It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Moore shamed O'reilly last night.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The airplanes were probably hidden during the Gulf War.


Wrong, they were able to prove that some of them had been buried as recently as a month before being found. In addition some were found to be almost flight ready (I know that is saying a lot when it comes to the Iraqi Air Farce).

Considering the effort that Saddam was willing to go through to hide a few migs and sukhois, doesn't that clue people in as to how much effort he would be willing to expend to hide some WMDs?




posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
He did have an Air Force, in various states of decomposition. They did not violate any UN resolutions, so why did he hide them? And why did we find them so easily? To protect what little working planes he had from from damaged when we attacked? We knew where they were. I mean jeez, the tail-fins were sticking out of the sand! I'm so tired of all of the bait-and-switch tactics.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Spacedoubt:

All I gotta say to you is duuuuhhhh....

Apparantly you don't have children. It's obvious to everyone children don't go to war, I don't know if your trying to belittle Moore's argument with a pretty piss poor comeback but i'm thinkin it.

18 to enlist, these are someone's children... Yes children... Even though they are done their potty training and painting pretty pictures they are still somebody's baby. That's what he means by it...

I used to have respect for O'reilly but the more I ask questions about his argument the more I learn that he's just as bad as democrats at trying to spin things... No spin zone?? what a bunch of bs!

Moore actually had him when he asked the question of sending O'reilly's kid to war, O'reilly wouldn't answer until Moore kept badgering him, O'reilly stumbled a few times, and then game up with the oh not so genius answer of "sure I would send my kids over to help liberate iraq" but moore got him with yeah so would I but thats not what this war was initially based upon, it was based upon mad information, wmd's... to which o'reilly says "next question"

I love how O'reilly dodges questions and good comebacks...
It makes him look just as bad the democrats do.
Their both full of spins and less then intelligent comebacks...

I think they belong to the same dance company...Tap Dancer's "R" Us.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The airplanes were probably hidden during the Gulf War.


Wrong, they were able to prove that some of them had been buried as recently as a month before being found. In addition some were found to be almost flight ready (I know that is saying a lot when it comes to the Iraqi Air Farce).


It means nothing. Saddam Hussein had no power to mount any kind of attack on us or anyone else. We had him fully contained.

We shouldn't even be discussing this topic here. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Let's get back to that.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
Spacedoubt:
All I gotta say to you is duuuuhhhh....



LOL,
Sorry you didn't UNDERSTAND my point...!
Of course it's obvious..!

Moore uses carefully placed Words, and repeats them OVER and OVER because he understands the impact.

So, WMD was the ONLY reason we went to IRAQ?

no Violation in UN resolutions?

No support of terrorism by Saddam?

No killing of his own citizens?

Are you pretending none of THAT happened



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Moore uses carefully placed Words, and repeats them OVER and OVER because he understands the impact.


- you think only the right-wing should be able to use this tactic or something?


So, WMD was the ONLY reason we went to IRAQ?


- It was the actual stated reason to get people to buy the line that they were under imminent threat and that an attack was therefore justified, yes.


no Violation in UN resolutions?


- no, because that would have required a specific UN resolution and in any case even if that had been the reason then 'we'd' have attacked Isreal years ago for 'violation of UN resolutions', so no, not good enough to justify an invasion.


No support of terrorism by Saddam?


- there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq to 9/11 in any meaningful way so, no, again not good enough to justify an invasion.


No killing of his own citizens?


- No one is denying that didn't happen.....although it appears a lot less of it was done than originally claimed. 5000 over 30yrs, apparantly.

Repellent as it is to compare death rates this is not particularly high for the region....some of our pals out there in the ME do worse.....and, just out of interest, I wonder how it compares with the numbers of "own citizens" the US has executed over the last 30yrs?


Are you pretending none of THAT happened


- no but my bet is you know damn well that WMD's were the big deal that got public support for the whole 'under-taking' and with zero proof of them no wonder GW is on anti-depressant drugs to try make him feel happy as more and more questions are asked by more and more unhappy people who feel lied to, big time.







posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
sminkeypinkey,

SO, is acting on incorrect information.
LYING? or
NOT LYING?
A straightforward question which determines WHO is the Liar. Bush, or Moore.


Also:

Iraq support of terrorism Inside and Outside. (Lying by Omission?)

Link1
link2
link3



[edit on 28-7-2004 by spacedoubt]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
You guys still miss the point entirely... George W Bush commited American soldiers lives to fight a war without definative proof of his own justifications to take us to war.

Even if they found some WMD right now even a nuke it would not change the fact that our President, the guy we trust to do right by us, and our troops, took us to war with less than undinable justification. Simply put "W" jumped to conclusions with NO hard evidence to back him up. I think everyone thought there was some secret photo's or secret spy out there that had proviced some form of hard evidence that gave Bush reason to invade Iraq. But we all know now that there was never any hard evidence. Out President commited US troops to war without hard evidence. Some guy in CIA hey "W" iraq has "W" WMD. "W" say oh no we better invade! This is wrong and in my book criminal for a president to do this. He took the power he weilds lightly and dismissed the lives that were lost by not insuring HIMSELF that WMD and Alquaida links were undeniable.

We do not need a president that acts in this way. It is extreemly poor judgement that cost 1000's of people their lives.

Please drop the fact that your conservative for a moment, and think about what I am saying. I wish another Republican could run for president, so I could vote for him, but that wont happen.

All we have is Kerry to remove a very impatient man from the white house. His dad was a hero in my book. His brother is probably going to be an awesome president but George W Bush failed his country, his troops and the world for that matter. Let him go, and let the republicans get a new candidate or at least vote him out. 4 Years of Kerry wont kill anyone but 4 more years of "W" most certainly will.

If you vote for someone just because of a label "Republican" or "Democrat"
and not for the actuall person running, then you my friend are probably an idiot and are the reason we have electoral college instead of a popular vote. "I'll let you think on that heh"





[edit on 29-7-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
sminkeypinkey,

SO, is acting on incorrect information.
LYING? or
NOT LYING?
A straightforward question which determines WHO is the Liar. Bush, or Moore.


- The moment Bush demanded 9/11 be 'linked' to Iraq was the moment he initiated the lie he knew he was going to use.

Since when was clear pressure from the boss, a demand no less, to come up with a specific answer - against all informed advice - ever likely to not come up with "incorrect indformation"?!

To knowingly have conjured and then used this information - despite being told several times that it is suspect or wrong - is a lie. Bush lied.

Wake up.



Also:

Iraq support of terrorism Inside and Outside. (Lying by Omission?)

Link1
link2
link3


- Is that it? Wow. I didn't realise just how little there was, I honestly expected something - at least one or two biggies. That's thin 'evidence' to say the least. It's not what I'd call especially convincing.....and certainly not convincing enough to justify the attack as the rest of the world knows fine well.

The point of this has never been to portray Saddam as a harmless old saint but to debate the issue of whether containment was the better policy versus the invasion and war.

IMO the USA got suckered by those intent on a war with Iraq long before the justification came along......and what 'justuification' there has been held up to all doesn't justify zip......least of all the lives, damage and expense it has cost.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
They are not children, though we are all someone's child, it's true. However, if they've made the conscious decision to enlist in the military then they need to know the risks and so do their parents. They must realize we are always in a position to have to send them into harm's way. Even if they're 18 or 19, I respect their decision as adults to join the service. In doing so they've agreed to put themselves at the service of the country.

Bush can't go over there himself and take a look around. Saddam's constant resistance to weapons inspections coupled with intel saying the WMDs were there, gave him grounds enough.

None of this back and forth matters. Bush haters will never change their minds. Even if we find them now, or find evidence of their removal now, they still won't change their minds. Bush supporters won't change their minds either. Those on the fence will see both sides "debating" the issue and will make their minds up based on whichever seems reasonable to them. Again, on topic, the whole interview was a let-down. Like the Tyson fights back in the day. All the hype and $30 pay per view for a 91 second fight. Gah! Disappointing. Woulda been more entertaining if Sean Hannity had gotten hold of him!



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
That interview was a joke. I hoped for a better show.
Moore is still a big socialist poopie head


I too had hoped it would be better. O'Reilly caved. He didn't hit hard with the facts about Moore's mockumentary. There were soooooo many things O'Reilly could have nailed Moore on, and he didn't get to them. I guess there wasn't enough time. Moore put a short time limit on it and then he went into that STUUUUUUUPID thing about 'would you send your child to Fallujah'.

As a previous poster already said - This is an all volunteer military.
Everyone in the military volunteered to serve their country. I did
(5 years in the Army). My husband did (Airforce). My brother still
serves in the US AirForce and is stationed in Turkey. We all
volunteered. We served. So if the balloon went up, we'd go.
No one wants to go to war, but sometimes it is necessary. And yes
IRAQ WAS NECESSARY. Moore polluted the show (easy for him to
pollute things) with off track chatter which ment that O'Reilly couldn't
present the facts that were in direct opposition to Moore's
mockumentary. Moore is afraid to face facts. That is what happened.

Moore wouldn't know the truth if he tripped over it. And if he did
trip over the truth, I'm sure he'd cover it up with barnyard fodder.

BTW - I love the 'socialist poopie head' Moore comment. It's so true.

[edit on 7/29/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
We do not need a president that acts in this way. It is extreemly poor judgement that cost 1000's of people their lives.


Actually he (we) saved countless thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands of lives, even more. The mass murder in Iraq has stopped. The genocide of the Kurds has stopped. The wars Iraq wanted to wage against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even into the Kurdish areas of Turkey will now not happen. Tens of thousands of lives saved there. The $50,000 being paid to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers has stopped. Geee ... homicide bombings are down 90% in Israel. Down because of the security wall AND because Saddam isn't paying the murderers. More lives saved there. The terrorist training camps in Iraq are closed. They were complete with Boeing 727s for mock hijackings. So, those terrorists won't be trained and won't be hijacking airlines. Hundreds if not thousands of lives saved there.

Nope. This war SAVED lives. Sure, sadly some lives are lost.
But freedom isn't free. Talking didn't do it. Sometimes war IS the
only answer. This is one of those times.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Xeven
We do not need a president that acts in this way. It is extreemly poor judgement that cost 1000's of people their lives.


Actually he (we) saved countless thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands of lives, even more. The mass murder in Iraq has stopped. The genocide of the Kurds has stopped. The wars Iraq wanted to wage against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even into the Kurdish areas of Turkey will now not happen. Tens of thousands of lives saved there. The $50,000 being paid to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers has stopped. Geee ... homicide bombings are down 90% in Israel. Down because of the security wall AND because Saddam isn't paying the murderers. More lives saved there. The terrorist training camps in Iraq are closed. They were complete with Boeing 727s for mock hijackings. So, those terrorists won't be trained and won't be hijacking airlines. Hundreds if not thousands of lives saved there.

Nope. This war SAVED lives. Sure, sadly some lives are lost.
But freedom isn't free. Talking didn't do it. Sometimes war IS the
only answer. This is one of those times.




For the sake of arguement Flyers fan, I'll say ok your right (but your talking old history (prewar no mass murders were taking place in recent history).

Show me anywere in this Oath (below)that says any of what you stated is mandated. No were in this Oath does it state Soldiers will be called upon to give their life to remove a Brutal Dictator, save Iraqi lives or to save the Kurds. If you wish to save the Kurds then form up some people and cash and go do it, but dont use my countries soldiers lives to fullfill your personal agenda. They are here to defend america and that is it. Even so lets not forget none of the above was used as "W's" justification.

By the way I can think of 100 legitimate reasons to invade Iraq, but none of them were used by "W" and that in itself is why I will vote for someone else. Korea and Iran pose true threats to America yet our guns sit silent.
Why is that? Is "W" waiting to get reelected to tell us Iran is supporting terror or Korea? If so why would he wait for elections to invade them also?
I'll tell you. He would not get elected. So its not so immenant danger after all? Again, I am not against republicans I am against reelecting our current president.


I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


[edit on 30-7-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   
sminkeypinkey said:
"is that it?"

Yes that is "IT".

Did we need to find conga-lines of Saddam look-a-likes, wearing
"HI, I am a TERRORIST" T-shirts?

It's either evidence, or it ISN''T evidence. right?

Many a person has been convicted (or found innocent) based on the most microscopic of evidence. Unless, of course, the evidence is selectively ignored..

Lying by omission, like I said before..



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven



Show me anywere in this Oath (below)that says any of what you stated is mandated.



I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


[edit on 30-7-2004 by Xeven]



Actually, the entire oath says exactly that. "All enemies, foreign and domestic", and the one that simply says it all, "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me".

Congress almost unanimously voted for it, the President then ordered it. Congress agreed. That's a point many seem to simply ignore.

As far as reasons, they weren't just the President's. Congress came to the same conclusion. As a matter of fact, Kerry was privy to the same intelligence as the President, and he voted the same way. Now when it behooves him to disagree, he does a Kerry, err, a flip-flop. Hmmm. Imagine that.




[edit on 30-7-2004 by Affirmative Reaction]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   
No were in this Oath does it state Soldiers will be called upon to give their life to remove a Brutal Dictator. They are here to defend america and that is it. Even so lets not forget none of the above was used as "W's" justification.

Affirmitive Reaction answered beautifully. But I'll add a few small items here.

No where does it say that soldiers will give their lives to remove brutal dictators. Okay. That means that we never should have gone to war to stop Hitler. He wasn't an imminent threat to us. So what if he was mass murdering and causing wars in Europe. That wasn't our problem, right?

Abraham Lincoln used the civil war to keep the union together, some say illegally. However, what the civil war is most remembered for is that the slaves were freed. Lincolns justification for war was to keep the union together, however the BIGGER thing that happened was the slaves were freed and that became what America remembers and what the Civil War was about.

By going into Iraq we HAVE defended America. I spelled it out to you. Terrorist training camps with Boeing 727s were destroyed. Terror cells, terror financing, $$$ to Palestinian homocide bombers destroyed.

Yes, bringing the # of homicide bombers down DOES defend America. A more stable Middle East DOES help America.

However, I bow to the elequance of Affirmative Reaction. Excellent post.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
(but your talking old history (prewar no mass murders were taking place in recent history).


I'm not so sure about that. I seem to recall film footage of the Kurds being mass murdered and genocide taking place with them in the 1990s. I seem to recall Saddam mass murdering tens of thousands after Gulf War I - those people who didn't stand up to the Americans, mostly in the southern cities. I don't have links. I'd have to go google around and frankly, I don't have the time. I'm just posting what I remember reading and seeing on the news.

I know that many many many murders, rapes, and maimings happened right up to the liberation of Iraq. Saddam thought he was safe from Americans taking him out, because France had assured him that they'd veto any war with him.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Is this item just propaganda?

"Michael Moore a hero at the Democrats' convention

Posted: July 30, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



2004 WorldNetDaily.com

On the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, from where I was broadcasting my radio show, I found myself sitting 10 feet from Michael Moore. He was chatting with journalists, so I decided to ask if he would agree to be a guest on my radio show. I wanted to debate him about his Bush-hating "Fahrenheit 9-11." But when he saw me approaching, he dismissed me with a single, condescending flick of his finger as if I were a bug crawling up his arm.

I was initially offended by his arrogant gesture. And knowing of his hatred of Israel – he identified Israel as one of the three epicenters of evil in the world (New York Times, June 26, 2004) – I wondered if his attitude had something to do with my yarmulke and beard. But then I remembered a recent New Yorker profile of Moore that portrayed him as something of a monster who treats his employees like garbage."

worldnetdaily.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
sminkeypinkey said:
"is that it?"

Yes that is "IT".

Did we need to find conga-lines of Saddam look-a-likes, wearing
"HI, I am a TERRORIST" T-shirts?

It's either evidence, or it ISN''T evidence. right?


- It's the thinnest scraps pushed forward as 'evidence' - as Bush himself had demanded moments after 9/11 happened......if it were that 'strong' it would have been wall to wall before the war.

Wise up and open your eyes.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
FlyersFan


You make good points FF! I to agree that the senate should have demanded better proof. Its not all "W's" fault but he was the President that gave th orders and therefore is responicible for having his facts straight. The congress should be ashamed and elected out of office as well.


Poor poor judgement and rush to conclusions all around. We deserve better leadership than this throughout government, and I say we start with "W" since his election is up and he is the "King". Kerry only because he is only alternative. The one year an independant could probably win and we have none. Were is Pat, Ross the rest hehe? How bout The Donald!


War on terror yes. Invasion of Iraq no. Im not anti war I just demand my leadership to have their Sheet straight when they put our soldiers lives on the line. This President did not have his sheet straight.

X



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join