Labelling someone a bad American for exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech is grossly " unamerican" too. Bullying people into agreeing with the government line by questioning their loyalties rings true with communism rather than the " greatest democratic country on earth" . Hold on - I see a pattern!

I dont care if you disagree with the government' s policy. Dont twist my words into something there not because they are still posted above.

If your an American, and you are hoping we lose in Iraq, then YOU ARE A BAD AMERICAN -PERIOD. It doesnt matter how we got there, we are there. Despite your personal opinion about the current administration you cant tell me your a " Good American" because its our combat forces that win or lose the war.

So next time anyone wants to take me on feel free, just spend a few minutes analyzing my statements before you blow up at me.

I' m happy with what I said and stand by it. I read your post thoroughly largely because I couldn' t quite believe what I was reading.


I took nothing out of context and twisted nothing. You set them up and I knock em down. If you' d like to take the time to read my post, you' d realise that you' ve assumed just as much as you think I have based on your post.

If your an American, and you are hoping we lose in Iraq, then YOU ARE A BAD AMERICAN -PERIOD

According to who? You? It seems to me that being a " good american" comes at the price of a few key democratic rights. Saying you hope American loses the war is a futile statement to make because they won' t, that much is true. People say these things because nobody listened to them in the first place, and out of frustration, they just want to see the lying government get taught a lesson. They don' t specifically want to see troops dying, rather they want to see them brought home from an environment that never welcomed them.

U.S. soldiers are dying on a daily basis in Iraq all because Bush sent them there for less-than truthful reasons, so what difference does it make whether the American forces pull out prematurely?

Despite your personal opinion about the current administration you cant tell me your a " Good American" because its our combat forces that win or lose the war.

Who made you the authority on who is or isn' t a good American? Rather judgemental given you aren' t the one stuck in a country experiencing turmoil of the highest degree. I feel sorry for the troops - they' ve been lied to and, in fact, Michael Moore' s Fahrenheit 9/11 contains interviews of American Soldiers uttering the very same sentiments, something no amount of editing can blur. Do you feel sorry for those soldiers who were told they were going to defend America, only to find the enemy weren' t a threat whatsoever? Soldiers or not, they are also United States citizens who don' t deserved to be lied to - under any circumstances.


Also, I' m not American. I' m just a Brit who got his national pride dragged through the mud because our Prime Minister sucks your President' s balls. You might not think that American politics matter to the rest of the world, but believe me, they do. As long as the American government dictates the world economy and the balance of military might on Earth, everything your government does is our business.

It doesnt matter how we got there

Yes it does. It matters that the U.S. government went to war based on false intelligence, and circumvented the global community because they thought the world was wrong - which they weren' t. They insisted that their intelligence was 100% factual and lambasted the WMD inspectors for not doing a good enough job -the word " irony" simply doesn' t do this scenario justice.




You' re entitled to your opinion. You' re also entitled to criticise other people' s opinions. However, in turn, you can almost certainly expect people to take you to task on your opinions should they contrast with their own.

It' s kinda the way forums work.

Heres a lil humor It seems fit with the current argument.

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK
By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It' s not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn' t virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn' t we?

WM: That' s ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn' t our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let' s deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn' t the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it' s not 100% certain that it' s really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You' re missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn' t that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn' t that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren' t those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn' t that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it' s not their JOB to find evidence. You' re missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened " severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who' s that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it' s the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn' t elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That' s the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That' s a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren' t you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn' t a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don' t these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By " world" , I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By " United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It' s time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

That, my friend, is the finest piece of writing I' ve read in a long time. It sums up how flimsy the pro-war stance was all along.


Good find

According to who? You? It seems to me that being a " good american" comes at the price of a few key democratic rights. Saying you hope American loses the war is a futile statement to make because they won' t, that much is true.

U.S. soldiers are dying on a daily basis in Iraq all because Bush sent them there for less-than truthful reasons, so what difference does it make whether the American forces pull out prematurely?

The war will be lost IF we pull out our troops in Iraq. It' s nice to think that if we leave everything will be all swell...mom and pop going down to buy their child some candy...but that' s not going to happen. The only way to truly win is to stay and oversee the progress being made.

Is it so wrong to be fully behind our troops in Iraq? No matter whether this war is wrong or not, there should be no one criticizing our decision in this war. I think that our soldiers over there, and those on the way, and not to mention just the whole country itself have more to worry about other than what one man has to say about 9/11 in a " documentary" .

Sure, we went in after weapons of mass destruction. I personally think if we had just said we were going to go in and take out Saddam and his regime we would have been alright. What' s done is done, and people can complain about it all they want. We have done some good though, and hopefully we' ll be able to come out of this a little better than when we began.

Even though many agree that Moore' s arguments are flawed, the fact is, many Americans who see B4C or this new film will NEVER have considered the points he is raising. If he exaggerates some points, then GOOD as far as I am concerned, because ultimately they are nearly all things that need to be HEARD.

The Americans taking part in this discussion here on the forums are all above average intelligence if you cross section the entire nation (and the same goes for users of all nationalities on non-retared discussion forums) and that means a great deal of people will never stop to consider whether or not America is free - or as fair - as power would have its citisens believe.

I think that, like most nations, America has some serious issues (and I don' t just mean issues of domestic relevance like jobs or school or tax) and many yanks aren' t even aware of them. Things like the cartoon section in B4C - while hilariously flawed according to ' straight thinkers' and historians - are nonetheless a good starting point for the clueless to begin to understand or look at things on a more global level, the only level on which to consider things if the world is to be saved from massive destruction in the next 50 years.

What I really want to know with absolute certainty is whether or not Bush was falsely elected, as claimed (rather convincingly) in Stupid White Men, because if so, then many of the other issues Moore raises become instantly more credible because the entire government is dodgy.

Besides, any ' straight thinker' can also see that Bush is a highly questionable president. Even on a basic level, of not looking like a twat every time he makes an improvised speech. He comes across as utterly clueless. I seriously hope we see a new US president soon. It will be a good thing.

Doesn' t Bush claim to receive communication from God somehow?

Bernie Stolar for president!

Look, we can argue politics all day long, but the idealogs here are not going to change their minds. All im saying is that you have to take what Micheal Moore says w/ a grain of salt because the guy is pushing a pretty heavy agenda.

As for Mass X, I dont know what your getting at w/your post but it does reveal just what your opinions are rather clearly.

Mr. Preacher,

People say these things because nobody listened to them in the first place, and out of frustration, they just want to see the lying government get taught a lesson.

Are u insinuating that America has a lying government? Why dont you provide some proof to back that up. I mean seriously, we would all love to see it. Who would not like to uncover government corruption? But until you do such statements carry little weight.

U.S. soldiers are dying on a daily basis in Iraq all because Bush sent them there for less-than truthful reasons, so what difference does it make whether the American forces pull out prematurely?

First off, Bush did not send them there for " less-than truthful reasons" . He sent them based on what was solid intelligence at the time! Some of that intelligence was provided by your government! If we pull our troops out now not only does it marginalize the deaths of every soldier so far, it sends a strong message to terrorists that, " as long as they kill enough people they will win!" . Thats a big difference in my book. As a matter of fact, im sure some soldiers and civilians have died because terrorist believe that very theory! We dont need to help motivate them to create the " Next Vietnam" as some people hope for political gain.

Do you feel sorry for those soldiers who were told they were going to defend America, only to find the enemy weren' t a threat whatsoever?

Totally based on your own opinion, which is fine. Do I feel sorry for them? No I feel sorry for those who are enemies of peace. Those who are in the US military volunteered to join. I guess we can wait and see just who Moore interviewed before we pass judgment on that. Every story has two sides.

You might not think that American politics matter to the rest of the world, but believe me, they do. As long as the American government dictates the world economy and the balance of military might on Earth, everything your government does is our business.

Yea I would much rather be taking orders from Kofi Annan! It will be a dark day when America sells its sovereignty to the EU, hopefully I wont be alive to see it. Sorry you and others cant handle that America is Super Power and that what we do effects the world. Its not like we are trying to take over the world. Look, Iraq is getting their sovereignty at the end of June! Do you really think they are going to kick us out? No. The news is very one sided, I know people (like my brothers wife) who lived in countries like Iran just a year ago and all the people love America, and dont want them to leave. You cant believe everything you see on the BBC or read on the internet.

Yes it does. It matters that the U.S. government went to war based on false intelligence, and circumvented the global community because they thought the world was wrong - which they weren' t

Umm, it matters that the U.S. governemnt did not know it had weak intelligence at the time got it? As a matter of fact we had a commission made up of many opponents to Bush look into just such problems. Once again some of that intelligence came from your government. As for the almighty " global community" what do you do when French, German, and Russian officals are getting bribed by Saddam? You get a currupt Oil For Food program and you get dozens of resolutions with no action..we just need to prove it now, which we are working on.

You set them up and I knock em down.

Certainly not bowling any strikes though.

I only posted that up because it seemed funny, had I come across one that defended the other side I would' ve posted that up. But, honestly what are the chances of finding soming humorous that was in support of the war and the beliefs behind it.

Altho, I do think being there and digging ourselves into a deep hole is rather ***n retarded. We' ve pissed off way more ppl then we origionally had started with, and we even gave them a nice list of reasons.
I would join this discussion in a better way but, Im not good at giving supporting reasons, but I do have soming to say about this-

As a matter of fact we had a commission made up of many opponents to Bush look into just such problems.

That would serve the Bush administration well. It would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election.

More humor that fits this topic

A letter by Terry Jones (yes, of Monty Python)

-Sunday January 26, 2003-

I' m really excited by George Bush' s latest reason for bombing Iraq: he' s running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I' ve been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I' m sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven' t been able to discover what.

I' ve been round to his place a few times to see what he' s up to, but he' s got everything well hidden. That' s how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don' t ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don' t act first, he' ll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I' ve got proof, why don' t I go to the police? But that' s simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They' ll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I' m the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it' s up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that' s been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let' s face it, Mr Bush' s carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That' s why I want to blow up Mr Johnson' s garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That' ll teach him a lesson. Then he' ll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I' m certain I' ve just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson' s wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush' s long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating ' rogue states' and ' terrorism' . It' s such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you' ve achieved it?

How will Mr Bush know when he' s wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he' s committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can' t be sure he' s achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It' s the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don' t like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I' ve wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I' m simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I' ve run out of patience, and if that' s a good enough reason for the President, it' s good enough for me. I' m going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don' t hand them over nicely and say ' Thank you' , I' m going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It' s just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he' s intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

Funny thing about Michael Moore is when he talks about his time in Florida pre election in his book Stupid...[fill in the rest], he basically kops that Jeb had him down there to shore up votes for Nader and away from Gore or whatever. However he doesn' t seem to realise that films like fahrenheit seem to be covered so much in the press in sort of the same fashion...could it be that his oversturation in the media detracts from more intelligent critics like Greg Palast? Hmmm...;)

I don' t like Moore. I think he' s a fat slob. But, I really liked Bowling for Columbine, and this Farenheit 911 looks like it will be even better. I don' t always agree with his standpoint, but he presents facts you wouldn' t hear on any news shows. Just as Fox News has a right side bias, he has a left side bias. It' s a matter of seeing thru the BS and taking the raw facts.

Now there is a terrible ratings row as this film is supposedly deserving of an R rating which IMO is quite absurd.