Sorry to respond to my own post, but I just happened upon a more comprehensive article on the subject. Haven't gotten a chance to read it through, but here:
> The sooner OPEC switches to the Euro and isolation of the US world bully begins, the better IMHO.
In your dreams. The Euro, while currently okay, is young and has questionable long-term stability. This is because France and Germany are breaking the Euro agreement, and the EU is currently expanding and can't even agree on a constitution.
I agree that Michael Moore sometimes has an objectionable way of presenting material. But, as you are doing, many people talk about Michael Moore instead of talking about the huge amount of corruption he tries to document.
He used propagandistic methods to such an extent that it undermined his whole movie. F9/11's main thrust is mere insinuation.
Here are reviews of 35 books that say the same thing as Michael Moore.
There are also a large number of books that say the opposite of what Mr. Moore says.
Here is just a little hint of the corruption: Bush borrows money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion. When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?
I have to tell you that CostofWar and IraqBodyCount are not reliable sources of information. A few have looked into it, but even a cursory glance at the sites will tell you that they have an axe to grind.
When Saudis attack, invade Iraq?
Saudi Arabia did not attack the United States. A terrorist group aided and sheltered by Afghanistan did. As for radical groups in Saudi Arabia, their government has been cooperating with us since 9/11/01. Saudi Arabia has had a long relationship with the U.S., after all. They can't reform too fast, though, or the religious nuts will revolt and then the shit will really hit the fan.
If Iraq cooperated even as much as Saudi Arabia has, then we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Here's another hint: George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 talking about his prostitutes and using government influence to make money. Family values?
Bush is his brother's keeper?
Here's another hint: The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2: The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.
You really might want to consider checking your sources. For instance, the Halliburton charges just don't check out.
Did you see the network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with a Saudi man the Bush family knows as "Bandar Bush"?
It is rather common in Arabic culture for men to hold hands, and engage in other niceties that seem strange to Western eyes. Don't let your own monocultural viewpoint obscure your vision.
Fahrenheit 9/11 uses several psychological techniques commonly used in propoganda. It takes advantage of "bugs" in the human cognitive "hardware", if you will. This isn't a partisan attack, and you can read a rather interesting analysis on the subject here.
Well, most of the wall is actually just fence. Electronic, not electric, and no mines or anything along it. Thus if whenever tries to get past the thing, then it's killing time. The fence/wall wouldn't last long if it wasn't guarded with deadly force.
Actually, the latest Israeli offensive, and the fence/wall, has been rather successful at stopping attacks. The last major suicide attack in Israel, for instance, was 'revenge' for something Israel did six months prior.
You see it in newspapers here and there -- Israel has practically won the second "Intifada". Check here. Newer updates are at the bottom, including links to LA Times and BBC stories.
> One would expect Crawford's local paper to be...
So it's "Crawford's local paper" now? Okay, then, I declare that the Washington Times is "Washington D.C.'s local paper", and the New York Daily News is "New York City's local paper."
> And is there anything preventing them from getting tips regarding the alleged WMD-program?
They got a boatload of tips, as a matter of fact. But almost all of them turned out to be inaccurate or the evidence was long since disposed of. You see, besides the inherent difficulty in gathering intelligence, there was the fact that Saddam's science and military people... well, they weren't exactly honest with each other. Either they hated Saddam and didn't want him to have WMD, or they were simply afraid to tell him that they didn't make much/any progress.
Surely you can see the difficulty of intelligence-gathering in such an environment. That, in a nutshell, is why so much of our pre-war WMD intel was so wrong.
> When the man they assigned to investigate the uranium rumors (retired ambassador Joseph Wilson) revealed the truth (that the evidence was forged)
You are so farking out of date, it's sad. Try looking at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the subject. Joe Wilson didn't even have access to the documents he claimed were forged. Also, his wife had recommended him for the job, and that Joe's little quasi-investigation actually raised suspicions about Iraq and Niger. (Nigerian officials said that Iraq had come looking to do business in the country. Niger's #1 export is Uranium. Their #2 export is cattle.)
Nevermind that Valerie Plame, it has been discovered, was not undercover, and no law may have been broken by telling Bob Novak that she worked at the CIA.
> Or if you're Israel and trying to stomp out somebody else, that's just swell and peachy
My good sir, if the Israelis were trying to kill all the Palestinians, then all the Palestinians would be dead.
But regardless, you weren't paying attention. Anything Israel does (like defending themselves from terrorist groups) does not have the United Nations seal of approval. Not by a long shot.
> Why don't you prove that YOU don't have weapons. Let us know how that goes. Good luck!
Correct. It's kind of like how the police can get a warrant to search your house. They can look around and maybe get a good idea of what you're up to, but their search can't prove that you didn't commit a crime.
Saddam, on the other hand, sometimes wouldn't let the police into certain rooms of his house, and often would just deny them entry whatsoever. You see, this is where the analogy breaks down, because international politics/law is not like domestic law enforcement -- no matter how many people wish it so.
> it is, in my oppinion, bad policy to risk so many of your own lives, and kill so many of their people, just because you are legally allowed to and pretty fed up
And yet it's okay to kill people via sanctions? I mean, they were supposedly "smart" sanctions, but Saddam scammed the system and made sure that Iraqis suffered and died. (So he could then point at them and say "Look at what the sanctions are doing to my poor people!")
Most anti-war folks I meet seem to be under the impression that the sanctions (and no-fly zones, and inspections) were supposed to be permanent. This is kind of warped, IMO.
They mapped everyone's oil fields, you dope. They're the Energy Task Force.
And of course it has to be partially secret. We wouldn't want Argentina to know we're going to ditch them for Peru (or something), would you? It may shock you, but sometimes your government has to keep secrets from foreign powers (and thus from the general populace).
> Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them
The veracity of the story aside, are you really suggesting people get their political talking points out of Satire books? Yes, that's what it's officially categorized as by it's publisher. (Got to avoid those libel lawsuits somehow.)
Ditto for Michael Moore's books too. All "satire".
Heh, I love Josh Marshall. Seems like he's always crowing about some big surprise piece or insider scoop that never materializes. He's the Charlie Brown of the leftist media.
(Er, not that I considered Charie Brown to be "left" or "right", mind you.)
Slashdot Mirror
> The sooner OPEC switches to the Euro and isolation of the US world bully begins, the better IMHO.
In your dreams. The Euro, while currently okay, is young and has questionable long-term stability. This is because France and Germany are breaking the Euro agreement, and the EU is currently expanding and can't even agree on a constitution.
> Liberal activists are not exactly known for being the militant types
Sure...
He used propagandistic methods to such an extent that it undermined his whole movie. F9/11's main thrust is mere insinuation.
There are also a large number of books that say the opposite of what Mr. Moore says.
I have to tell you that CostofWar and IraqBodyCount are not reliable sources of information. A few have looked into it, but even a cursory glance at the sites will tell you that they have an axe to grind.
Saudi Arabia did not attack the United States. A terrorist group aided and sheltered by Afghanistan did. As for radical groups in Saudi Arabia, their government has been cooperating with us since 9/11/01. Saudi Arabia has had a long relationship with the U.S., after all. They can't reform too fast, though, or the religious nuts will revolt and then the shit will really hit the fan.
If Iraq cooperated even as much as Saudi Arabia has, then we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Bush is his brother's keeper?
You really might want to consider checking your sources. For instance, the Halliburton charges just don't check out.
It is rather common in Arabic culture for men to hold hands, and engage in other niceties that seem strange to Western eyes. Don't let your own monocultural viewpoint obscure your vision.
Fahrenheit 9/11 uses several psychological techniques commonly used in propoganda. It takes advantage of "bugs" in the human cognitive "hardware", if you will. This isn't a partisan attack, and you can read a rather interesting analysis on the subject here.
(Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
John Kerry's first book, "A New Soldier", has been bought out by a 527 group and is now freely available online.
Well, most of the wall is actually just fence. Electronic, not electric, and no mines or anything along it. Thus if whenever tries to get past the thing, then it's killing time. The fence/wall wouldn't last long if it wasn't guarded with deadly force.
Actually, the latest Israeli offensive, and the fence/wall, has been rather successful at stopping attacks. The last major suicide attack in Israel, for instance, was 'revenge' for something Israel did six months prior.
You see it in newspapers here and there -- Israel has practically won the second "Intifada". Check here. Newer updates are at the bottom, including links to LA Times and BBC stories.
> chickenhawks
If I can't support a war without having served in the military, then you can't support gay marriage without having taken it up the ass a few times.
> One would expect Crawford's local paper to be...
So it's "Crawford's local paper" now? Okay, then, I declare that the Washington Times is "Washington D.C.'s local paper", and the New York Daily News is "New York City's local paper."
Indeed, Pokemon definitely fits into the category of "anime", both in the "made in Japan" and "interestingly drawn by poorly animated" senses.
Well, thanks for clearing that up for me. I probably should have looked up the facts myself.
Maybe SpaceShipTwo will have a shot at orbit.
Could SpaceShipOne reach the International Space Station? I'd expect it to need a few modifications first, naturally.
Maybe they're going to re-do the Marathon Trilogy, but with new technology. That'd kick 13 kinds of ass.
> And is there anything preventing them from getting tips regarding the alleged WMD-program?
They got a boatload of tips, as a matter of fact. But almost all of them turned out to be inaccurate or the evidence was long since disposed of. You see, besides the inherent difficulty in gathering intelligence, there was the fact that Saddam's science and military people... well, they weren't exactly honest with each other. Either they hated Saddam and didn't want him to have WMD, or they were simply afraid to tell him that they didn't make much/any progress.
Surely you can see the difficulty of intelligence-gathering in such an environment. That, in a nutshell, is why so much of our pre-war WMD intel was so wrong.
> When the man they assigned to investigate the uranium rumors (retired ambassador Joseph Wilson) revealed the truth (that the evidence was forged)
You are so farking out of date, it's sad. Try looking at the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the subject. Joe Wilson didn't even have access to the documents he claimed were forged. Also, his wife had recommended him for the job, and that Joe's little quasi-investigation actually raised suspicions about Iraq and Niger. (Nigerian officials said that Iraq had come looking to do business in the country. Niger's #1 export is Uranium. Their #2 export is cattle.)
Nevermind that Valerie Plame, it has been discovered, was not undercover, and no law may have been broken by telling Bob Novak that she worked at the CIA.
> Or if you're Israel and trying to stomp out somebody else, that's just swell and peachy
My good sir, if the Israelis were trying to kill all the Palestinians, then all the Palestinians would be dead.
But regardless, you weren't paying attention. Anything Israel does (like defending themselves from terrorist groups) does not have the United Nations seal of approval. Not by a long shot.
> And the same material (with similar specs) was used to make rockets for the US Military.
Not to be a killjoy, but Iraq was also banned from making long-range missiles.
> Why don't you prove that YOU don't have weapons. Let us know how that goes. Good luck!
Correct. It's kind of like how the police can get a warrant to search your house. They can look around and maybe get a good idea of what you're up to, but their search can't prove that you didn't commit a crime.
Saddam, on the other hand, sometimes wouldn't let the police into certain rooms of his house, and often would just deny them entry whatsoever. You see, this is where the analogy breaks down, because international politics/law is not like domestic law enforcement -- no matter how many people wish it so.
> it is, in my oppinion, bad policy to risk so many of your own lives, and kill so many of their people, just because you are legally allowed to and pretty fed up
And yet it's okay to kill people via sanctions? I mean, they were supposedly "smart" sanctions, but Saddam scammed the system and made sure that Iraqis suffered and died. (So he could then point at them and say "Look at what the sanctions are doing to my poor people!")
Most anti-war folks I meet seem to be under the impression that the sanctions (and no-fly zones, and inspections) were supposed to be permanent. This is kind of warped, IMO.
They mapped everyone's oil fields, you dope. They're the Energy Task Force.
And of course it has to be partially secret. We wouldn't want Argentina to know we're going to ditch them for Peru (or something), would you? It may shock you, but sometimes your government has to keep secrets from foreign powers (and thus from the general populace).
> Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them
The veracity of the story aside, are you really suggesting people get their political talking points out of Satire books? Yes, that's what it's officially categorized as by it's publisher. (Got to avoid those libel lawsuits somehow.)
Ditto for Michael Moore's books too. All "satire".
> What happened to /. saying the political section would be balanced?
;-)
Slashdot presents every political point of view.
Both pro-Kerry and anti-Bush.
> http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Heh, I love Josh Marshall. Seems like he's always crowing about some big surprise piece or insider scoop that never materializes. He's the Charlie Brown of the leftist media.
(Er, not that I considered Charie Brown to be "left" or "right", mind you.)
> Where is this "Global Test" defined?
Right here.