<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ictus:
Char, you're stretching so far I'm shocked your mind hasn't snapped from the strain. In the absence of any evidence of any WMDs, cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraq, or even US intelligence suggesting Iraqi terrorist threats...</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No WMDs? [url]David Kay's report[/url] says otherwise.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Heck, he even was trying to buy a missle SYSTEM from Kim Jong-Il in 2002! (an illegal one, at that)</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No WMDs? David Kay's report says otherwise.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"I don't think they existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s."
"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find."
"I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about."</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
Weapons programmes are not what Britain and America went to war for.

Britain and America invaded because Iraq was a direct and imminent threat. The justification was that Iraq could attack within hours, not that Iraq had programmes that would be completed within years. You don't need to carpet bomb Iraq to shut down programmes.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">He goes on to list several dozen specific examples of things that are evidence of WMD presence and concealment.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Freelancer:
That's wrong. North Korea is also a direct and "imminent" threat. Moreso than Iraq ever was, if you want my personal opinion. I still honestly have no idea whatsoever why we invaded Iraq, to this day.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
WMDs? Obviously not. To "liberate" the Iraqi people?
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Don't be silly. Most of them could care less whether Saddam was still in power or not, and for solely the reason of "liberation",
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Oil? No.. why are my gas prices 20 cents higher than normal again?
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
This leaves only one possible reason - Bush's hidden agenda. Well, make that two. Revenge for 9/11 taekn out on a totally unrelated party. I understand the frustration of being attacked by a phantom enemy who we can't strike back against - but good god, you don't need to take out the frustration on someone who had nothing to do with it. That's my theory, anyway. Again, I honsetly can't think of a legitimate reason to do what we did. If anyone can enlighten me, please, by all means.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Charoziak:
That whole document deals with Saddam's transportation net, connections to private transports, dismantling of facilities, and the discovery of a bunch of illegal, undeclared, and dual use missles/WMD components in other countries. I'm not going to quote the entire document. I've done my research, but it isn't my job to educate you. Either read it yourself, take my word for it, or just assume that the report is a)false or b)I'm being misleading. You could also just read the other link I tossed up with it, which provides a general run down of the findings.

And of course Kay wouldn't find them if they were moved out, as the United Nations seems to think they were.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">14. In general, from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured a variety of dual-use biological
and chemical items and materials, including chemicals, equipment and spare parts.
To date, UNMOVIC has found no evidence that these were used for proscribed
chemical or biological weapon purposes.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Saddam says: "9-11 rocks, and there's more to come, hyuck hyuck!" That alone would, if I were President, be enough for me to look at it like a threat from a foreign leader. He's promising more slaughters. Does he know something's up? Is he planning something himself? Or should we just ignore it and let something else happen?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'll just post here like noone else has.
I havn't seen the movie, and I don't want to give the guy my money, but I don't see how something described the way it is could be anything but extremely biased. And anyone who in my mind would would consider it the flat out truth is pretty gullable and fickle.
*Puts on flame retardant suit*</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bobbert006:
Okay, I know it doesn't make much sense to not see something and then judge it, but how can you just accept the movie as truth?

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In the trailer, Moore asserts that Bush evacuated the Bin Laden family out of the US on 9-11.

Remember when Richard Clarke gave his testimony about 9-11 and his job and whatnot before the 9-11 Commission? He said he and he alone was responsible for that decision. He personally looked over the passenger list and approved the flight - not the president.

I may still see it, just for shoots and giggles. On the one hand, I don't want to give Moore my 6 bucks. On the other, it'd make a darn good write-up or radio segment. But, we'll see, I suppose.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">31 says that a bunch of stuff was taken from weapons facilities (in the context of 30, chemical facilities) and that several facilities were destroyed.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It noted with concern the removal from Iraq of items that had been subject to monitoring and the destruction of sites associated with Iraq’s weapon programmes and the possible implications both activities might have for the confirmation of disarmament and future ongoing monitoring.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Section 5 in Developments deals with biological agent research that would advance a weapons program at an Iraqi plant.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Mr. Duelfer’s publicly released testimony mentions, as an example of uncertain Iraqi intent, that the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Centre had equipment suitable for the production of biological agents and that research work there on the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis would be important to a biological weapon programme. UNMOVIC and its predecessor, the United Nations Special Commission, inspected that site on numerous occasions for similar reasonsand had categorized it as being subject to intensive monitoring. The site was also inspected regularly by IAEA.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">B. thuringiensis (commonly known as 'Bt') is an insecticidal bacterium, marketed worldwide for control of many important plant pests - mainly caterpillars of the Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) but also mosquito larvae, and simuliid blackflies that vector river blindness in Africa.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In 13 of the Compendium, UNMOVIC found no evidence, but David Kay, in 2003, listed dozens of places that there was evidence of active programs.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kieran Horn:
You'll grow out of it Melon. Everyone here started out as a little prick. We all(at least I think all) of us grew up and out of that habit.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ictus:
You lose.[/B]</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kieran Horn:
The Ultimate Fahrenheit 9/11 Review:

Liberals will still think Moore is a all-knowing sex idol, Conservatives will still think he is a lieing attention whore, and Moderates still won't give a ****.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kieran Horn:
You don't grow out of being a nice person. It's called digression.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Of course I understand that there are things that simply didn't happen, and that sometimes Moore suggests such things as evidence. To be honest I look at these things as a hindrence on my own beilefs and I wish they didn't exist, and that Moore could just be more honest, because there are plenty of arguments you can make without distorting the "facts".
</font>