Politics from the Fahrenheit thread

[anduril]

BRAVO, Steve!!!

May I reproduce that on my blog?

[stevetseitz]

Absolutely. Go for it, If the leftist mainstream media won't spread the correct information it'll be up to the individuals with passion.

[Johann]

Consatta mon destructa Steve.


Oil theory? You think this is a theory? Ho Ho HO.

Your little post about dates and facts is no doubt correct.

I'm not disputing your claims about Saddam's dictatorship and practices. We share the belief that Saddam is one evil fuck.

Where we differ and where we violently disagree is on the U.S. involvement.


Saddam's sadistic-ness does not give any country, let alone the States the right to invade, bomb, and MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.

This ain't no theory. This ain't no sissy iced-tea. You can sit in your comfortable home on a computer and bark about terrorism all you want- this war is about seizing an opportunity to make massive amounts of money- at the cost of lives and freedom, not to "fight for it".

People- innocent people- are being murdered. Yeah I heard you shout about Saddam murdering people- "Democide"- but two wrongs don't make a right Steve.

anduril is slapping your back because he believes in the bible- a book that preaches "an eye for an eye". anduril has never heard of Gandhi.

I can't help but shake my head in disbelief that you think waging war makes one safer.

What planet are you from? Who taught you your values?

Do you value human life at all? Do you think life is sacred? I do.

Innocents. Innocents. Innocents. Whether they be soldiers or civilians, they being slaughtered- for OIL.

It's not a slogan. It's a FACT. Iraq is #2 in the world for Oil reserves. The U.S. HAS taken over oil in Iraq. Bush and his business partners are making an obscene fortune DAILY- in Fahrenheit Moore tells us Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars. ONE DAY!

And you say this war is about terrorism? I'm sick of defending truth.

You really are blind. Sign up for war, guys. I wanna see you two put your money where your mouths are. Terrorism is not something you can fight- they still can't find Osama. They haven't gotten retribution for 9/11. Families want answers.

What did they get? They got a president who murders foreigners and says he's doing it for freedom.

The oxymorons, the irony, the blindness, the lies and the people who believe them...

You two are revolting fascists who support murder. If one single innocent person dies, you support murder.

The United States could be applauded if no innocents were harmed. But thousands were. Thousands bit the dust. For nothing but greed.

I find it incredible that the US sent the ARMY to root out Saddam. You'd think they'd use a more elite force to "smoke him out"- you'd think they would use a tactical unit from a city police force (Baghdad is a city after all), but no, they used an infantry unit- pictures of Saddam's capture revealed infantrymen with their "trophy".

Not to mention that the Us stood idly by while terrorists such as Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, and Marcos were left alone.

Saddam is the guy we gotta get! Why? Oil daddy-O

Keep dreaming, fellas- as long as you support mass murder while claiming your halo of justice, you're gonna suffer for it.

[Johann]

Oh yeah, and anduril- after you left the Fahrenheit threads Chris and I discussed the film- me especially. You tend to gloss over my "salient points". You don't seem to read my replies.
Go back and read the posts after your departure- I talk about what Moore put in his movie A LOT.

Given the subject of his film, politics is unavoidable. The film is an op-ed on Bush- the President. (or should I say False-President) and his conduct before and after 9/11.

This isn't a "movie" we're discussing here- this is real life.
And you two are on the wrong side.
If you think the Iraq invasion was justified you have no conscience- just like Bush.

There have always been and always will be dictators and terrorists- they love the drama I think, they love the power.
To "wage war" with terrorists is absurd- how do you fight a terrorist?

Moore shows in his film that when at an airport, security doesn't take matches or lighters from passengers when they board, (they might want a smoke when they stopover in Timbuktu) yet matches and lighters pose a little bit of a risk, no?

Those terrorists hijacked those planes with box-cutters.

How could anyone forsee that? If someone wants to terrorize, they'll do it by any means necessary.

[anduril]

See, again, Jason does not engage in reasoned debate... he attacks... Steve offers a post with clear facts that support his stated position and rather than dispute those facts or provide his own, Jason simply insults and baits, e.g., he calls both Steve and I "blind" and "revolting fascists who support murder."

He also tries to tar my arguments as religious ones and assumes I would appeal to a verse of Scripture that I would not. I have not once used a religious argument in defense of the war in Iraq.

His innocent people argument is also just invective because he does not at all grant that both Steve and I have argued for the war precisely because we desire to limit the loss of human life. Steve and I simply agree that Saddam's tyranny was far worse than the war (short-term and long-term). This war was/is necessary.

He provides only one piece of evidence to support his argument that the war was about oil. On the basis of F9/11, he claims "Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars." Of course, anyone who paid attention to the movie would know that this is not what is claimed. Here's what the film claims (by contrast):

"September 11th guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just 6 weeks after 9-11 Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December made a one day profit of $237 million dollars."

First, it is plainly clear that this is not evidence that oil was the issue in Iraq, this having occurred a mere six weeks after 9-11, and the company here that made the "profit" was United Defense, a company that has nothing to do with oil.

Second, there is nothing unusual about a company making a stock offering; it happens all the time in America. As stock offerings go, in fact, $237 million is hardly a bonanza. Google, e.g., expects to make roughly $3 billion from its IPO, which started Friday.

Third, because this money was raised through a stock offering, it is not strictly speaking a profit. The company sold shares... ownership in its company.

Fourth, quite obviously, Bush didn't make $237 million as Jason claims. United Defense earned $237 million by selling shares in its company; none of this money would go to him. What's more, in order to assume the office of President, the law requires the divestiture of assets and the creation of blind trusts by the President. The Federal Government has extensive conflict of interest rules.

I could keep going actually because as evidence of anything, this little tidbit from F9/11 proves nothing. Moore clearly chose to report it simply because of the timing of it and the Bush family ties to the Carlyle Group, which owns United Defense, made for a racy line that could easily suggest something else to the audience. Moore clearly banks on the fact that people won't understand the ins and outs of the financial world. He knows that the audience will hear this line and rather than walk out with facts, they will believe that "Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars."

P.S. Ironic, huh? That a person who hasn't seen the film has to point out to someone who did what the film actually claims...

P.P.S. I read every post in the F9/11 threads. Before and after I left the threads... after I left, both Jason and Chris primarily engage me or the political issues that the films raise. I've yet to read a post in those threads that really engages the craft, except for the ocassional errant platitudes about Moore and the visuals.

[EDITS: Added italics after Johann posted a reply].

[Johann]

Innocent people dying is just invective?
You've just proven your cruel ignorance to human life.
Don't dare say that this war is about saving lives anduril.
Saddam's evil was worse than this war?
How dare you speak for the Iraqi people?!
Who do you think you are

OOPS! Sorry- Bush made $237 million BEFORE the war.
I stand corrected.
I'll try to find out how much he made today- give me some time.

[stevetseitz]

>>I'm not disputing your claims about Saddam's dictatorship and practices. We share the belief that Saddam is one evil fuck.<<

And if you were in charge he would still be in power in Iraq kidnapping, beating, murdering, torturing and raping any who defied him.

>>Where we differ and where we violently disagree is on the U.S. involvement. Saddam's sadistic-ness does not give any country, let alone the States the right to invade, bomb, and MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE.<<

You emphasize MURDER. If human loss of life is your main complaint, then invasion was certainly justified. More Iraqis were dying in Iraq prior to the war at the hand's of Saddam's thugs than are now! Human rights atrocities have long been used as a justification for military action. Milosevich and his ethnic cleansing warranted the power of the U.S. military.

The principled people of the world have a responsibility to stand up against atrocities like the Nazi concentration camps, the slaughter in Cambodia. When the U.N. is paralyzed by politics that is not an excuse for inaction.

>>This ain't no theory. This ain't no sissy iced-tea. You can sit in your comfortable home on a computer and bark about terrorism all you want- this war is about seizing an opportunity to make massive amounts of money- at the cost of lives and freedom, not to "fight for it".<<

And you can sit spinning fantastic conspiracy theories at your comfortable home on a computer. If massive amounts of money are being made PROVE it. You don't have a shred of evidence. By the way after 9/11, I quit my lucrative sales career and took a significant pay CUT by joining the Department of Homeland Security so I at least put my "money where my mouth is."

>>People- innocent people- are being murdered. Yeah I heard you shout about Saddam murdering people- "Democide"- but two wrongs don't make a right Steve.<<

If you have two choices and both are bad, you must choose the lesser of two evils. Teddy Roosevelt said, "I abhor unjust war. I abhor injustice and bullying by the strong at the expense of the weak, whether among nations or individuals. I abhor violence and bloodshed. But it takes strength to put a stop to abhorrent things." The U.S. had the military strength and the moral obligation to put a stop to Saddam's bullying. We had tried diplomacy with this "secular" leader for about 15 years. Nothing worked. Not sanctions, not UN security council resolutions. Nothing.


>>I can't help but shake my head in disbelief that you think waging war makes one safer.<<

History proves it. Nearly 170 million people have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years. Yet, the "peace loving" neo-hippies keep touting the values of the totalitarian communist ideal. It's sad really.

>>What planet are you from? Who taught you your values?
Do you value human life at all? Do you think life is sacred? I do.<<

Apparently not as much as anduril or I do. We think that a war, no matter how costly is better than cowardice and inaction that allows the deaths of innocent people. Teddy Roosevelt said: "Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaiden of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."

>>Innocents. Innocents. Innocents. Whether they be soldiers or civilians, they being slaughtered- for OIL.<<

A soldier isn't innocent. He or she goes to war with the objective of defeating the enemy and with knowledge that their enemy is trying to defeat them. It's clear from their training and their commitment that they understand they are putting their lives on the line. In this case, they are risking their lives to establish a democracy, the ultimate engine for human rights, in the heart of the Middle East. Thus far, the Middle East is a region which has fallen behind the rest of the world in freedom, thus has some of the worst human rights atrocities.

>>It's not a slogan. It's a FACT. Iraq is #2 in the world for Oil reserves. The U.S. HAS taken over oil in Iraq. Bush and his business partners are making an obscene fortune DAILY- in Fahrenheit Moore tells us Bush recorded a one-day profit of $237 MILLION dollars. ONE DAY!<<

Oh and because Master Moore says it, it must be so, right? Must the drooling, mind-numbed followers of this demagogue be spoon fed information so they can regurgitate it like an involuntary reflex? Any PROOF? Or just unsubstatiated lies?

>>And you say this war is about terrorism? I'm sick of defending truth.<<

"You can't handle the truth!" It had to be said this is a movie forum after all.

>>You really are blind. Sign up for war, guys. I wanna see you two put your money where your mouths are. Terrorism is not something you can fight- they still can't find Osama. They haven't gotten retribution for 9/11. Families want answers.

What did they get? They got a president who murders foreigners and says he's doing it for freedom.<<

They got a president with the courage to lead. They got a leader who didn't avoid hard political questions in the War on Terror. By eliminating Saddam's regime and the Taliban. President Bush has eliminated two regimes that were state sponsors of terrorism. This sends a clear message, a message that people like Qadhafi heard loud and clear. The U.S., after 9/11 will no longer tolerate regimes that support terror. After all, what is a terrorist without refuge, financing, weapons, training, intelligence or logistical support? He is a petty criminal capable of harming almost no one.

>>The oxymorons, the irony, the blindness, the lies and the people who believe them..
You two are revolting fascists who support murder. If one single innocent person dies, you support murder.<<

Fascism is a form of socialism and a kissing cousin of communism. Both are totalitarian ideologies that require broad state control, if not ownership, of the means of production. If anything your political views are far closer to Fascism than mine.


>>The United States could be applauded if no innocents were harmed.<<

Nice utopian fantasy about war but people like Saddam used human shields to defend military targets (which violates the Geneva convention) in both the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

But thousands were. Thousands bit the dust. For nothing but greed.<<

Tens of thousands "bit the dust" under Saddam's regime.

>>I find it incredible that the US sent the ARMY to root out Saddam. You'd think they'd use a more elite force to "smoke him out"- you'd think they would use a tactical unit from a city police force (Baghdad is a city after all), but no, they used an infantry unit- pictures of Saddam's capture revealed infantrymen with their "trophy".<<

You really think Saddam would HIDE from a "tactical unit"? He would obliterate them with his elite troops. We learned our lesson in Somalia about going in with less than adequate forces. It's called the "Powell Doctrine". You should read about it.

>>Not to mention that the Us stood idly by while terrorists such as Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, and Marcos were left alone.<<

Stood idly by? Hardly. Rather than act with our military, the U.S. did what you propose: we talked tough and did nothing. Oh, well millions slaughtered, but at least the U.S. didn't act!

>>Saddam is the guy we gotta get! Why? Oil daddy-O Keep dreaming, fellas- as long as you support mass murder while claiming your halo of justice, you're gonna suffer for it.<<

You still have yet to prove one iota of your theory! It's laughable. Where is the paper trail. At least post a link!!! Come on. Surely you must have SOME proof. Still waiting...

[stevetseitz]

"A just war is better in the long term for a man's character than the most prosperous peace"

"Things that WILL DESTROY AMERICA are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

"No qualities called out by a purely peaceful life stand on a level with those stern and virile virtues which move the men of stout heart and strong hand who uphold the honor of their flag in battle"

"A nation is not wholly admirable unless in times of stress it will go to war for a great ideal"

"Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaiden of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy."

"I never advocate preparation for war in order to avert war; and I should never advocate war itself unless it were the only possible alternative to shame and dishonor."

"I abhor unjust war. I abhor injustice and bullying by the strong at the expense of the weak, whether among nations or individuals. I abhor violence and bloodshed. But it takes strength to put a stop to abhorrent things."

-Teddy Roosevelt


People who are "anti-war" often overlook that the alternative is far more deadly. Democide, or murder by government is a far greater cause of human misery and suffering than war.

In the 20th century, international and domestic wars, revolutions, and violent conflicts have led to the deaths of about 35,654,000.

In the 20th century, Democide (the murder of any person or people by a government) murder led to the deaths of at minimum 170,000,000. This figure is extremely conservative and may actually be closer to 300,000,000.

The research shows that democracies rarely fight with other democracies and democratic governments almost never engage in democide against their own people. The research also shows that communist and fascist states have done a vast majority of the killing of their own people. And most of the wars that democracies DO fight are against communist and fascist states.

Some people incorrectly believe that fascism and communism are opposites when in reality they are "kissing cousins" The appellation of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis, which means "group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more succinctly, collectivism.

[anduril]

Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves

But the Iraqis didn't want freedom from this... right?!??!?

[stevetseitz]

Have you also seen the websites from Halabja?

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

[anduril]

Yes I had, but thank-you for posting it here.

Somehow, Steve, we are the ones who support mass murder because we support the decision to get rid of the tyrannical SOB who did this?!?!?!

...and lest anyone still thinks the Iraqis did not want the American intervention, let them look at the Oxford Research Polls to which I link in the F9/11 threads... Iraqis supported the invasion even one year after it happened (imagine the results in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam... or his subsequent capture).

[Johann]

Because we have a card-carrying member of Homeland Security and a devout student of politics I must concede defeat in these debates.

I am supremely emotional on this one, you better believe it.
I would love to provide links and paper trails but I severely lack any interest in pursuing it.

I'm 100% right JUST ON PRINCIPLE

You two will bully, just like Bush and I'll just keep being an emotional idiot with no facts.

So I throw in the towel.

If anyone has the willpower on this site to respond effectively to these two champions of human life, I extend a plea.

[anduril]

You are right. You are supremely emotional and thus it is clear that you have not arrived at your position by reason or facts (indeed, you have demonstrated that you have none). You prove the addage:

"You can't reason a person out of a position he never reasoned himself into in the first place."

In any case, now that you've thrown in the towel; I'm going to resort to an impassioned appeal. Here is me being emotional:

Contrary to your (and Oscar's) perception of me, I do sympathize with the anti-war argument and I truly do not desire to see anyone lose their life unjustly. Unfortunately, however, this world is imperfect and there are men, like Saddam, Hitler, and others, who do not share or sympathize with those who love peace, hate war, and value human life; they demonstrate time and again that they would continue to brutalize and torture people and wage war against others as long as the world lets them. It is them, not I or Steve or Bush or Blair, to whom your outrage should be directed. They, who would abuse their own people for their own gain, and force by their continued belligerence and violence the free peoples of the world to arm their people to fight their evil. I hate war; I lament that it is a crude instrument for justice; that innocent people die, war crimes are committed, and economies ruined. But, the war against Saddam was necessary and it was just (however imperfectly it may have been waged). It has finally put an end to Saddam's tyranny and it has given the Iraqi people the possibility--a possibility they have never glimpsed before-- that they may live in peace and freedom (if they desire it and the world, especially the U.S., maintains its will to help them).

It is ironic, really, that the one way the world may have been able to avoid the war and put an end to Saddam's rule in Iraq, would have been for every nation to have stood up and in unison delivered the ultimatum that Bush delivered 48 hours before the start of the war. My guess is that Saddam would have fled to Syria in the face of such an ultimatum (similar tyrants have done so in the face of less pressure). Unfortunately, the so-called "peace rallies" and the opposition to the war gave Saddam the sense that he could win the diplomatic showdown with the U.S./U.K. coalition and thus, the "peace rallies" and the opposition to the war, in an ironic twist, may have actually contributed to the war.

I'm tired of the inward looking nation state that uses arguments of "sovereignty" and "non-interference" to guise its selfishness and shirk its responsibilities to the oppressed; where did this "prime directive" come from anyways? It is time for the free nations to stand up and demand that the totalitarian states in this world, one-by-one, begin their reforms today on a timetable or immediately face the consequences. It is time to bring freedom to the oppressed. I am tired of hearing daily news items about genocide in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Sudan. I am tired of hearing about children recruited as soldiers. I am tired of hearing of Arab dictators, propped up by either their own oil or Western allies, who oppress and suppress their people. I am tired of hearing about people shot because they expressed their dissatisfaction with the government. I am tired of hearing of the institutionalized rape of women and children that goes on in many countries of the world. Most of all, I am tired of the argument that says we have no right to interfere. Bullshit! We not only have a right to interfere; we have a moral obligation to do so.

Finally, the U.S. stood up, opened its eyes, and knocked off two such totalitarian regimes; and now the liberals who cried against U.S. inaction in the past when these crimes were committed can do nothing better than bitch at them. C'mon. Enough is enough.

[JustaFied]

I'm going to venture into this argument and try to present a few of my qualms with the events in Iraq:

1) Evidently this is now primarily a human rights issue. Initially, the Bush Administration presented the Saddam regime as a "imminent threat", and the Niger high-grade uranium information was thrown out at us to scare us into jumping onto the war bandwagon. This information has since been disproved, and the vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction were never found. So why were we in such a rush to war? There was NO imminent threat, and they probably had a damn good idea that this was the case. As an American, I feel BETRAYED that their initial arguments turned out to be invalid, and in my opinion they played the "fear card" to rush into war. Now, the only justifiable argument in retrospect was that Saddam was a bad guy. No doubt true, but as Anduril points out, there are equally horrifying human rights violations going on RIGHT NOW in other parts of the world. Why are we not in Sudan RIGHT NOW? Why? Why did we do nothing in Rwanda? Why did we do nothing in Cambodia 25 years ago? Why don't we step in and demand changes to countries carrying out human rights violations on a lesser scale right now, countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt? That's hypocrisy for you. That's a double standard. So, based on that double standard, we need to step back and get a better overview of what the American objective is.

2) "A just war is better in the long term for a man's character than the most prosperous peace" - I just don't get this, Steve. I know that war is unavoidable sometimes, but that doesn't make those who go to war better people or of higher character than those who don't go to war. Prosperous peace is the longterm goal here, you seem to be equating that to some character flaw. That's sad.

3) Where is Osama? Why have we not caught him yet? I think this is a good point from Moore's movie. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, we should use all of our resources to shut down that organization and bring Osama and the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders to justice, and what do we do? We turn our attention to Iraq. There is NO proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam showing that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Cheney, disingenously, won't let this point go. If you, Steve or Anduril, have links to show an Iraq - Al Qaeda link, please share them with us.

4) The Iraq war has created tremendous anti-American sentiment in the world, and it has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, which has helped drive the U.S. to record deficits. My opinion, especially knowing that Iraq was not an imminent threat, is that, at the least, we should not have rushed so quickly to war and should have explored other options of reducing the "threat" posed by Saddam.

5) The United States had no feasible plan for Iraq after removing Saddam. The removal of Saddam created a power vacuum in a country with little history of democracy. And we expected that they could peacefully set up a fully functional system of government where the disparate cultures all got along in harmony? That's the height of naivete.

6) It's also naive to think that American companies are not benefitting in an Iraq without Saddam. The uncertainity in the region (along with troubles in Russia) has pushed the price of oil to record levels. This is a windfall to the oil companies.

Okay, I'm going to stop now, take a deep breath, and return to the "purely peaceful, soft living" forum of film. Call me a coward.

[anduril]

Thank-you JustaFied for your comments. Personally, I feel that either Steve or I have dealt with most of these points (#1, 3,4, and 6) in this thread already (e.g. the al Qaeda/Iraq links confirmed by the 9/11 Commission) or in the F9/11 threads (e.g. the imminent threat argument and the reasons for the war). I would direct you back to those posts because to repeat them again and again is too time consuming. Both Steve and I have put considerable effort into several of our posts to ensure that our positions are supported by facts in evidence. Steve and I can not force you to read these posts or the links we provide but, between the two of us, we have provided an abundance of evidence for those truly interested in this debate.

As to the points that we may not have addressed, I will leave it to Steve to respond to #2 as this regards something he wrote.

I will venture to comment on #5. I grant, as does Paul Bremer and the Bush administration, that the transition from war in Iraq to nation building as been treacherous and difficult. However, it certainly has not been without a plan. Right off the top here, I'd like to quote Bremer, who appropriately observed,

"We shouldn't kid ourselves. It'll be sloppy and messy at the beginning," L. Paul Bremer said on "Fox News Sunday." "People forget it took us 12 years to write our own Constitution. It wasn't very pretty around here between 1776 and 1787." (Source: CNN)

Some initial mistakes were certainly made: insufficient protection was provided to hospitals, museums, and other locations to prevent looting; borders have been inadequately monitored; the entire Baathist civil service and the army was disbanded (an understandable yet flawed move that has since been partially rectified); in some cases, humanitarian aid was slow in arrival and reconstruction of certain essential infrastructure took longer than perhaps expected or desired; support was given to Chalabi; and some other things. Obviously, the single biggest problem has been Abu Ghraib. These flaws, however grave and serious, are not arguments against the war though. As a friend once remarked to Jason on my blog: "Just because a war isn't waged 'perfectly' is no reason to stop it. Just because you Jason don't live your life 'perfectly' is no reason for you to end it now."

Second and more importantly, I would direct you to this overview of the accomplishments in Iraq since reconstruction efforts began. After looking at that overview, please tell me if that looks like the work of people without a plan?