If you say that there was no reason,I refer you to the New York
Times piece,yesterdayA (in my opinion)purely liberal newspaper!
Irish
P.S.I don't read that newspaper,but it was spoken about on many newscasts yesterday.The newscasts said,that the newspaper,had that article,for a long time,but held it while they
published the 911 commisions finding of no connection.

I had to wade through the NYT website anf found these 2:

**Thousands in Ireland Protest Bush Visit
**By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP) News

**Poll: 54 Percent Say Iraq War a Mistake
**By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP) News

...before finding this (Hope it is what you were referring to.):

**Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says
**By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP) News

Looks like the article is about some contact for support that Iraq qas looking for against an enemy about 10 years ago. They supposedly approached bin Laden looking for it. The relationship between bin Laden and Hussein over the past decade has been strained to put it mildly. The two simply don't play well together, had different agendas and were pretty much enemies. bin Laden actually made some statements appealing to Muslims to overthrow Iraq, claiming that it was an enemy to the people. Some of these statements were made only a month or two before the U.S. invaded. They certainly are not allies.

An aside note, Bush's family has a history of strong ties to the bin Laden family right up until the 911 attack. Certainly this does not mean that Bush played a role in supporting it.

I never said that there was no reason to invade Iraq, but one could justify invasion and war with a dozen countries around the world if the focus was on shady dealings or even atrocities committed. I love the U.S., but our nation has many blights on it and one only look at a daily newspaper to give an extremeist some wacked excuse for declaring war on us. My contention was and is that Bush threw out untruths as a justification to gain support. Now that pieces of the truth (or at least pnowledge of some untruths) are coming out... it is time to vote with your conscience, whatever that may be.

Thanks for the dialogue, Irish.

Fred

asearching1---What you say is basically true.We are communicating,but that doesn't mean that we are plotting something,together! Irish
P.S.Hussien & Bin Laden didn't get along well.In my opinion,Hussien tried to recruit him into helping Hussien!
P.P.S.My real name is Thomas J Ahern.The PM of Ireland.is Bertie
Ahern.I don't know if there is any relation,but I'll have to see if
I can get him to help us!

Re: *}...Fahrenheit 911...{*
 

Not in the least...Michael Moore is a piece of shit. I have no use for him.


rabbit

I must say that I agree that his films are not documentaries.

A documentary by definition is supposed to be presented without bias.

The news is supposed to be objective.

Objectivity in journalism is vanishing with AOL/FOX/Time Warner and Universal/GE/NBC merger mania.

Every good doc I've ever seen has a point of view and they usually are rooted in compassion. No matter that Moore is brash, I think his viewpoint is valid. Yes, he can be arrogant in presenting his views but I'm glad his POV is being shown on American television.

To me, it seems like people who are against him seem to think that Bush should be above reproach but from what I can gather, evidence piles up against this administration. Where are those WMDs?

Okie Dokie then...LOL!

Wasn't able to get out [yet] this weekend...to see the movie. Lot's of OT and housework has prevented me from straying from home! Days not over yet though, so I'll see what hubby has on his agenda.

If anything...like The Passion of the Christ...this film has people talking!

I really don't think that documentries on such controversial topics can or necessairly should be done without bias.I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh and that ILK could even come close to Michael Moore.I saw his first two movies and thought,the guy wants to make documentries,but for the most part the public wants entertainment.So he tries his best to give a little of both.The questions he asks in his docu-movie has been around since 9/11 but the media has managed to keep a tight lid on the subject.I say,if this is the only way to take a good hard look at THE worst president in this country's history,then let him at it.If it costs Bush some more votes in November,then Moore power.

asearching1,

I noticed two assertions in your fifth post:


“The action was taken by a handful of extremists ...”

Are you restricting the events of September 11th to only those actors who were on the aircraft? If so, then I must say that that seems to be unrealistic, as that excludes the organization which recruited, trained and financed them. If you are referring to the Al Qaeda organization which has operated in Afghanistan, England, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen, then that hand must be very large indeed to hold all those extremists.


“… they view our country as a large, unstoppable juggarnaut that regularly stomps on their own lives, freedoms, etc. History, even recent, proves that they are justified in their feelings.”

While I lived in the Middle East, I did get the sense that the general opinion was that American Foreign Policy was tilted decidedly, and inappropriately, towards the Israeli position. That is (was – it has been 16 years now) however, decidedly different from one which regularly stomps on their lives, freedoms, or any thing else. To what are you referring when you say this, and what Arab/Muslim history which involves the United States proves that they are justified in those feelings?


Now, I happen to agree that American Foreign Policy is limited by the degree to which it parallels that of Israel’s. The current resident of 10 Downing Street has probably regretted his decision to so closely associate HM’s Iraq policy with the one issued from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Irish’s allusions to warfare have value in the sense that a well funded organization can, and has, directed attacks against American civilians and military around the world. At what point is a sovereign nation entitled to act on the behalf of its overseas interests, and, given the record of Al Qaeda, what would you consider appropriate?

jseal:

>I noticed two assertions in your fifth post:

“The action was taken by a handful of extremists ...”

>Are you restricting the events of September 11th to only those actors who were on the aircraft? If so, then I must say that that seems to be unrealistic, as that excludes the organization which recruited, trained and financed them. If you are referring to the Al Qaeda organization which has operated in Afghanistan, England, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen, then that hand must be very large indeed to hold all those extremists.

I was referring to the specific attack of 911, which was one of the main catalysts for the events currently unfolding. The group of individuals in those planes were part of the al Queda network. This is the "handful" that I was referring. In retrospect, the words "small minority" fits better. Although this organization is wide-spread, its numbers were relatively small. I apologize if I was unclear in my meaning.

>“… they view our country as a large, unstoppable juggarnaut that regularly stomps on their own lives, freedoms, etc. History, even recent, proves that they are justified in their feelings.”

>While I lived in the Middle East, I did get the sense that the general opinion was that American Foreign Policy was tilted decidedly, and inappropriately, towards the Israeli position. That is (was – it has been 16 years now) however, decidedly different from one which regularly stomps on their lives, freedoms, or any thing else. To what are you referring when you say this, and what Arab/Muslim history which involves the United States proves that they are justified in those feelings?

Without digging up reference books I'll throw out the Isreali/Palestine situation and the U.s.'s intrusive influence in this situation, the U.S.'s heavy involvement and strong support of the Shah of Iran, the United States is fighting a war in Afghanistan whose own roots extend not only to a terrorist attack on our nation but to a revolution in Afghanistan-supported by the U.S.-out of which Osama bin Laden and his al Queda network were bred, Bush's clumsy and ignorant words including the fighting of a "Crusade" on an internationally televised address, etc.

These actions and others taken by the white "christian world" can all be looked at to get a better understanding of why so many Middle eastern people have concerns about our government. Whether there is an absolute "right or wrong" here is really an unanswerable question. What is important is that we have an awareness of how we are perceived and why. Too often I hear people who I consider to be intelligent free thinkers saying that "those people just hate us, they always have and always will". Hatred always has a birth, a beginning, a starting point. Again, I DO NOT say that we deserve to be hated or be violently attacked. What I am saying is that every single person develops beliefs, emotions, etc based on their perception of the world and people they are surrounded by. *Whew, it is getting late and I fear I am rambling. ;p*

>Now, I happen to agree that American Foreign Policy is limited by the degree to which it parallels that of Israel’s. The current resident of 10 Downing Street has probably regretted his decision to so closely associate HM’s Iraq policy with the one issued from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Agreed.

>Irish’s allusions to warfare have value in the sense that a well funded organization can, and has, directed attacks against American civilians and military around the world. At what point is a sovereign nation entitled to act on the behalf of its overseas interests, and, given the record of Al Qaeda, what would you consider appropriate?

I do not consider attacking said organization when it is identified. I do consider the attack in Iraq a crime against the people there. There has never, never been any evidence that Hussein has ever supported terroristic attacks against us that I'm aware of and he certainly has never made any terroristic threats against us. Closest he came to that was stating that Iraq would fight if invaded.

Thanks for the questions and I hope that I am being more clear than I previously was. Feel free to ask more or pm me if you'd like to continue this. :)

Fred

lakritze,

One problem that arises from this approach is, as Steph observed above, that it is at variance with how the word is commonly used in English.

Rather than use the word “bias”, which has negative connotations, I’d suggest “point of view”. Mr. Moore is entitled to his point of view, and is also free to express it. He seems to be more than a little ambiguous in regards his film, as he had no problem accepting an award for it as a documentary, yet, as Steph comments, states that his point of view comes through.

Given these realities, wouldn’t “Editorial” or “Opinion Piece” be a more accurate description of his film? Surely being honest about what he is presenting would serve to emphasise the difference between his efforts and those of his subject, about which he expresses grave reservations?

jseal, I can't argue with this except to ask who in the world would go to see a film lauded as "The finest 2 hour Editorial piece ever!!"? Just doesn't have the same ring to it. ;)

Fred

asearching1,

Granted, but then Mr. Moore could claim the moral high ground. As it is, the difference between his position and that of the President is merely a question of degree.

Come to think of it, aren’t the State Of The Union speeches essentially long winded editorials? They usually get plenty of play.

I'd rather claim the 21.8 million for an opening weekend:D

Lilith,

Hell yes! Ref back to LixyChick's mention of "The Passion of the Christ" - controversy sells.

I believe that Mr. Gibson was criticized about some historical inaccuracies, no?

I think it can still be considered a doc because it is rooted in fact with commentary from sources you wouldn't think would have the POV they came to have (like the woman who was a proud Bush supporter until her son's last letter from Iraq).

Maybe it's stretching the def'n of doc but that's its classification. Docutainment is probably more apt.

Steph,

"Docutainment" seems suspiciously similar to "Infomercial".

Still, how does one differentiate? What's the word on the journalism forum you mod?

A Few Notes On Former President Clinton:


After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured
1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
Also,if he had accepted,the offer of OBL,there would probably,be
thosands alive,that were killed in the towers.
Bush may be your opinion,of THE worst US President,but he's certainly not mine! Irish

Gentlefolk,

Please let us not be uncivil. I should be sorry to see the thread closed because of intemperate comments.

There have been more than forty presidents to date. None of them have walked on water.

It is always easier to make promises than to deliver results. There may be information to which a Chief Executive has access which is unavailable to the man in the street. That information may stay his hand when he might otherwise deliver.

I recall that in late 98 or early '99, Clinton ordered the bombing of the suspected Al Queada (sp?) camps...unfortunately OBL & co. were a step ahead & had moved on...the reaction from the Clinton detractors? He was just trying to start a war to distract from the impeachment procedings...this was further evidence that the problem was with the intelligence agencies & their turf wars that kept anybody from taking action agaist the terrorists...

I saw in an interview he goes into that in his book. I'd like to read it but it's too long and not trashy enough :p

It's been stated that Bush was informed of the bin Laden threat before Clinton had completely handed over the reigns. How much is in question. Clinton has stated that he made a very clear point of the eminent threat that was going to take place on U.S. soil. FBI documents support this knowledge and 1 ex official stated that when Bush was made aware of this he actually seemed disinterested.

In all honesty, we may never know what the "truth" is here. I'm all for exploring the past and attempting to find the truth, but I'd rather focus on aspects of this mess that are still in our control. Let's refocus on bin Laden and his cronies, so that we can bring them in.

Fred

asearching1,

Given that the extremists in question are Muslim extremists, or as some prefer to describe them, radical Islamists, then the notion of a “small minority” justifies serious response.

The Muslim population of the world is somewhere between 1.1 billion and 1.9 billion, depending upon the source. Taking a conservative (for the purposes of the discussion) estimate of 1.25 billion, one tenth of one percent of the male population produces a number of 625,000. Given that no more than half of that number would be available due to extremes of age, 312,500 potential recruits remain.

While it is true that this number is relatively small in comparison to the world’s Muslim population, it is almost twice the number of active US Marines. The events of September 11th vividly demonstrated what a few empowered individuals can do. We are all aware of other terrorist attacks for which Al Qaeda accepts responsibility.

These attacks against Americans and American interests would justify an armed response if they were carried out by a sovereign nation. What options exist when dealing with a supranational entity like Al Qaeda? Can there be, even in principle, justifications for the use of US Armed Forces against such an organization? If so, what would they be? If not, then what effective response exists for a nation state?

Your assessment of US involvement in the Middle East did not include the only long lasting peace treaty secured in that region, the 1979 Camp David Accords, agreed to by Israel and Egypt, and brokered by the US. Even then, President Carter said that the treaty was "a first step on a long and difficult road." He also said "We must not minimalise the obstacles that lie ahead." Should America withdraw from such efforts?

You included American involvement and support of the Shah of Iran among the reasons associated with the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. I believe that Ayatollah Khomeini declared an Islamic republic on 1 April 1979. At least three of the aircraft hijackers, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Abdulaziz Alomari, Waleed M. Alshehri, were born after the Islamic republic was created, and all of them were too young to remember the Shah’s regime. Unless ancestral hatred is admitted as a valid political position, this justification seems strained.

Before the world gets done bashing the Bin Laden family, I’d like to mention that I lived for almost 6 years in an apartment block built by Bin Laden Construction in Jeddah. They’re as regular folk as any extended family. Every family has its black sheep, although Osama has provided a new nadir.

The truth
 

First of all, lets get the truth out. The Bush admin. never claimed to have knowledge of an Iraq/911 tie. They claimed a tie to Bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. When the 911 commission released its findings, it said that while there was no evidence of an Iraq/911 tie, there was however a tie between Iraq and Bin Laden/al Qaeda. I've heard liberals scream that Bush is a liar but not once have I heard a replay of President Bush or any of his administration say that Iraq was involved in 911.
Moores film does not speak the truth. I have no problem with a liberal view or a view against President Bush but make sure you speak the truth if you're going to cut him down. Moore makes the claim that President Bush knew about 911 before but wouldn't do anything about it for political gain. That is absurd. The war on terror/Iraq is not a political gain. It very well could be the reason Bush would lose. I also don't hold Clinton too responsible for not leading a war on terror. Without the backing of the people, no president can wage war. I don't believe Moore is honest, I believe that his hatred of the president should make people sick.

Oh, as for the WMD's...The president had his own CIA director tell him that is was a "slam dunk". He had Britian intel saying Iraq had WMD's. Russia even believed he had WMDs. I personally believe he had them. Maybe not to the extent of what was thought but he had them. Remember the hatred Saddam had for Bush? Saddam knew the political ramifications of the Bush claim of WMDs. It wouldn't be above Saddam to move them to Syria to try to hurt Bush. He had them, he agreed to get rid of them. He refused to provide evidence he had gotten rid of them. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not us. Ever been afraid of the police searching your car if you didn't have anything in it?

One more thing, quit worrying what all other countries think of the US. Germany is primarily responsible for 2 world wars and France has bowed down to them twice. Their opnion of us doesn't bother me too much and it shouldn't you either.

Re: The truth
 

The administration has been playing a clumsy game of semantics since this fiasco began. Bush may never said outright that Iraq had a hand in the 911 attacks, but the administration has stated repeatedly that there is a strong connection between bin Laden and Hussein, when in fact the two dispise each other and have completely opposite agendas. For the president to repeatedly state that this connection was there in a justification for a war during a time when the U.S. population was emotionally raw.... well it isn't too difficult for anyone to figure out what would be inferred by anyone who hadn't looked into it at all.

I saw the Moore film and don't recall him ever stating that Bush knew about 911 before it happened and allowed it. It has been reported by several internal and external sources that the president was made aware of the possibility that an attack on U.S. soil was being planned and that it simply wasn't a priority for him. Political gain? I doubt it. Sloppy? Possibly.

Bush has proven that he can continue a war dispite the vast majority of the world being against it. He has never wavered. Never questioned. Never, to my knowledge, even granted an audience to hear out these concerns and maybe give pause. That is what disturbs me the most about this entire situation. It almost comes across as a stubborn child stomping his feet and demanding that he is right, pointing at anything to distract while never really answering many of the questions posed to him.

I have never been afraid of the police searching my car and don't believe that Hussein was afraid. However, I have dealt with ignorant police officers that make unreasonable demands simply because they feel they have the right to based on their position. If not kept in check, my initial reaction would and has on rare occassion been to resist, become indignant and fight for my rights.

I'm not worried about what other countries think about us except to the extent that this simply gives radicals another excuse to say that the U.S. is a bully.

At the end of the day, I am simply concerned about my own conscience and I point out what I believe to be inconsistancies within our country's leadership. A "war on terrorism" being the excuse for war against Iraq? The guy was a murdering ass, killed his own people, but was not a terrorist. Inconsistancies also in looking at going to war with Iraq over North Korea (a country that has nuclear capability). A war with Iraq to ease suffering over there?.... what about the thousands and thousands being killed in the Sudan or a half dozen other African countries, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan both are havens for terrorists. This war was not about taking out a bad man.

I'm still amazed that it seems there was more time, energy and discussion spent examining a lie about a man's sexual choices and indiscretions than over a man who ordered a war waged and thousands of innocent lives lost.

Fred

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882).

Right or wrong,the thing that I liked best,was that finally someone
did something,besides threating to do so.As many of you already
know,I listen to Talk Shows,for most of the day.Before our current
President,I used to listen,almost every day,how the USA,wasn't
respected anymore,because other countries knew that,we
threatened,but never backed it up.The whole question,will never
be awnsered.People are going to believe,what they want to.No
ones mind will be changed,but at least we did something besides
threatening.I used to "enforce"for the old motorcycle gangs.I used to tell people that I was going to kick their ass.They would
say-Are you threatening me?I would tell them-No,I'm not threatening you,I'm promising you.
What I'm saying is that,if you won't back it up,don't say it!If you don't have your pride,you have nothing!As I said,it may be wrong,
but at least we did something. Irish
P.S.Saddam agreed to show how he got rid of his WMDs.He never
did.Were we just supposed to believe him,without proof?
P.P.S.My $.02.

Irish,

Not wishing to be accused of consistency, permit me to mention a few facts that the research staff of some of the talk shows seemed to have overlooked:

26-JUN-93 ~ Cruise missiles launched against Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad due to plot to kill former President George Bush.

28-FEB-94 ~ First air attacks began in Bosnia against Serb planes in the no-fly zone, and demanded the removal of Serb artillery from the hills around Sarajevo.

03-SEP-96 ~ 27 cruise missiles launched into Iraq due to Saddam's attacks on the Kurds.

16-DEC-96 ~ Air attacks began against Iraq for failing to allow access to weapons inspectors; 300 cruise missiles fired in 4 days destroyed weapons plants, but Saddam Hussein remained in power.

20-AUG-98 ~ 70 cruise missiles fired at guerrilla training camps in Afghanistan and at a chemical plant in the Sudan reportedly operated by the Saudi multimillionaire Osama bin Laden.

24-MAR-99 ~ A 78-day bombing campaign began against Serb forces led by Slobodan Milosevic who had continued "ethnic cleansing" of Albanians in Kosovo, refusing UN and NATO demands to withdraw.

President Clinton used American military power as he thought best. You may find it useful to think of it this way; President Clinton was very conservative in his use of the armed forces, while President Bush uses them very liberally.

In re the thread subject, commercial products such as talk shows and docutainments are produced to make money. They do so by knowing and playing to their audience. Boring talk shows are replaced, and their hosts find other employment. Controversy sells, even if the political cant hides what might otherwise illuminate. Keep in mind that half of the voters in America voted for Bush’s opponent in the last election, and is likely to do so again. It is unsurprising that people take advantage of that – from both sides of the aisle.

I wish politics would go away. I'm sick of it already. As far as the movie goes ... it's crap. But then it's hard not to be when you're offering political opinions. :rolleyes:

Maybe,I didn't express myself correctly.I don't just sit & listen to the radio.I have it on to talk shows,because I'm usually doing
something around my land or in my garage.If I miss something,
who cares?I'm not saying that my values are the same as everyone elses.Politics bore me also,but MY sense of values,may be different than others.As far as the war goes,France & Germany
were never going to approve,of it.They had private deals with
Saddam,& were not going to get paid,the enormous amount,that
he owed them,if he was not in power.I don't know,what is true &
what's not.I only know,what I believe.After the "cold war" was over with,the military budgets,were cut so badly,that I believe
that's why people say that we don't have enough troops on the
ground.I don't know the exact amounts,but I remember that the
Navy was cut by 39%. Irish
P.S.As I said,to me politics are not the most important thing.To me
,it's taking care of my family & providing a reliable service to my
clients.That's why my motorcycle shop is named "Reliable Cycle"
Can you tell that I made up that name?When you're a rider &
owner,you take much better care of your clients,then if you were
just an owner!

"We Didn't Start the Fire" (Lyrics)
History Summary from 1949-1989

Harry Truman, Doris Day
Red China, Johnny Ray

South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio

Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon
Studebaker, Television

North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe

Rosenbergs, H-bomb
Sugar Ray, Panmunjom

Brando, The King and I
And The Catcher In The Rye

Eisenhower, Vaccine
England's got a new queen

Maciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Joseph Stalin, Malenkov
Nasser and Prokofiev

Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc

Roy Cohn
Juan Peron
Toscanini, Dancron

Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock

Einstein, James Dean,
Brooklyn's got a winning team

Davy Crockett, Peter Pan
Elvis Presley, Disneyland

Bardot, Budapest
Alabama, Khrushchev

Princess Grace
Peyton Place

Trouble in the Suez

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Little Rock, Pasternak,
Mickey Mantle, Kerouac

Sputnik, Chou En-Lai,
Bridge On The River Kwai

Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle,
California baseball

Starkwether, Homicide,
Children of Thalidomide

Buddy Holly, Ben Hur
Space Monkey, Mafia

Hula Hoops, Castro
Edsel is a no-go

U2, Syngman Rhee
payola and Kennedy

Chubby Checker, Psycho,
Belgians in the Congo

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Hemingway, Eichman
Stranger in a Strange Land

Dylan
Berlin
Bay of Pigs invasion

Lawrence of Arabia
British Beatlemania

Ole Miss, John Glenn
Liston beats Patterson

Pope Paul, Malcolm X
British Politician sex

J.F.K. blown away
What else do I have to say?

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Birth control, Ho Chi Minh
Richard Nixon back again

Moonshot
Woodstock
Watergate, punk rock

Begin
Reagan

Palestine
Terror on the airline

Ayatollah's in Iran
Russians in Afghanistan

Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride,
heavy metal, suicide

Foreign debts
Homeless Vets
AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz

Hypodermics on the shores
China's under martial law
Rock and roller, cola wars,
I can't take it anymore

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning, since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No, we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

BigJohnson9,

Wecome to Pixies Place sir.

Cool intro. Thank you.

Bowling for Columbine - entertaining? The only TRUTH that was in that movie is that Moore directed/produced it, period.

Please don't tell me you took any of that for fact.

People are entitled to express their opinions and beliefs, whatever they may be, without being told that another's opinions and beliefs are the ONLY truth.

If you are getting your information 2nd hand, you actually KNOW nothing. And is why most conversations like this fail to be productive (especially in a sex forum). Because people purport to KNOW that the information they have encountered from other sources is truth, when in fact, unless you were actually involved in the decisions and situations, you have no real knowledge of anything, you are simply stating an opinion, which is filled with presumption and bias, regardless of how informed you feel your opinion is.

Lilith,

Interesting point. How does one know what one purports to know? Is knowledge limited to experience?

LOL...you didn't let me finish my editing. In certain matters I truly believe knowledge (true knowledge) can only be realized by the actual experience. None of us knows what Bush's/Moore's intentions are/were because, that I am aware of, neither discussed their intentions with any of us.

The show stopper in this debate probably comes down to the fact that there are so many behind-the-scenes decisions and actions that have gone on by the various powers-that -be in all countries directly involved, that we'll never really know the absolute facts from either side.

Fred

Precisiely...so when someone purports to know THE truth...I say they are incorrect, there are many truths...because we each develop our own. IMHO

... and that is the very important distinction between truths, which are subjective, and facts.

An opinion is just an opinion, no matter how well you defend it, how eloquently you support it, or how boldly you state it.

In my opinion :D:D:p