Anyone see Michael Moore's "Letter to George W. Bush on the Eve of War"? Read it [URL=http://www.michaelmoore.com]here[/URL] if you haven't. For me, this put me over the line in thinking that this guy is definitely the stupidest left wing idiot out there. Here's what I had to say about all his points, in an e-mail that I sent him a little while ago. Heh, I even pulled out some statistics/arguments that were mentioned here at TN. Thanks guys!
[Quote]Dear Governor Bush:[/Quote]Great way to open your letter, dumbass, since he's been President for well over two years now. I'm sure you'd like him to be Governor Bush again, since your god by the name of Clinton would be President.
[Quote]1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works![/Quote]Virtually no one, eh? A recent CNN poll showed that 66% of Americans supported Bush's ultimatum (before the war), with 30% against it. Those number have changed to 70 and 27% now. I'm guessing you meant walk out of the White House and onto any street in America where those idiot protesters are lying down, because anywhere else you will find a majority of Americans who support this war. Another thing, I'm guessing that for you, justification for war is the loss of 2,000 to 3,000 lives. That's how we got into World War II, and how we got into the War on Terrorism. So I suppose if an Iraqi had came over here and killed 2,000 of us, THEN the war would be alright! Yeah, I forgot that people had to be killed by an insane dictatorship for it to be considered a threat! Let's be proactive and save some lives instead.
[Quote]2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs two dollars a gallon -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.[/Quote]Well I know that you are affected by one issue that starts with I and ends in Q, namely, your IQ! Let's see, not a problem that affects our daily lives, huh? I wouldn't call the security of our nation "not a real threat". Once thousands of us die in an attack, THEN it will affect our daily lives, won't it? Because we'll be dead! No more daily lives! The fact is, our security, our lives, are more important than unemployment, the stock market, and pure money, money, money, since that seems to be the only thing you want to mention. If you want to talk about money, why not talk about how the stock market has had its best week since 1982? Cruel joke? I don't think so.
[Quote]3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.[/Quote]I suppose that you've forgotten about the 40+ nations around the world that support the war: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, the Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan. That's 45, to...3. I wouldn't call France, Germany, and Russia the "whole world".
[Quote]4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.[/Quote]Army of one...hmm...just refer to what I wrote for point #3.
[Quote]5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either![/Quote]Hey, this isn't an issue of sending our troops off to be meaninglessly killed. Those soldiers (and their parents) know that they may die, but they will do so defending their country from an impending threat. Instead of trivializing their mission, why don't you show some support for these men and women who are willing to die so that YOUR life will be safe.
[Quote]6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.[/Quote]Have you forgotten that the people of France would be speaking German if it weren't for America? It wasn't just once, but twice that we bailed them out, and we'd sure appreciate some gratitude on their behalf. Being a good friend my ass! France has to be one of the most hypocritical and selfish countries out there these days. Did you know that they've exercised military force in various countries 37 TIMES over the last 40 years without UN approval? No matter that the nation that has picked them off of the floor and carried them to victory is in trouble now, as long as their oil reserves in Iraq are safe and their large population of Arabs is happy. I say, the next time that France gets invaded by say, Andorra, we let them crumble, waving their hands in the air for some help that they won't return.
[Quote]But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!![/Quote]To bad we get less than 5% of our oil from the Middle East, and probably barely any or none from Iraq.

The point is, the war on Iraq is a proactive strike, which is what we have to do in the wake of September 11th. Instead of (in Bush's words) "floating towards tragedy", let's stop a threat before it becomes imminent. Let's stop Hitler while he is annexing Czechoslovakia, or Japan while they are invading Manchuria. I think if you had been on the 80th floor of the World Trade Center that day, you would have thought differently about stopping a threat before it came to you. On another note, you should be glad that you live in a country where you can so freely criticize the government, especially bashing its leader like there's no tomorrow. If you did this in say, Iraq of all places, you'd be tortured and killed. Show some respect for the nation that gives you the rights that you so often abuse.

[sarcasm]That's all. I'd like everyone of TN to join me in some "Anti-Moore" protesting. Let's all go stop traffic, because, of course, by [i]disrupting[/i] the peace, we will be [i]rallying[/i] for peace. So Anti-Moore protesters of TN, join me by spamming intentionally, flaming recklessly, and posting topics in the wrong forums, because by acting like children, we will get the respect that we deserve![/sarcasm]

__________________
SFA SOURCE . . .

wow, hes really stupid. i dont really have to explain why i think hes stupid, you can just read my opinions about the war in any of the other threads.

__________________
I was once TN's top poster!
2007 Gadv Count: Kingda Ka-6, El Toro-6, Nitro-4, Medusa-2, S:UF-2, R:TC-1, B:TC-, GASM-0, Skull Mt-0, B:TR-0, RMT-0, RT-0

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SFGadvKing [/i]
[B]wow, hes really stupid. i dont really have to explain why i think hes stupid, you can just read my opinions about the war in any of the other threads. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, You can think hes stupid, but he's just wants to get his point across to other people. Personally I think he's a little overboard, but I think he should do something. If he bickers so much, then he has a right to do so, I just hope he doesnt go WAY overboard....

__________________
Thornton to Heatley all day, every day.

Michael Moore is a brilliant man, who I hold in very high regard. His opinions are always well thought out, and he always knows exactly what he's talking about when it comes to the most important issues.


**Wait...When in Rome**


HE'S STUPID! HE'S just SOOOO RETARDED! He doesn't agree with ME! He doesn't blindly support the President! THAT IDIOT!!!!!!

I liked Roger & Me, but he's a bit too idealistic. Oh, and stupid.

Watch "Bowling For Columbine" and you will understand this man.

As for U.S. only getting 5 % of our oild from the Middle-east??? Where the hell did that factoid come from? Last I heard we were using 5-10 % of the Middle-east's oil and only taking up around 3% of the world's population.

Micheal Moore for President!!!

__________________
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope....couldn't think of anything

So what? The point was we get an overwhelming majority of our oil from other sources.

I still think he's continuing his steady descent into left-wing madness. I usually don't listen to him.

Kraken, if the man were halfway intelligent, then you would think that he could at least get his facts straight. After reading through his little "letter", I honestly don't think that he's got one factual statement in there correct. Not one. Pretty pitiful if you ask me.

But then that's typical of Mr. Moore and his ilk. They've got their opinions and they have to be right. No point in letting facts get in the way and messing it all up.

__________________
Have you read my number 1 best seller? There will be a test! ~God
Life with God is one thrill ride you'll never want to get off of.
My park & coaster photos: Sir Willow's Smugmug pictures

Maybe it's because I'm not in America, so I'm not given all the facts, but we get all the same news channels hot off the satellite too, so then again, maybe not.

Rebel, your opinion of Mike's letter is all very well, but you relied heavily on the claim that Iraq is/was a potential threat, therefore war is vital. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam Hussein is a terrible man, but never once, did he threated, or pose a threat to the United States. Granted, he has the weapons, but so does America. Honestly, a bomb is a bomb, regardless of whether it contains plutonium, TNT or cultured virii. They all do the same basic thing - take lives.

He has not threatened America. If there are any links with terrorism, then they are pretty weak, certainly weaker than the CIA training and the $245mil that the USA gave to Osama bin Laden and his team to attack the Russians.

You say that the war is not for oil, stating that America only gets 5% of their oil from the Middle East. To me, the 'oil war' theory makes sense. If America gain control of Iraq, then they can easily exploit the oil that is available, so that percentage can increase. Makes sense to me. Now, whether it is right is another question. They'll remove a horrible dictator from power - for all the wrong reasons.

My advice, and this is coming from someone from Michael Moore's hometown (featured well in Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine)... take everything with a grain of salt. Don't read completely into what he all says, but that he is just acting as a voice for those who otherwise didn't have a voice. At the same time, he can take that voice and make it sound like it is the ultra left extreme.

He is not Communist or ultra-left wing himself... he is someone who makes documentries and shows and likes to poke fun at some of the stuff that conservatives like to pull and how others deal with it... simple as that. For instance... Roger & Me covered how GM started to pull out of Flint and what it did to the area. Not only did it reveal how heartless our own "American" corporations are to American cities, but that in Flint's case, they were unwilling to accept this fact and didn't work to diversify their economy. As a result, Flint is basically a hellhole... poorly run (Flint was recently taken over by the state), turns away more potential business versus attracting new ones, and still trying to rely heavily on GM (we've had at least two more plants close after that documentry). The movie was required study in not one but two of my classes (a World History and a Sociology class that I took in college). Unfortunately, I was the in-class expert, being from Flint.

So, while we either agree or disagree with Bush and the war, we do have to do the following: support our troops no matter what, and hope that it is a positive outcome, cuz it seems unlikely that Dubya won't budge on this matter, especially with all the jumbled "facts".

__________________
ThrillNetwork Webmaster/Systems Administrator -- My Official Fansite -- Get Firefox!
Everytime I ride a coaster, it valleys. I've never been on a stalled coaster or had one roll back (except Wicked Twister and what was Superman: Ultimate Escape, which does that by design).

He says he's not left wing but he's too afraid to admit that he is. He endorsed Nader in the 2000 elections. Just let he and his cronies has a Bush-slamming festival... since they hate GWB so much, they must hate the troops that much as well.

This clown needs to get over himself.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything said in his letter, but where do you get off saying that anyone hates the troops? I'm not going into any more about this because it's become apparent that if you are against the war or our president, you must be a commie bastard.

I hope all our troops return safe, and for our presidents sake, they better find something in Iraq cause if they go through all this and don't find any weapons, he'll be lucky when he's out in 2004.

Oh, and another statistic, since that all some believe, is that a large percentage who favored the war before it started believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When or if they don't find any, that percentage is going to be slightly pissed off at the administration for lying to them.

__________________

Pleasantly missing since 2006

I just wanted to say I generally respect Mr. Moores opinions, I don't always a gree with him, as in this case. But i have to say, who the hell does he think he is calling Bush stupid or say 'pissing' in his letter. When you write a letter to some of that importance, it doesnt matter if you like them or not, you dont go around saying 'pissing on the french.' Thats not the way to get your point across. Just thought Id throw that in.

__________________
Dave Matthews Band:
6/24/01, 7/16/02, 7/17/02, 7/18/02, 7/20/04, 7/21/04

Where do you draw the line between hating the leaders of the country and supporting our troops? The President is Commander-In-Chief of all armed forces, and people call him evil. Does that evil extend down to the soldiers beneath him? At what rank do military personnel become good folks and not evil and hate mongers? Are generals mean and bad, but Colonels just beneath them the good guys?

You can't draw distinctions like that. Either you support us, or you are against us. Moore obviously is a big fan of the REAL evil. He is a communist pinko, too.

Just as a factor for the nations supporting the war:
Yes, there are 42 nations supporting the war. How do you get 3 that aren't? There are 191 nations recognized by the US, and 42 support the war. The three that you said don't are the main three that didn't support the US in the UN security council-not the world. Pro-war math aside, 191-42 = 149.

And how does not supporting war not support the INDIVIDUALS who are out there? One reason not to attack: so troops DON'T FREAKIN' DIE in the first place! Suddenly, because we don't want people to die, we're Anti-American and we don't support our military, and we're expected to spit on them when they come back.
You argue that we hate generals and therefore must hate all military personnel. Well, we don't hate generals etc BECAUSE they're military. We hate anybody who sends people out to kill others, risking those who are doing the killing as well without a reason that we find very good at all.
And, unlike the war-mongers who keep blowing people up and never looking back and realizing that war really doesn't save lives or "liberate" people (just look at Somalia. Yes, I disagree with many of Clinton's policies too.), all the people I know against the war aren't going to pull another Vietnam on soldiers. I think that the only card the pro-war people can ever pull out of Vietnam is that the "liberal tree-hugging hippies" hated the troops when they got back. Well, I don't hate the troops for listening to the losers who sent them in there-- they're just doing what they're told. Furthermore, I don't know ANYBODY who hates the troops for following orders. When I come across ONE, I'll rethink this argument.
Until then, Michael Moore has his opinions, though extreme, and I agree with him almost completely.

__________________
"Les faits ne parlent pas." (Facts do not speak.) - H. Poincare

I just outlined why you're not supporting troops if you're anti-president. Are you too thick to understand that? You think the people (the top leadership of this country) are losers, but not the ground troops? Tell me, where should we draw the line between the "good" and "bad" soldiers? You can't. That's why I say you are for us or against us. You are seemingly anti-American.

Second, this is a war, and I understand people on both sides are going to die. If you think I don't understand that, you really are quite thick.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Richard Wilson [/i]
[B]Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saddam Hussein is a terrible man, but never once, did he threated, or pose a threat to the United States. Granted, he has the weapons, but so does America. Honestly, a bomb is a bomb, regardless of whether it contains plutonium, TNT or cultured virii. They all do the same basic thing - take lives.[/b][/quote]
I totally agree with you. I don't really see why we are at war when Saddam has not threatened us. None of his weapons of mass destruction can reach the U.S. He hasn't threatened us and I really doubt he has anything that could affect us. Bin Laden used planes, but that's not going to happen again - security is so insanely tight.

[quote][b]He has not threatened America. If there are any links with terrorism, then they are pretty weak, certainly weaker than the CIA training and the $245mil that the USA gave to Osama bin Laden and his team to attack the Russians.[/b][/quote]Exactly! I'd like the people who are for this war to prove to me where he has threatened America. The Gulf War ended 12 years ago and we were not attacked by him, not scuds hit the US, nothing! He sat back and attacked his own people during those 12 years. I understand that Bush wants to take him out; it's kind of like trying to remove Hitler. But he hasn't threatened the U.S. Just because he has weapons of mass destruction gives us reason to attack the crap out of Baghdad? I still don't get that. Other countries have the same weapons and some have "evil" dictators, yet we choose to attack Saddam? Why? We have Titan missiles in our deserts (there's one relatively close to me right now). Granted, we won't launch them on any countries posing threats. But what about Saddam now? He has the weapons, but there's no proof he's going to do anything to the U.S. So why attack him? I don't get it. Sure, we may be freeing people from a horrible dictator, but the man would die eventually. Or maybe he'd turn around like Castro. Look at that guy. He recently gave a speech against underage drinking! He's a lot more humble in his old age. Maybe Saddam would change too. But we probably will never know. I bet he's dead now.

[quote][b]You say that the war is not for oil, stating that America only gets 5% of their oil from the Middle East. To me, the 'oil war' theory makes sense. If America gain control of Iraq, then they can easily exploit the oil that is available, so that percentage can increase. Makes sense to me. Now, whether it is right is another question.[/b][/quote]I don't really think it's for oil. I don't see why we would try to gain control over a place that only gives us 10% of our oil. Why not gain control of Venezuela? We have Alaska already. :p I don't understand the exploiting oil thing. Maybe they would do that, but we'll have to wait and see.

[quote][b]They'll remove a horrible dictator from power - for all the wrong reasons.[/b][/QUOTE]They try to back it up by saying they're getting rid of him for killing innocents and his torture of people, but that's a small part of the reason. "Jr. Bush" really wants popularity. Wars are popular, and it takes away from the focus on the economic slump.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Drewbie[/i]
[b]Oh, and another statistic, since that all some believe, is that a large percentage who favored the war before it started believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When or if they don't find any, that percentage is going to be slightly pissed off at the administration for lying to them.[/b][/quote]
They can always lie, though. They could go out there after this war and not find a thing and say they found a nuclear warhead. If they find out that there was nothing there and they did this war, lying is the easiest way out. I saw a clip of President Bush (Sr.) saying that 42 scuds were launched from Iraq and the U.S. intercepted 41 of them! That was such a lie. After showing that clip, they showed the damage that the scuds did. Some landed on houses and many killed innocents in Israel and other places. Bush lied because it made him and the U.S. military sound better. That reminds me of another one of his lies: "No new taxes." You can figure that one out if you're too young to remember your parents dicsussing this with the T.V. :p

That's all there is to it. They can simply lie. Someone will find out the truth later though. Let's just hope they don't plant any weapons or warheads in Iraq. That would just be dumb.

__________________
ThrillNetwork editor emeritus - NSCIGC member
Voyage is the best roller coaster ever.
Raptor ride count - 1,146.

America has removed plenty of dictators or other leadear in favor of ones of their choosing. Not one of them has worked. WE PUT SADDAM IN POWER!

__________________
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope....couldn't think of anything

The simple reasons why Saddam and his regime pose a threat to the US: they hate America, they have the weapons, and they have proven that they can use them. What more proof do you need? Do you think that Saddam would have publicly appeared and said "We are going to attack the US,"? No, he's not that stupid! Just put 2 and 2 together and you'll see why he and his regime are a threat to not only [i]his[/i] society, but our society.

__________________
SFA SOURCE . . .

What NONE of you say is how WAR will get rid of his bombs. We will not kill Saddam. Saddam will not surrender. He will defend himself. War does NOT get rid of Saddam's weapons. What are we going to do, bomb the bombs?

We get 14.1% of our oil from the Middle East (source: Department of Energy.) Michael Moore said some things I didn't quite agree with, but his point was in the right direction.

__________________
SHAME ON YOU FOR EXPRESSING YOURSELF!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MST3K_FREAK6666 [/i]
[B]What NONE of you say is how WAR will get rid of his bombs. We will not kill Saddam. Saddam will not surrender. He will defend himself. War does NOT get rid of Saddam's weapons. What are we going to do, bomb the bombs?[/B][/QUOTE]

when the ground forces reach baghdad, they will go through the buildings searching for the weapons. you think they are going to do all this attacking and not look for the weapons??? the whole reason they are having this war is to disarm iraq. and why wont we kill saddam?

__________________
I was once TN's top poster!
2007 Gadv Count: Kingda Ka-6, El Toro-6, Nitro-4, Medusa-2, S:UF-2, R:TC-1, B:TC-, GASM-0, Skull Mt-0, B:TR-0, RMT-0, RT-0

If you don't think Saddam is a threat to us now, imagine him in a decade if his regime was allowed to continue.

Based upon his past actions and lies, I really don't understand the viewpoint that he is not/will not be a threat to us.

HA! That idiot got booed off at the Oscars! Nice comments, dumbass! To use his own words against him: All of Hollywood is against you, Mr. Moore. :D

__________________
SFA SOURCE . . .

Are you serious? That's great!

Yes! Lookee here: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030324/en_afp/oscar_war_iraq_moore_1[/url]

__________________
SFA SOURCE . . .

His movie also won, and his movie sold really well... so just because a few people booed in the audience doesn't mean everyone is against him.

Quote from article:
"He said that, far from being appalled, many people in the audience stood up to applaud him."

__________________

They never said why they booed him specifically... they could've easily booed him specifically for just using his time to say what he did (and not for what he said). So of those 3,500... some might've just wanted to forget about it for an evening.

Booing doesn't mean a thing to him, because he does make rather interesting points no matter how controversial he or the topic is, and he does have the right to say what he does as well. I may not agree with what he says or does, but I can't impede his rights to do so.

__________________
ThrillNetwork Webmaster/Systems Administrator -- My Official Fansite -- Get Firefox!
Everytime I ride a coaster, it valleys. I've never been on a stalled coaster or had one roll back (except Wicked Twister and what was Superman: Ultimate Escape, which does that by design).

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Chip [/i]
[B]They try to back it up by saying they're getting rid of him for killing innocents and his torture of people, but that's a small part of the reason. "Jr. Bush" really wants popularity. Wars are popular, and it takes away from the focus on the economic slump.[/B][/QUOTE]

That's a fair point, but, I haven't heard anything from America regarding the torture etc. The ONLY reason I've heard is the "threat" and the "links with terrorism". And, if the reason for removing him was for what he's done, then is it really up to a 'freelance' country to go in and do the job. Isn't this what United Nations do? If America really did see a need to remove Saddam based on his past crimes, shouldn't they push the idea in the UN to get UNiversal support, instead of basically shunning UN and go charging in?

I saw the clip with Mike Moore's Oscar speech earlier this evening. That Yahoo article was incredibly biased. A single sentence, worded to sound like opinion, not fact, thrown in at the end, doesn't make the story unbiased. In reality, there was booing, but there was also incredible cheering and applauding from the audience. I don't know about everyone else, but to me, those people in the audience supporting him really count a lot more than those that didn't. It is very easy to be cynical (and I'm sure that the writer of this article was one of the booers). To accept and tolerate, regardless of your feelings and opinions, is the high road, and that means a lot more than a few cowardly boos from the audience.

Michael Moore should die.

Anyone who thinks they can go against the president on this because they're a stupid leftist film director needs to be shot. Hey Moore.... one question... how does being a film director give you so much knowlege about politics and about how nice Saddam really is?

I'm sorry, but when I tune into any awards show...I want to hear what's going on in that little fantasy world. If you think about it, you have the real world and fantasy. Fantasy is all your movies, daytime soaps, prime-time shows, broadway, music. Real World is what happens every day, week, year in your city, state or nation. I do not like it when someone in the Fantasy world decides to speak his views on the Real World while still in fantasy. If I wanted to hear about the war, I would tune in to Rush LImbaugh or Larry King Live. I did not appreciate what I heard last night.

__________________