq is a constant reminder of this adminstration's failure to make the correct decision.

103839[/snapback]

 

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

 

How can you be mad about being deceived, when you think that the decision to go into Iraq was wrong anyway?

[Gene Frenkle]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

 

How can you be mad about being deceived, when you think that the decision to go into Iraq was wrong anyway?

103902[/snapback]

Because we were either lied to or the administration acted on information that proved to be false and are therefore incompetent and should not be making such decisions. Had they presented these reasons for invading Iraq, it would be a different story and they could have garnered some international support. Stumbling into a good result does not justify their stated reasons for going to war in the first place. The way they went about it alienated nearly half the country and most of the world.

[GG]

Because we were either lied to or the administration acted on information that proved to be false and are therefore incompetent and should not be making such decisions.  Had they presented these reasons for invading Iraq, it would be a different story and they could have garnered some international support.  Stumbling into a good result does not justify their stated reasons for going to war in the first place.  The way they went about it alienated nearly half the country and most of the world.

103953[/snapback]

 

That would be fine, if that's all you had posted. But your finishing line "Either way, the loss of American lives in Iraq is a constant reminder of this adminstration's failure to make the CORRECT DECISION," surmises that you disagree with the decision anyway. So why bother crying that you were lied to, if you wouldn't support the decision if you had been told the truth?

[/dev/null]

michael more < rj

[Gene Frenkle]

That would be fine, if that's all you had posted.  But your finishing line "Either way, the loss of American lives in Iraq is a constant reminder of this adminstration's failure to make the CORRECT DECISION," surmises that you disagree with the decision anyway.  So why bother crying that you were lied to, if you wouldn't support the decision if you had been told the truth?

103965[/snapback]

The CORRECT DECISION may have included invading Iraq, but would also have been to gain support of the American people and the international community by presenting the FACTS about what was really going on in Iraq. They could have taken the time to find out for sure - then I could have supported a just war. We could have built off the momentum of 9/11 and Afghanistan and we'd now have more willing partners in fighting the War on Terror. Instead, the administration thumbed its nose at the rest of the world and lost whatever support and sympathy we had gained. Now we're facing a mess in Iraq and nobody in the civilized world trusts or willingly supports us.

 

So yes, Dubya's administrations failed to make the CORRECT DECISION.

[GG]

The CORRECT DECISION may have included invading Iraq, but would also have been to gain support of the American people and the international community by presenting the FACTS about what was really going on in Iraq.  They could have taken the time to find out for sure - then I could have supported a just war.  We could have built off the momentum of 9/11 and Afghanistan and we'd now have more willing partners in fighting the War on Terror.  Instead, the administration thumbed its nose at the rest of the world and lost whatever support and sympathy we had gained.  Now we're facing a mess in Iraq and nobody in the civilized world trusts or willingly supports us.

 

So yes, Dubya's administrations failed to make the CORRECT DECISION.

103996[/snapback]

 

Nice evasion. Again, if you had stated this from the outset, I would not jump on the contradiction.

 

When you wrote that the admin did not make the CORRECT DECISION, what did you mean - the deception, the incompetence or the invasion?

 

Maybe it's my selective reading, but it's hard to see that the receipient of the "either way... failure to make the correct decision" is not the invasion.

 

I am not even going to attempt to discern the tired logic that the invasion would be more justified if there was more international support.

[Alaska Darin]

At last count, you'll need to post it at least another 55 million times.

103824[/snapback]

[Alaska Darin]

You have stated that you did not support the decision to invade Iraq - with all of this compelling evidence, how could you not?  Why were these not the reasons stated to the American people pre-invasion?  Why were we instead told that Iraq definately had WMDs and posed a direct and immediate threat to the United States?  I don't argue the merits of the results of the war, but the ends do not justify the means.  Either we were blatently decieved or the people making the decisions were incompetent.  Either way, the loss of American lives in Iraq is a constant reminder of this adminstration's failure to make the correct decision.

103839[/snapback]

People hear what they want to hear. I heard a number of reasons for the war, just not the specifics I just gave you. There are reasons not to give specifics and most of them have to do with not burning intelligence sources for political gain.

 

Saying "the end doesn't justify the means" shows your "hotpockets" mentality. You have NO idea how this is going to turn out and won't for probably 20 years.

 

The entire civilized world felt Saddam Insane had WMDs. Saddam himself thought he had them.

 

I didn't support the war because I knew the PR battle couldn't be won & the expense short term would probably mean the Liberals would retake control of the government. I fear that more than anything else.

[Gene Frenkle]

Nice evasion.  Again, if you had stated this from the outset, I would not jump on the contradiction. 

 

When you wrote that the admin did not make the CORRECT DECISION, what did you mean - the deception, the incompetence or the invasion? 

 

Maybe it's my selective reading, but it's hard to see that the receipient of the "either way... failure to make the correct decision" is not the invasion. 

 

I am not even going to attempt to discern the tired logic that the invasion would be more justified if there was more international support.

104042[/snapback]

Percieved semantics, my friend. I've since stated what I meant.

[GG]

Percieved semantics, my friend.  I've since stated what I meant.

104056[/snapback]

 

And I obviously should have surmised what you meant before you actually wrote it.

[Gene Frenkle]

And I obviously should have surmised what you meant before you actually wrote it.

104065[/snapback]

I've expained what I meant. There's no need to pile on a statement that was not well-phrased - unless your intent was to point out the fact that is was not well-phrased.

[GG]

I've expained what I meant.  There's no need to pile on a statement that was not well-phrased - unless your intent was to point out the fact that is was not well-phrased.

104074[/snapback]

 

I guess I should have and saved bandwidth.

[Buftex]

Why doesn't MM thank in person, the hundreds of thousands of live servicemen who are putting their lives on the line, instead of pandering to the emotional memories of the dead servicemen?

 

 

103519[/snapback]

 

 

Obviously another critic who hated "Farenheit 9/11" but never saw it....

[Alaska Darin]

Obviously another critic who hated "Farenheit 9/11" but never saw it....

104099[/snapback]

That arguement just never gets tired. Or intelligent.

[Buftex]

That arguement just never gets tired.  Or intelligent.

104102[/snapback]

 

 

Exactly!

[Thurman's Helmet]

Funny how you dont see MM or the rest of the libbers so concerned with the servicemen/women who gave their lives in Afghanistan. Their mock outrage over the war dead in Iraq has gotten in the way I guess.

[Buftex]

Funny how you dont see MM or the rest of the libbers so concerned with the servicemen/women who gave their lives in Afghanistan.  Their mock outrage over the war dead in Iraq has gotten in the way I guess.

104188[/snapback]

 

I think that everyone, including Moore (at the risk of pissing AD off, you really should see his movie before making assumptions) is concerned about those the death of our soldiers in Afghanistan. Some of us had relatives there. What you tastlessly refer to as "mock outrage" for those who have died in Iraq, or may die in Iraq is a bit different. Most anyone, except the most extreme of pacifists, understood the importance of going into Afghanistan. Iraq is another story. You, with your "mock outrage" over the lack of concern for the dead in Afghanistan seem to be forgetting that there are a lot of people (you not included apparently) that don't feel satisfied with the reasons why our troops are in Iraq. Many see it as a misguided waste of lives. Until proof is given to the contrary, there will be many of us (you know the ones without the mandate) who bemoan this waste of lives. I am not implying that you are wrong to feel the way you do, just trying to point out the difference between the two, becuause you asked.