"Fahrenheit 9/11" Whats the big deal?

---

In reply to:First off, this quote cannot be applied to W W II. Vietnam has for a long time made the American people hesistant to go and liberate some third-world country (LBJ). During W W II, the American people trusted that our government would to the right thing with our troops. It's because the obssession with the spread of communism our government had that we have lost confidence in sending troops to other countries. People were reluctant to get involved in World War II. World War I was not that long before. But Japan attacked us and Germany was attacking our allies. We couldn't ignore it for long. I am not pro-war, but there are times when you have to do it.How many wars has this country lost? Vietnam is the only war I can recall we've got our ass kicked in. Should we have gone there? The idea behind it was good, but the whole thing was poorly executed. I have to say the leadership of this country back then was pretty lousy.I am not sure Iraq can be considered a third world country. Afghanistan yes. Iraq is probably the most advanced Middle-Eastern country in the world, and would no doubt be a world economic power if Saddam Hussein hadn't taken over and milked his people for his own benefit. Sure, we could have not gone into Iraq, but at what cost? Saddam was a threat to this country, and to others, including his own. Sooner or later, we're going to know what happened to the WMDs, and if Bush gets voted out of office and everything he claims was really true, then what?In reply to:Clinton took a lot of heat because he didn't show up. The press dogged him while he was running for president in 1992. Bush has basically gotten a free ride for his AWOL antic.I don't agree. Sure Clinton got a lot of heat from it, but he didn't serve at all. Bush served in the National Guard. It seems to me a lot of people see the National Guard as a fake miliary where those who aren't "real men" go to serve. The National Guard is important. Back then they had a draft. If they picked you, you had to serve. Bush wasn't drafted; he chose to serve and because of this, he got to choose what we wanted to do. If you had your choice, which would you pick? Kerry has been attacking Bush on his military record. I wouldn't call that a free ride. It has become a major issue in this election for a lot of people.In reply to:That's pretty brave threatening to bitch-slap someone b/c they are speaking their mind. By the way, I don't think you can hit anyone through your computer screen.That wasn't a threat. I was trying to illustrate how tired I get of people stuck in the past. If you didn't like how the election in 2000 went, go vote this election. You can't change the past. But we can shape the future.In reply to:It seems that you have anmesia. The 1990s were filled with investigations by Clinton-obssessed Republicans and conservatives who hated the fact that he was the comeback kid (LOL). They spent millions of dollars trying to assess a personal matter that ended in embarrassment for many prominent Republicans (Newt Gingrich). You hardly ever heard liberals and Democrats whining and trying to start investigations just because the don't like someone personally. That's a Republican trait. No it's not. It had nothing to do with whether you are a Republican or not. I think Newt Gingrich is a jackass and I am glad he is no longer in office. There are a few Republicans I don't care for. Luckily, most of them aren't in office any more.I wonder how many people realize Clinton was impeached for committing perjury, not for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In my opionion, the whole impeachment was a bit too much. I do agree that if you lie under oath, you should be punished because that's the law. If they didn't do something about this, the whole foundation of our justice system would be undermined. That's the same reason Martha Stewart was found guilty of -- perjury, not insider trading.Yes, a lot of people hated Clinton. But I don't recall seeing people so seething with anger that we see now. The problem I have with all this is these films like Michael Moore puts out. He'll do anything and everything (including fabricating evidence to "prove" his theories). He thinks he's trying to fix things but in reality, he's just making things worse.I was not a fan of Clinton. I didn't hate him, but I didn't like him either. I really wish he would have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance, but he thought it wasn't really important. He was weak on terrorism. The first World Trade Center bombing took place on his watch, as did the Oklahoma City bombing, the U.S.S. Cole, and attacks against our embassies. What did he do? He launched some million-dollar cruise missles at some tents in Afghanistan. He wasn't even trying.That's my point of view. I also want to plug a good book that is non-partisan. It's titled "The Trouble with Islam", by Irshad Manji. It will give you a good idea about what kind of environment has produced so many militants whose sole cause is to kill Americans.By the way, you're a good debater. Glad to see somebody out there can do this without resorting to flaming each other (certain individuals will remain unnamed).

America wasn't the world's sole superpower then either.Isn't it true that Germany had plans to attack the United States? If I recall, they had sent over some spies/terrorists that made it into the mainland, but they luckily weren't able to do anything. I believe, given time, Hitler would have invaded North America. I do believe Mexico was also sided with Germany during WWII.

"I wonder how many people realize Clinton was impeached for committing perjury, not for his affair with Monica Lewinsky"It was ultimately the affair and lying about it that led to the impeachment.

We didn't get our 'ass kicked' in Vietnam, if generals had been allowed to run it enstead of politicians, it would have been an easy victory.

People like John Kerry( http://www.vetsagainstkerry.org/Misc/KerryHonoredByCommunists2.htm ) helped lose it for us.

In reply to:Besides, they were not apart of the "Aryan race." And the countries of Albania, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Romania, Thailand were of the Aryan race????

I'm sorry honey, but plenty of countries were invaded by the axis powers and did not become allied with them. That is a fact.And there was a movement to get Mexico withing the folds of the Axis powers. They would be rewarded with all the territories that the Americans had taken from Mexico. This article may have a lot of extremist views in it but it was the only one I found that had a summary of the ambitions of the Nazis in Mexico during WWII The purpose of this article is to document the precedent for such a danger in the history of the Union Nacional Sinarquista (UNS—National Synarchist Union) in Mexico, an organization created in 1937 by the Nazis, operating through the Spanish Falange and in conjunction with the Japanese. Although vastly diminished in numbers today compared to then, this same organization continues to actively organize in Mexico and in the United States. Moreover, although initially created by the Nazis as a fifth column in Mexico directed at the United States, after Pearl Harbor and after the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad, the UNS was taken over by the same anti-Roosevelt, Anglo-American imperialist faction that is behind Dick Cheney and his allies in the Democratic National Committee today. This is the same faction, associated with the Dulles brothers, which after World War II protected the Nazi apparatus, with which they had worked before and, in some cases, during the war.Especially in light of the defeat of the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and the Axis-allied Imperial Japanese in World War II, the Synarchists and their apologists vociferously lie about their connection to the Axis powers and attempt to portray themselves as a militant Mexican Christian movement based on the social teaching of the Catholic Church, which they misconstrue in such a way as to continue to identify with the fascist Falange of Franco's Spain and the Romanian Legionaires of Cornelio Codreanu.The thesis of Samuel Huntington's sophomoric book is warmed-over Nazi propaganda. Huntington argues that Mexican immigration into the U.S. Southwest is in effect la Reconquista, the reconquest of territory taken from Mexico by military aggression in the 1840s, and that Mexican Catholic Hispanic culture is in a fundamental clash with the underlying Anglo-American Protestant culture which he claims is the basis for the national identity of the United States. As we shall see, this is precisely the ideology of Hispanidad developed by the Nazis at the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin under Gen. Wilhelm von Faupel, to try to sabotage Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy and to drive a wedge between all of Ibero-America and the United States in the period leading up to the outbreak of World War II.Nazi and Japanese propaganda circulated by the UNS at the time, also suggested that an Axis victory over the United States would lead to the return of the U.S. Southwest to the Mexicans. For example, one declassified U.S. intelligence report dated Oct. 31, 1941 states that "Mexicans are told that their country, under Sinarquismo, will be the great nation of the Northern Hemisphere. The United States is doomed, say the organizers, and members are told that as soon as the United States gets into the war, the American nation will crack open due to isolationist antagonism, and Mexico, under Union dominance, will take over vast sections of the United States, such as the Pacific Coast, the Southwest and Central South." On this basis, the UNS organized "cells" thoughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Indiana, and even Chicago during the 1930s and '40s.http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3127mexico_synarchy.html

I never said that Mexico wasn't an ally.. I was only saying that your comment about them not being "Aryan" had nothing to do with it and that there were movements to get then into the Axis circle.

In reply to:No, my friend, Egypt is the most advanced Arab country in the middle east. Have you been there? I know several people who have been to Egypt and other Middle Eastern contries and they say its a third-world country.

It's all a matter of opinion.

Reply to no1sexpotinusaWould why are you making a example of WWII because we ignored it untill it got so bad that we literly had to intervene. If we were premptive it would have never had gotten so so out of control, less people of my religon would have gotten killed, and Europe would be so f*cked up still to this very day. Anyways what kind of President allows one nation to take over most of Europe and commit such a civil travesty.

I'd hesitate to say that any country that receives $2 billion in U.S. aid is the most advanced. If it is, then it is a truly sad place to be. A thousand years ago, the Arab world was more advanced than most of Europe. Look at it now.One of my best friends is from Tehran, Iran and with all the pictures he's shown me, that city looks a lot like Houston.