Of course it wasn't the start - but for the vast majority of American public it sure was one hell of a knock on our front door. Heck, we barely paid attention to the first attempt on Trade Towers in the early 90s. Our geographic isolation/protection no longer affords the public a sense of security.

What bugs me most is that everyone on this earth is willing to take American aide money, send their kids here to go to college free (while my son can't get a free anything to save his American born life), obtain business loans near interest free, and skirt federal taxes etc. etc. and never want to become a citizen, much less GIVE BACK to the system...... and then complain.

Never bite the hand that feeds you is a pretty good policy. :rolleyes: I admit I have a bit of an attitude today.

Stop Global Whining.

Don't you think there's a little bit of a difference between someone making a film that you and I can either chose to see or not and visiting a war on another country, ya know, where people get killed and we spend a lot of other people's money???? That comparison for the purposes of determining whether someone's a hypocrite or not is a little thin IMHO.

Sure there's a difference, at least of degree. I'm against the Iraq invasion, myself.

However, I can't help but think Moore made the focumentary to make money. That had to be a huge motivation for him from what I can tell about the fellow and it is a more than reasonable assumption. Therefore, he IS making money off the 9/11 disaster.

The question to ask is if he reallly proved his case against Bush. I don't know. I haven't seen the movie and I'm not one to automatically assume Bush DIDN'T go to war in part for reasons other than honorable. IMHO, he didn't have sufficient grounds to go to war against Iraq but that doesn't necessarily mean he was doing for other than honorable purposes.

In any case, the jibe is a humorous attempt to point out the falseness of Moore's position. It's not necessarily anything that would stand up in court. :devil:

The people I know spend USD$90,000 per year to send their kids to Uni in the US. I personally wouldn't send a cent as my kids will get a much better rounded education here in the Far East.

The fact that it was the start for many Americans is just going to show that they don't know what their government is up to outside of their home towns and own direct personal "how's it going to affect me".

Work colleagues of mine who hold US passports have to declare their world wide income and gets taxed heavily. Someone wrote somewhere here that the US enjoys low tax, but I disagree. Most countries when you leave their shores to work not come after your income until you're back as a resident of your original country. Not to say this is all together bad, as at least the yanks will come looking for you with the big guns. However, what about the ones that were murdered in the Philippines?

So what if Moore made the documentary to make money off 911? He wouldn't be the first to make cash out of a tragic event and it doesn't mean what he's put in his movie is all crap. Does it make people think? Does it provoke hot debate on relevant issues? As a non American looking in at the world's biggest user and the country that shapes the rest of the world I thank God that a film like this is starting to give the average American something to think about. The rest of the word (which is more affected by what Bush does than Americans) sees Bush as a poorly educated and not qualified. The scary thing is, he might get re-elected and that doesn't say much for its voters.

So what if Moore made the documentary to make money off 911? He wouldn't be the first to make cash out of a tragic event and it doesn't mean what he's put in his movie is all crap.
I don't believe that money is Moore's primary motivation any more than I believe it's Rush Limbaugh's or Sean Hannity's primary motivation. Love 'em or hate 'em, they are all true believers in their cause - even if each of us might secretly wish to meet one or the other of them in a dark alley to hash out our differences.

Well, sometimes I wonder if Moore's motivation isn't "HEY! LOOK AT MEEEE!!" then knock a few trash cans over to help get attention.

I don't believe that money is Moore's primary motivation... they are all true believers in their cause...
Yep, that's Michael Moore.

Well, sometimes I wonder if Moore's motivation isn't "HEY! LOOK AT MEEEE!!" then knock a few trash cans over to help get attention.Yep, that's Micheal Moore.

I don't like the guy on a personal level, but I'm grateful to him for getting the debate going and making people actually ask questions. I'm even more grateful to Al Franken, who does meticulous research to make sure his facts are correct, and then shows you where to find the facts yourself if you'd like to challenge him - alas, if only most people still read books. The way I see it, Moore and Franken are doing the job our nation's "liberal media" have abdicated - asking the tough questions and provoking debate.

I stand corrected on my earlier quote (I was repeating it as it was told to me).

Further, I'm no more fond of Bush (personally) than I am of Moore. Not a Kerry fan to say the very least either. Politically, I'm an independent, but as I said earlier, as I get older, I'm getting more conservative so I guess I have republican leanings. I don't approve of the war in Iraq (but I'm glad to see Saddam go). Is what Bush is doing anymore immoral than Clinton playing "Wag The Dog" durring the "Lewinsky debacle?" They're all full of s_ _t...it's just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.

Respectfully, allow me to suggest to evryone that this is not merely a matter of choosing the political philosophy that best suits your own. Even if a candidate espouses your philosophy, you must also judge his competence for the job. You must assess the results he has achieved, his methodology in studying a problem and reaching conclusions/taking action, and pass judgement on the conduct of his administration.

Hopefully, it will be recognized that that that is a non-partisan observation - it applies to everyone, of whatever ideological bent.

Per my post above, allow me to further recommend to both sides the book "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke. Clarke was the man trying to get Al Quaeda since long before Bush took office, and on the morning the Trade Center fell Clarke did the impossible job of pulling together, co-ordinating, leading the response from disparate services who were totally unprepared and slow to communicate.

Clarke is non-partisan, leans a little to the left on a few issues but not most, and faithfully served the last four administrations. He is retired now, and has NO political agenda whatsoever. His sole concern is in wanting to see our nation prepared for WHEN - not if - the next terrorist attack on our soil is atempted. This guy knows the situation from all angles, better than anyone else who served the Bush administration. His book is an eye-opener, and a must for anyone concerned enough to support a war on terror.

I don't care for (Moore), so I won't toss any pennies his way in any fashion. I know just how ya feel, I'm the same with (ahem) certain others mentioned here. And I've got just the solution!

There are a number of books that the guys here can suggest reading, from the left, the right, and the center - and they are all absolutely free at your community library! Probably, they have their catalog online, and you can place a hold on any book or movie you want right from your own home computer.

I suggest Anne Coulter's "Treason", followed by Al Franken's "Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at The Right" - in that order.

I'm curious, has anybody else seen it (911)besides me? I didn't like it as much as "Bowling' or "The Big One" (still Moore's best imho), and I actually thought "The Fog of War" was a better documentary, too bad for "Fog" it came out when it did because between "The Passion" and "911" it's kinda slipped thru the cracks.

My last two cents - can't believe we got this far in the movie discussion without being yanked, but....ok.

Libetarian is more my overall belief structure - and on the conservative end at that. You have the right to do whatever you want, so long as your rights doesn't cross over into my rights without explicit permission. Not as simple a way to live as it might seem on the surface - problem with that for politics is few public servants have enough personal integrity to adhere.

Therefore I never vote on that ticket - don't want to waste my vote. :D

So bear with me here a minute ( I'm taking a badly needed glue break) Is it Ziz that has the little thing at bottom stating women are a conflicting something or other? Ok. Guilty as charged.

It seems like this war should to the liking of both political extremes. At it's basic is the differences of democracy and theocracy. Ok, Saddam was a dictator but he was a Muslim who showed favortism to his own hometurf sect.

If what is said about our political parties : Republican = big business and moola Democrat = "for the people" and expand the govt. to create more jobs at home for minorities and women (why is that always separate?) anyhow.....

Ok. There is a growth of back to the basics/conservativism for some years in both Muslim and Christian faiths. Can't forget Iran in the 80s went back as a nation to "preWestern influence" lifestyle = theocracy. Not good for doing global business therefore not good for the Republicans.

Imposing the religious dictates of one man or a council of religious leaders is just the cause Democrats like to embrace. Remember Clinton was all over the Yugoslavian Serb and Croatian thing in the 90s.

So. The world's fastest growing religion is the antethis of what the average American views as a right of personal freedom/choice - which encompasses business. How did this war ever become a polictical dividing line for our country ???????????? Where my bleeding heart side comes in is for the soldiers. They are there whether they want to be or not. I know many because I taught some of them, and my son has friends serving there I've known since cub scout days. What I know the most of this war is from their birds eye viewpoint. And it's powerful.

They deserve better than we are behaving as a nation right now !!!!!! How frustrating it must be for the soldiers whose personal beliefs are in contrary to the war, but they do their job. In addition to outlining our personal rights, the constitution also spells out our responsiblities as citizens in exchange for those rights. Call of arms is one. Soldiers have always done the world's dirty work - and if surviving war day by day is made easier by clinging to optimism/hope you are there for a good cause, then why is our press and Mr. Moore seemingly hell bent on undermining the troops by making sure news from back home is slanted "anti-war."

Well, this probably didn't make sense but it sure was long. lol

Well said Almostvirgin. Perhaps there is a general agreement that the Iraq situation has been a bit of a cockup. Imho, whether you justify it through the WoMD or that he was a prick to his own people, he needed to go. If you take the second reason, then there are a lot more places that the US should go in to. Then again, the rest of the world can't expect the yanks to police the world. That's when the UN should step in. Some say we, as in the UN, shouldn't get so involved, but I say all you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. The Sudan and Darfur region shoud have the UN going in and sorting out the problems. I saw Angelina Jolie being interviewed (UN ambassador to something or anything) and she said that the 1 Million people (said in Dr. Evil voice), were so happy just to think that someone out there actually cared what happened to them.:cry:

Respectfully, allow me to suggest to evryone that this is not merely a matter of choosing the political philosophy that best suits your own. Even if a candidate espouses your philosophy, you must also judge his competence for the job. You must assess the results he has achieved, his methodology in studying a problem and reaching conclusions/taking action, and pass judgement on the conduct of his administration.

Hopefully, it will be recognized that that that is a non-partisan observation - it applies to everyone, of whatever ideological bent.
Well said, my friend.

Flying Frets - yeah, it was rough for me last election. I simpley can't vote for anyone who espouses taking my guns away, and that's unfortunately one of the basic goals of the democratic party. But voting for Bush wasn't exactly easy either. The choice was between two stone zeroes, so I had to vote for the zero who's let me keep my guns (yes, I'm a one-issue voter). Sadly, it looks like the same choice this time too. Except Kerry scares me even more than Gore did.

I am in a bit of a mood these past couple days. My son's best friend was shipped out to Iraq 2 weeks ago for the second time since enlisting in a fervor of patriotism. He's a tanker, but on foot this time, moving ahead of the tanks headed to some super secret location, and from all accounts they are getting the stew kicked outta them left and right by extremist Muslim insurgents flooding in from Pakistan and Iran. On top of all that, he said at times he remembers studying about Vietnam in high school, and how the folks back home "turned" on our own soldiers and called them baby killers. He avoids mainstream news from back home.

The world is a beautiful and strange place - American politicians being the strangest of all - but I guess they do the best they can working with a public that has the attention span of gnats. No wait - make that goldfish. They reportedly have a 30 second memory span, then life is all shiny and new again !

Now I really am gonna crash this computer today and deal with my hijacker once and for all. lol

I think what this country needs is a true-multi- (more than 2)party system.

For those of you who won't vote third party as if it's a waste of a vote, think about the fact that the Republican party started out as a third party and, perhaps (haven't researched it) even the Democrat party started that way.

There has to be a time when men will vote for the lesser of the 3 or 4 or 5 evils, whatever, instead of just 2. The USSR had one candidate per position, we get two. Is that really a huge improvement especially considering the close positions the presidential candidates have? (Bush is for socialism, just not as much as the Democrats and Kerry is for fascism, just not as much as the Republicans.)

The votes are out there and pols pay attention to who gets the votes so even the losers influence the actions and outcomes of elections. Eventually, a third party will make a break through and get someone elected. History is not over but we have to be willing to break from the two parties in order to make it happen.

IF this type of discussion is fun to y'all, go to the Macnn.com site to discussions, and to the "political/War" folder. Those folks REALLY hammer each other. we are ALL lightweights here!

Yeah, I posted this in that 'other' discussion too. Even I get tired of arguing all the time...

I'd rather be flayed alive by people I know. virtually speaking of course.

It's interesting how a hobby like this attracts a bipartisan crowd. That's not bad.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the types of models we build and our political leanings?

Me=left of center=vehicles

Good idea for an informal poll:

I = 1776 Revolutionary (States' Rights) Constitutionalist = (mostly sci-fi themed) starships, planes, figures, cars in that order.

Me=left of center=vehicles Interesting point! me, to the right of center on crime and defense - military aircraft with big honkin guns and bombs. :)

That is an interesting topic. Can someone do a proper poll? :thumbsup:

Not knowing all the political groups or model groups it'd be difficult to set up a poll (I shoulda said omnipartisan). I prefer a grass-roots response anyway. With editorial comments thrown in.

me=radical conservative = sci-fi vehicles and machines and steam locos

^ whoops, whoa, maybe not a good indicator. We've got an anomaly:

Me = center left = sci-fi vehicles and machines

Is what Bush is doing anymore immoral than Clinton playing "Wag The Dog" durring the "Lewinsky debacle?"

It's interesting Clinton gets skewered on both sides over his decision to bomb al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. He's either wagging the dog or he didn't do enough to retaliate for the 1998 embassy bombings.

José

Oh yeah, Perfesser, the Democratic Party harkens back to the Democratic Republican Party, founded around 1800. It was one of the first two large, organized parties and battled fiercely with the Federalists over the "correct" way to interpret the Constitution (the Federalists favored a stronger central government and the Dem Reps for decentralized power). The Democratic Republican Party became the dominant party after the Federalists disbanded. The Dem Reps didn't have a serious national challenger until the Whigs popped up in the early to mid-1800s.

The Republican Party wasn't technically a third party. It was formed by remnants of the Whigs, who collapsed during Buchanan's Administration.

José

Oh yeah, Perfesser, the Democratic Party harkens back to the Democratic Republican Party, founded around 1800. It was one of the first two large, organized parties and battled fiercely with the Federalists over the "correct" way to interpret the Constitution (the Federalists favored a stronger central government and the Dem Reps for decentralized power). The Democratic Republican Party became the dominant party after the Federalists disbanded. The Dem Reps didn't have a serious national challenger until the Whigs popped up in the early to mid-1800s.

The Republican Party wasn't technically a third party. It was formed by remnants of the Whigs, who collapsed during Buchanan's Administration.

José

Yeah, thanks, Jose! I figured that was probably the case with the Demos but couldn't remember for sure.

I think technically you HAVE to call the Republican party a third party at first because, if I'm not mistaken, it rose up early on BEFORE the collapse of the Whigs. That fact that Whigs migrated to it after their party's collapse is no more significant than if Dems migrated to the American Communist Party after their party's eventual collapse. The communist party currently is a 'third' party no matter if it later becomes one of the two dominant parties or not.

Response, informal poll: left, far from fringe but not exactly in the center. Secular humanist/atheist. Another anomoly: figure kits, dioramas. Paint jobs by hand, not airbrush. Verbs, sentence structure, no.

Edit: oh, good lord, I've turned into Joe Piscopo. :o

^ whoops, whoa, maybe not a good indicator. We've got an anomaly:

Me = center left = sci-fi vehicles and machines



It's interesting Clinton gets skewered on both sides over his decision to bomb al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan. He's either wagging the dog or he didn't do enough to retaliate for the 1998 embassy bombings.

José
I wasn't commenting on his choice of targets. I was commenting on his timing.

According to three senior U.S. officials, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have learned "virtually nothing" about the fate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and no information on whether the regime had contacts with terrorists despite more than six months of interrogations of Saddam Hussein. Saddam provided "very little - almost nothing," said a former top official of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.
"Maybe they never asked him the hard questions," the official said.

:drunk::confused::freak:

Saddam didn't get where he was by being a pushover. I wouldn't expect him to say anything helpful. Like, ever.

I wasn't commenting on his choice of targets. I was commenting on his timing.

I agree, the timing was dubious. Still, people skewer him on one side or the other (and so am I apparently).

José

Saddam didn't get where he was by being a pushover. I wouldn't expect him to say anything helpful. Like, ever.
Well, especially if, like "they never asked him the hard questions". Hell, even I could tough out 6 months of daily CIA interrogations in an undisclosed location if they just threw me softballs.:eek:

Besides Saddam, the U.S. has had 11 of his top aides in custody for a considerable length of time, including:

Ali Hassan Al-Majid - also known as "Chemical Ali" for his role in chemical attacks against the Kurds. Accused of gassing Kurds in Halabja in 1988.

Barzan Ibrahim Hazan - accused of testing chemical and biological agents on Iraqi prisoners.

Sultan Hashim Ahmed - accused of gassing Kurds in Halabja in 1988.

... and eight more "nice guys" from the very top of Saddam's regime. Yet not one of these guys has tried to work out a deal to save his own butt by revealing the location of the WMDs!!?? Boy, those Baathist bastards must be paragons of fidelity and integrity.


I'm just looking for a little logic and common sense here, folks. Help me to understand.

If they talk, they may all hang together, or "heads will roll..."

If they deny all, or don't say anything, and the WMD's are used on us, then they will laugh to themselves over it, and know they helped kill Americans.

If they are tracked to Syria, Iran or elsewhere (how hard is it to bury a few trailers in a vast desert region) then those countries may be involved in a bigger plot to kill the infidels. I say "may" because several UN weapons inspectors stated that they WERE ther before the wars.

I suppose they might even be in a few metal crates in a stack next to the Polar Lights kits coming from China, and sitting at the SF port or something.

Oh come on!

Yeah, Saddam and his trusted Republican Guard advisers were fierce warriors who I'm sure REALLY can endure an all out interrogation by anything tougher than the girl scouts for more than five minutes. You could tell what a rough hombre' Saddam was by his gold plated toilets and the fierce battle he waged to avoid being captured alive.

And you could tell how resolved his officers were by the steely glint in their eyes when they were surrendering to news crews and unmanned ROV's.

I'm just looking for a little logic and common sense here, folks. Help me to understand.
Someone sent me this quote about our war situation in Iraq and American debate on it:

"As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its
actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time
to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.

It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war.
But it is another thing entirely to do it during the occupation of a
country. Once the blood of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as
citizens not to challenge those responsible for spilling that blood."

Saddam didn't get where he was by being a pushover. I wouldn't expect him to say anything helpful. Like, ever.
Gotta agree with ya. Know what my innercity students say about him at the end of our unit on that part of world? "Saddam is a thug's thug!" I trust their assessment of a thug. ;)

Someone sent me this quote about our war situation in Iraq and American debate on it:

"As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its
actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time
to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.

It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war.
But it is another thing entirely to do it during the occupation of a
country. Once the blood of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as
citizens not to challenge those responsible for spilling that blood."
With all due respect, almostvirgin, I asked for logic and common sense. Your above quote meets neither definition - nor does it meet any definition of "patriotism" that I can possibly wrap my head around.

It's mighty convenient for "those responsible for spilling that blood", though.

Completely agree.

John O.

Someone sent me this quote about our war situation in Iraq and American debate on it:

"As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its
actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time
to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.



Excuse me, you might want to study your history a little better. There is NEVER a time for "complacent silence" and anybody who tells you so is an idiot or has their own agenda. You might want to research My Lai and Kent State, complacent silence didn't work out so well there. Or check out this other thing called "The Holocaust", complacent silence worked there not-so-much-either....

Supporting the soldiers who are doing the dirty work and hating the war that they've been exposed to are NOT mutually exclusive. The soldiers are doing their job and they can/should be thanked for that. The leaders who put them in harm's way should always be questioned. Questioning authority is part of being an American. Republicans questioned Clinton for 8 years, Democrats should have the same rights under Bush.

José

Respectfully to all of you with (I might add ) your own agendas - didn't say that was my quote or necessarily my opinion on the war. My opinions on our soldiers current situation, as I posted way back somewhere, stands. :) Happy 4th boys.

Okay, you posted the quote, what are your feelings about its content? And a happy Fourth back at'cha, my favorite day of the year, better than Christmas to me.

John O.

Happy 4th to everyone. I will be flying the flag from my front porch as I do every May 31st, July 4th, and September 11th.

Happy Fourth! :)

José

Agreed, Happy Fourth and Happy Modeling!

Yep. I'm gonna go sit on the porch with my constitutionally guaranteed shotgun and try to hit the bottle rockets my a$$hole neighbor fires off. :D

Yep. I'm gonna go sit on the porch with my constitutionally guaranteed shotgun and try to hit the bottle rockets my a$$hole neighbor fires off. :D

HEH!! :) :p

I thought bottle rockets were illegal...

They ARE illegal! (http://www24.brinkster.com/coltrain/laws/NEW%20JERSEY.pdf) You can't even have sparklers. hahahahahhahahahha ahem. wait a second.

Yup, fireworks are illegal in Jersey, but this twit 2 houses up likes to fire bottle rockets off at random times during the year.

nothing to see here... move along...