| User | Post |
drjayphd
Posts: 1268/1477 |
Not sure I'd say Saddam was innocent, but yes, there is evidence that previous administrations supported Iraq (and consequently Saddam) against Iran. Not sure if it was the lesser of two evils, as I don't remember when Iran went fundamentalist.
I believe the term for what you're trying to understand, Bio, is Realpolitik. |
Bio
Posts: 109/458 |
once you divide the informative from the subjective you can still learn some thing, and you are right its not 100% right, some thing in the movie are said whitout document and proof |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 2997/3770 |
Unfortunately, much like in Bowling for Columbine (which was actually a much more entertaining movie than Fahrenheit 9/11), the movie's script was fraught with technicalities and stretched facts that made Moore *KIND OF* correct without actually making him 100% right. He was right enough so that he could get a point across, but wrong enough so that he could laugh his arse off at the people dumb enough to believe him. |
geeogree
Posts: 399/448 |
well, it's not like what I said was false.... but I could have said it in a slightly nicer way I suppose |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5122/5458 |
geeogree. You're having a bit of a mean streak lately. Please stop posting purposefully inflammatory comments. |
geeogree
Posts: 398/448 |
that movie is full of crap and Michael Moore is a liar and a fake.... maybe someone should send him over to Iraq |
Bio
Posts: 107/458 |
Did you guy have watched Farheniet 9/11? If no, you should
Anyway,there a quebec reporter called normand lester prove that saddam is not just innocent but he was doing buisness with bush dad for chemical wepon, why. Because there were a war against the Iran and Irak and US don't want Iran to grow enough to be powerful,so insted than doing the dirty job they let saddam do it and they accuse it to posess the weapon they give him. I will never understand US |
Arwon
Posts: 356/506 |
The USSR *did* get there first. It turned the tide in 42-43, it engaged and fought back 90% of the Reich's forces, it entered Berlin. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4584/5458 |
Well, Breshnev could be more accounted to the destruction of the Iron Curtain. Under Krushev the Soviet Union had a bit of a rebound, but then the Stalinists gained control again. Perhaps Snowball the Pig would've made some changes had he not been expelled...But yeah. Can't change the past.
America didn't get to Hitler, either. It was Russia who would've theoretically gotten there first.  It was more than just America that ended that war. Given that all sides suffered terribly, I think it is fair to say that Britain and Her colonies, the Soviet Union, the various resistance groups, Charles DuGall and the free French and other forces ended that war just as much as America. |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 2684/3770 |
Yeah, death and his own crappy ruling style lead to the fall of the Iron Curtain. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4580/5458 |
You didn't take out Stalin though... |
Mr. Monday
Posts: 5/5 |
If we have the power to overthrow a dictator killing hundreds of thousands of his own people why shouldn't we. WE took out stalin, and hitler, sadame was in need of his end. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4257/5458 |
Yes! It was immoral. Do you think they did it to stop the Holocaust? NO! They did it to bolster economy and to protect vested interests in the areas. If they did it to save the Jews perhaps our great nations wouldn't have turned them away and effectively sent them back into Germany.
Actually, CityGirl, "Just War" was limited at the Council of Trent and then gotten rid of during the Vatican II. And Jihad was initially an internalized concept relating to battling negative elements within one's own being and soul. |
CityGirl
Posts: 3/13 |
Originally posted by Ziff
War cannot be morally just in any circumstance.
It only brings hardship and hatred.
Was WWII immoral? It brought about the freeing of millions of innocent people, and it also put an end to the wide-scale acceptance of anti-semitism in the world that had existed until then.
I'm not a war-monger, but in Catholicism there is a concept of the "Just War" and Islam, too has it's own verson of this: Jihad, or translated, "struggle." Whether one believes in a religion or not, war is something many of the world's great thinkers have spent time justifying rooted in morality. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4226/5458 |
Alright. I'm going to post this for the last time.
Iraq's oil fields are NOT producing at anything close to peak capacity. The pipelines are totally a waste, and it will take years to finsih building them. And even then, Iraq is only ONE part of the world's oil supply. The reason why prices are soaring is because...
A) Venezuela. They are trying to keep oil in South America and create a more autonomus area. The governments are all politically similar, and after decades and decades of US interference with their affairs it appears that they like freedom. Economic, political and that freedom without ruthless oppression (*cough* Chile *cough*)
B) Norway. They are trying to raise the output of oil, but the workers are being screwed over by the companies, thus, like other workers who are being shafted, they're planning to strike!
C) Various African exporters are being shut down right now because the workers are striking due to HORRIBLE working conditions.
D) European and North American markets aren't the only markets out there. There are two nations with more than Europe's and North America's total populations combined eating up oil like no tomorrow in their race to full modernization of industry. They're called China and India.
E) Russia. One of the world's biggest exporters is in a terrible mess right now, the major company, YUKOS, was shut down due to tax evasion. When your largest exporter suddenly stops exporting, that means your exports go down. That means world oil supplies become limited. Expect Russian oil to start flowing again within a few years.
F) A very important oil exec. from Germany was recentely kidnapped, spurring fears of terrorist attacks on various oil installations.
G) Canadian oil, which is the largest supply on the planet now, is very expensive to refine. Within a decade you'll see a major shift in world power to Canada, which will be the world's primary oil exporter and controller of that resource. Right now, the oil is considerably lower quality and expensive.
H) Liquid natural gas is being increasingly used to make gasoline. Which is an expensive process. It, like crude, is in dwindling supplies. Therefore, the prices go up.
I) The US Strategic Reserve is too small, and it lacks the economic firepower necessary to lower the commodity prices to an extreme degree.
There are tonnes of other reasons, too. Like the really big lack of transcontinental pipelines in Asia, which are now being built, that slow production down. Either way, OPEC can't meet demands anymore, and the peak oil capacity has been reached and shattered.
edit:: Winter heating supplies get hoarded during the summer, which means that they are being bought off the market. And then, they get sold during the winter, after prices do the usual fall in the fall and the jump in the winter. |
Dei*
Posts: 42/412 |
if the war was for oil.... then why aren't prices going down? it's been a while... shouldn't the oil be here by now.... I for one would be pleased if the oil from Iraq came over here and helped push the price down.... I don't see why anyone here should care... it'll save you money....
Here's what I think is why even though we can get more oil, if indeed this war was for such, then why AREN'T the prices going down? Here's why: Opec and other major companies say they are at max production limits. Doesn't this seem a bit strange to you? We invade Iraq which has tons of oil, and remarkably the gas prices SOAR to unheard of levels. And are continuing to rise. IT's not like we dont have enough oil already, so why is this happening? I believe the gas companies are milking it for all its worth, keep putting up such and such excuses just so they can have us consumers pay top dollar for oil/gas. Either way, we lose, they win. Common sense, I think. |
windwaker
Posts: 1655/1797 |
Originally posted by Legion
Originally posted by windwaker
But geeogree did, and you responded with "people die, it happens".
And how does that imply that I'm for killing people to lower gas prices? 
Nevermind, I thought you were calling me an extremist for saying killing for lower gas prices is bad.
And geeogree, you said that gas prices going down should make us happy. 1) killing's bad. 2) it just means the government can tax us more.  |
geeogree
Posts: 368/448 |
well.... maybe it's because gas hasn't gone down....
my point was not that killing for gas was okay... but that it obviously hadn't happened, or gas would be cheaper...
|
drjayphd
Posts: 1099/1477 |
Originally posted by geeogree
whoa.... when did I say that killing people to lower gas prices was okay?
I think what I said was.... if the war was actually for oil, then why haven't prices gone down...
windwaker: you read too much into what people say.... way way too much
Well, that's part of what you said:
if the war was for oil.... then why aren't prices going down? it's been a while... shouldn't the oil be here by now.... I for one would be pleased if the oil from Iraq came over here and helped push the price down.... I don't see why anyone here should care... it'll save you money....
It's the last two (well, not really SENTENCES) blurbs? that are the problem. "You shouldn't care if we invaded a sovereign nation, because YOU WANT CHEAP GAS!"
To which windwaker called you a heartless bastard. Not reading TOO much into it. In fact, in some ways, it could logically be construed to mean it is okay to kill for cheap gas. |
geeogree
Posts: 367/448 |
whoa.... when did I say that killing people to lower gas prices was okay?
I think what I said was.... if the war was actually for oil, then why haven't prices gone down...
windwaker: you read too much into what people say.... way way too much |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
