Rudey, I'm sorry my readings on the subject were not as in depth as yours. However, I saw little there to rebuke the assertion that they don't have the missing link ... at least not yet.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence to back your statement up that "The main justification given for the invasion of Iraq was WMD which of course don't exist."

Well, me and the CIA that is.

Saddam's alleged possession of WMD's was cited repeatedly by Bush and administration figures in the buildup to the war, but no such weapons have been found since the regime was toppled.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/28/bush.blair/


Uhhhmmmm.. when the heck did this become an attack on everything I say? I hardly think that was a new or bold statement.

It says none have been found. Read the statement before you quote it. An absence of evidence for something doesn't mean it didn't happen. And in this case, there's quite a bit of evidence that the WMD's do exist -- at least moreso than to say that they don't.

Unless you're keen on taking Saddam at his word.

ETA:

This issue comes down to two major viewpoints. There is one that says that there are no WMD, never were and we were unprovoked agressors.

The other says that there are WMD, we simply haven't found them yet.

One of these is pure conjecture that ignores a vast amount of evidence to the contrary, the other takes that evidence into account and makes a sound conclusion.

One view is the truth, the other is a lie. It shouldn't take a real smart person to figure out which is which so long as they are intellectually honest. If you still believe there were no WMD's, you are either intellectually dishonest or you are not smart.

Wow that is one bold and dictating statement to make. Clearly you are implying that you are intellectually honest and smart since you believe that there are WMD's (not that intelligence has ANYTHING to do with believing if they exist or not). First off if you are so smart maybe proofread your sentences so they make sense but more importantly since you seem to know so much on this subject matter, why don't you contribute your intelligence to the US government and help us find the WMD's.

It is bold and dictating.

Intelligence has to do with being able to process the information that has been presented to you. If you believe what the U.N. believes -- which was Iraq's own accounting of its WMD's, then assuming you are an intelligent person who's being intellectually honest, you'd have to know that things don't simply disappear.

If you believe there were no WMD's though, then you do believe that these WMD's simpy disappeared leaving no trace. I didn't say anything about where they were specifically. I did refer to the fact that there is a vast amount of evidence that says they do exist. If you're going to assume that they didn't exist, you're taking an awful lot of unlikely information to be for granted.

If they didn't exist when we invaded, what happened to them? They did exist at one time (and if you want to deny that, you'll be disagreeing with even the French and Russians who had huge financial stakes in Saddam and the oil for food program staying in place). If Saddam didn't want his country invaded, why did he not just show the world where the destroyed weapons were so that he could show he complied with the resolution? Too many question marks there.

I'm simply asking someone who says there were no WMD's to please let me know how they came to that conclusion so that I might inform the CIA. They'd like to know.

To the best of my (admittedly vast) knowledge, Iraq is the last nation to have used biological weapons (still classified as "WMD" if I'm correct), when they gassed Kurds in the northern region of the country.

How can anti-right activists miss this key point? Or is it somehow made invalid? I don't get it.

-RC
--Don't come back at me w/ anything involving "UN" either, that's the most corrupt group on earth . . . just don't. Please.

It was actually chemical weapons, hence the name "Chemical Ali" Hassan Al Majid... and WMD include Nukes, Chemical, and Biological weapons.

As for the UN's corruption.... what's the point of arguing, it's hard to fight the flood of anti-UN sentiment in the US...

This bitter old man still in college never presents facts or anything. He can't even understand basic arguments. It's wonderful.

-Rudey

ahh, sorry, in my mind I had envisioned a bacterial attack, when I knew full well that it was mustard gas (wasn't it?). My bad. (btw - the video from that attack? insane - it's simply awful.)

Now, there's no need to argue the point re: corruption; the NY Times has done all the arguing for me, and it's hard to topple primary-source evidence. Does it invalidate the goals of the UN? Possibly - that's something each person must examine on their own, as the idyllic goals of the UN are intangible, so you may argue either way w/ some success. Does it call into question specific decisions by UN subcommittees and member nations? Definitely, 100%, unilaterally it does. Corruption has that pernicious influence, and generally this is a Good Thing (c). Now, decisions by other member nations and their respective committees must come under fire, not just those of the US (sorry if that comes off as a potshot, and yes it's 'homerism' for the US, but it's a generally valid point, I feel). The concept behind the UN is beautiful, but it has given way to utter garbage - it is closer to an international mafia in many ways, and the US becoming somewhat rogue when compared to UN policy does not trouble me in the least.

Especially in Iraq. Will anyone even argue that Iraq (and Iraqis) would be better off w/ Saddam Hussein in power? Moore would - and hence my distrust of his use of his (considerable) cinematic talents to create a 'documentary' that does nothing more than document his narrow viewpoint using double-speak, shaded truth, emotional arguments, and convenient omission to create a powerful, but flawed, image for the viewers - many of whom lack the depth of understanding of the topic to see through his 'facts' and create a fair understanding.

Make sense?

OK, y'all, you are way off topic. This is a forum for the discussion of the movie "Faranheit 9/11", not "What is your political opinion concerning Bush's foreign policy and its relationship to CIA research". I'll give you another chance, but if you continue to chat off topic, I will lock the thread.

There's no need for this to degenerate into another political bashing-over-the-head. Discuss the points of the movie like the intelligent people you are.

Alright I agree that there is corruption, waste, graft, and exploitation at the UN, but I'd also agrue that you'll find that in any political system really.... but the problem is that with the UN is that they are responsible for their own oversight... and when the political system is composed of around 200 political agendas it is hard for anything do be done because of the massive amounts of red-tape that the system generates... so the system is open to exploitation. However that being realised, doesn't mean that any country should give up on the UN, because then it weakens the system further; afterall it is much easier to enact change from within a system without destroying it...

As for Moore's views on Iraq... I don't agree with them, but in defend my views (to myself at the least) tends to force me to re-examine them, or provoke further thought. As for whether the Iraqis/Iraq are or more importantly will be better off with Sadam gone... I'll reserve judgement for awhile as this mess will take a long time to sort out... and the lessons of history are filled with examples from both sides of the arguement. Basically I'll let you know in ten years :)

PS> Oh and yes I have seen footage of the chemical attacks in northern Iraq... and on the Iran-Iraq border during that war... all part of NBCD (Nuclear Biological Chemical Defense) training.

Um, Bush's foreign policy (specifically w/ re: to Iraq) is a central point of the movie.


Just saying.

So, what did everyone think of the lighting techniques used in this movie?

Be careful, she might edit your post.

haha how were the lighting techniques?

In the Last Samurai the movie sucked, in my opinion, but the lens effects were great.

-Rudey